Should DU take up a collection to help Obion county pay for fire protection?

[Fumesucker]

After participating in quite a few threads and starting several about the Tennessee fire it has become clear to me that many DUers think the people of Obion county TN should have fire protection whether they will pay for it or not, I don't necessarily disagree with this view but in my opinion the funding for such a venture is problematic, fire protection services are not cheap and the good people of Obion county are loathe to tax themselves so heavily for such a thing.

It seems to me that DU should put its money where its mouth is and help the good people of Obion county by contributing to fund a fire protection service that will help give them all the benefit of civilized society.

[sohndrsmith]

1. yes. n/t

[sandnsea]

2. I'd be fine with that

If they actually used the money to provide fire protection to everyone.

Why would you think people who believe homes shouldn't be allowed to burn wouldn't be willing to help pay to make sure it doesn't happen?

[Fumesucker]

7. Where did I offer an opinion on whether DU would do such a thing?

[ZombieHorde]

3. A lot of us are dirt poor, but you may have some success. nt

[WolverineDG]

But have no problem demanding that others pay for services you won't pay for nt

[SargeUNN]

4. certainly I would agree

thanks for suggesting it

[JVS]

5. I pledge $0.00 to the cause.

[LiberalAndProud]

6. Maybe we could each volunteer to pay one $75 scrip.

I'd bet we could cover the entire county in nothing flat. Will we need to pony up again next year, do you think?

Fire chief speaks here.
http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=47109

[fishwax]

136. I think that's actually the fire chief of a different department

Hornbeak is another town in the same county. Just for the record.

[derby378]

8. I'd be more in favor of a collection to help out the poor guy whose house burned down

I don't know about DU funding a local government entity. Besides, it's not about the money - it's about doing the right thing.

[Fumesucker]

9. I encourage you to write an OP on that subject..

This thread is about helping everyone in Obion county.

[TorchTheWitch]

11. absolutely - the county legislators need to do the right thing

and hopefully, this incident will prompt them to do it and shame them for what they did.

It isn't money the county lacks, it's brains and compassion.

[seabeyond]

14. county voted to put 2 more municipals on opt out subscribes...they didnt learn a damn thing.

geez, why should they. they sit pretty and everyone goes after the municipals.

[Hannah Bell]

43. he's already been paid a couple thousand in temporary housing money &

his homeowners' policy is covering his house & goods -- i read.

so i wouldn't bother, he's just fine.

his national tv appearances are probably bringing him lots of donations as well

and he always has those ag subsidies from the feds to fall back on.

somehow he didn't forget to fill out the paperwork for those, the poor old senile coot.

[seabeyond]

46. BUT, .... is he going to put aside $75 to subscribe? i wanna know. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

174. wow, your hatred and prejudice on this issue is astounding.

The family has refused offers of help, they acknowledge that it was THEIR FAULT-

You've lost your credibility for me Hannah Bell, because of your unfounded insinuations and assumptions about this incident..

:thumbsdown:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>......
South Fulton, Tennessee, firefighters refused to put out a fire at Cranick's home last Wednesday. Cranick had not paid his $75 service fee for city fire protection at his county home.

But Cranick said there is no one to blame but himself.

"There was nothing I could do about it. I didn't pay my $75. I forgot it."

That is where the controversy begins.

Neighbors like DeAnna Reams and her husband pleaded with firefighters.

"My husband asked how much they needed, we were willing to pay anything."

But firefighters allowed the house to burn.

One week later, Cranick, 68, is choosing to focus on the good.

"People are just pouring their hearts out to us and we appreciate it so much."

The Cranicks have been flooded with calls from as far away as Washington State.

They have gotten letters and generous offers from strangers, "We had a lady call last night from Massachusetts offer us a double wide trailer, but we can't accept that."

Cranick says he can not accept handouts, but, he says, he is getting close to accepting reality.

His house is gone. But, he is hopeful his loss is someone else's gain.

"It might help somebody else in the long run, I hope it does," he said of firefighters possibly changing the policy.

The Cranicks are living in their camper, getting by thanks to temporary electricity and well water.

Come November, the Cranicks will take their camper and head to Texas for a few months. Gene Cranick said they still have not decided whether or not to rebuild their home.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Fire-Victim-starting-over-1-week-later-104444748.html
<<<<>>>>>
(Newser) – The Tennessee woman whose house fire sparked a national controversy says she's not holding a grudge against the firefighters who stood by as her home burned to the ground. "You can't blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do," said Paulette Cranick—whose family forgot to pay a $75 annual protection fee. "I've had firemen call and apologize." Cranick, 67, says she's just glad nobody was hurt in the fire.


The family has received offers of help but Cranick says aid isn't needed. "We have insurance and are happy everyone is alive,"
...................
http://www.newser.com/story/102369/woman-doesnt-blame-firefighters-for-letting-house-burn.html

We are all human, and there isn't one of us who has never made a bad decision or lived to regret something. I hope you receive more mercy than you are willing show the Cranick family- "we must BE the change we wish to see in the world"

I wish you peace.

[TorchTheWitch]

10. No, this is the county's responsibility

It was the county's inept legislation that decided there was no need to fund a vital firefighting service, and donating money for them to do so would only exacerbate their problematic notion that they don't have to and someone else will pick up the tab for them. This isn't a matter of whether or not the county can afford it - it's a matter of the county implementing a tax and a volunteer firefighting service which is a VITAL necessity for their county. Hopefully, the backlash from this one incident will wake them up to what they need to do and shame them for what they've done.

Contrary to your repeated assertions that the PEOPLE of the county voted for their travesty of a system of firefighting, it was their stupid legislators, who as we all know, vote for stupid legislation the PEOPLE don't want or vote down legislation they DO want regardless of whether they're D's or R's just like most government legislators. So, you can stop blaming the PEOPLE of the county for voting for a horrible system and asserting it's what they wanted.

