SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. (AP) — A Tennessee woman says she doesn’t blame the firefighters who watched while her house burned to the ground after her family failed to pay a $75 annual protection fee.
Paulette Cranic said Wednesday the firefighters who came to the scene were just following orders. Cranic said her family had paid the fee in the past but simply forgot it recently.
She’s thankful no one was hurt in the fire last week that destroyed their doublewide trailer in rural northwest Tennessee.
Firefighters did not try to save the burning structure because Cranic‘s fee wasn’t paid. Firefighters went to the scene to keep flames from spreading to nearby property whose owners had paid the fee.
Cranic and her husband are now living in their camper and a 21-year-old grandson who lived with them is living with his mother.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (120)
Edwardosan
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 4:50amThese people dont pay state, county, or city taxes? The fire department works for free?
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 9:34amIt is a city fire department. Instead of explaining the situation to you, why don’t you read the whole story and your question will be answered.
Report Post »Wyle E Coyote
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 4:29amThis is the first time that I can justify using Dictator Osama’s “Failed policies” line. What failed here was the policy itself, more than anything. Not very well thought out. It’s not that hard to include a non-payment clause. Basically stating that if someone needs service that hasn’t paid, that they still come put it out, but will fine you a large fee afterwards. That makes more sense to me. Besides, it covers their butts from being sued for collateral damages that are incurred by not putting out the original fire.
What we have to decide upon here is, if in a crisis, are we checking each others’ credentials, or are we going to just get our butts out there and end it? I lean towards doing what’s morally right, and we’ll work out the details, including things like cost and responsibility, later.
Report Post »Diamond Girl
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 2:41amThis is and was completely outrageous…to stand and do nothing is the most despicable thing I have ever seen…period!
I cannot believe the responses I am seeing here.
Report Post »watchmanonthewall
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 6:07am@Diamondgirl, I know, I was equally horrified last night when I was reading, made me very sad and depressed to see the state our people have fallen to. Actually, its a little better today than last night. There were really some unreasonable things said last night, and more of it. Prayer is the only thing that can help this country’s heart, it’s plain and clear.
Report Post »free2bme1961
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 9:12amI agree. People make mistakes,and part of that process is forgiveness. If the house had been saved and the fee, then paid, this lady would be feeling sheepish, as well as learning a lesson. Either way, the embaressment is going to be felt on her behalf. This was cruel and reeks of a “so there” attitude.
Report Post »I have had employers that have made rules,that I don;t agree with. Sometimes they need to be set straight, Usually,there is strength in numbers,,,and had the firefighters stood together,and saved the home, I feel it would have revived America to realize that a kind gesture,will create more kind gestures.To blindly look away from someone else’s tragedy, is DISPICABLE”. It would not surprise me to hear if anyone involved,ends up with a similar situation biting them in the @__.
Rickfromillinois
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 9:32amThe firefighters should have put out the fire anyhow? If they had been injured doing so would the city‘s insurance paid for their medical when they are fighting fires for someone who they aren’t supposed to? NO. Would the home owners have paid for any possible destruction of fire department equipment? NO. The home owners wanted something for nothing.
Report Post »kontrarian
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 2:21amThis is a classy lady.
Report Post »Mark7
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:38amCan’t blame the firefighters, they have to follow the orders of the chief.
Can’t blame the chief, he has to follow the orders of the mayor.
Can’t blame the mayor, he has to follow the laws of the city.
Can’t blame the law, but you can change the law.
Cranick said himself in an interview with Keith O. that he personally knew of at least 2 other people who had NOT paid the annual $75 fee, yet service was provided to them by fire departments in the county. I believe he cited one of those people as a relative of his. Is it possible even probable that Cranick took the position that he too would forgo payment of this fee since he knew from past experience that he would be serviced anyway? Who knows, but it‘s one angle that’s not been mentioned.
Bottom line is, Mr. Cranick got what he paid for: He paid nothing, so he got nothing. His county government has chosen NOT to raise taxes for it’s citizens to allow for fire protection. The cities generously offered to provide this service IF the citizens agreed to pre-pay a nominal fee on an annual basis.
Cranick isn’t some penniless bum, the man has money for a cell phone. Now, wouldn’t you get rid of your cell phone to protect your home from fire? I know I would. I’ll bet folks who declined to pay the fee will be lining up down at the courthouse to pay their fee now!
