It begins in Tennessee.... Detroit after that?

**iheartthed** · October-04-10, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

take some responsibility for your actions, if everyone did this the world would run a lot smoother......

But the world doesn't run like that now, does it? That's why we have rules and laws and taxes. So that I don't get killed in a fire that spread to my house because my stupid neighbor didn't pay his bill.

**Jimaz** · October-04-10, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

really, isn't the $75 actually a defacto tax?....

Er, no. Because these fees are optional, which is exactly the problem. When you demonstrate your understanding of that simple fact I'll bother to read the rest of your posts.

If you don't want taxes, these are the problems you create. Quitcher whining.

**justanotherboy** · October-04-10, 08:44 PM

Why should the fireman work for free to put out a fire that the homeowner didn't pay for? That's most likely against a union contract. No pay - no service.

Bearinabox · October-04-10, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by justanotherboy

Why should the fireman work for free to put out a fire that the homeowner didn't pay for? That's most likely against a union contract. No pay - no service.

For the thirty-seven-bajillionth time on this thread: That's why taxes are a viable way to fund a fire department, and user fees aren't. Seriously, does anybody actually read the threads before they comment?

**gazhekwe** · October-04-10, 08:58 PM

The firemen would get paid as part of their regular work schedule. Full time firemen are usually not paid per fire. They sure wouldn't get much if all they could split was the $75 he should have paid.

EastSider · October-04-10, 09:01 PM

Interesting that fire protection only costs $75 down there.

I wonder how much a Detroit resident pays.

**fryar** · October-04-10, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

The point isn't that the homeowner is free from fault. Okay, he was irresponsible and made a dumb choice, but right now his house is burning down, and you're sitting out front in a fire truck. Basic human decency dictates that you put his fucking house out and save the lecture for later. What's that you say? Nobody would pay for fire protection if the people who didn't pay got protection too? Well, that's kind of why most places don't run their fire departments this way. It's not a workable system.

Imagine if this happened in some inner-city neighborhood like Mexicantown with 30x100 lots and houses built out of matchwood, and the fire department only responded once the fire spread to neighboring properties whose owners had paid the fee. By then, the fire would be completely out of control, and the neighbors who did the responsible thing and paid the 75 bucks would stand a good chance of losing their houses because one guy in the middle of the block didn't pay. Now imagine that the homeowner who didn't pay lived outside the neighborhood, and his tenants lost their home because he cheaped out. This system creates a whole host of problems that could be solved by just raising taxes and creating a normal fire department like every civilized society on the face of the planet. I just don't get it.

Yep, all of that's exactly what happened. In the good old days. Before President Obama and his bleeding heart socialist at heart liberals forced all of us to buy into this government service, purportedly for our own benefit. Death and taxes, friends, death and taxes...tsk, tsk.

No, that really is what happened, back in the days of private firefighting. This approach of voluntarily buying into the city's service was bound to fail.

Stosh · October-04-10, 10:52 PM

Here's a local perspective, first of many I am afraid.

http://www.freep.com/article/2010100...-with-township

**jiminnm** · October-04-10, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But the world doesn't run like that now, does it? That's why we have rules and laws and taxes. So that I don't get killed in a fire that spread to my house because my stupid neighbor didn't pay his bill.

Not very likley to happen in this case because the closest house is at least 300-400 feet away. That area is farm country, even if it is close to town.

**wolverine** · October-04-10, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

stop with the excuses...

fact is they were offered fire protection for the known area outside the cities coverage area for a very modest price of $75 and they declined....

you whiners are probably the same people that complain about health insurance being to expensive but are able to have the latest iphone and watch cable TV on a 60 inch LCD....

sometimes you have to pay to receive benefits, i know this is hard to grasp by you bleeding socialist at heart liberals, but services don't grow on trees, it cost MONEY

Nope, back in college I paid for health and insurance out of pocket AND the ipod with my job.... But I also pay my taxes, and deserve fire protection, and so does everyone else.

The only crap fire service I complain about is when a fire truck, ambulance, and cop car show up when someone passes out drunk at a bar, when simply an ambulance would suffice.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-04-10, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Whitehouse

The conservative vision of utopia ... is a society in which most government [/COLOR]agencies are privatized, and unfettered free enterprise reigns supreme.

I think $75 annually for fire service in an area w/ jobs sounds pretty good. Sign me up.

**Goose** · October-05-10, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

But I also pay my taxes, and deserve fire protection, and so does everyone else.

THE KEY WORD IS THAT YOU PAY YOUR TAXES

this person lived in an area that was not taxed nor was it serviced by a municipal fire department....

they were offered service from a neighboring community for a fee

they didn't want to pay

end of story......

same crap when people live in a 100 year flood zone and refuse to buy flood insurance thinking it will never happen to them, then it happens, and they look for a public bailout......