If you want to start a collection here to donate funds because of this incident, how about a collection to donate funds to the old couple that lost their home, their pets and everything they owned while the firefighters looked on doing nothing?

[Fumesucker]

12. The victims' son, Todd Cranick, still does not know whether he supports a tax for fire protection..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9272680&mesg_id=9272680

His parent's house just burned down due to a lack of a taxpayer supported fire department and Todd Cranick cannot bring himself to unequivocally support a tax to pay for a fire department.

If the idea of a tax supported fire department was really that popular in the county perhaps you can explain why nineteen out of twenty legislators in the county voted against it?

[Hannah Bell]

48. I believe Todd is the guy who assaulted the fire chief, & the father of the young man who started

the fire, apparently by burning unsupervised (his grandmother said she & her husband weren't home when the fire started, i.e. "when we got there").

in that tv interview, he's standing there saying "where's the south fulton chief? what's he afraid of?"

what a punk.

[seabeyond]

54. and the man that started his own fire 3 yrs ago and didnt pay then either

ya ya ya

i know

you know

hey, i got out of these threads ALL day today

got sucked back in tonight

[Hannah Bell]

64. it's kind of odd how that man is connected to fire.

[seabeyond]

55. and the man that started his own fire 3 yrs ago and didnt pay then either

ya ya ya

i know

you know

hey, i got out of these threads ALL day today

got sucked back in tonight

[TorchTheWitch]

164. Todd's actual quote supported tax funded service

It's the author of the article that claimed he was uncertain giving no basis for such a claim and used a quote of his that showed he seemed certain that a tax paid system was what he wanted. And yes, I read the entire article.

But this isn't about Todd, or what he wants or what he thinks or what kind of person he is, which makes the whole point of your OP totally stupid. This is about a county whose legislators utterly failed it's residents by conceiving a libertarian evil plan to make firefighting service the function of the city firefighting departments on a flat rate subscription basis that the PEOPLE of the county had no ability to vote on or probably even knew about until it was already made into law.

The very idea that legislators actually do what is popular is ludicrous regardless of what their political affiliation is, and for all you know the shitstains that won the votes had as part of their campaign platform that they would fix the dismal firefighting service system... or are you somehow unaware that politicians of all stripes make campaign promises they have no intention of keeping in order to get elected? And are you also somehow unaware that most often when it comes to voting the choice is between "Shithead D" and "Shithead R" neither of which gives a crap about what is popular? It's local governments, by the way, that are even more obviously and grossly corrupt than the state or Fed governments because they are so small and cover such a small area any actual investigation into what they do is next to nill, and any outrage about it is far more easily silenced. I'm 46 years old, and my entire voting life I've had to vote for the lesser of two evils knowing I didn't really HAVE a choice in what sort of representative I was getting and knowing that the lesser of two evils I voted for wasn't going to do most of what I wanted.

Lord have mercy, what a fantastic country we'd live in if legislators actually gave a shit about what the PEOPLE wanted! Good grief, how is it that you've been into politics this long and it somehow escaped you that practically NO politician gives a flying fart in the wind about what is popular or what is right??? Even right here on DU where everyone is supposed to be oh so enlightened about politics it's treated as just as much of a GAME that politicians do, and that GAME is RIGGED eight ways to Sunday. There's a deep reason why something like fifty percent of otherwise eligible voters don't vote in this country... they already know that politicians are crooked lying snakes, and it doesn't MATTER who they vote for.

[seabeyond]

13. .013 per $100 rolled into their taxes.... " loathe to tax themselves so heavily "

certainly wouldnt want them to be overly burdened.

[Fumesucker]

15. Exactly...

Another thirteen cents per thousand dollars of property valuation is an intolerable burden to the impecunious people of Obion county.

I mean on a million dollar property that would come to one hundred and thirty dollars.. A year..

[LiberalAndProud]

18. Per $100. I posted the wrong number in one of my earlier responses.

[Fumesucker]

23. I read per $1000 on another site, not DU, if I was wrong I apologize ..

[seabeyond]

27. well

if he is doing .013 on a hundred then .13 on a 1000 works right? i hate math, and yawl are driving me batty. saw anoth poster say .13%

so i am not sure wtf.

i read the plan and only saw roll .13 into everyones tax

[Fumesucker]

30. Yep, it's late and I'm getting tired and a bit slow..

:hi:

[LiberalAndProud]

52. You're right. Quit moving decimals on me!

It works out the same $11.05 on an $85,000 property every year for putting out fires. Seems like a deal to me. But what do I know?

[seabeyond]

58. i have been lectured it is really really hard coming up with $75 a year. 11.05 is hard

or maybe really hard. doesnt meet really really. but hard anyway

[LiberalAndProud]

16. Check my math, seabeyond.

If fire protection service is assessed at .013 per $100, I have read that Cranick's property is valued for taxes at $85,000. Is my math correct? $11.05 per year for Mr. Cranick?

[seabeyond]

19. i copied

and pasted. you had everything in the right places. thanks. wink

[SargeUNN]

17. Since Keith has announced and is promoting such an act

I would say anyone wanting to donate should do so through that since it is already started.

[Fumesucker]

21. Not everyone watches TV..

For instance, I don't even own a TV, DU is where I get the majority of my information and I enjoy the sense of camaraderie here, something it is impossible to get from a TV show (other than maybe shouting at the screen).

What is wrong with having another fund drive for Obion county here on DU?

Should we not put our money where our principles lie?

[Hannah Bell]

45. olberman is collecting money for the twit? does he know the guy has

it covered through his homeowners & has already gotten some cash for his current living expenses?

first report said it wasn't complete coverage.

second one said he's getting money now for living expenses & payoff will cover his house & at least some of its contents.