Report Post »SaneRoger
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:11amWhat if I pay and my next door neighbor doesn’t and his fire jumps over to my house? I understand that smaller gov’t might be better in some cases but police, fire depts, public roads, are for everyone. Glenn Beck and his moron sidekick wouldn’t talk out their asses so much if their neighbors house was on fire and the fireman did nothing.
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 9:27amThe fire dept went out there because the next door neighbor who had paid the fee was afraid that the fire would jump to his house. They were there to protect the house of the man who had paid. That was made pretty plain. It would appear that someone else is the one talking through their ass.
Report Post »justin.blake
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 2:09pmThat attitude is why our country is so deeply in debt. Its all for ‘everyone’ is bull. Police and fire are paid for by the citizens through a contract with local government, who allows for taxes, fees etc. in return for their services. This is not a socialist nation. It is a constitution based federal republic. The constitution is simply a ‘contract’ between the governed and those they choose to represent them. Just like the contract between the city/county and the fire department. Stating that is not being heartless, it is rather seeing the agreed upon contract with many over the needs of one man who ‘opted-out’. What good is a contract that is unenforceable?
Report Post »Blaisethem
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:56amI agree BGLA
Report Post »I don’t know how they do personal property taxes in that city/state, but I think all they would need to do is add that $75.00 to their personal property tax if you live out of city limits. Very simple, and everyone is included. Or charged him a fine after the fact. I‘m sure there are other ways to make it fair for all and not let someone lose everything they own because they didn’t pay before hand. Very sad.
Mark7
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:41amYou are right, all they would need to do is add the amount of the fee to the property taxes(or whatever tax they want) and everyone would be covered. The problem is, the county government DECLINED to take that option and CHOSE to take the fee based solution. According to the Chief in the video the did that to avoid having to raise taxes and “look bad”.
Now they look even worse for taking the fee for service based approach.
Report Post »C.H.A.O.S.
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:47amOver the last several days, I’ve read an awful lot of armchair opinions on this issue. Most of which weren’t terribly useful or constructive. So, my suggestion is this: If you’ve really got a strong opinion on this issue, (beyond a flaming need to rap your angry thoughts into your keyboard, make judgements on incomplete facts, and shake your fist at the monitor), shove your backside out of the computer chair, and wander down to your local (V)FD and get yourself educated about your own local situation.. AFTER you’ve got some solid understanding to work with, drive your happy rump down to your indicated locally responsible governmental body meeting and GET INVOLVED! But keep your head and heart wired together with wisdom when you do. There will already be plenty of half baked noise circling the venue. You don’t need to add any more of that, and if you try, you’ll simply be dismissed as part of the problem. If that doesn’t work, make it a point to remember the whole ugly experience when the next local elections roll around.
In short, if you wait for somebody else to fix it for you … you will never understand nor be happy with the results.
To the former and current firefighters who have read and/or posted in these threads, a tip of the white hat to you. That experience doesn’t make you any more right or wrong about your opinions on this particular issue … but it sure as the devil means you‘ve stared down the dragon’s throat — and that does change one’s outlook on a lot of things. Mostly the dead sure knowledge that putting the wet stuff on the red stuff is a helluva lot safer than getting into politics! :-P
Report Post »bglaidlaw
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:25amIn the national parks int the rockies in Canada, if you report where you going while within the park, and then need rescue, there is no charge. If you fail to register and notify … and then need to be rescued … you are charged $5,000. They do not leave you to die in the park just because you failed to follow protocol.
In this case, they should have put out the fire, and then assessed a charge to the homeowner to cover the cost of the service. That way, the point is made, the fee gets paid next time, and the fire department gets their costs covered this time.
A win win me thinks.
Report Post »justin.blake
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:36pmAs I said earlier…he is going to have WHAT $$$ to pay the ‘fee’ you suggest? This is just a bunch of bloviating from folks who don’t get the facts before they spout off. The rural area had no fire protection before the city volunteered to make the run out to the rural area if the property owner paid a $75 fee. The trailer home was toast before they ever got there. The firefighters were keeping it from spreading to other properties. If they had spent the fuel/water on the doomed trailer, the cost would never have been recovered. The measly $75 the guy offered to pay couldn’t even pay the gas to get the fire truck out to his place. You willing to send a check to this fire dept. to cover those in the rural area that ‘forget’ to pay? Put your money where your mouth is peoples. If not, where do you think its gonna come from?
Report Post »*************************
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:21amIf a PUBLIC fire department is going to act like a PRIVATE fire fighter force, then they should be licensed (like plumbers), have yellow (or blue) “right-of-way” lights, and not have traffic powers (they must call police to do that). OTHERWISE, this is just a government-sponsored mafia-style shakedown. Someone (or lots of someones, for conspiracy) should go to jail.
