The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Tennessee Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Subscription Issue
JASON HIBBS
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - 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.
Related
- WPSD: Firefighters Watch as Home Burns to the Ground
- WPSD: More Fallout Following House Fire
- USAToday: Firefighters watch house burn because owner hadn't paid $...
- MSNBC: No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
FireEMSBlogs.com Updates
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.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.
Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.
They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."
To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
For all of you who think it was right that the fire dept just followed so calle orders what if they had been someone trapped ???
Already been addressed, read on.
Its wrong to let someones house burn down and not try and do something, if it was your house would you want it to happen???
I would have paid the subscription. However, since I pay taxes and know the level of service I get, this doesn't apply.
what if you couldnt pay a stupid $75.00 fee due to medical reasons or other reasons?? Some folks aint rich!!
Which means there should be no electronics, no cell phone, no computer, no cable/satellite TV and so forth, right?
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ricky, how much does your internet cost you annually?
Cable TV?
Phone?
Computer?
You must be rich then.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
People, people, people:
Stick to what has been written in the news accounts and reported on the various news outlets and forget the damned "what ifs".
The homeowner lived in an area serviced by a subscription fee. The homeowner chose NOT to pay. He had a fire. The fire department did not put it out, because the homeowner chose NOT to buy the service. He is trying to stir up a sh*t storm, because he gambled and lost.
He is trying to draw attention away from his own stupid decision and onto the fire department's decision.
So, stop with the "what ifs". There are none.
-
-
Hell, Doug:
I'm trying to get a blog done and it isn't even about THIS!
Sheesh.
-
-
Ricky:
You don't know John well enough to make that statement.
John happens to be a very smart firefighter and well respected for his knowledge on this and other websites.
You should keep the discussion to the issues and keep personal comments out of it.
Respect is earned. John has earned his.
-
-
Art,
The centerpiece of this whole issue isn't that the home owner screwed up but rather it's become, in here, some facetious high moral issue from the cape wearers. Caped crusaders don't bother to read facts, as evidenced by the continued incorrect assumptions, overblown moral judgments and just plain stupid comments. But I could be mistaken.
-
Permalink Reply by Walt Goebel on
-
the only thing this did is put a black cloud over the fire service
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Teller on
-
Ah John and Jack.......you obviously have no clue of the meaning of duty to act.....you have no moral values.............you must both be the sons of politicians!
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Might on
-
But please explain to me, why I as a taxpayer in the city, who pays to receive services, should have said services go to another community to someone who doesn't pay for the services, and receives it for free? It is their choice to live where they do and their choice to carry insurance or not.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do John. That's what is wrong with this country; it's all about me, me, me. Why should I care about my neighbors?
All the departments in my area have a mutual aid policy and will help out another jurisdiction without thought; it doesn't matter who pays for what. Fire does not discriminate against those that can or cannot pay; it's my job to put it out when called, period.
I'm willing to bet the insurance company will take the city/town/county to court; they may not prevail but they have deeper pockets and it will certainly cost the city/town/county more in attorney fees than the $75 that wasn't paid.......
-
Permalink Reply by Garry Russell on
-
instead of laying blame on the firefighters who were doing what they was told it looks to me like the suites that make the rules/laws better do some thinking on this 75 dollar fee before they get someone hurt or killed. Why not just do a cost recovery bill on the people you helped that didnt pay the fee instead of letting their house burn down.
-
-
Eric:
How is the town liable for an area not covered by city services?
I would bet that the only lawsuit that you will see will be against the guy who punched out the fire chief.
I think that there could have been a different outcome, but first things first; the guy should have paid his subscription fee, because THAT is where this whole thing starts.
-
-
I'm guessing where you come from you think that is some kind of high insult but sadly, no I'm not. My father, deceased and a WWII vet, was a tool and die maker.
As for the rest of your statement, the homeowner was derelict in his responsibilities to protect his home and family to the best of his ability. He chose NOT to pay a paultry $75. If he didn't think his belongings were worth saving, why would a fire department. And you've decided to NOT read all the facts and instead cast your high moral judgment. Yet I bet you're one of the first to condemn socialist programs like national health care and are probably staunchly anti-immigration. I mean, I have nothing to base it on, but then, neither did you when you made your judgments.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