[BzaDem]

20. Nope. If they don't want to pay annual fees, they can pay for the full cost of any fires.

Just like hospitals charge people for the full cost of their care if they don't have insurance.

[Fumesucker]

22. If not for the people of Obion county then why not for the poor taxpayers of S Fulton ?

Those taxpayers in S Fulton are paying more than their share for those who are reluctant to pay in Obion county, should they not get some relief?

ETA: And it has already been posted multiple times that an agreement made under duress, such as when your house is burning down, will never stand up in court.

[BzaDem]

24. They don't need to pay more than their fair share if the fire department simply billed unsubscribers

for their services, just like hospitals bill people for their services when they don't pay in advance.

Just because someone posts something about a legal issue doesn't make it true.

[distantearlywarning]

25. This would be fine, except

apparently people (including the guy whose house burned down) refuse to pay later, and the city cannot bill them or lien their house. Part of this involves Tennessee law, where FD cannot lien, and there is also the issue that the city in question is in a different state than the county it services with fire protection.

[BzaDem]

29. You can't sue someone if they are out of your state?

:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

31. You can't sue someone if state law says you can't..

Which apparently TN law says regarding fire departments.

[BzaDem]

33. Please point me to this place in TN state law. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

62. South Fulton is in Tennessee.

Fulton, Kentucky, is South Fulton's sister city across the river. The two fire departments have a cooperative agreement to provide fire protection across the coverage area, which includes a five mile radius beyond city limits.

[Fumesucker]

26. Then why have over half the people who had a fire extinguished without the benefit of subscription.

Failed to pay?

If the FD can just bill them or put a lien on their property?

[seabeyond]

28. i think it is more than half. reading odions fire plan, i read where it said "most" did not pay.

just sayin

[BzaDem]

32. If they don't pay the bill, they can sue.

If suing is inconvenient, then tough. That's how it works. ERs do not allow people to die in the ER because they don't pay. They help them, and later they sue if necessary. Same with any other business that needs to collect.

If the legal fees cannot be recouped from non-payers, the fire department can raise the price for non-subscribers who actually pay the bill when fires hit their house to cover them.

[seabeyond]

34. have you run a businesss? nt

[seabeyond]

35. wait... a SUCCESSFUL business?

[BzaDem]

36. The legal question over whether a claim is valid in court has nothing to do with whether or not

I personally own a business.

[seabeyond]

37. but it does. and since you dont get it, that tells me you are clueless.

people have told you, it doesnt work that way. business right off old debt cause it costs more to try and collect than writing it off.

[BzaDem]

38. That is true for small amounts. It would not make sense to sue over a few dollars or even a few

hundred.

Twenty thousand dollars? Those suits happen ALL THE TIME. Hospitals for example file them EVERY DAY.

[seabeyond]

40. ah... you are gonna get that blood out of that turnup, huh? average income 35K. nt

[BzaDem]

42. Yeah, it might take a few years of garnished wages to pay it off.

That doesn't mean it doesn't get paid in most instances, if they enforce their rights.

I'm still waiting for why you aren't advocating for ERs to turn people away.

[Common Sense Party]

85. that's

"write off"

[seabeyond]

88. well, shit

i really hate when i do that.

thanks

[Common Sense Party]

147. No problem.

I didn't want to come across as a spelling Nazi, but if I have a mental blip, I usually want to know so I can avoid it in the future.

[seabeyond]

39. there are 5 municipals that are suppose to get $500 for a call. they are not on subscibe

most of the people, MOST of the people do not pay. they absorb it into their municpal funds. if it was a simple matter of "collecting" the money, do you think all the clever people would be scamblin to figure this shit out? do you think these county people would be getting free service? but you are so fuckin clever you know it is a simple answer and a snap of the fingers.

[BzaDem]

41. The $500/call is if you ALREADY pay the $75. The cost if you didn't pay the $75 would be MUCH higher

[seabeyond]

47. none of it is getting paid.... and neither you nor i know the legalities

or ins and outs to all this. it is moot.

you are really assuming these people are so gd stupid that you have a simple fix. it isnt. you know it isnt, but hold on tight to the same speel.

[BzaDem]

51. So your entire argument comes down to "if you were right, they wouldn't have let the house burn!"

In other words, you are saying that what they did was by definition correct, merely because they did it. Because if there were ANY better way, they would have done it differently. In other words, according to you, what they did was right because that was what they did.

What a joke.

[seabeyond]

59. you know, take someones words. fabricate a story, and discuss....

lame.

we are talking finances.... wasnt talking anything about their job.

so

no
'
that is not what i was saying

[BzaDem]

61. I rephrased what you said an an equivalent form that happens to make your argument look ridiculous.

Sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

You are literally saying that charging people for their services on the spot (or ANY other scheme) couldn't possibly work, SOLELY because they would already be doing it if it would have worked.

[seabeyond]

73. it really is moot. first, ignore the part of you being clueless on legalities. i dont argue

what i dont know.

second... it is oot because the COUNTY, the one that has authority has not only these three municipals on subscribe... which is opt out, but put 2 more municipals on subscribe. county is the one with authority.

do you know if the municipal can go against county with there subscibe opt in/out and allow an opt out to get service at a price once they have a fire.... adn that they are going to work with the department in allowing them to get the money?

are you telling me, you are so versed in law, county vs city, and all the other intregets in this dilemna, that you have the answers to this?

[BzaDem]

83. If you are going to make the radical claim that a verbal contract here isnt valid in a court of law,

then the burden is on you to justify that. Not on me to rebut it. I have no idea what your legal theory is that would void such an agreement, so I have no idea how to point out the flaws in your theory.

[seabeyond]

90. oh bullshit. look at you back pedal..... ba ha hahaha.

