Rural Tennessee fire sparks debate

[Geppetto 31]

NWTN Today

Chris Menees, Staff Reporter

September 30, 2010

South Fulton’s fire chief was assaulted Wednesday in the aftermath of a fire where firefighters were unable to respond because the property owner had not paid a rural fire subscription fee....

...explained that the property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service offered to county residents by the City of South Fulton. He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city’s fire department could not respond....

He said the South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service.

Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton’s fee is $75....

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

[helicopper 1,050]

NWTN Today

Chris Menees, Staff Reporter

September 30, 2010

http://www.nwtntoday...viewStory=46801

Well, as they always say.... You get what you pay for.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

$75 dollars to guarantee a response by the City of South Fulton FD in the event of an emergency...sounds like a good deal to me.

Edited October 4, 2010 by PFDRes47cue

[JBE 328]

Ridiculous, simply ridiculous. You shouldn't have to subscribe for fire service. If the municipality makes it as part of the tax fees, ok fine. I guess the whole idea of having a duty to act just went out the window. This guy didn't subscribe, so his house burns, but Exposure 4 ante'd up, we'll protect his home. Am I the only one here who thinks this is just a bad idea?

[mfc2257 464]

This topic has been discussed before and I honestly don't have a problem in rural areas where subscription fire protection exists but here are a few things that come to my mind.

1: If the person's house has a mortgage on it, I can't believe that the lien holder didn't require them to carry homeowners insurance. Depending on the loan to value, many times it must be escrowed along with municipal taxes as per the terms of the note.

2: I believe it is the responsibility of the agency, to the best of their ability, to insure that there is no human life in danger (trapped or otherwise) at a fire where the homeowner has not paid into the subscription service.

3: I believe that if the homeowner has not specifically declined/refused to pay the subscription then the department should make all good faith attempts to extinguish the fire in the event that the property has recently changed hands or if it is in receivership or probate.

4 I believe that the department should be required to educate the community as to the nature of the subscription and to get a signature declining the service from each lien/property holder that doesn't want protection for their property. I also believe that it is the municipalities responsibility to inform new owners upon closing on property that a subscription only service for fire protection exists.

[mfc2257 464]

Ridiculous, simply ridiculous. You shouldn't have to subscribe for fire service. If the municipality makes it as part of the tax fees, ok fine. I guess the whole idea of having a duty to act just went out the window. This guy didn't subscribe, so his house burns, but Exposure 4 ante'd up, we'll protect his home. Am I the only one here who thinks this is just a bad idea?

There are certain states and commonwealths in our country what will not allow certain types of local governments to levy a fire tax.... So you either have a local department that is supported via donations and fund raising activities (fairs, bingo, dinner nights, etc.) by a community that is diligent in making sure that fire protection is available OR you have a subscription service.

It's draconian but in some areas of our country that are sparsely populated a subscription service is the only way to create ample fire protection.

Edited October 4, 2010 by mfc2257

[abaduck 123]

JBE, you're not alone. I read this, I had to double-take to check we were talking about an American department here; this sounds like something from the third world - or America 200 years ago. Isn't this how we got started? You put a plaque on your house to show which fire/insurance company you had paid to protect you? Have we not moved on? Aren't we supposed to be a superpower or something?

What action would have been taken if there had been reports of persons trapped? This kind of scenario leads to people not calling us, or taking stupid risks to try to extinguish it themselves if they know or think that WE won't do our JOB... because they can't afford us. Will end in fatalities...

"Mayor Crocker said... As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked."

Mayor Crocker, I suppose you also feel someone injured in an auto wreck should be left bleeding by the roadside if they haven't paid their medical insurance?

Edited October 4, 2010 by abaduck

[Ga-Lin 86]

I'm an EMS person but I though subscription fire services went out with transporting the sick & injured in funeral cars.

