Burning down the house
Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects think this is just fine and are defending the policy on the grounds that it weeds out freeloaders, or something like that. This what their conservative/glibertarian free market utopia looks like in real life.
These are mostly poor farmers that are being left unprotected. We don't know what the story is about this poor guy who lost his house, but chances seem good that he probably just couldn't afford to pay the extra fee and was hoping for the best. The thing is the county did have other options.
A quick google search turned up a report from 2008 [pdf] detailing the problem, predicting just such a scenario, and offering some viable solutions that would have benefited the county's fire departments more so than the current policy.
The county collects property taxes. Couldn't find a budget detailing their expenditures but apparently the county did establish a fire district plan on paper in 1987 and never took action on it. The report also notes that the uncovered rural areas had been receiving free coverage for decades and the average cost of fighting a fire was about $500.
And one other interesting aside, although I saw in a newspaper comment section, and wasn't able to verify it as fact, this commenter said the county commissioners get $200 compensation for every meeting they attend. No matter what the length of the meeting, which sometimes only runs 20 minutes. And there are 21 county commissioners. So it costs the county significantly more for them to convene and effectively do nothing about a serious public safety problem than it would have to help this poor resident save his home.
Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won’t respond, then watches it burn. ...No exceptions. This county government, which is the only local representation rural residents get in much of the South, apparently makes no provisions for overall fire protection in its rural districts that don't have a fire department of their own. Pay the extra fee or your house burns down and no one will help, not even if they're available, or even on the scene.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck. [...]
These are mostly poor farmers that are being left unprotected. We don't know what the story is about this poor guy who lost his house, but chances seem good that he probably just couldn't afford to pay the extra fee and was hoping for the best. The thing is the county did have other options.
A quick google search turned up a report from 2008 [pdf] detailing the problem, predicting just such a scenario, and offering some viable solutions that would have benefited the county's fire departments more so than the current policy.
The county collects property taxes. Couldn't find a budget detailing their expenditures but apparently the county did establish a fire district plan on paper in 1987 and never took action on it. The report also notes that the uncovered rural areas had been receiving free coverage for decades and the average cost of fighting a fire was about $500.
And one other interesting aside, although I saw in a newspaper comment section, and wasn't able to verify it as fact, this commenter said the county commissioners get $200 compensation for every meeting they attend. No matter what the length of the meeting, which sometimes only runs 20 minutes. And there are 21 county commissioners. So it costs the county significantly more for them to convene and effectively do nothing about a serious public safety problem than it would have to help this poor resident save his home.
Labels: conservatism, Republicans, society
posted by Libby Spencer at 11:03 AM
12 Comments:
A few problems with your reporting. First, Obion County doesn't have a fire department. The voters defeated an attempt to create one. They didn't want to pay the taxes for it. Second, the town of South Fulton has a fire department, paid for by property taxes paid for by the citizens of South Fulton. The Cranicks live in unincorporated Obion County and, as such, do not pay taxes to South Fulton, with support the fire department. Third, as a service to residents of unincorporated Obion County, South Fulton offers fire protection services to rural residents within a five mile radius of the town limits, for the nominal fee of $75 a year. The Cranicks chose not to pay the fee in order to get protection. Fourth, South Fulton sends out notices each year to all County residents, offering the protection for a calendar year that runs from July 1 to June 30. If, as of July 1, a resident has not yet subscribed to this protection, a follow up call is made. In other words, the Cranicks chose deliberately not to pay for fire protection, even though they were offered the opportunity to on more than one occassion. Fifth, even though the Cranicks supposedly offered to pay whatever it took in order to get the fire department to come and put out the fire, there is currently no legal means in place to force them to actually pay.
The Cranicks were stupid. They gambled and lost. While I feel sorry for them that their house burned down, I don't fault the fire department in any way. When called by a neighbor, who did subscribe to the fire protection service, the fire department showed up and made sure that the fire didn't burn down the covered property. You can't protect everyone from every foolish decision they make. While it would make sense for the County to provide this service and charge the appropriate taxes to pay for it accordingly, the voters of the County defeated it at the polls. Mr. Cranick was probably one of the voters that voted against an increase in his taxes in exchange for guaranteed fire protection.
Anon where's your link to this information? If you read the report you would see that the county had many options in terms of offering fire protection and chose an option that foreclosed federal grants which would have enabled all the fire departments in the county to upgrade their equipment and protect all the residents, including the rural areas without their own fire department, at a lesser cost.
And you ignore the commissioners costing the taxpayers $4200 per meeting and taking no action since 1987 to deal with the fire district that was created on paper but is not functioning.
Nothing in my post is blaming the firefighters. They don't make policy. It's the commissioners who are bleeding the county coffers and failing to their job. I thought you cons were all about shutting down excessive govt spending. Why aren't you blaming the commissioners instead of some poor schmuck who probably didn't have the $75 at the time it needed to be paid?
http://www.qando.net/?p=9546 An effective refutation of your post at the above link.
Money quote: "Now you have a choice here, don’t you? Sign up and be protected or blow it off and take your chances. And while I’m not here to defend a government run fire department in Tennessee, it’s the same choice the man there had. He chose to blow it off and paid the consequences for his decision, didn’t he? But we know invoking personal responsibility is simply passé, especially if the person involved in the rant thinks they can pin something on the right?"