“In 1733, Ben Franklin often wrote about the dangers of fire and the need for organized fire protection in his newspaper The Pennsylvania Gazette. Ben Franklin was familiar with Boston’s Mutual Fire Societies which were also known as “Fire Clubs.” But the “Fire Clubs” existed for the protection of its members, not for everyone in the community.” -Ben Franklin And The Fire Department ( Vermilion Parish School website)
Is Tennessee de-volving? Sure looks like it … and they didn’t even need the “progressives” to do it.
Report Post »w4jle
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:33amReading is fundamental: The fire department is a city department funded by city taxes. The city agreed to fight fires in the county (where they received no funds) for $75.00 a year. The homeowners opted out by not purchasing the offered services. Too bad so sad…
Report Post »The current situation has been in effect for 20 years. The home owner bet between $75.00 to $1500 against their house they wouldn’t need the services. The “We forgot” would really go well with the reader if they had just smashed into your new car and they “forgot” to buy liability insurance.
watchmanonthewall
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 5:43am@*************************, so true. I would have thought better of Tennessee, they’re my neighbours. I honestly thought southerners were more honorable than this. It’s scary.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:12amI applaud the homeowner’s honesty and integrity. They avoid the “poor me, I’m a victim” labels some of the press wants to tag them with.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:51pmRegardless of who is right on this event, it is an embarrassment all around. My own belief is this: since the fire department made the ride out there, presumably, they should have put the fire out. Had they not left the firehouse because of non-payment of an agreed upon up front fee, well, that would be different. An emergency is an emergency. And if anyone shows up at one and can help, they should do so!
Report Post »Mark7
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:53amThe fire department responded to a call from the neighbor. The neighbor feared the fire would spread to his house and he HAD paid the fee for service. By the time the fire department arrived the property next door was a total loss. They were on scene to protect the property of the fee paying neighbor.
Report Post »kindling
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:45pmIt was a moble home and they burn so fast there was probably little chance of saving it unless you live next door to the station and that is if they were already in the truck and ready to go.
Report Post »FlameCCT
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 2:54pmNot to mention that the owner started the fire himself so was in a position to prevent or minimize the problem himself.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:37pmProspero I’m calling you and only you on this perhaps you’d be more comfortable over at HuffPo, where everyone is just as brilliant as you are? You have no substance. No credibility. No Reliability
Report Post »applehill
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:12pmHate reading or hearing others say they don’t blame the firemen. Whatever! That’s like watching a liberal get rapped and making some statement about them not liking guns. Standing by and watch something like this happen is a total fascist government if I’d ever seen one. If they didn’t pay the fee, then charge them double or three times as much as the original fee was. But put the damn fire out! Would this not be the same as not saving someones life because they don’t have health insurance. Sorry Glenn, but I’m calling you and everyone else that agrees with you on this one wrong.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:23pmApplehill blathers: “Standing by and watch something like this happen is a total fascist government if I’d ever seen one.”
Clearly, you are without clue as regards what Fascism is. There was a deal for residents of the unincorporated county….who had never, ever, ever before ever had firefighters and still didn’t….by the city. The city said if you want to pay us $75 a year, we will send firefighters if you need.
That constitutes a voluntary contract between two willing parties, and a damn good deal. They declined, their house burned. Had the city never decided to try to be helpful, their house would have burned. Had no city ever been built, their house would have burned. When you live in rural America, you put in a pond, and get a pump, so your house doesn’t burn….
Applehill blathers: “If they didn’t pay the fee, then charge them double or three times as much as the original fee was.”
Obviously you are as ignorant of economic fundamentals as you are of Fascism.
Applehill blathers: “Would this not be the same as not saving someones life because they don’t have health insurance.”
You are apparently also incapable of distinguishing between property and human life…..
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:27pm“Sorry Glenn, but I’m calling you and everyone else that agrees with you on this one wrong.”
Perhaps you’d be more comfortable over at HuffPo, where everyone is just as brilliant as you are?
Here’s the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:42pmProspero a rotten carcass of a butt
UnionsRgreat
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:18amThose people arn’t firefighters…. firefighters fight fires…. they don’t watch them. America needs to get rid of all these people that join volunteer fire/police stations for the lil taste of power over their fellow man, any real man with the equipment on scene to put that fire out would of done so.
