Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[Zoom-boing]

Maybe they will change their policy in light of this incident.

 

[Sunni Man]

The idiot home owner refused to pay approximately 21 cents per day to protect his house.

His insurance company could easily refuses to pay for the home due to his negligence.

 

[Ravi]

Maybe they will change their policy in light of this incident.

Nope...instead they have asked the cities to extend their subscription service.

 

[Valerie]

Unconscionable.

The fire reportedly started in some barrels outside. As the flames crept closer to the home, Cranick says he offered to pay whatever it would take. The plea fell on deaf ears. Hours later, the home was gone.

So were three dogs and a cat.

"They coulda' been saved if they put water on it. But they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC.

Firefighters Watch As Home Burns: Gene Cranick's House Destroyed In Tennessee Over $75 Fee (VIDEO)

 

[Ozmar]

just like a demonRat. won't pay for a service, wants the service, expects it for free, and expects conservatives to pay for their service. Thanks for posting basementdweller. It's typical of demonRat behavior.

You're exactly what is wrong with America. If you woulda read the fucking article, you would see he offered to pay if they would put the fire out.. But they basically said tough luck, and it wasn't until it spread to the neighbours (who has the "coverage") that they put it out.
What happened to helping people, and not worrying about cost or profit? Imagine if this had been the mayor of this town.. Gu-ran-tee they woulda put that fire out, regardless if he'd have payed the fee.

I thought local taxes were supposed to cover basic services such as that. I didn't realize fire protection was an add-on. Kind of brings to mind Saudi Arabia where they stood by and let a bunch of women die. God forbid they bend their rules just a little bit to save lives and property!

 

[Sunni Man]

The official fire department policy there is to stand by and watch properties burn. This foolish policy empowers public safety officials to effectively punish citizens for failure to pay a fee on time

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

 

[Ozmar]

Listen to yourself. "Best interest of the State and county". What about the residents?

Property tax changes must be voted on by the public Care. The public has had 20 years to change policy.

I bet this was the FIRST TIME that a house was allowed to burn down, due to it.

Are you implying that MOST in this county do NOT pay the $75 fee?

What's the difference between the $75 separate fee or the $75 rise in property taxes to cover it? Nada.

Now the taxes of the few homes in the rural county will have to go up, to make up for the thousand dollars plus, that they won't be getting in property taxes from the home that burnt down.

And this man paid the fees each year before this, didn't he say he was just late or forgot?

REGARDLESS, firemen sitting and just watching a house burn down has to be a pretty rotten thing to put them through.

COLD AS ICE.

NOT: do unto others as you would want them to do unto you....not even close imo....

The county did unto him as he did unto them. He said screw you county residents, I'm not paying. You and Ravi seem to be missing the fact a city cannot impose a county property tax increase. The rural folks who want the protection are paying the fee. The rest have accepted a stupid gamble.

By you "logic," if a county imposes a police fee that someone refuses to pay, if someone calls 911 to report a home invasion in the middle of the night, the police need not respond... and would not have blood on their hands because those lazy property owners didn't pay the fee.

How about ambulances? "Sorry, I realize your father is having a heart attack, but y'all didn't pay the ambulance fee."

 

[Ozmar]

The official fire department policy there is to stand by and watch properties burn. This foolish policy empowers public safety officials to effectively punish citizens for failure to pay a fee on time

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

Going by that logic, people who have their water shut off is the equivalent of a house burning down. Did you know that fire and water are two different elements?

 

[Sunni Man]

By you "logic," if a county imposes a police fee that someone refuses to pay, if someone calls 911 to report a home invasion in the middle of the night, the police need not respond... and would not have blood on their hands because those lazy property owners didn't pay the fee.

How about ambulances? "Sorry, I realize your father is having a heart attack, but y'all didn't pay the ambulance fee."

Strawman Alert!!! Strawman Alert!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? ? Mises Economics Blog

That about sums it up.

 

[Valerie]

The official fire department policy there is to stand by and watch properties burn. This foolish policy empowers public safety officials to effectively punish citizens for failure to pay a fee on time

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

Yeah, call me crazy, but turning off your public water service until a fee can be paid is a tad different from letting your property and your pets perish in flames. And if your health and well being depended upon that public water supply they should be obligated to leave the water on and find another remedy via municipal lien or something.

 

[Sunni Man]

The official fire department policy there is to stand by and watch properties burn. This foolish policy empowers public safety officials to effectively punish citizens for failure to pay a fee on time

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

Yeah, call me crazy, but turning off your public water service until a fee can be paid is a tad different from letting your property and your pets perish in flames. And if your health and well being depended upon that public water supply they should be obligated to leave the water on and find another remedy via municipal lien or something.

So the guy walked out of the burning house and left his pets to barbecue??

How can anyone defend this low life is beyond me.

 

[DiamondDave]

The official fire department policy there is to stand by and watch properties burn. This foolish policy empowers public safety officials to effectively punish citizens for failure to pay a fee on time

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

Yeah, call me crazy, but turning off your public water service until a fee can be paid is a tad different from letting your property and your pets perish in flames. And if your health and well being depended upon that public water supply they should be obligated to leave the water on and find another remedy via municipal lien or something.

