Gene Cranick lives in rural Tennessee–Obion County. The people who live there have voted against an increase in taxes that would give them a fire department. Instead, they each pay a yearly fee of $75 to a nearby city in order to have access to the services of their fire department. Cranick declined to pay the fee; previously, a fire at his house was extinguished by the fire department depite his not paying. However, this time, they let the house burn.
The fire fighters did respond to keep an eye on the house of a neighbor, who had paid the fee, when it seemed that the flames might threaten it, and took action at that point. There are no fire hydrants; the trucks must bring their own water to any fire, making it a limited resource (i.e., using it on the property of someone who hasn’t paid the fee means it will not be available to use for someone who has). None of Cranick’s family was in danger; they all made it out safely.
There are mechanism in place to remind people who have not paid their annual fee (IIRC, calls and letters). Initially, Cranick made the statement, “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong.” He now claims that he simply forgot to pay the fee.
In this Pit thread, we have people making conflicting claims about how people at various parts of the political spectrum are reacting to this incident. I figured I’d see where people actually fall, mainly out of curiosity.
Please answer based on how you personally identify on the political spectrum. If you find that your beliefs vary toward both ends, you may wish to consider selecting “conservative” if you mainly vote for Republican candidates and “liberal” if you mainly vote for Democratic candidates (assuming you’re an American, of course).
I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal and haven’t ever voted–i selected “conservative” for this poll.
I selected the first option, but I wanna quibble with the wording. All I think is that what the firefighters did (and the overall result in general) was not “morally wrong” or otherwise bad in some cosmic sense. They could have put the fire out or not; they chose not, and I think that’s OK.
Conservative; I think the firefighters made the best choice they could.
I’m a Libertarian who ends up voting Republican most of the time.
Ideally we’d never let anyone’s house burn but fire departments are a service like anything else and they must be funded.
As rural homeowners we have the option of paying $100 per year and be opted into the local volunteer fire department’s district. We’re far enough away and difficult to find so we opt out.
It’s a calculated risk and I don’t expect the fire department to come save my house despite our non-payment.
Chopper, just curious–do you have a loan on the house or homeowner’s insurance (without a fire exclusion)? I would think either of those would require you to pay the $100 (and would probably have some procedure to make sure it got paid, as with property taxes). Just to be clear, I’m just curious how this works, I’m not trying to imply anything negative.
The last paragraph is in no way intended to be a strict guideline–it’s intended to help people who’d say something like, “Well, I’m a libertarian who’s ‘conservative’ on economic issues but ‘liberal’ on social ones: which should I pick?”
How would you describe yourself?
Interesting. I’m not sure I knew that.
In which case, I’d say you *do *think they make the best choice they could, simply by making a choice. It doesn’t make you identical to everyone else who selected the same option for any point on the political spectrum, but it’s not meant to.
House is paid off - yay! We have homeowner’s insurance and it covers fire…AFIK. shifty eyes I don’t think there’s a caveat about opting into the fire district but that would make sense.
Wow, I should really check that policy, huh? :eek: And there I was busting Cranick’s chops about personal responsibility, balls!
I lean liberal and I thought the firefighters did the absolute best they could. They were between a rock and a hard place! And I hope people read the thread before they respond.
County votes not to have any fire protection through taxes because OMG TAXES.
County agrees to have people pay the FD $75 for fire protection.
Mr. Crannick does not pay. His house lights up.
FD comes, puts it out.
Time passes. Mr. Crannick does not pay. His house lights up.
FD comes. Makes sure no lives are in danger. Does not put house out.
CONTROVERSY.
It is clear to me that Crannick thought he could continue living off his neighbor’s dime. This is what this comes down to. Crannick thought his neighbors would pay the fee and thus he was exempt. That he was speshul.
This is such a weird situation. I totally get the firefighters’ actions and decision, I totally understand the community agreement to have the option of not paying (rather than making it a tax), and I totally understand the various [dis-]incentives, motivations, choices made, etc. Objectively speaking, things went exactly as they should have.
Yet, I still answered “should’ve saved the house anyway”. Subjectively, if I was one of the firefighters, I couldn’t just stand there and watch the house burn. The very idea would be anathema, and I’d find inaction impossible.
1.) *You *would have saved the house anyway, or you think *the firefighters *should have?
2.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick’s fire, even though he didn’t pay. The fire rages out of control and jumps to the house of his neighbor, who has been paying his fees. You are now out of water. Either both houses burn, or Cranick’s is saved while the house of the person who paid burns. Do you still think you made the right choice?