BUT now if the woman chooses to sell the land to a bank cause she has nothing to live for there anymore….. i can see why orders were followed. PROFITS ARE PROFITS someones gonna make money from these people suffering
Report Post »watchmanonthewall
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 5:39am@Applehill, exactly right, and also right @Unionsrgreat. My sentiments exactly. This was a loose, loose situation. And Prospero, like someone said last night, I would hope, although I wonder now, that it would have been okay to pay afterward. Just because someone else doesn’t do right, does not make me want to not do what I know is right. Like my mother used to say, if your friend jumped off a bridge, would you jump off too? I would do what I know I should, even if the neighbour did pay after the fact, espically after seeing how a fire can happen anytime, I would still want to protect myself wether neighbour did or not, but would not refuse him help because he forgot or whatever.
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 9:13amWhat a load of crap. If this was the result of a fascist government then the guy would have paid because the government would have forced him to. This was a city fire department, paid for with taxes paid for by the residents of that city, and the city offered fire protection service to rural residents for a up front fee. The owner of the house declined to pay because he thought that the fire dept would save his house anyway. It was his decision and his responsibility. He thought that he would save some money and made a bad decision. The $75 fee is closer to a insurance policy then a actual fee. The cost of putting out a house fire is much greater then $75 but chances are you will never have a fire. Had there been the chance of a loss of life the fire fighters would have become involved, since there wasn’t, the owners bad and I might add stupid decision came back to bite him on the butt. Had they gone ahead and put the fire out and then tried to charge the man for the cost of doing so he could have refused to pay since any agreement that he made with the fire dept would be under duress since his trailer was on fire so would be invalid. Once again, it was the owner’s responsibility, his choice, and his fault. No ones else.
Report Post »shasta
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:05pmI agree with the fee situation for fighting the fire. I do agree with the Fire Chiefs commands……Who I feel for is a family that lost so much…and I feel so much worse for, is some awesome firefighters who would have risked thier lives to protect this property and were told….watch it burn lads, they didn’t pay. Talk about a hard decision….but you don’t buy car insurance after a crash either. But with that in mind…..say you didn’t have health insurance…..after a horrific car crash you, your wife and lets say…2 of your kids were air lifted to the hospital and all was saved but the car. The hospital/doctors/nurses etc…wouldn’t have asked for a “pre-payment” But they would have sent a high priced bill. I believe the Fire department should have put out the fire and charged the owners an itemized bill the same way an emergency hospital would.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:15pmStraw man argument. No lives were in danger. If lives were in danger the fire department would have been compelled to act, naturally. We’re talking about property here, not human life. Let’s try not to conflate the two, it muddies what should be very clear.
Report Post »oljw00
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:57amPlease.. When attempting to leverage logic to make a point you have to compare “apples-to-apples”. And unless there was anyone in the residence at issue you argument falls flat.
Sorry….try again..
Report Post »justin.blake
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:21pmAnd living in a trailer home they would have paid for the bill how? As an earlier poster said, once a double wide is on fire, its a total loss. No reason to risk anything to put it out anyway. As far as payment, no ones life was in danger, they all got out. It was just stuff. So consider the $75 like homeowners insurance…don’t pay it, cant file a claim for loss.
Report Post »snowleopard3200
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:01pmDo not hold the fire fighters to fault for the actions of their superiors. If the city policy is set that the people in the country outside of the city limits decide not to be covered by the city firefighters, then that is not the city fault. In this case, the responsibility must be accounted to the county, along with the individual owners of the homes and structures.
I have lived in a Florida county where my home at the time was just literally two doors away from the city limits. Due to this, we were under the Counties fire system NOT that of the city.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:58pmHere’s how I look at it: The payment wasn’t “insurance”. It wasn’t preemptive. It didn’t “prevent” fire, so what’s the difference in putting it out and having them pay afterward?
You can’t pay insurance after the fact, but a fee for a service? Why not? McDonald’s makes you pay before you eat, but not that nice restaurant down the road…
I know they should have paid, but an exception could have been made here. It wasn’t preventative, and there is no premium. If they didn’t pay, the fired dept. could have just sued them or their insurance company.
So after some more thought, I take back what I said initially. They should have put it out.
Report Post »kschmud
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:11pmIn order to plan a budget and resources…you have to have the funds up front. The money needs to be there whether there are fires or not. Before the policy went into effect, the rural community did not have fire service provided by the city and the house would have burned anyway. Now that this policy exists, those who never had “fire insurance” have the chance to buy it. It is unfortunate they forgot to pay.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:11pm“so what’s the difference in putting it out and having them pay afterward?”
