The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
IAFF Condemns Tennessee House Fire Policy
TODD FAULKNER
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
PADUCAH - A local fire department's decision to let a home burn is attracting national attention and sparking national debate.
A firefighters group is lashing out against members of their own. The International Association of Fire Fighters is condemning the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions last week.
Fire crews refused to put out a house fire in Obion County, Tennessee, because the owner did not pay the $75 coverage fee. The Association's general president released a statement Tuesday on the city's policy of subscription fire service.
The IAFF statement reads, in part, "We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go."
The statement also reads, "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
Todd Cranick, son of Gene Cranick, tells Local 6 that his parents have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs. Cranick went on to say that the insurance plans on covering all damage and property losses. Right now, there is no fund set up to help the Cranick family.
The IAFF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., representing nearly 300,000 full-time professional firefighters and paramedics.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph on
-
What, the people (home Owner) got exactly what they paid for. Nothing!
I am sorry that they lost everything, but they were asked to cover a service fee and they chose not to pay. So they did not get the coverage.
Everyone looses in this situation.
-
Permalink Reply by Tim on
-
Im a volunteer so cant say to the first question. On the second question, the FD only responded to the scene once it was threatening a neighbors house that had paid the fee. They put some water on the fence line between the houses for exposure protection.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Felton on
-
I disagree on the policy. What if the fire call in question was reported as a Structure Fire w/ Entrapment, what would they do then? The way the policy is sounding is like they would tell the resident, "Oh I am sorry. You havent paid your fee so we cant help you."
Now see I am a Volunteer firefighter and the oath we were sworn in with says that we are sworn to serve the communuty (City or County), save the property, and insure public safety. Well I can see that the event in Tenn. didnt uphold to any of that. Now this is my opinion only. I hope the family sues the city and county. And I hope the community comes together as a whole and protests the policy cause it is their tax dollars that keeps the fire service going.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
First, you weren't there, and neither was I, so establishing the relevance of immediate danger is very subjective. For example...In CA, the wind can be blowing North, then start blowing South at the flick of a switch. That scenario has killed many good men and women on the fire line.
Second, when you personally attack a person because they spelled something wrong, or you disapprove of their debate style, YOU stray from the facts of this incident.
In addition, I would venture to say that your opinions regarding the fire service today, will be very different after you've been on the job for 10+ years, and you'll have the commensurate responsibilities to show for your efforts.
Your theory, and I'm paraphrasing "Well, just because it was done that way before doesn't make it right", shows a lack of maturity, not in a fire service manner, but in a life manner. Two wrongs don't make a right.
My point: This FD had, on multiple occasions, responded to calls fully knowing that the RP/homewoner was not a paid subscriber. Furthermore, they allowed homeowners to pay retroactively, when the homeowner obviously realized the VALUE of the service, but didn't have to sacrifice their HOME to learn a lesson over $75!
Anyone who allows a crew to sit by idly (engine crew under the command of an IC), while a personal disaster is at hand, posing a threat to other property owners, knowing that they had previously allowed EXCEPTIONS, with a homeowner with $75 in his hand trying to save what's left of his home must ask themselves why this happened? Was not dumping a tank of water worth a legacy of infamy, just on principal?
Yes Tommy, you are factually correct. He didn't pay. I prey you or a loved one never finds them self in a situation where such a small sum of money is the difference between a personal disaster of this magnitude.
-
-
This wasn't a self dispatch situation. The FD had to respond to protect exposures. They were already there, with a front row seat. You're right, there's no FREE lunch. But I wouldn't have eaten my paid-for lunch so to speak, while watching another man's home burn to the ground to prove a point. I'd share the sandwich, then give them an earful as to why that won't happen AGAIN.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
What IF... froggies had wings?
They wouldn't bust their ass every time they hopped.
What IF... the firefighters would have ignored orders and fought the fire? Would the IAFF have issued a statement supporting insobordination?
-
Permalink Reply by Colin Carswell on
-
In my opinion, and mine only, this individual chose not to pay for fire protection.....a cost of $6.25 and a month. Makes you wonder how valuable his family's belongings and home were to him, ya we all have tough times but seriously, 6 bucks a month????. Now I am not saying that an effort could not have been made, but if he does not care enough to spend the $75 a year to ensure fire protection why should any department create ANY sort of life safety risk to save belongings that he chooses not to get protection for. This about politics, people following orders, and circumstances that are above all of our heads. I keep seeing "They used to do that in the past, why not this time".......we used to ride on the tailboards of fire trucks too, used to wear roll up boots and no packs....what happened there??? Oh ya, times change. We can say all we want but at the end of the day the department did what they were supposed to do, the homeowner got what he paid for, and as a result there will eventually be change a change in policy or a newly formed fire department.
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
Thank you Firecapt2413!! We are here to provide a service regardless. Even if the homeowner didn't pay the $75 fee the insurance would have still paid for services rendered.
-
Permalink Reply by Al (olddogg) Westbrook on
-
I may actualy barf this makes me so sick- the very Idea that a fire service just stood by and watched while a house burned to the ground ,or as the news reported, they refused to even respond . I don't care which actualy happened ,the house burned to the ground didn't it ? I have heard of subscription fire services befor,and it sounds like a good way to raise annual operating exspenses . But to refuse to respond or to respond and do nothing because of a lack of membership is unforgiveable , shame on ALL of you who are members of the South Fulton Fire Department- to have allowed such a rule to even be in place ,much less to allow it to be enforced , you should HANG YOUR HEADS DOWN IN SHAME !
The policy that should have been in place would be one that says we charge $75.00 / household-a-year subscription and IF you have a fire we will come out at no extra charge -But if you are not a subsrciption holder we are going to charge you $XXXX.00 to recover our exspences . That would be easily defendable if need be , but to fail to respond is nevergoing to be defndable .
You may have lost the trust of the public we all serve- I am a Firefighter and Proud of it , Both as a paid firefighter and a Volunteer -but you have committed a sin against the Brotherhood , what you did this week goes against 200 years of fire service tradition . Benjamin Franklin is turning over in his grave .
-
-
I understand the city ruling on responding outside their city limits. Resources are limited all over. What I am appalled about is that Obion County doesn't care enough about their residents to provide at least some level of fire suppression. The lack of coverage for 30,000 people is a significant issue in my mind. I am a member of a volunteer department covering an unincorporated county area and we receive no tax levy from a city or county. We raise funds by asking residents to pay $48 to support the fire department. Does this mean we're going to let someone's house burn to the ground if they don't pay? Hell no! I think the heat should be placed on the county government to fund a county department that perhaps would evenutally lead to a mutual aid pact with the city. Then everyone would be on the same sheet of music.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