[BzaDem]

94. I'm sure you meant something other than gibberish by that.

Though you'll have to translate into English if you want me to be able to understand it.

[seabeyond]

104. what? bullshit? or "back pedal"? lol.

nite

[BzaDem]

111. I simply pointed out that you are the one claiming a contract is invalid without giving a theory

under which that is the case.

Which part of that is bullshit? Are you NOT claiming that a contract isn't valid? ARE you specifying a theory?

[seabeyond]

113. i said, i am not arguing legalities. i dont know them. you dont know them. how stupid is it

you and i arguing something neither you or i know anything about.

you want to argue... go to that post, find out the legalities adn get back to me.

[BzaDem]

119. I do know enough about legalities to know that verbal contracts are valid contracts.

So I don't know why you are arguing if you don't know enough to show otherwise.

[seabeyond]

125. county is the one that say must be subscribe. so tell me the rules to a subscribe system.

since county has authority, the city has to follow their rules. you understand, correct

is city allowed to charge a non subscriber to put out fire?
does city have legal authority to go after the non subscriber.
how does the whole thing work, the rules, the intricacies?

what are the legalities between a city and county. what authority does one have over the other.

why does 5 of the municipals not bother even trying to get the majority that dont pay and absorb it into the municipality

why did it fail in the past when fulton tried to collect and weren't able.

are there restrictions with two different states

it city fire allowed to put out a lien

are there any other restrictions on city in collecting

i need the legalities if i am going to argue

now, if you dont have answer, you dont know "enough"

you dont get that companies write off amounts cause cost exceed amount they get, if they get adn not worth it. ends up costing more.

[BzaDem]

130. All of that is IRRELEVANT if a verbal contract is made on the spot betwen the homeowner and the FD.

If the FD said "do you agree to pay 20k if we put out your fire," and the homeowner said "yes," NONE of what you just posted is at all relevant. That would be a valid contract REGARDLESS of all of those questions, enforceable in a court of law REGARDLESS of those questions. Even if it crosses state lines, it would still be a perfectly valid contract that courts have authority to enforce.

[seabeyond]

165. see, you are clueless on law. one thing,. all there has to be is one thing

it becomes really relevant. why would i argue with you when you realy dont know what you are talking about. a verbal contract is they least stable. they least likely to be struck. even i know that. it is absurd you suggesting all one needs is a verbal contract. what an insane comment

[JustAmused]

140. Good luck Sea

I dont' have the energy to help. I will just put him on ignore. That has really cleaned up a lot of threads for me lately...lol

[seabeyond]

80. i need the legalities. i need to know what county allows city to do on counties opt out subscribe

plan.

i need to know the legalities of dealing with two entities.

lets go, .... info

i want to got to bed

want to see if it is duable, we need the answers

[Hannah Bell]

49. no, it's not.

[BzaDem]

50. No, what's not? n/t

[seabeyond]

60. i believe the 500 was for the 5 municipal that did not subscribe. right? nt

[flvegan]

44. Yeah, um count me out of this one. Thanks.

[apocalypsehow]

53. I quite honestly have not seen a more absurd debate on DU since I joined - neither side has

distinguished themselves.

But I gotta hand you this one: all those hyperventilating over the deadbeat homeowner who gambled $75 on the odds his house wouldn't catch fire - and lost - should take up a collection and pay to extend fire protection coverage to every citizen of Obion County.

I suspect we'll see very little of that - just more obtuse moralizing.

[BzaDem]

57. What's absurd to me is why ANYONE who supports what the FD did could even CLAIM to call themselves

a liberal (let alone actually be one).

So I too am amazed that this is even a debate.

I'm just waiting for the next person to say "all those hyperventilating over the dead but easily savable gunshot victim who gambled on not needing ER service" etc. etc. etc.

[apocalypsehow]

65. So...how much cash are you dispatching to Obion County to cover the libertarian deadbeats?

....

What! (?)

None!?!

Shocked! I'm SHOCKED I tell you!!!








( :eyes: )

[BzaDem]

67. None. The FD can bill the cost of their services, and sue if they don't pay. Just like ERs do.

I'm still waiting for your opinion on whether you believe the policy of emergency rooms to accept everyone (and worry about payment later) to be a grave mistake.

[apocalypsehow]

70. "None" - That's about what I figured. Point made & discussion concluded. n/t.

[BzaDem]

79. Of course you would leave the discussion, since you have absolutely no argument whatsoever.

Not surprising at all, and very transparent.

[apocalypsehow]

145. Sure I did - and you just made it.

:thumbsup:

[Fumesucker]

68. Do you think the FD didn't put out the fire because they are heartless bastards?

Or could it be that doing so has become financially untenable after years of not being paid for services rendered?

Which do you really think is the more likely explanation?

[BzaDem]

74. Somehow when it comes to someone's life, emergency rooms magically don't have a problem.

They bill and then sue if the bill isn't paid.

[Fumesucker]

86. No one's life was in danger..

If they had been, the FD would have responded.

[BzaDem]

89. Exactly. You admit there are some things where help should be provided before asking about payment.

Saving someone's home just isn't one of them.

[Fumesucker]

95. Your point?

[BzaDem]

96. That is my point in its entirety. It speaks for itself.

[Fumesucker]

102. So you equate property, which is covered by insurance in fact, with human life?

The Cranick's home was insured, perhaps not fully on the contents but they'll rebuild their home.

[BzaDem]

106. Who said anything about equating? Just because the situations are analogous doesn't mean life and

homes are equivalent.

I simply believe that life should be protected, and senseless destruction of an entire home should also be protected.

"but they'll rebuild their home."

