Pay to Spray

[IBCoupe]

On Sept. 29, Gene Cranick of Obion County, Tenn., lost his home to a fire, and the circumstances surrounding his loss have highlighted fire-protection policies.

Cranick lives outside the town of South Fulton, which offers fire protection services for an annual $75 subscription to those living outside the city limits. In an interview with MSNBC following the fire, Cranick said he "forgot" to pay his subscription fee, and, as a result, firefighters did nothing to save his property.

Fire subscriptions, also known as "pay-to-spray" fees, are fairly common in Tennessee, especially in rural areas that aren't directly served by a fire district.

...

Cranick's situation also emphasizes firefighter ethics and responsibility. News reports indicate that the South Fulton firefighters stood by and watched the home burn, despite offers from Cranick to pay whatever it would cost to save his home.

Professional firefighters operate under a code of conduct. The first line of the San Diego Firefighter's Code of Conduct, for example, states that "as a Fire Fighter, my fundamental duty is to protect or save lives and safeguard property in the service of my community." The South Fulton firefighters had the personnel and equipment on hand to save Cranick's property, but they were stopped by the unpaid bill.

Other fire services charge an annual fee ($50 was one example), but in the event that you don't pay it, you still get your fire put out, but you have to pay a larger fee ($500 in that same example).

[stebo0728]

Wow thats all kinds of crazy. Sounds like more of a case of human stupidity or stubborness or miscommunication not sure which. IB you say yourself that with this kind of arrangement your fire would still be dealt with if you dont pay the subscription fee but for a larger one time fee. Makes sense, but obviously either thats not the policy here or the policy was not followed?

So other thoughts. If you live in an area not serviced directly by a fire district, then I assume fire rescue services were NOT factored into your property tax. In which case your tax was not used to budget for the fire protection services in place, so you are now an extra demand on the services, therefore the subscription fee makes sense. Also if you live in this area, then I would assume that fact goes into figuring your hazzard insurance rates, since the risk of catastrophic loss would be greater. Heck you might even be able to claim the one time fee against your insurance.

This gets into an interesting area for me, where I differ in opinion from alot of people, or at least I think I do, maybe not. Now the guy says he "forgot" to pay his fee. That may be so and if so, previous pay records could be used to show that he normally paid, but it just got by him this time. But assuming he specifically chose to not pay. Well then in my mind that means he just loses his home, OR, if it is saved then he is immediately responsible for any cost in doing so. Let me draw the parallel that Im thinking of. Seat belt and helmet law. I have always argued against mandates on seat belts and helmets for consenting adults. BUT if you choose to irresponsible behave in such a way as to not protect yourself, then A) this could be a viable opt out clause for your insurance, and B) this should be either grounds for ER refusal if you cant pay OR if you are saved anyway then you are immediately responsible for the cost in doing so, collectable debt, loose everything you have to recoup the cost.

Anyway just my thoughts.

[IBCoupe]

The local policy, in that Tennessee town, was to not do anything if they hadn't paid their firefighting bill. Says the article, they had the manpower on hand to take care of it, but did not, because he wasn't up to date on payments. Even if we ignore the humanitarian reasons for not having a rule like that, how do you suppose the guy's neighbors felt about that?

Fire doesn't care if you paid your bill, and fire doesn't care about property lines.

This seems like a decent area for an argument about mandatory fire insurance for property-owners. That way firefighters don't have to worry about being paid, people don't worry about having to remember to pay an annual firefighting bill, and neighbors don't have to worry about a fire spreading to their land.

You could institute it in much the same way that Massachusetts (and by imitation, the Federal Government) did for health insurance - if you don't buy insurance, we're going to make sure that we're not supporting your lazy butt by hitting you with an additional tax to make up for the additional cost you'd impose were your crap to ignite.

[stebo0728]

Heres some more random thoughts I had later today on this. For one, considering the model of paying the yearly fee for the service. The more I think about that, the more I like it, and I think it would be a good model to use for other government provided services. Rather that having a lump tax that you pay in to the government, with which they then use their own discretion on divvying up, what if you paid an amount for each service provided, that way you would be able to know and be an informed citizen as to where your money is going. Rather than a discretionary tax, u now have either A) separate bills for all services directly from the provider, which could either be a publicly organized provider, or a contracted private provider, OR you have 1 bill that can be itemized to show what each portion of your payment is alloted to.

Now for the incident in question, due to liability beyond just the home in question, step should have been taken to save the home, which could have been billed out later to the home owner. I hope the publicity of this event will cause the policies that stood in the way of this to be amended. Not only could other homes, of paid as agreed clients, have been torched, but as dry as its been in TN this summer, the fire could have easily spread to become a wildfire. What would the consequences of negligence like this have been in that event? I definitely dont have a problem with the fee, and even like it as a model, but there should be a mandated "save first, check billing later" policy.

I was reading another forum that was talking about this same incident, here is what someone claiming to be a local had to say about it:

1. It is impossible to forget to pay your fee. There are numerous mailings from the city, radio ads, tv ads, and finally multiple remainders from your insurance company.

2. Obion County has tried multiple times to institute a slight property tax increase to start a county fire protection district and dthe outcry from county residents about a tax increase has stopped in before it really ever gets started.

3. Most county residents appreciate the service provided by the city of South Fulton and understand they are doing more than is required by even offering the service.

4. Most of use understand that the only way this service can be offered is by the fee be paid in advance so the city fire department can afford to offer the service. And ultimately, even if they charged a 1000.00 fee for not paying and then needing the service, most people would just take that chance and pay when needed, and that would lead to the city not being able to provide the service.