This seems to fit your critique to a T. However, I don't suppose personal responsibility is part of what might charitably be called your worldview.
"These are mostly poor farmers that are being left unprotected"
To use your words, "where's your link to this information?"
This is the 21st century. Living in the rural south is no longer synonymous with 'poor farmer'.
"and taking no action since 1987 to deal with the fire district"
The voters in the county, which presumably includes mr. Cranick, have had over twenty years to take their own action with respect to the inaction of their elected officials in this matter. It seems pretty obvious they didn't want a county fire department.
I think Mr. Cranick's own words, on the video, pretty much sum up the situation. He said he thought the fire department would come out and put out the fire even without the $75 fee. He was, as he said, wrong. He forgot that you get what you pay for.
"Why aren't you blaming the commissioners "
Because they were doing what they were told to do by the voters of the county, just as the government of South Fulton was doing the bidders of their voters when they taxed the citizens of South Fulton to establish a fire department.
Pangur, providing fire protection is not a matter of personal responsibility, it's a matter of public safety and allowing a house fire to burn out of control is a threat to more than just the one homeowner. I also heard there were pets in the house that died. What if there were children?
timactual, the link I provided to the 2008 report clearly states that most of the rural residents in that county are poor farmers and addresses the fact that some people can't afford to pay the fee. It also clearly states that the fire district only exists on paper since 1987 and the commissioners failed to take necessary action. The report also states, as I said in the post, that traditionally the fire depts did show up for free, FOR DECADES, so the homeowners expectation is not unreasonable.
And again, you're both ignoring the fact it costs $4200 every time the commissioners convene but they can't afford to spend $500 to put out a fire? Where is the usual concern of your crowd about overpaid govt employees?
The Law of the Jungle is the ideal for wingnuttia, it seems. Interesting contrast with the insistence that we should have no responsibility to insure ourselves and families for health care.
The Cranick family pets were consumed by the fire.
"I also heard there were pets in the house that died. What if there were children?"
I also heard that it took a considerble period of time for the fire to reach and destroy the home. It was a fire, after all, not an explosion. More than enough time to open a door and let the animals out.
" the link I provided to the 2008 report clearly states that most of the rural residents in that county are poor farmers and addresses the fact that some people can't afford to pay the fee."
No, it doesn't. It does, however, clearly state that
"The fire tax shall in all ways be treated as a part of the county property tax."
So, if you can't afford the fire tax you will lose your property.
"And again, you're both ignoring the fact it costs $4200 every time the commissioners convene but they can't afford to spend $500 to put out a fire?"
And again you are ignoring the fact that the citizens of the county seem to like the current system. And as far as "they can't afford...", do you mean personally or with county funds?
"the usual concern of your crowd about overpaid govt employees"
You assume I am part of some 'crowd' that exists in your imagination. I 'ignored'the fact because it is not one of my concerns.
"Pangur, providing fire protection is not a matter of personal responsibility, it's a matter of public safety and allowing a house fire to burn out of control is a threat to more than just the one homeowner."
You're half right, Libby; in fact it's both. in this matter, however, the "public safety" argument is trumped by the fact that this homeowner refused to be responsible for his house in a PERSONALLY responsible manner.
"I also heard there were pets in the house that died. What if there were children?"
Well, "the children" are always at the the top of rationalizations for increased government control . . . I'm not buying it. What would have happened is that the children would either have 1) lived or 2) died. Had they died, their negligent father would likely have have been prosecuted for their death. Innocent people -- including children -- die all the time. Hate to break it to you, but more rules and the system you advocate have done rather poorly in protecting them.
Not knowing anything about this story, and frankly not giving a shit about burning farm houses, I'm simply interested in rhetorical tactics and the typical 'argue by the numbers' game being played here. Just keep dropping the same old "less gummint" "personal responsibility" "what's mine is mine and fuck you" arguments like turds into every toilet you can find whether it has any bearing or makes any sense. It only adds up to a pile of shit.
"I don't suppose personal responsibility is part of what might charitably be called your worldview." says the Irish cat!
Jesus that square peg must be made of tough stuff considering all the round holes it's been pounded into but of course we need less gummint 'cause that means freedom and since death is unavoidable, and total safety unachievable, what more reason could there be for abdicating all responsibility for anyone but one's cheap, pitiful, whiney-ass middle-brow self.
But again, I don't give a shit and I give less than that for the people who string together prepackaged cliche' cat turds other people in some Koch Brothers stink tank thought up like a necklace and try to strangle reason with it.
Go find some other litter box.
Oh, woe is me! Vanquished by the rhetorical brilliance, incisive logic, and original thought of Capt. Fogg.
I slink back to my lair in despair.
Another cliche response? O, O, O that proletarian rag. . .
Who actually gives a shit what you rattle on about or cares about your opinions or why you have them or pretend to have them or need to have them?
Have you ever said or done anything the insipidity of which rose to a level where the word "vanquish" could apply to the disregard anyone gives it?
You're the Ozymandius here Timbaugh, not I.
Post a Comment
<< Home