Perhaps, but that seems pretty senseless from a broader economic perspective. Imagine if 90% of the US didn't pay their subscription, and they were all simultaneously hit by fires (and no fire department saves any house). Will that hurt the 90%? Of course. But it will also hurt everyone else, since the supply of houses is cut by 10 (skyrocketing the prices of the remaining houses for non-homeowners to buy).

It is the same reason why we try not to pay people to dig holes and then fill them in for no reason.

[Fumesucker]

116. You brought up the example of an ER..

Which is about human life..

I pointed out that the FD would have responded if a human life was in danger which makes your example irrelevant to this discussion.

We pay people a million dollars a year each to bomb mud huts on the other side of the world, frankly I'd rather pay the same people a hundred thousand a year each to dig holes and fill them back in, it would be much more productive.

[BzaDem]

118. I brought it up because it was an analogous situation. Not the exact same situation. n/t

[Fumesucker]

120. Property, particularly insured property, is not human life..

No matter how much you might want to compare and analogize the two completely different things.

[BzaDem]

122. Do you know what an analogy is?

Do you understand the concept that two distinct situations can actually be analogous?

[Fumesucker]

123. The situation is analogous when human life is at risk from the fire..

In which case the FD responds..

When it's just property at risk the analogy is far weaker, to the point it's not really an analogy at all.

[BzaDem]

126. The ER doesn't just help people who's life is at risk. n/t

[Fumesucker]

129. Indeed, and not everyone whose life is at risk is helped by the ER..

You can't get chemo at the ER for one thing.

People die every day in the USA from perfectly treatable diseases because they lack the wherewithal to pay for treatment, treatment they will not get at the ER.

[BzaDem]

132. Let me put it this way. There are people at the ER for which the cost of helping are higher than

the costs of putting out fires.

[Fumesucker]

133. Your point?

[BzaDem]

134. That ERs don't tend to go bankrupt from helping people and collecting later. n/t

[Fumesucker]

139. Do over half of the people who use an ER skip payment?

That is the situation in Obion county..

[BzaDem]

143. That affects how MUCH the ER/FD would have to overcharge to other non-subscribers who DO pay

a one-time fee when they need help -- not whether the ER/FD goes bankrupt. And besides, if they go after people who don't pay, they may not get all of that money back, but they will get much of it in the long run even after taking into account legal fees (and can make the rest back by raising their one-time rate on non-subscribers). There's a difference between someone not paying when a bill is sent, and someone not paying after their credit score is about to dive and/or they are sued.

[Fumesucker]

146. Yes, the taxpayers of S Fulton will pay more..

We've already covered that a couple of times, it's getting a bit stale now.

[seabeyond]

166. no. they charge all us a brazillion more to cover that noncollected fee? so RAISE the tax on city

to cover county noncollectable amount?

[LiberalAndProud]

157. It's property damage.

I know it's awful, but there is no social contract in Obion County to defend someone else's property. The only contract in Obion County is the one agreed to by the property owner when he pays his $75.00. It's voluntary. That's what the county commission decreed.

Let me say that again. It is voluntary. There is no contract between the unsubscribed landowner and the city.

In your emergency room analogy, you neglect an important facet of that care. They get all of the patients' information, and a signature from the party who agrees to pay for that care.

You can't create a contract over the phone, and you can't create a contract under duress.

[BzaDem]

158. The "duress" point is COMPLETELY inapplicable.

It is not illegal to not put out the fire. The fire department didn't cause the fire. There is no improper threat. If you tried to argue duress, you would literally be laughed out of court.

You absolutely can create a contract verbally or in writing at the scene.

And in an emergency room, they don't even necessarily do that. If there is a gunshot victim, they might not even know his NAME until he is conscious after surgery.

[seabeyond]

167. prove it. prove a judge wont say, the emotional stress at the time the house was burning

down....

i dont know. you guessing doesnt work. and we all know verbal contracts are bullshit.

[Bluerthanblue]

175. any time there is a fire like this people's lives are in danger.

I guess you've never heard of people trying to extinguish fires themselves or helping neighbors whose homes were burning to try and stop it?

The firefighters had the equipment, protective gear AND the knowledge and training to do the job correctly- and are far less likely to be injured or killed.

They were there- they didn't help, because the Chief told them not to.

Check the facts please.

[Hannah Bell]

99. which hospital is it in which ER admittees not covered by insurance, private pay or

county/state/federal funds constitute 75-85% of admittees?

not the one i work in.

and what does an er's mandate to stabilize (*just* to stabilize) indigent admittees in danger of dying have to do with letting a house burn down where no human life is endangered?

all fire departments are *mandated* to respond to fires where human life is endangered.

south fulton responds to calls where human life in endangered, even outside its service area.

not houses, not puppies, not kitties.

your ER example has nothing to do with anything.

[BzaDem]

109. That's my point. You are perfectly fine with there being SOME services where help is given and only

LATER is payment worried about.

You just don't think saving someone's freaking HOME from senseless destruction is one of them.

[Fumesucker]

114. I lost a paid for home to fire in 1973..

I inherited it from my parents..

It wouldn't surprise me if I have more personal experience in this matter than you.

[BzaDem]

121. Someone with personal experience can't simultaneously be wrong? n/t

[Fumesucker]

124. My point is I understand what it's like to lose a home..

It was nowhere near as traumatic as losing my parents a year or two before..

[BzaDem]

127. I never said otherwise.

I'm simply pointing out that just like ERs can help first, ask questions later, and still survive, fire departments can help first, bill later, and still survive.

[Fumesucker]

137. Sure, if those who are being taxed pay more...

It seems more and more to me like you want the citizens of S Fulton to fully subsidize fire protection for those of Obion county.

If suing for services rendered was actually working I seriously doubt that the S Fulton FD would have stood by and watched a home burn, I bet it really hurt the firefighters to do that.

When reasonable people do apparently outrageous things there is usually a reason that is not immediately apparent, particularly when it is a group of people that do something of that sort.

