This really sucks for the homeowner, but I am sure every one of his neighbors are checking to make sure that they have paid the rural fire fighting fee.
A Tennessee family lost their home when they failed to pay the $75 firefighting fee to the nearest city’s fire department. In a very logical move, the nearest city offers fire services to those homes that pay the fee as the local county does not offer fire protection services.
Like insurance, it is not something one is forced to buy, but as this family learned, it is a very smart move. What is even more interesting is that the house next door had paid their fee and the fire department came out to make sure that the neighbors house did not catch fire.
While this may sound heartless, it is good government and good business in my books. The homeowner offered to pay the fee as he called the fire department, but that is not how things work. Who would buy the protection if they could enact only when they really needed it.
As local and state governments run out of money due to their excess pension obligations, expect to see more of these situations pop up in the future.
The fire started when the Cranicks’ grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.
“We wasn’t on their list,” he said the operators told him.Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he “forgot” to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.
Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out.
His offer wasn’t accepted, he said.
The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.
“Anybody that’s not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don’t,” said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker. via MSNBC
No related posts.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
As an ex-volunteer firefighter, I am appalled at this action. We NEVER refused to fight a fire just because some one did or did not donate to our operation. Wew were an all-volunteer operastion and some residents did and others did not choose to support us financially. I guess maybe it's a sign of the times, but certainly not a good one.
They must have had an issue with this guy or no heart at all, they knew he could have handed them a check on arrival yet they refused to help! The radio here in Utah this morning even said he offered them any amount of money to save his home yet they only wet down the yards around the house to avoid the fire spreading.
Isn't the equipment for a volunteer fire department still covered in by tax dollars? and if there isn't a tax base for the equipment then your option is to grab a bucket or pay the fee.
I am very fortunate to live in an area that has a fantastic volunteer system, but as I discovered on the radio today, some of those units have to bill the insurance company of the homeowner to cover costs-news to me.
I would think part of the annual fee would be a "nearby house on fire" rider…that would protect a house that paid the fee from a house on fire next door…at least to a certain degree. I wonder, was the fire dept there to keep the neighbors' houses wet and safe? Crazy.
They must be hard up for money to let someones house burn like that!