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 Herb Genelly III on
-
Ben...........Is that how you feel?
No one feels good about the situation, but being heartbroken........
Not once in your dialog with me did you say YOU didn't feel good about the situation. Interesting.
-
Permalink Reply by Russ on
-
mayor or city mgr calling the shots over the FD? why does this FD have a chief? but you are right Tom, he was willing to pay and they still let it burn and that is wrong and vindictive-note to the mayor Stallin called, you have a meeting in the kremlin today
-
-
Michelle,
The thing about these blogs is that there's those who take offense to others who don't share your own ideals, values and beliefs. But you can't argue with someone who doesn't recognize that having a ready, willing and able engine crew (being filmed for the world to see), sitting in front of a burning home is/looks bad, no matter what the circumstances.
In a perfect world, everyone pays their taxes. Some call it a "subscription", but that's a fancy word for TAXES. So, you have a fellow who didn't pay his tax, that lives outside of the FD's boundary. He knows if he doesn't pay...........whammo..........the house burns down.....or does he? Did he really take a calculated risk, because he knew of other instances where the same thing happened, but the FD responded anyway? Time will tell.
And for some reason, a person who doesn't pay their taxes and lives inside the FD boundary gets services all day long.......... because Ethically/Morally they are better/more deserving than the guy who didn't? Some will repeat the mantra.....It's the rules!
The argument is that if the FD would have put the fire out, then it sends a message to others living in that area that they can stop paying but continue to receive services. The funny thing is, people have that choice EVERY day with regard to paying their TAXES?
Sure, if, after 3 years or so, you haven't paid your tax bill, the govt. can take action...........but how does that help pay FD expenses? Put gas in their tank? Buy Turnouts? It's ripping them off in the same way.........but they get services.
I know my POV is backwards...........but I have a feeling that if they had a second chance, the chief might have tried a different option. He's not a bad guy..........he, like the homeowner, made a bad decision, and combined, it created this tragedy.
-
-
But cap responding and watching the house burn ON TV then calling the cops who didnt respond... did the FD forget to pay the "i dont like the reporters questions and i dont want them on my fire scene anymore" fee?---i can see why the cops didnt respond, the was a non paying resident fire, therefore there was no emergency so the police do not have to respond because the fire department was not actually firefighting...makes perfect sense to me. Points 1 to 5 accepted and agree, point 6, the mayor and the CM have command authority at a fire scene over a trained fire chief?, point 7 sad but true-connects to point 3.....NOTE to other commenters, you cant "what if" this story, stick to the facts as known because "well what if" DID NOT HAPPEN. well what if is a trap statement because any answer can be deemed wrong
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
That Schaitberger would even make a tacit comment on a volunteer fire department's duty to act made me spit coffee all over myself.
If he won't tell me how to run my volunteer fire department, I won't tell him how to run his union.
He's grand standing at this fire department's expense.
-
-
Hey Chief,
I meant to ask you earlier, and feel free to PM if you'd like............but if YOU were the chief during this incident, with the same exact circumstances (film crew and all).................what would you have ordered you crew to do?
-
-
Here ya go Ben. Go pound on these guys for their opinion: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=8hkx6tcab&v=...
-
-
Herb:
Though unpleasant for me personally, I would have been forced to follow existing policy; whatever that is. Then, I would have fought like hell to change the policy.
If you listened to FIrefighterNetcast last night, which today is getting rave reviews, I was faced with a similar situation as a young chief. We wanted to assist in an area that was not in our taxing district by charging users a response fee. Trustees said "NO". So, we took out petitions to have the trustees elected rather than appointed, got it on the ballot, it passed overwhelmingly and we elected three new trustees, who agreed to our plan.
THAT'S how you change things, Herb.
This fire department and this SYSTEM must get better from this mucked up incident.
However; we can't force our "morality" on the citizens who don't want to pay for fire protection.
Since many have used the medical analogies, I have one; you have a patient who has a do-not-resusitate order (DNR), but you have a "moral" issue with "letting" them die. Would you resusitate anyway?
And for the record, I hate "what ifs". I deal with it every day. I'm in safety.
Also, let me say that with all of the back and forth between you and Ben, neither of you lowered the debate and much was gained from the exchange. The only missing thing from it was to "agree to disagree"!
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
That's right, Herb, you just assumed how I felt, and you were wrong on that one, too..
My point was based upon facts and rationality.
Your posts were based upon emotion, logical fallacies, and arrogance.
Once again, you are not the arbiter of morality - or what we're really talking about - public policy and public ethics.
And Herb, you've twice told me that you were not going to respond to me any more.
That seems to have the same level of credibility that your other non-factual posts here have - zip, zilch...well, you know the rest.
-
-
Does your arrogance know no bounds?
-
-
"The thing about these blogs is that there's those who take offense to others who dont' share your own ideals, values, and beliefs."
That's exactly what you demonstrated with that long ride on your high horse here, Herb.
Funny, your objections have morphed from "It's not MORAL" to "It looks bad" overnight.
There's no rule that says doing the right thing or following a public policy will always look good. That doesn't make it wrong.
I also note that you're still ducking my question about why a small city of 2,500 people should subsidize fire protection for a county of 30,000 or more.
-
-
Ben,
I guess I didn't want to believe that YOU, or any other chief would subject his crew to being filmed in front of a burning home while the homeowner pleaded for help...all because the idiot took a chance for $75. But alas....you are THAT guy.
I responded to you (even though I thought/said I was DONE) because in your response to Michelle, you actually acknowledged that "no one felt good" about the situation. That was the FIRST time you actually mentioned something called feelings...Ben.
I thought that when a person feels "bad" about a situation, it means they acknowledge that there was a better/different/positive way to handle the situation to get a better outcome, or solve the problem more effectively..........MY BAD.
You think you know me, my credibility, based on my passionate views regarding this matter? You don't know ANYTHING about me Ben. So...now I'm on record, albeit for the second time......that I will not respond to you further on this subject Ben. (I always think Michael Jackson when I hear that name...BEN).........LOL
Now go ahead...........have the LAST WORD Mr. Enlightenment. Espouse your virtues and cast your pearls of wisdom upon us Evil Doers. Tell those of us who would have put out the fire and caused mayhem across the globe why we are wretched!
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