[Hannah Bell]

117. not when the county has repeatedly voted not to fund fire service though it can afford to do so, no.

not when county residents expect a town of 2500 people to foot the bill, no.

if they don't care enough about their homes to fund fire protection, why should i?

county residents aren't indigent. they have a higher median income than the cities.

this problem didn't start yesterday. the policy you keep recommending was the previous policy.

it didn't work well, & it worked even less well in a recession-cum-depression + government spending cutbacks.

[JustAmused]

144. LMAO

Yep I knew you would make the ignore list. Now anyone who doesn't agree with you can not possibly be as good a liberal as you.....yada yada yada.

Hannah, sea, I would just give up if I were you. People who have all the answers are hard to convince otherwise...lol

[seabeyond]

168. not only all the answer.... but see how simple it all is. gee, why didnt the municipals figure

this out for the last two decades.

[Fumesucker]

63. It's one of those situations that fractures across the grain of the usual politics..

I've actually found the whole debate very interesting, I find myself on the opposite side from some people I usually agree with a lot and on the same side as some people I often disagree with.

The strong emotional reaction to the story has really made a lot of people less rational it than they usually are, IMO.

ETA: It's particularly ironic that I'm usually derided as a fucking cognitively challenged purist who desires a pony and yet on this subject I've been quite literally called Glenn Beck at least twice by different posters.

[BzaDem]

66. Would it be rational for ERs to simply stop accepting all comers, for the same reasons as the FD?

I doubt you would think that.

So the fact that you declare yourself oh so rational really just relies on the propositions

a) There are some things for which we should treat first and worry about payment later, but
b) Fires that burn homes down are not one of them.

[Fumesucker]

72. What if the FD had simply not come to the scene?

If the neighbor who had a subscription had not called, the FD would not have even been there at all..

What then?

[BzaDem]

75. The FD should have come to the scene if ANYONE called, including the original homeowner.

They should have put out the fire, billed the homeowner, and took legal action to collect on the bill if the homeowner didn't pay. Just like ERs help uninsured gunshot victims and worry about payment later.

[Fumesucker]

82. That sounds like a good plan..

Perhaps this should be the model for all emergency services, no taxation at all, just provide the service and then bill afterward.

It's revealing that you don't want to help out the good people of Obion county but you wish for the taxpayers of S Fulton to do so.

[BzaDem]

87. You can keep misrepresenting my position, but that doesn't make it my position.

I do not wish for the taxpayers of S Fulton to pay one extra dime. I simply want the FD to charge the full out of pocket cost to non-subscriber calls. If they can't collect or there are legal fees, they can raise the rate to other nonsubscribers who actually pay the one-time costs to cover it.

[Fumesucker]

98. The practical effect will be that the taxpayers of S Fulton will experience higher rates..

What is wrong with going to a total fee for services rendered system for everyone then if that's so great for the people in Obion county?

It would save those who implement safe practices in their lives a great deal of money and those who are careless would feel the burden of their irresponsibility.

[BzaDem]

103. No, that would not be the practical effect. Non-subscribers who pay one-time costs would pay more.

"What is wrong with going to a total fee for services rendered system for everyone then if that's so great for the people in Obion county?"

Your question is really the general question of why does insurance exist in the first place. In general, it has to do with the marginal utility of income. From an expected value perspective (assuming each dollar of income has equal value to a person), there would never be the point to insurance. Paying a small monthly fee is mathematically equivalent to paying a high fee with low probability.

The reason that there still IS insurance, despite this perspective, is that the marginal utility of income goes down as income rises. In other words, my first 50 thousand dollars is worth more to me than the difference in value between 50 and 100. Or, similarly, the value to a millionaire is greater than the difference in value between a million and two million.

In terms of insurance, this means that it is much better for the customer to be able to part with only $75 dollars every month (since the utility of that extra $75 is minimal), than it is to pay a high fee with a low probability. Because in the low probability that you have to pay the high fee, the high fee is a MUCH higher reduction in utility, even when the low probability is taken into account.

So in summary, having taxes pay for fire protection is OPTIMAL for the customer. But when this is impossible (as in this case), the next best route (charging a fee) is the route to take.

[Fumesucker]

108. Over half of non subscribers in Obion county who utilize fire protection pay nothing ..

So your argument for Obion county at least is rendered moot.

And my point about the taxpayers of S Fulton is still valid, they will see increased financial burden.

[BzaDem]

110. They can sue those who pay nothing, and if they can't recoup the legal fees

then they can raise the bill for the OTHER half of non-subscribers that DOES pay.

The S Fulton taxpayers wouldn't pay one additional dime, no matter how much you say to the contrary.

[Fumesucker]

115. If they can do so then why haven't they?

It's clearly a major problem in S Fulton..

[Confusious]

97. Comparing an ER to a fire when no human lives were at stake

Is not a valid comparision. The FD said they would save people even if the person had not paid.

so basically, you're comparing possessions to human life, which, again, is not a valid comparison.

I think it's bullshit that this happened, but I think it's bigger bullshit that the county doesn't want to tax itself to pay for fire, and instead leeches off the poorer city dwellers.

All you're doing is making the case that they should allow a junkie to rob them blind in the name of "compassion"

[BzaDem]

112. I never said life and homes are equivalent. I just said the situations are analogous.

You are perfectly fine with SOME services being rendered without consideration of pay until afterward. You just don't think saving someone's home from senseless destruction should be one of them.

[Confusious]

150. An analogy assumes equivalence

No, I just don't think the rich should be leeching off the poor, like this county was doing to the city.