[Alpinerunner 61]

This is certainly a terrible, arcane situation, but I believe the guilt lies in the hands of Obion County, not the South Fulton FD. This FD is put in a very tough position that they shouldn't be in. Simply put, it's not their district; it's nobody's district. To me, it sounds like like are offering fire protection outside their district as a bonus and make all attempts to tell the residents about the fee, including a personal reminder via phone call. I honestly believe this department is doing all they can to deal with a sh1tty situation handed to them by the county.

That being said, would you still respond? I would. But then when the paying residences see this, they stop paying the fee, and South Fulton FD has shot themselves in the foot. Lose-lose situation.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Alpinerunner

[helicopper 1,050]

Ridiculous, simply ridiculous. You shouldn't have to subscribe for fire service. If the municipality makes it as part of the tax fees, ok fine. I guess the whole idea of having a duty to act just went out the window. This guy didn't subscribe, so his house burns, but Exposure 4 ante'd up, we'll protect his home. Am I the only one here who thinks this is just a bad idea?

In other parts of the country subscription based coverage in unincorporated areas is not so uncommon. You don't pay municipal taxes for the service so you pay a subscription fee. Does the FDNY have a duty to act if the fire is in Bayonne or in Mount Vernon? Nope.

It is a tragic reality but you don't get something for nothing even in an emergency.

[JBE 328]

Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is a tragic reality that shouldn't be. It's fire protection, not paying for cable. We all pay taxes. Fire protection should be part of the taxes paid.

[wraftery 1,275]

Well, as they always say.... You get what you pay for.

I've used that saying quite often myself, Chris, but it ain't necessarily so.

How many people here in the civilized part of the US do not pay their taxes and still get the full services of the PD, FD, EMS, Schools, rec facilities, hospitals, and on and on. Take a look at your last hospital bill. Know why an aspirin costs $4? Because you are paying for aspiriin for eight other people!

Also, neighborhoods with a large percent of non-taxpayers usually demand and get more from emergency services than the taxpayer's neighborhoods.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Lets face it, this is the nature of the beast here. The city is a funded department and those living in the rural subscription area have to pay for the service (aka they live in an unincorporated area that has no governmental control or services). Who do you blame, the fire department??? How about looking at the city or district that funds the fire department as they are more than likely the ones that set up the subscription based fire protection. There are a lot of these rural protection districts out there and that is how these departments are funded!

We tend to forget how lucky we are having a tax-based system to fund our departments, funded through taxes collected by our fire district, village, borough, township or city government. Its the same thing here. Now don't get me wrong I feel the fire department should have done something, but if they did would they be penalized by the city for operating at this scene on a legal basis???

Before anyone jumps to any conclusion, you have to look how the department has to operate under the legal scope of the law they operate under. Maybe the unincorporated area should form a rural fire district or protection area and contract with the closest fire departments. And yes, and its unfortunate I have to say this, if it is in the scope of the law they operate under, then they don't have to act and are protected by that law depending on how it is written.

That is where we should look first before we start making any more comments on this topic.

Trust me I don't agree with it but law is law.

[INIT915 1,119]

It appears from the story that the homeowner declined to opt-in to the program. He knew the risks. He gambled and lost. Not really sure what the problem is here. While it's sad, it was foreseeable. I'm sure a lot of people would love to get fire protection from a City FD for $75.

When this topic had been discussed in the past, it seemed obvious to me that folks living in these "zones" know aboyt the program and their obligations to join.

I have to agree with the mayor in the article, who would ever pay for car insurance if they could just start paying after a crash, yet reap the benefits at the cost of those who properly pre-planned.

[PEMO3 523]

In other parts of the country subscription based coverage in unincorporated areas is not so uncommon. You don't pay municipal taxes for the service so you pay a subscription fee. Does the FDNY have a duty to act if the fire is in Bayonne or in Mount Vernon? Nope.

It is a tragic reality but you don't get something for nothing even in an emergency.

