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 Danny Lambert on
-
I'm sorry to say that I still think that a BS Policy like that isn't good. As you mentioned before I know very well what it costs to run a Dept. As well as the other 10 we have in the area. But I bet you one thing NONE AND I SAY AGAIN NONE OF OUR EMERGENCY PERSONEL ARE GOING TO LET ANYONE DO WITH OUT OUR SERVICE. You woud just have to live in a community where people still care for each other like I do. When one has a poblem or is in need, everyone chips in and takes care of that need. I'm glad I live in a community like I do.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I SAY AGAIN NONE OF OUR EMERGENCY PERSONEL ARE GOING TO LET ANYONE DO WITH OUT OUR SERVICE. You woud just have to live in a community where people still care for each other like I do. When one has a poblem or is in need, everyone chips in and takes care of that need
Do you live in an area supported by taxes or with subscriptions? Because in reality, that is the sticking point here, it was decided upon by the politicians and the dread of taxes that the subscription service was even in place. Had there been a tax base system for fire protection, there wouldn't be an issue.
Along the same lines comes responsibility, in this case the owner lacked it and now paid the price. The issue is, stated by other who live in the said county, that depts HAVE been responding to non-payers for some time and just can't afford to keep doing so. So you get people who number one, don't have to pay a fire tax, but instead have the option of paying for a subscription at a very cheap cost. Then you have those who number 2, refuse to pay for said service because they were getting the service for free.
It is because of that issue of people receiving service for free that those depts can't keep affording to operate in such a way. Problem is, up to this point, you really didn't hear of a dept enforcing the policy, so how can one state the benefits of a tax based system when they are giving the service for free? On the community side, why should people choose to pay a tax, when they are getting the service for free? What you have here is finally a dept calling the "bluff" of the policy....and don't think the question hasn't come up as to the "policy". If you read on, there has been discussion about the policy in the county and the chances taken if one doesn't pay a subscription or perhaps a better solution, taxing the county residents for fire protection.
Take a look at the whole picture before making the snap judgements you made. This isn't your community, the operations are not the same. People have been getting free service for years. Fiscally they can not continue in such a way. The community decided upon this subscription policy, it is the owners RESPONSIBILITY to take care of their own property.
-
Permalink Reply by Russ on
-
Wrong Ben-get what i said straight-responding and DOING NOTHING ON TV is stupid refusing to put it out even after he offered to pay was VINDICTIVE and thats where they screwed up and where i have a problem with them. The cops not comming was icing on the cake, it made sense, the reporters were not interfering with a fire that the fire department was not fighting...makes perfect sense
-
-
refusing to put it out even after he offered to pay was VINDICTIVE and thats where they screwed up and where i have a problem with them
Not really Russ. There is nothing vindictive about refusing to provide service AFTER the fact. A subscription is no different than an insurance policy for the most part. One can not expect to get collision insurance AFTER the accident occurred. The same thing here, despite the owner offering to pay, it was his choice not to pay in the first place, he gambled, he lost, it is that simple. There is no duty to act here and the FF's followed orders.
The gripe should be placed upon those who first, made the decision to have subscriptions vs a tax, and to those who wanted such subscriptions over a tax. The other gripe should be placed with the owner, who expected services would come despite not paying, not expecting services AFTER the fact.
i didnt know a CM had such power (what do we need a fire chief for) since the CM calls the shots
Despite what you may think, the CM, city councils, couty boards, fire boards and so forth DO absolutely have a say in such policies and such operations, that is a fact. After all, it isn't fire chief's looking to cut staffing, close stations, do brownouts and so forth afecting depts all across the country, but those elected officials creating the policies.
In this case the policy was in place....subscription = fire service, no subscription doesn't = fire service. The policy was ignored for years, but such cities stated they could no longer keep providing service for free for people who don't pay. The CM here decided to enforce the policy put in place by the county and voted on by the people, if such a decision is made, that is an ORDER.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Well, since you're talking "what if's"...
Let me ask, if Martians had attacked and someone had died, then that would have been negligent homicide, wouldn't it? Well, Martians didn't attack, there was no entrapment, and both of them have an equal part in what actually occurred - they both have nothing to do with it.
How about let's stick to what actually happened instead of arguing hypotheticals as if they were real?
"All of us career and volunteer have an obligation to the community, all communities in need."?
Really, cap? Great, I expect to see you covering my department every time we're dispatched from now on. After all, you have that obligation to "all communities in need". You said it yourself, so I expect to see you helping us out.
We don't care about race, sex, wealth, or if you paid your taxes. We just expect to see you show up and help us for free. After all, that's EXACTLY what you expect of the South Fulton FD. It's only fair that we expect the same of you.
-
-
Russ, I got what you said "straight", I just wholeheartedly disagree.
SFFD didn't "do nothing", they protected their subscriber's property just as their contract specified.
They didn't screw up at all. They did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do.
The FD has the right to keep the reporters away to keep them safe.
Most importantly, the only people that think that SFFD was "stupid" are people who demonstrably don't have a grasp of the facts. It would have been stupid and unethical for SFFD to provide free fire protection for a non-subscriber while charging his next-door neighbor for the same service.
As for what it looks like on TV, then let's never again vent a window or a roof, because it looks stupid - to those who don't have the facts or understand why we do it.
Let's never perform triage again, because, after all, checking a patient and then leaving him is stupid - to those who don't have the facts or understand why we do it.
Let's never again run tankers back and forth between the fire and the water source, because it looks stupid...etc.
Get the picture?
-
-
Firefighter Oath - some do, some don't.
What if Martians had landed, what would have taken place then?
It didn't, so it's not pertinent.
Your cardiac arrest hypothetical didn't happen, either, so it's also not pertinent.
-
-
They didn't. They showed up to protect the neighbor's property.
The neighbor had a subscription contract and was therefore entitled to service.
The homeowner at the original fire did not have a subscriptoin and was not entitled to service.
-
-
Have you ever considered that they may have considered just such a policy and not been able to implement it due to their city council not approving it, or the county having a law against it, or somthing similar.
"...but you have committed a sin against the Brotherhood..." No, Al, YOU did that when you said that they should "HANG YOUR HEADS DOWN IN SHAME."
The SFFD did exactly what they were supposed to do in that situation, and they have nothing to be ashamed of. The people who should be ashamed are the ones whao are uninformed, who are ignorant of the facts, and who act as if there is no other viewpoint than theirs.
"Benjamin Franklin is turning over in his grave." Prove it.
-
-
That is not accurate. They responded because the fire was threatening a subscriber, to whom they had a duty to act.
They had no such duty to Mr. Cranick. He lives out of their jurisdiction and he wan't a subscriber.
Put the blame where it belongs - on the homeowner.
-
-
They didn't have ANY duty to act at the Cranick's fire. They had a duty to the next-door neighbor, and they met that duty.
The county has repeatedly to approve a fire tax or to vote for any county council candidate who would consider such a tax. They don't have to increase their local tax rates just because you want them to.
-
-
Russ, that is extremely confused.
The facts are that the SFFD responded to a fire on their subscriber's property.
The fire department DID fight the fire on the subscriber's property, contrary to your bogus claim.
The mayor and council set policy. The city manager, to whom the fire chief reports, is responsible for implementing that policy and ensuring that it is carried out. If the fire chief doesn't carry out that policy, he's gone.
And Russ, if you discuss things that didn't occur as if they are real, it's not a "trap statement", it's B.S.
You have not yet demonstrated the ability to stick to the facts in this discussion.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