What about the people in the poorer city who have to pay more in taxes, which they can probably Ill afford because this douche doesn't want to pay? Where's your compassion for them?

letting a junkie rob you blind in the name of "compassion"

If anyone was responsible for the senseless destruction it was him. It happen to him 3 years earlier and they put out the fire, and then asked him to pay. He didn't. He was set warning letters. He thought he would leech off the city. I believe he said something like " I thought they would put it out again "

All these wonderful services cost money. If people don't want to pay, then the services don't have the money they need to operate, and none of us get them.

It's one thing for something to happen to you by outside force or action not in your control. It's another to do it to yourself. A mere 6 dollars a month would have remedied the situation.

He should stand up and take responsibility. " I fucked up, let's move on "

[BzaDem]

151. They won't have to pay more in taxes, because the homeowner offered to pay thousands of dollars

or whatever it would cost to put out the fire. If the fire department agreed, that would constitute a binding verbal contract, fully enforceable in a court of law.

[Confusious]

152. So I suppose any person employed by a city

can enter into a verbal contract on behalf of the city?

Does anything about that statement seem wrong to you?

[BzaDem]

153. The fire department could EASILY have the dispatcher over the phone enter into

a verbal contract that binds the FD. (Though binding the FD really doesn't matter, because after the FD puts out the fire, the only outstanding obligation would be for the homeowner to PAY the fire department.)

You are essentially arguing that the FD can't easily enter into contracts. That is not true. FDs enter into contracts all the time. How do you think they get equipment?

[Confusious]

154. You seem to be trying to twist my words

I never said they don't have contracts. They just don't enter into verbal contracts. I highly doubt any lawyer for a city would allow a verbal contract. As a matter of fact, they probably avoid them like the plague due the headaches they cause. Most cities have lawyers on retainer to deal with contracts. Why bother with verbal when you're paying a lawyer?

I don't know how many times I've heard news stories of " so and so is suing so and so, verbal contract" with the suit going on for years.

[BzaDem]

155. The dispatcher records all calls. It would be very simple. But EVEN if we assume for the sake of

argument that verbal contracts are not valid here (which is not true), they could easily bring a written contract to the scene pre-approved by the lawyers a year ago that would take 5 seconds to sign.

[Confusious]

159. The dispatcher records the verbal agreement

and they have a lawyer bring out the contract while the guys house is burning down. right.

This seems like a very big pretzel and a lot of money you're twisting just for 75 dollars a year, and a lot of ifs. It would have been much easier on everyones part to pay the fee.

What lawyer works for less then 75 an hour? How much does it cost to write up a contract like that? Is it even worth it for 75 a year?

But I guess you that won't stop you from trying to find a way to blame the city.

the guy is the victim, even if he did it to himself.

[seabeyond]

169. everything is so simple for you as it escalate in such complexity and all in verbal contract

which no one is going to do. verbal contract fails.

[TexasObserver]

161. When an ambulance makes an emergency run there is a charge for it.

The ambulance driver or dispatcher doesn't need to sign a contract.

Get in an auto accident. Get picked up by an ambulance (run by the fire department), and see if you don't get a bill for $500 or more for that. And guess what? Your auto insurance will pay it, or the other guy's auto insurance will pay it, or neither will pay it and the city will demand that you pay it.

This is done many times a day, in every jurisdiction. This notion you have that a fire department cannot charge for their services is simply wrong. It doesn't require a written contract. Services are provided, and they have value. The one providing the service can collect a reasonable fee for doing so.

Every major auto accident contains a charge for the ambulance, and in any settlement of such, the ambulance provider gets paid. No contract. No one even agreeing to pay at the time of the event. It's billed and paid because the provider has a right to be paid from the person who got the benefit of the service.

[Confusious]

162. Well explain to me this then

The city and the county have been going back and forth for 20 years on payment for fire services. The city would send out bills, but no one would pay them, and the county wouldn't enforce the collections,

How does that work. How do people get away with having a service provided and not paying, and the county not enforcing the payment?

[apocalypsehow]

69. The fact you & I are agreeing on something - given our history - is very telling of how deep across

the grain the fracture cuts. Excellent point.

Nice to be on the same side this time, BTW. :thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

76. all the people i am agreeing

with are people i almostt never agree with.

has been such a hoot... a whole new world. almost like twilight zone. lol

[apocalypsehow]

92. Ain't it wild? LOL - I feel the exact same way. I almost expect to hear Rod Serling narrating...

...in the background. :thumbsup:

[distantearlywarning]

176. It is really weird, I agree.

I actually totally hate 99% of what Hannah Bell has to say on a regular basis, but she is completely and totally right on this one.

[seabeyond]

177. maybe

it is the difference of running/owning a business or not. i have been curious the last couple days.

working ass off for pay only to have to write receivables off. trying to survive, keep head above water, pay employees and health care and not able to collect the money. understanding there are limited resource.

75%-85% uncollectable and over 50% nonsubscribers evident of a huge problem.

[HuckleB]

56. 81...

[Renew Deal]

71. Everyone should be charged $1 per post.

They'd be able to hire an army with all the money. :D

[Fumesucker]

77. Not if the army was sent to Afghanistan..

:evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

81. no no really... i did laugh out loud on this one. lol. cute. but send it to orphange fund

not the dude that let his animals die.

[BrentWil]

78. Very good point. Either put up or shut up

I will not put up. Frankly, his house burned down because of the policies that were in place. They were supported by the majority of people and he didn't take the personnel responsibility and took the chance.

I give a lot of money to charity. The money I have to give can go to a lot better places then here.

[sabrina 1]

84. Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

However, it looks like he doesn't need donations. He has said that his Insurance Co. has been 'great' and will take care of his needs. Of course because the 'let it burn' crowd got their wish, the Insurance Co. will now have to pay a lot more and everyone's premiums will go up to cover that cost.

But, yes, if he needs some money to get by, I would be more than happy to donate to such a fund. Just post a link and I have no doubt DUers will help.