**Meddle** · October-05-10, 01:05 AM

It didn't 'begin' there. If you look back through history there are quite a few cases like this.

Justify it any way you wish, but it's wrong on all levels. There is NO way to look at it that makes it right.

**rid0617** · October-05-10, 02:29 AM

It's the same situation here. We live outside of the city as these people. The city extends the service if we pay for it because we do not pay city property tax to support it.

**everglade carl** · October-05-10, 03:33 AM

For the people who rigidly stress the point that Cranick was in the wrong for not paying the $75 up front, it's hard to argue.

For those who even go a step further and say things like ,"I guess they figured their home wasn't worth $75.." and other like comments, why do you have to be such dicks?

With your flippant celebration of this, at least take in to account that this guy lost 3 dogs and a cat, probably his family photos, keepsakes, as well as possible savings stored in his home. It's still a tragedy. How about if his grandchildren were stuck in the home?

I don't think it's so black and white:

In the recent past, the South Fulton fire chief's routine was to save the home and to charge the person the next day. Even if the department would give a tab for their full service, the hundreds or thousands that they might pay would be better than losing their houses and property.

On his 911 call, the operator refused service because his name wasn't on a list. It makes me shutter to think that a small bureaucratic error or typo could mean the difference of losing everything. The guy pleaded with him/her, saying that he would pay the money.

Is this the battle that the city government really wants to pick with it's residents? This is not ideal publicity to put South Fulton on the national map.

It seems senseless because the department was there anyway to spray his neighbor's property, so it wasn't really costing the city a lot of extra money.

Again, I can't argue with the facts, but keep in perspective that this is still very unfortunate it, and it makes me cringe to see some people taking their point so far as to joke about it. What if it was your mom or dad?

**Gannon** · October-05-10, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by jiminnm

I have relatives that live in the city of South Fulton and checked into this.

It seems that Mr. Cranick lives outside the city of South Fulton in a nonincorporated area. The city of South Fulton offers the $75 service to those who live outside the city and would otherwise have no fire service. Cranick apparently elected not to pay and the city is not required to provides city services to those outside the city.

Then they shouldn't even have driven OUT there. By wasting resources paid for BY subscribers and incorporated taxpayers, they put themselves in the position of being liable for any problems due this fire.

If a doctor fails to respond to an evident emergency which they could have otherwise helped because of training and expertise...isn't he or she going against their Hippocratic Oath? One would think professional and volunteer firefighters would have the same ethical insistence they help, if they have their equipment at the ready.

This rings of the old system, where many independent fire companies would race to fires and extort money from the landowner before taking out ONE bucket.

**Meddle** · October-05-10, 04:35 AM

In the recent past, the South Fulton fire chief's routine was to save the home and to charge the person the next day. Even if the department would give a tab for their full service, the hundreds or thousands that they might pay would be better than losing their houses and property.

And that's the way it should be done. You respond, do your job and bill later. Whether it's the $75 or $10,000 doesn't matter.

**Hermod** · October-05-10, 04:51 AM

Here is how it sounds to me.

1. The city of South Fulton has established a municipal government which provides taxpayer based services to its residents.

2. The surrounding county is quite rural and has not established a fire department.

3. In such cases, there is often a volunteer fire and EMS service recognized by the county which is supported totally by volunteer services [[we are having a car wash to buy a new fie truck) or supported by a mix of county taxes and volunteer services [[county buys the equipment and pays for the fire chief and rest of labor is volunteer).

4. In this case, the county government has chosen to arrange fire services from South Fulton. This can be done in one of two ways: county pays SF using tax money or county arranges to allow home owners to purchase these services.

5. Rather than billing [[and trying to collect after a fire), SF has decided to "tax" county homeowners for the services.

We need to look at this case as county residents saying, "We don't want to be taxed enough to provide our own fire department or to buy fire services from SF. Everybody in the county is on their own and may purchase services from SF if they so wish."

I would say that in this case, the "evil" is with the county [[and its residents) and not the city of South Fulton.

**Lowell** · October-05-10, 07:11 AM

IMO the villain is the state which should have mandated the coverage and the property taxation to pay for it. The state has ultimate power and responsibility over municipal incorporations and unincorporated regions.

The ability to wall off problems by drawing political and commercial lines creates a large number of problems and is at the base of our urban crises. It is the main reason for Detroit's and other older citiy's and village's malaise. They are stuck caring for their regions poor, disabled, felons, homeless and other people with problems who are unable to pay taxes and then being penalized with higher insurance rates and inferior services as a result.

The result is de facto vigilantism. Gated communities, private security forces and service providers create inward-focused islands that further destroy communal responsibility and concern.

**econ expat** · October-05-10, 07:46 AM

South Fulton is on the border of TN/KY. Loses out in the very different taxation methods of the 2 states.

Tennessee has no income tax. Property taxes are low. Cities, counties, and schools depend on a very high [[usually 9% or so) sales tax on all goods /services.