5. And one more time, it is impossible to forget to pay, as their are multiple remainders every year.

But even in light of the notion that its nearly impossible to miss or forget payment, the house should still have recieved services, billable later, even to the point of placing a lean on the deed if the fee isnt paid. Even if it leads to foreclosure, maybe a more responsible homeowner will acquire the property.

I dont agree with setting mandatory insurance policies, but I dont expect anyone to step in and help the guy if he decided to gamble on not getting the insurance. The only reason I say implement the "save first, check billing later" policy is in the interest of adjoining property. Heck if the house was all by its lonesome out on a hill, let it burn. Let the guy lose everything if he's not insured, thats the gamble he chose to take.

[IBCoupe]

Obion County has tried multiple times to institute a slight property tax increase to start a county fire protection district and dthe outcry from county residents about a tax increase has stopped in before it really ever gets started.

Which, to me, is retarded. Look, if you need it to pay for important stuff like a fire department, remind the public what it's going to pay for, and then tell them to sit on their hands.

[AZhitman]

I can guarantee you that if the house belonged to a family member of the fire department, the fire would have been put out.

They suited up, rolled out, and were on-scene. Who's the weakdick who decided to stand idly by?

Sorry, but I'd have risked termination and gotten my team to work doing what we were trained to do - Put out fires.

Don't get me wrong, I blame the Mayor and city leaders.... but this is patently absurd. To echo one of IB's arguments, now this guy is going to cost the city and taxpayers FAR more (if he accesses public assistance and such).

[96Qowner]

When I first heard about this, I thought hey, you don't get what you refuse to pay for, serves him right, boo hoo. But after learning that the fire department had already scrambled and were on site - had already incurred the expense - I changed my mind. They should have put out the fire.

My wife and I have a business, and after having a few disputes with customers, we decided we needed some return policies, so we printed the rules for returns on the invoice and posted them on the counter - done deal, yes? No. Nobody really is any happier when they're told you have a policy. Odd, huh? The existence of a policy doesn't solve the problem, go figure. After rolling the dilemma around in my head, I realized that having a policy just defines the baseline. You still have to make exceptions. In fact, in a very real way, a policy is created for the purpose of breaking it. When you say no to someone, you win nothing by quoting a policy unless you break it. Without a policy, no one is particularly grateful or even appeased when you give in to their demands. They feel smug and righteous. If, however, you break a clearly defined policy for them, they do feel gratitude. They are now the special person they insist that they are. You go from a lose/lose situation to a win/lose situation. Heheh, which brings up another one of my favorite redefinitions of a common statement: The customer is NOT always right. In fact, the customer is usually wrong. But the customer always WINS. Either he gets what he wants or he spreads the bad story. You lose. So, by giving him an exception to your policy, he wins and feels good about it.

Anyway, in this case it's startlingly obvious. In this small community, in this one isolated case, yeah, the policy needed to be broken. Just a case of very bad judgment - happens to us all. In this case, it happened to everyone involved, except the neighbor who wanted to foot the bill and begged the fire department to do their job and save his neighbor's house. That man shines in this example.

[IBCoupe]

I don't think the purpose of the policy is to be broken. I think a policy exists so that the government today, and the government tomorrow, and the government fifty years from now, understands exactly what its limits are. This is a bad policy - a fire department that refuses to put out fires is not good for anyone. We can try to excuse it all we want by saying this guy is trying to rip the system off, but, as I wrote before, fire doesn't care where your property line ends.

Fire policy needs to be focused more on fire and less on people.

[96Qowner]

Ok, if a policy isn't created to be broken, they why is it created? Keep in mind I've thought this through. And I'm not speaking legally. This isn't law, it's policy. How is a policy an improvement over case-by-case resolution?

[AZhitman]

The customer is NOT always right. In fact, the customer is usually wrong. But the customer always WINS.

Brilliant. I'm writing this down.

Side note: If you don't pay your taxes next year, are you therefore not entitled to have the police respond if you're robbed?

In the desperate headlong flight to "save" everyone through government handout programs, redistribution of wealth, and policies that encourage entitlement, we're neglecting good, hard-working Americans.

Our city doesn't even send the police out for most theft calls, or even car accidents that don't involve injury or threat of an altercation.

[96Qowner]

Side note: If you don't pay your taxes next year, are you therefore not entitled to have the police respond if you're robbed?

Ah,but this wasn't a tax. That's precisely the problem. A majority of people in that county voted not to increase taxes for the fire department, so they instituted this "subscription fee". This homeowner took a risk based on probability and lost. Who knew his house would actually catch on fire? Stuff happens - can't insure against everything.

But they were there, on site - they might as well have turned the hoses on and done some work instead of standing around watching, especially with the neighbor pleading with them.

[AZhitman]

Yep.

If they were so concerned about who's paid and who hasn't, why even respond? Why suit up, load up and roll out?

[audtatious]

They had an excess of marshmallows that were nearing their expiration date?

[C-Kwik]

I'm not as well versed in property insurance claims as I am auto, but insureds have a duty to reasonably mitigate their damages in the case of a loss. Not sure how it might play out exactly, but if an insured refused to pay the larger fee, I wonder if the insurance company would have some legal leverage in denying the claim (more than likely a partial denial of it if this thought could hold water). Personally, I'd pay the $500 just to avoid this and because fire claims are a PITA for a homeowner to go through. Especially a total loss. I'd imagine the insurance company would reimburse or count the fee towards a deductible.

I agree the whole thing is despicable, but I'm not so sure I'd take such a stand on principle considering the risk vs value of my home (assuming they gave him the option to pay a higher fee to put the fire out).

[IBCoupe]

Ok, if a policy isn't created to be broken, they why is it created? Keep in mind I've thought this through. And I'm not speaking legally. This isn't law, it's policy. How is a policy an improvement over case-by-case resolution?

I thought I already answered that question.