[Fumesucker]

91. This is not for the Cranicks..

My OP is about helping the rest of the good people of Obion county to have proper fire protection, the Cranicks are not in need of such at the moment since their house is already burned down.

[sabrina 1]

101. Whatever, if it's helping people, fine. I am for supporting 'the common

good' which sometimes means a few deadbeats benefit. But overall, it's a far better system than the ones these Repubicans voted for, isn't it?

[Fumesucker]

105. Then you are saying you will contribute to a fund to help Obion county establish a FD?

How much can we put you down for?

[sabrina 1]

149. We have always contributed to our own volunteer FD. Why would I not want to

contribute to someone else's? We have done so in the past when a neighboring dept. needs funds. So if there is another FD that needs funds, why would think that people who routinely DO contribute to such funds, would not want to do so now?

Just link to the fund if there is one, and I'm sure DU will do what it always does when a cause is worthy.

[seabeyond]

93. ya, cause really this guy has absolutely no ownership in his fuck up.... it is all everyone elses

fault.

[sabrina 1]

100. It isn't about him. It's about a failed system that was thrown

away long ago. Do you worry what kind of people get to drive on the roads your tax dollars pay for? Because if you did, we would have the same system on a federal and state level that this county has. We would not want to support a lot of the people who use our roads, however, as a society we have decided that for the 'common good' we must overlook the people who may not deserve to live in a well organized, well run country or live like they do in Obion Co. where if someone cannot afford to pay eg, we just say 'tough luck'. You want that kind of society? Easy, just join the Repub. Party, that's what they want, no taxes, so those 'wellfare queens' don't get any of their hard-earned money.

[DURHAM D]

107. Huh? Roads are mostly paid for with user taxes. nt

IOWs - every user pays.

[JI7]

128. These SErvices should be provided by the Govt through tax collection

these things shouldn't be put to some vote. these are needs.

we aren't talking about using tax funds for some stupid statue to honor something. i can understand something like that being up to the people through a vote.

[JI7]

131. This is the type of shit Freepers support

want to cut all govt funding and saying private charity can take care of it.

[Gormy Cuss]

135. DU should take up a collection

to bury this poor dead horse.

[Fumesucker]

142. Haven't you noticed the fact that people who normally mostly agree are disagreeing..

And vice versa?

Not everyone of course but I'm quite surprised at some of the people that I'm both agreeing and disagreeing with.

This is actually a very revealing topic because it does not line up much with the usual philosophical alliances I see here on DU..

[Gormy Cuss]

179. What I've noticed is too many people who are focused on punishing Cranick

rather than the broader issue of whether provision of fire service through an organized VFD, a contract with an adjacent municipality, or an independent professional FD is essential to public safety and not negotiable.

[seabeyond]

180. then, respectfully, you dont notice well. you are making assumptions.

people keep directing it to the unfairness and inability of city to take care of county. and counties irresponsible practice of creating an opt out with something as important as this.

when i have mentioned the owners action it references that or counter argues the blame of death of pet. only because the fabrication of it being FDs fault was brought up ONCE again. generally by the same posters.

i know we are arguing the county cause i have typed it so many times.

like now

now, seeing me blame the owner for his pets death here in this post, i guess you can say it is about vengeance on the owner. but reality is, i am arguing we talk about county.

all in the eye of the beholder

[Gormy Cuss]

182. Oh, I see those posts too.

When the argument is that it's unfair for the city to take care of the county, that's still missing the boat. It's not about fairness and it's certainly not about the $75 subscription fee. The issue that has politic implications (i.e. why it's worth discussing here,) is the lack of universal fire service provision by the county, its substitution of a system that requires opt-in, and whether that is an acceptable public safety strategy.

Then there's the sociological issue of whether having people stand by and do nothing is something we want to promote as Americans.

Pets and this individual's failure to pay the subscription are really a footnote to the whole saga.

[seabeyond]

183. yes... to your whole post. and yes...

it has been addressed ad nausea.

[TexasObserver]

186. Agreed. The individual is irrelevant to this issue.

It's not about a guy who should have paid a fee. It's about the policies which are at work.

We put out fires because it's good for US, all of us.

[thelordofhell]

138. So you don't think Ayn Rand County should have a fire department?

Maybe their robot workers can do everything!!

[Fumesucker]

141. No, I think they should definitely have an FD..

And those who think that S Fulton should provide that FD should help County Galt by paying for it.

[thelordofhell]

148. I will not give one penny to Ayn Rand County

Instead all donations should go to the Cities that are desperately trying to do the right thing while not bankrupting themselves.

[adamuu]

156. Not just no. Hell no.

They had their chance to vote many times. It is clear what the residents want. Free free free.

[JTFrog]

160. Burn baby Burn!!!!! n/t

[HEyHEY]

163. I'd rather take a collection to have it bulldozed so I never have to hear about it again.

[DailyGrind51]

170. Then, why not take up collections for those in foreclosure or unable to pay for health premiums?

There is more than enough need to go around!

[seabeyond]

171. these people arent in need. they dont want to foot the bill for their protection. not about need

but wtf....

lets pay for them anyway

[WinkyDink]

172. Satire alert.

[bigwillq]

173. If people want to donate, cool.

If people don't, cool. I won't be, but I won't stop other people from doing what they want with their money.

[RedCloud]

178. Just make fires illegal and arrest them on sight. QED

Always with the fire department doing the police's work for them.

[joeybee12]

181. I am thrilled I still had time to unrec this bullshit!

[JNelson6563]

184. Help me out here

Aren't the southern states already taking in a lot more from Washington than they send?

How much do these red, pull yourself up by your bootstraps states need to support themselves??

Julie--living in a donor state and damn sick of the inequity

[TexasObserver]

185. No, but we should have a fundraiser to fight OCD.