Tennessee Fire Department Watches House Burn, Again
South Fulton crews refused to douse a fire last year due to an unpaid fee and it happened again Monday.


Posted: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 11:07am

The South Fulton Fire Department made national news last year after they refused to put out a house fire due to an unpaid fire subscription fee, and it appears that policy has not changed.

Homeowner Vicky Bell watched her home burn to the ground on Monday while firefighters stood behind her looking on, according to WPSD-TV.

While the city provides fire service free of charge to its residents, it requires an annual $75 fee for homeowners who live in unincorporated areas of Obion County -- which doesn't have its own fire department.

"In an emergency, the first thing you think of, 'Call 911,' " Bell said. "911 said they were in fact dispatched and they showed that they were on the scene. You could look out my mom's trailer and see the trucks sitting at a distance."

The city's mayor told the news station that the fire department can't survive without the fees and if they make exceptions to the rule, homeowners would not pay the fee.

"There's no way to go to every fire and keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," Mayor David Crocker said, adding that after last year's fire, everyone should be aware of the city's policy.

Bell admitted that she was aware of the fee, but never thought it would happen to them.

Tennessee Fire Department Watches House Burn, Again | Firehouse.com

Awesome. "Bell admitted that she was aware of the fee, but never thought it would happen to them".

Well, dough.

OTOH, surely, they could settle for a fine (say, $7,500? Enough so that people think that the $75 is a good deal for fire insurance) and save the house/trailer?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

I don't really see anything wrong with this. It's no different from buying insurance (though we'll have to wait and see whether the insurance companies decide to invalidate the policies of people who haven't paid their subs).

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

The problem is that a fire doesn;t necessarily stay confined to one building.

Ubnder the circumstances, nobody has behaved illogically, but it just demonstrates that some services have to be provided collectively, even against the will or a tiny minority.

That's why some form of insurances are mandatory... Kudos to the USA for rediscovering medieval laissez-faire, though...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by contracycle

The problem is that a fire doesn;t necessarily stay confined to one building. Ubnder the circumstances, nobody has behaved illogically, but it just demonstrates that some services have to be provided collectively, even against the will or a tiny minority.

I presume that's why they went down to watch it burn - so they could quickly put out any neighbouring houses that had paid their dues, should they catch fire.

What would be really interesting (if you're a boring person like me) is how the courts would divide up the blame if a neighbour's house burnt down because the fire brigade hadn't put this one out. I imagine that if the neihgbour had paid his contribution it would be considered to be entirely the fire brigade's fault. If he hadn't... I guess it would depend to a certain extent whether the original fire had started as a result of negligence, and whether not paying your contribution can be assimilated to negligence in itself. If there were people inside, it would clearly fall under non-assistance to a person in danger. If not, it could go either way.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

In fairness they had offered to perform rescues, if necessary, which was probably why they had to attend.