I gather your education in the area of economics and such has left you ignorant of the principle of “free riders”, and the predictable outcomes of being lenient with them?
In a nutshell. If the fire had been put out, despite the fact that they didn’t pay, nobody would ever pay again…secure in the knowledge that it wouldn’t matter…they’d still put out the fire.
It is unlikely that the fire department equipment and personnel could be funded on those terms, thus they would fade into disrepair and be disbanded. This is very, very basic stuff. If you don’t already know it, you need to sue your school district.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:53pmProspero claims to be a free loader, yet we all pay for his free loading. The Socialist Liberal Progressive Democrats want to use and abuse him, we on the other hand want nothing to do with this rotten carcass of a butt.
Mark7
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:44amCranick stated in an Olbermann interview that he personally knew of two other people who hadn’t paid, but got service anyway. He thought since they didn’t pay and got service that he should have gotten service as well…even though HE hadn’t paid.
This is the essence of why you can’t have a viable system where people pay after the fact. Nobody would pre-pay if they could just say “Oh, I forgot, now you go put out my house for me anyway”.
Report Post »kschmud
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:56pmI do not think the policy needs to be changed at all.
Report Post »Marchus
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:55pmMrs. Cranic: You sound like someone who counts her blessings . . . in this case, that no one was hurt. In this era of lawsuits, you’re a breath of fresh air. You should be very proud of yourself. I am. May many more blessings come your way.
Report Post »SilentReader
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:51pmNevertheless, the policy needs to be revised to prevent this from happening again.
If I was a neighbor I’d be checking everyone around me to see if they had paid their $75 from now on, because I‘d be angry if I had to watch a neighbors house burn down because they didn’t pay it. Then if I found someone unable to pay it, I’d offer to pay it myself.
And, I’d be going into town to remedy the situation by having them set up a voluntary fund to finance the fire department when others were unable to do so.
What was done could have been prevented by a little bit of foresight on the part of the government and it is just the result of the bigger travesty of the lack of vision on the part of those elected officials of that town.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:08pmAs I understand it, the house was in another town. The fire department provides fire service to the adjoining town for the $75 fee per residence. I think that’s pretty reasonable. People who don’t pay the fee and expect to get fire service nonetheless are essentially asking taxpayers in the neighboring town to cover their fire service. That doesn’t seem right to me.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:08pm“Nevertheless, the policy needs to be revised to prevent this from happening again.”
I should think that’s up to the unincorporated residents of that county, wouldn’t you? They’ve been living a long, long time in the absence of firefighters. I reckon because that’s the way they want it….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:13pmFreedom writes: “As I understand it, the house was in another town.”
In the unincorporated part of the county, actually. No town at all. Rural.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:28pm@Prospero Thank you for correcting me. I live in a communist city where the government uses every opportunity to pay us a visit so the concept of the “unincorporated portion of the county” is foreign to me. But it sounds pretty good. They probably respect the 2nd amendment there I’d guess.
Report Post »henryclay
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:35pmYes in “rural” areas as such I live in here in the greatest state of Oklahoma, rural firestations are funded on a volunteer service. $75 a year and if you don‘t sign up and your house burns they don’t show. If they do show it is like $500-$700 per truck.
I live so far out if it weren’t for this my house would burn down anyway..
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:39pmProspero hopes and never prospers.
SaraGolden
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:50pmAs much as I think the fire fighters should have first and foremost done their job then charged the Craniks a heap of money, I wouldn’t blame the fire fighters either. They might not have “done their job” but they followed the proceedure of their department.
Report Post »DMD
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:53pmThe firefighters did their job. They followed orders.
Report Post »SaraGolden
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:57pmTouche…
Report Post »Conservative Democrat
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:21amUnless they arrived within 2 to 5 minutes of the start then a “Mobile Home” is considered a total loss even if what remains is not burned up. They are one of the fasts burning home fires, even faster than a Garage!
Report Post »Zoe
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 8:03amYes they followed orders, & yes they did their Job – but this is wrong….
The government has no problem taking things form people for other violations……..and in some cases no violations…………
Impound their car for forgetting to register it………… put a lean on their house….. But let it burn to the ground?
I’m missing something here………
Entitlement mentality is one thing, it infuriates me….
If I say I am surprised …It would reflect poor on my understanding the true state of affairs in this country.
Report Post »Bahemut80
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 11:53ami cant wait till hospitals stop treating people with no insurance or bad credit…that will RULE THE DAY. “um sir your having a heart attack, we need your ss# to run your credit report and see if you qualify to fit the bill….15 mins later…. nope sorry sir we cant do anything for you” (sits in his turny stool, and waits till flat line) K take out his useful organs we will make about 20k on this guy.