3.) Imagine you are one of the firefighters. You decide to put out Cranick’s fire. He is further supported in his belief that he will receive services he doesn’t pay for. His neighbors have further evidence that they don’t need to pay, either. You lose more and more fees. The department decides it can no longer afford to provide services to Obion County. Any fire that starts there from that point forward will have no attention at all. Do you still think you made the right choice?
As I understand it, Cranick offered to pay the firefighters to put out the fire.
The best option was for the firefighters to take him up on this offer. Why not? They were there, and he was apparently willing to pay their actual costs. If this is so, what principle was involved in their refusing to do so under these circumstances?
Because that’s how insurance works, you know. If I buy auto insurance and get in a fenderbender, I’ll only pay the deductible rather than the full cost, because I’m insured. But if I’m not insured, I can still pay the full cost of having my car repaired; I don’t lose the car simply because I’m uninsured.
So if it cost the fire department $2000 to put out the fire, they should have done so, and billed him for $2000. Having to pay $2000 rather than $75 was the appropriate penalty for his failure to buy insurance. Having his house burn down while the firefighters twiddled their thumbs wasn’t.
I don’t think the firefighters did the wrong thing. They and the homeowner were all aware of the rules, everyone had a chance to follow the rules.
I do think this is a ridiculously stupid way to run the fire department and this case is a really good illustration of why. The lesson that should be learned here is not that the firefighters should have put out the fire, no matter what, but that this is what happens when you have individual households pay for fire protection instead of contributing to it through property taxes or other means.
This was exactly my thinking, and my answer. While I understand the economics of the situation, I know several firefighters, and I doubt any of them could stand by and see the house burn.
I’m not too familiar with the background, but could the fire district not sue him for services rendered? The cost of a fire response has to run in the thousands of dollars - wouldn’t this have set the homeowner straight the first time around?
Don’t people who are dedicated firefighters, who believe they are doing good work, diminish themselves when they sit by and watch a fire burn down a house when they could have stopped it?
I too am a libertarian, I marked ‘conservative’ for purposes of this poll. I think the firefighters did the right thing.
Cranick understood the situation. He took a risk and it did not pay off. If only more mooches would have to suffer the consequences of their attempts to sponge off their neighbors, we’d be a great deal better off.
Sounds like an argument for containing the spread of the fire and only then putting out the fire in the burning house, regardless of whether everyone’s paid or not.
Seriously, what would they do if Cranick had paid up and they exhausted their water trying to put out his fire, but it still managed to jump to the neighbor’s house and they had no water left to put it out? If this is a plausible scenario, then they didn’t have the ability to provide the service they were charging for.
No, because if people see that they don’t need to pay the fee up front, then eventually the firefighters will be unfunded.
That wasn’t an option. The firefighters are neither set up to accept promises to pay, nor set up to bill welshers. As an imaginary option it might fly, but there was simply no way to make this work.
And he can still pay the full cost of rebuilding his home.
Suppose you were to injure someone resulting in astronomical medical bills that you were unable to pay. Should you have the right to demand that an insurance company retroactively insure you?
What if he doesn’t pay?
And they weren’t twiddling their thumbs. They were protecting the property of subscribers who weren’t freeloading off of their neighbors.
“Pay” the firefighters? The guy standing there at the firetruck is not likely to be someone who is authorized to take money for the department. Government agencies, as well as pretty much every company ever, have to be very careful about how they get their money, who they get it from, et cetera. Does Joe the Firefighter know how much it’s going to cost to get this place put out? Sure, they could invoice him when they have an answer, but does anyone really believe that Cranick would pay up while his house isn’t actually on fire? He sort of has a history of not doing so.
The firefighters were right. Now I myself personally would have tried to do the best I could with Cranick’s garden hose if I could get close enough to the blaze without catching myself on fire, but while I understand the other point of view I would rather the fire department served the people who paid instead of losing so much money they had to stop supporting the rural homesteads.
And if it had been the first time for Cranick or he’d just moved in or something, then I might have some quibbles and caveats, but HE DID THIS BEFORE. He got his chance. He blew it. He had every opportunity to do something about it and he never did. You fails to pay your money, you takes your chances. I have sympathy. I’d take up a donation to send his family clothes, food, whatever supplies they needed, even help them demolish the remains of their house and help them work on a new one. That would all be way more than $75 worth of my time. But he doesn’t get to not pay and get the benefits anyway.