Commentary By Ron Beasley
Judging from the blog reactions I'm on the wrong side according my peers on the left but I don't have a problem with this.
Tennessee County�s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down
As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.
The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick�s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county�s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county�s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:
Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won�t respond, then watches it burn. That�s exactly what happened to a local family tonight. A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
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. [...]
We on the left insist that people should pay for the services they receive, normally taxes. Since Mr Cranick did not live in the city he was not paying taxes to support the fire department but he was given an opportunity to buy into fire protection and he declined - bad choice. The Corner at NRO explains:
The situation is this: The city of South Fulton�s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits � which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.
And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates � and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton�s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.
It doesn't happen very often but it would be hypocritical if I didn't agree with NRO this time. South Fulton gave mister Cranick the opportunity to get something he didn't have, fire protection, and he declined. I am a firm believer in "the commons" but I also believe you need to pay your share.
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you and NRO are wrong on this - but you are wrong for "can't get there from here" reasons.
Remember, I'm from the UK where fire and other emergency services may be organised regionally but are paid for from national taxes. There are therefore no gaps in coverage, no areas "outside the jurisdiction" of one or other fire brigade.
Suppose there had been a helpless child in that building? Would you then be just as happy that trained firefighters sat around watching because someone didn't pay a fee?
Universal firefighting services should be one of those "positive freedoms" liberals hold most dear - along with a national health service and for much the same reasons. America should hang its head in shame that neither freedom is fully available.
Regards, Steve
Steve
ReplyDeleteI would actually oppose the UK system here. The US is just too diverse for one size fits all emergency services. Do I think this could have been handled differently? Yes. We had a similar situation in the Portland area and the rural area passed a property tax assessment to be covered by the Portland Fire Department. But Tennessee is not as progressive as Oregon and gave the homeowner a Libertarian choice and he made the wrong one.
And I seriously doubt that the fire fighters would have stood by while someone burned to death.
Hi Ron,
ReplyDelete"The US is just too diverse for one size fits all emergency services." How so? The UK goes from the flat suburbs of the London megopolis to the less than one person every ten square miles of the mountainous Scottish Highlands. Or if you prefer from the rich and conservative Sussex countryside to the poor and socialist inner-city slums.
Regards, Steve
The question to ask is who'd he vote for? If you're living in an incorporated section of Tenn., most likely he's a Repub. I could be wrong but that's the bet to make statistically, youbetcha. And If he is he'd probably have a good tea-like explanation about why he doesn't pay that government extortion.
ReplyDeleteAnd the next thing to watch is this; In a blue collar town in NJ I spent a lot time in, a family's house burned downed and they didn't have fire insurance. Thru a bunch of local charity efforts the money was raised to rebuild the house. Lets see if that happens here but I'd bet against it. It'll be like the scene in Trading Places Eddie Murphy; "is there a lawyer in the house!?"
And the "victim" goes and cold cocks the fire chief.
ReplyDelete"Timothy A. Cranick", a resident of Buddy Jones Road.
Can you say "Saltine"?
The Pale Scot
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was that Cranick was probably a Libertarian teabagger a-hole who was opposed to government services until he needed them. If the fire department had saved his house the people who did pay for the service would have seen no reason to continue to pay and the city probably would have discontinued it and the rest of the community would have suffered. We can argue about rather voluntary participation is the right way to go but that was the system that was in place and fire department had little choice.
I agree Ron, and I don't wana waste time this, but commenters seem to be saying that he started the fire, So the property owner decided to burn some trash or did some welding or BBQ too close to the house, dollar to donuts booze was involved.
ReplyDeleteEver watch Turk182?
ReplyDeleteI'm not particularly bothered by this story, either (although it took all afternoon to make up my mind). The key for me is the cost of protection: $75/year; that's so cheap that even I'd happily pay it. Ideally, the firefighters should have the authority to set their own price during the fire -- the guy gets to save his house for whatever he can pay at that moment -- cards only, no checks.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of Mike Huckabee's recent remarks about pre-existing health conditions.
ReplyDelete"Mike Huckabee, speaking at the Values Voters Summit ...compared people with pre-existing conditions with houses that had burned down..."
Something in my old Liberal bleeding heart still tells me that a conscious decision on the part of a fire department to make no effort to stop a burning fire is wrong. It is the exact opposite of that line of the Hippocratic oath, First, do no harm. A pro-active version might be First, DO NOT PERMIT any harm.
It is expected that medical personnel on the battle field (not in triage) will give medical assistance to wounded enemy combatants as well as their own. In hospital ER departments, critically sick or injured people can expect (indeed are legally entitled to) treatment, at least until the "emergency" stage has passed.
I can see principled arguments on both sides, just as in the ridiculous case of a man whose scheduled execution was put on hold (to determine "mental competency"!) because he tried to kill himself instead.
But I am also reminded of the apocryphal argument about how many angels might stand on the head of a pin. In the case of the execution my personal opposition to all cases of capital punishment "have no standing" as a lawyer might say. And the same holds true for all of us in the now closed case of a burned up house in rural Tennessee.
I really can't believe that people are debating this but maybe fitting given some want to return to the happy land of the past. Now at least we can gage when that might have been, maybe the 19th and older centuries. Hey another benefit is that firemen can be dropped from the role of classic hero, now just guys in it for the buck (gads I wonder who who might be left on the list of heros in a civilized capitalist democracy - a hedge fund manager, a POTHUS, must be someone ... ). I particularly get a kid out of fact that the local newspaper reported the home owner offered to pay when the 911 was called, as the fire hadn't yet spread to the fellows house, but nope in Tennessee no payee no sprayee, as the natives I guess.
ReplyDeleteAlternet has a hilarious article re: other extremes of a pay as you ideology that's confused about century old debate concerning public goods. My favourite is the Ohio place that has:
"More than 700 people ... on a waiting list to serve time in the jail. Some were facing relatively minor charges, but the list also included, according to Sheriff Billy Johnson, violent offenders. When a county judge was asked what citizens should do to protect their families �with the severe cutback in law enforcement,� he responded, �Arm themselves ... Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we�re going to have to look after each other.�
http://bit.ly/bNUVZA
This is getting really funny. Too bad it's real, eh.
County voted a few years ago not to create its own fire department. The present "fee for service" arrangement was what the county residents chose to retain.
ReplyDeleteHomeowner lives outside the city, in an area not covered by any fire department. The city offers to provide protection for $75 per year. He says, "No thanks." His house catches fire and Keith Olberman is screaming with outrage because the city fire department did not come running and put it out.
Homeowner sits in front of burned down house on "Countdown" and says "Oh poor me, I just forgot to pay the fee. They should have been nice to poor little me because it was just an honest mistake." Sure it was.
The city, at this point, should respond by suspending the fee for service plan and saying they are no longer covering anything but the city limits. If the county wants fire protection they need to provide it on their own.