Maybe it should remain that you are obligated to pay for your own personal needs...

This notion that people are owed even their most basic of needs by others is ludicrous

 

[Zoom-boing]

Maybe they will change their policy in light of this incident.

Nope...instead they have asked the cities to extend their subscription service.

The county extended the service? If the people of the county want the policy changed then they'd better get a new crop of leaders voted in. If they are happy with the 'fee for service' policy, they'd better make sure they pay the bill.

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

Yeah, call me crazy, but turning off your public water service until a fee can be paid is a tad different from letting your property and your pets perish in flames. And if your health and well being depended upon that public water supply they should be obligated to leave the water on and find another remedy via municipal lien or something.

So the guy walked out of the burning house and left his pets to barbecue??

How can anyone defend this low life is beyond me.

I don't understand this. The fire started out back in some barrels. The family didn't get their pets out of the house when they saw that the fire was approaching their house??

 

[boedicca]

Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? ? Mises Economics Blog

That about sums it up.

Great catch. I love this part:

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

 

[Ozmar]

So going by what you are saying.

People who don't pay their water bill and have their utility shut off are being "punished" by the city water dept.

Yeah, call me crazy, but turning off your public water service until a fee can be paid is a tad different from letting your property and your pets perish in flames. And if your health and well being depended upon that public water supply they should be obligated to leave the water on and find another remedy via municipal lien or something.

Maybe it should remain that you are obligated to pay for your own personal needs...

This notion that people are owed even their most basic of needs by others is ludicrous

Heck, I can see people saying government has no business providing welfare payments, social security, and any number of socialistic programs. I can see the reasoning behind that. But even libertarians agree that government should provide a safety net of general welfare to protect its citizens, such as police, ambulance, and fire department. What fucking good is a government if it can't provide those basic services, but is hung up with a bunch of other shit, like furnishing the local county court house, or city hall?

Fire protection isn't one of those fancy add ons. It is a basic protection that local governments ought to provide.

 

[Ozmar]

Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? ? Mises Economics Blog

That about sums it up.

Great catch. I love this part:

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

Except that this is a basic service required of a local government. Free market be damned.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did the Free Market Burn Down the House? ? Mises Economics Blog

That about sums it up.

Great catch. I love this part:

I don’t get this debate at all. It is not even a real debate. The fire-protection services were government services. The fee in question was a government-mandated fee. The county lines in which the fee was applicable is a government-drawn line that is completely arbitrary. The policy of not putting out the fire was a government policy enforced by the mayor. As he said, in the words of a good bureaucrat, “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t.”

So why is the market being criticized here? This was not a real market. Instead, this is precisely what we would expect from government. In a real market, there is no way that a free-enterprise fire service would have refused to provide the homeowner service. They would be in business to provide that service. The fire would have been put out and he would have been charged for the service. It is as simple as that. It is the same as lawn-mowing services or plumbing services or any other type of service. Can we know for sure that the market would provide such services? Well, if insurance companies have anything to say about it, such services would certainly be everywhere.

Except that this is a basic service required of a local government. Free market be damned.

Yeah, and look how well that turned out.

 

[Ozmar]

By you "logic," if a county imposes a police fee that someone refuses to pay, if someone calls 911 to report a home invasion in the middle of the night, the police need not respond... and would not have blood on their hands because those lazy property owners didn't pay the fee.

How about ambulances? "Sorry, I realize your father is having a heart attack, but y'all didn't pay the ambulance fee."

Strawman Alert!!! Strawman Alert!!!!!!!!!!

Retard alert.

This is not a strawman fallacy. There are three basic emergency services: police, ambulance, fire department. Why should the fire department accrue an additional fee, and not the others? What if I'm from out of county, and someone sets my car on fire? Does the fire department ignore my pleas to help because I didn't pay their fee?

The people of that house offered to pay whatever money was owed if the fire department would just do their job, yet they just stood there. Why did the fire department even bother responding?

 

[Valerie]

Yeah, call me crazy, but turning off your public water service until a fee can be paid is a tad different from letting your property and your pets perish in flames. And if your health and well being depended upon that public water supply they should be obligated to leave the water on and find another remedy via municipal lien or something.

Maybe it should remain that you are obligated to pay for your own personal needs...

This notion that people are owed even their most basic of needs by others is ludicrous

Heck, I can see people saying government has no business providing welfare payments, social security, and any number of socialistic programs. I can see the reasoning behind that. But even libertarians agree that government should provide a safety net of general welfare to protect its citizens, such as police, ambulance, and fire department. What fucking good is a government if it can't provide those basic services, but is hung up with a bunch of other shit, like furnishing the local county court house, or city hall?

Fire protection isn't one of those fancy add ons. It is a basic protection that local governments ought to provide.

Yes, firefighters are public servants paid for by public revenue collected for the common good of the community. That community's leadership failed them in that regard.