KY has an income tax, and about 7% sales tax. Property taxes are also moderate.
South Fulton is in TN.On border with KY. Fulton is in KY. Neither town is large or prosperous.

South Fulton lost a 'big fish' a few years ago, and officials there are somewhat bitter. Wal-Mart wanted to build a new super center in the area. Wal Mart chose land by the freeway [[future I-69 between Port Huron-Mexico), which happened to be in Fulton, in KY.

Unexpected bonus for Wal Mart- The sales taxes are lower in KY than TN. Biggest bonus- Groceries are non taxable in KY, they are taxed in TN. Alot of the shoppers at that Wal Mart are from TN. S Fulton loses what would have been their share of a grocery sales tax, maybe about 1%.
But Wal Mart had a hard time recruiting. Most of the near by population lives in TN. TN has no income tax....

**Hermod** · October-05-10, 07:51 AM

Would the Detroit City Fire Department have an obligation to put out fires in Dearborn if the citizens of Dearborn opted not to fund a fire department through taxes?

**gazhekwe** · October-05-10, 08:19 AM

What about the desolate neighborhoods in town here where there are maybe two-three occupied houses on the block? This is what denial of city services looks like, folks. Are there enough taxpayers on your block to support the fire fighters and equipment to come there?

**SWMAP** · October-05-10, 08:33 AM

The history of fire-fighting is a history of subscription-based coverage. Not every area where buildings exist is so dense that tax revenue can be raised to support on-call fire-fighters with expensive equipment. I submit here a paragraph from a history of fire-fighting in a small town in Georgia:

It was through the purchase of fire contracts that the Volunteer Fire Department was able to bring to the surrounding communities the Fort Oglethorpe Fire protection. These contracts ranged in price from $10.00 per year on up, according to the kind of property which was covered. All Churches and Schools were covered free of charge. The fire contracts, along with other projects that the fire department sponsors were the means through which they were able to raise the necessary funds to buy fire equipment. The fire department did not answer a fire call outside the City, unless the party had a fire contract or there was a human life in danger.

Densly-populated cities and towns are another thing altogether. Not only is there enough tax money to support an engine, hoses, etc - there is a community danger from building fires that the community recognizes.

The incident that prompted this discussion was clearly rural.

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-05-10, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

The history of fire-fighting is a history of subscription-based coverage. Not every area where buildings exist is so dense that tax revenue can be raised to support on-call fire-fighters with expensive equipment. I submit here a paragraph from a history of fire-fighting in a small town in Georgia:

It was through the purchase of fire contracts that the Volunteer Fire Department was able to bring to the surrounding communities the Fort Oglethorpe Fire protection. These contracts ranged in price from $10.00 per year on up, according to the kind of property which was covered. All Churches and Schools were covered free of charge. The fire contracts, along with other projects that the fire department sponsors were the means through which they were able to raise the necessary funds to buy fire equipment. The fire department did not answer a fire call outside the City, unless the party had a fire contract or there was a human life in danger.

Densly-populated cities and towns are another thing altogether. Not only is there enough tax money to support an engine, hoses, etc - there is a community danger from building fires that the community recognizes.

The incident that prompted this discussion was clearly rural.

Thanks SWMAP for a historical view of this issue. I believe that the SF fire dept. should have put the fire out and charged the family whatever costs they incurred. I don't understand this 'you can't pay the money after the fact' nonsense. Who cares? It's not like the cost went up. Insurance agencies are a different animal because they make money by people purchasing a policy. THEY HOPE TO NEVER HAVE TO PAY OUT. Why would they sell a policy in a situation where it is obvious they'll have to pay out? They're a 'for profit' organization. Fire departments exist for the public good, not for profit.

By sending a $500 [[I'm just throwing out a number, whatever the cost incurred was, whether it was $5 or $5,000) fine to the family they are paying for their stupidity. Hmmm, what would you rather pay, $500 or $75? In order for people to learn from making bad choices does not always require the worst case scenario, in this case losing your entire house. I think a $500 fine would have got the point across just fine, and would have demanded self accountability out of the family whose house burnt down.

**Goose** · October-05-10, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

What about the desolate neighborhoods in town here where there are maybe two-three occupied houses on the block? This is what denial of city services looks like, folks. Are there enough taxpayers on your block to support the fire fighters and equipment to come there?

you are arguing apples and oranges here, clouding the issue

the people in this story weren't DENIED city services.... they live in a place the didn't HAVE city services, and they DECLINED protecting themselves by purchasing supplemental fire protection.....

I'm not arguing that within any established city with police and fire protection that anyone that lives there should be afforded these services, regardless of the amount of taxes they pay........

what do you think about Detroit's $300 additional garbage fee? you can't opt out of it if you want to take care of your own garbage by perhaps hauling it out to a dump yourself.... stop paying it and eventually the city will own your house.....