Report Post »klevalt
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:46pmIn Washington state, we have a property tax that is levied, based upon our property value. That tax is usually paid into escro if payments are made to a mortgage company, or paid directly to the county in which we reside, if we own our home outright. That property tax is (in rural areas) the county’s money that is then dispersed to the fire department, police department, road maintenance department, etc So, that is how our fire department gets paid… Now, if those entities that provide those services to me didn’t get paid that way, and billed us separately for our portion, it would still be a “tax” and would still (in my mind) have to be paid… Just because you are given an option to pay a bill and you don’t pay it does not entitle you to the service that the bill covers… This is no different than your power bill. You don’t pay, they dhut off your power.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:45pmI forgot to pay my taxes and the state sent me a warrant. That wasn’t right. They should have come to my house and asked me if I’d like to pay instead.
Report Post »Conservative Democrat
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:18amIf you forgot, thats alright…..I guess, BUT it is still YOUR responsibility to file and pay. Forgot is not a reason it is an excuse.
Is it the Goverments job to come to your home and tell you? Is it the Goverments job to keep reminding you of things you “forgot’.
IT IS CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Sorry for the tone, but people need to quit blaming others for their lack of responsibility.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 12:49am@Conservative Democrat It seems that you have missed the irony in my post. :)
Report Post »timeisnow
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 10:04amThe local governments are ruthless and have no mercy, they are in cahoots with sheriff’s office, they will sell your home right out from under you, they auction it off, for back taxes it’s a racket. My neighbor across the street just lost their home for unpaid taxes…
Report Post »danlb0y
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 10:55amThe sad part of this is one human making an effort to respond and intentionally refusing aid to a fellow human and family over 75 dollars. This is malicious and criminal. Obama care will make this one incident look small in comparison. If a fire fighter is willing to do this in a “Volunteer” fire department. Think of how you will be treated in an Emergency Room if you don’t have the Obamacare taxstamp on your fore head.
Report Post »No matter how you try and spin this,…..on a human level this is indefensible! What about fining them after the volunteers put out the fire? how bout $500.00? I wonder if those “volunteer” fire fighters would let an ER doctors house burn over a fee? Hmmmmm….. what if an ER doctor used the same sick mentality when an uninsured injured fire fighter needs medical help?
ALL of those fire fighters need some jail time for that act.
FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:43pmPay the fee. If the firefighters had put the fire out, no one would pay the fee. Speaking of burning stuff…
Report Post »Most of us here know about Obama‘s recent book burning but for those who don’t, please see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT0qgjxJyRA
Nothing good happens when the government starts burning books and this administration has done it on a massive scale.
Areyoukiddingme
Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:44pmI agree need to pay. they have had the option for a rural fire department taken out of taxes and declined it.If you listen to this… At least 40% of the 5 districts need to pay the fees or there wont be any option at all for fire fighters to come out.
Report Post »IslandMama
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 7:24pmI don’t think there is any question that the fire department needs everyone in that area to pay their $75. But there are a couple of other issues here. First and foremost is common decency. You just don‘t let someone’s house burn down and stand there watching. ESPECIALLY not if you are part of the fire department. I realize the fire fighters and maybe even the chief were “jsut following orders,” but exactly when do people do what‘s right instead of what they’re told? Do you think Jesus would have stood there and let the people‘s home burn because they didn’t pay their $75? If He wouldn’t do it, then no one else should either. Now here’s a second point: Why DON’T those people have a fire department – if the county allows people to build a home in a rural environment and if those people are taxed at the same rate as the people who live in the city limits, then I would say they deserve the same services as the people in the city limits get for those tax dollars. If they cannot have those services, allow them to have a lower tax base and then ask them to pay a fee to start a rural fire dept. And even for those of you who think that they should have paid the $75, don’t you think a more reasonable response would have been to put out the fire and send them a fine or something? I mean, it’s their HOME. And now it’s gone. C’mon folks – let‘s get back on the road to what’s right and what’s decent.
Report Post »Nostraquedeo
Posted on October 7, 2010 at 10:13pmWhere is the fee for Police?
Report Post »Where is the fee for park water fountains?
This is a service provided by governments, it is not something you can attach a fee to.
What next? I‘m sorry your having a heart attack but you didn’t pay your fee. No ambulance for you.
What is a community for?
Is it only what I can buy into, or is there a human side at all?