Chris, normally I agree with your logic but this time I have to differ. Lets assume a call comes in to WC County PD for a boat in distress, possible capsized, just east of Haverstraw Bay. Caller's description clearly puts it in Rockland waters. Will Westchester County sit on its hands and say well its in Rockland's waters or will they start a duel response regardless of their "duty to act"? You know the answer. There is a difference between duty to act and a moral obligation that comes with putting on a uniform be it professional or volunteer. When those values become blurred we loose sight of why we are doing what we do. in reading this article and seeing it say that someones personal property and / or life was worth $75 to save or not save it was the equivalent of paying for protection from organized crime.

[INIT915 1,119]

It seems many of these posts are addressing the "system" as is relates to this issue of fire protection.

I think we can ALL agree that this subscription style of fire protection seems crazy, and ideally the county or township where these setups are prevalent would address them. Maybe take the initiative to establish proper fire protection, funded by taxes, as is the case in much of the country.

What makes this specific case different, is despite our distaste for this subscription program, it is what they have in place right now. It defies logic that anyone would pay if the FD would come out regardless.

My point is, the underlying premise of this inane response program is fundamentally flawed, fatally so, however, it was the program in place when select homeowners decide to "roll the dice," and save $75 playing the odds that they would never need assistance.

It goes against all our morals and ethics to stand by and watch something like this, but that is just putting our values on residents and lawmakers of other parts of the country.

[PEMO3 523]

It goes against all our morals and ethics to stand by and watch something like this, but that is just putting our values on residents and lawmakers of other parts of the country.

I agree that we are putting our morals and value structure on others but additionally , all public servants take an oath of office in which they promise to "serve and protect". I am sure that the oath that these men (& women) took did not qualify that promise by saying only those who are residents of XYZ city or pay their $75 dues.

Edited October 5, 2010 by PEMO3

[INIT915 1,119]

I agree that we are putting our morals and value structure on others but additionally , all public servants take and oath of office in which the promise to "service and protect". I am sure that the oath that these men (& women) took did not qualify that promise by saying only those who are residents of XYZ city or pay their $75 dues.

Well, wherever this incident occurred (and in many more places just like it), the citizens and leaders decided that this is how their system would be set up. Whether we like it or not.

As I previously alluded, it makes little sense to me, but, you know what, it doesn't have to make sense to me. I don't live in one of these communities. If I did, I (and no doubt many on this board), would undoubtedly fight hard to change it, and implement some sort of organized fire response, funded by taxes, but, as I said, these communities choose to allow EACH AND EVERY homeowner to decide on their own what was best. In this sad case, the homeowner decided to bet against fate and assume the risks, knowingly and intentionally. I'm sure he is kicking himself now, but the fact remains, he opted to pocket the $75, versus buying "insurance."

I'm usually a fairly sympathetic guy, but, this homeowner made an ill-fated decision. One his neighbor was wise to avoid making.

[PEMO3 523]

I guess the point that I fine hard to swallow is that in a country where we can agree to disagree, where in the field of Emergency Services we are supposed to provide assistance regardless of status, race, color, religion, sex or economic standing, where we are supposed to treat first and worry about payment second, that such a system can and does exist. My posts are more out of sheer disbelief in the original information rather than anything else. I guess it just proves that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, especially if you forget to pay the $75.

[INIT915 1,119]

And to bring back Chris's point, this fire didn't occur inside the city limits. It was a suburb that relied on the city FD for contacted responses.

Would Peekskill FD just randomly respond to a house fire in a neighboring village, even if that village had no fire service? No, I bet they wouldn't, unless the homeowner had made rearrangements and entered into a contract that said, "I know I don't live in Peekskill, but here is $75, and if my house ever catches fire, please come out here!"

In this case, the homeowner opted not to engage the FD in a contact of sorts, yet, still expected the service that his neighbor received, except for free.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I agree that we are putting our morals and value structure on others but additionally , all public servants take an oath of office in which they promise to "serve and protect". I am sure that the oath that these men (& women) took did not qualify that promise by saying only those who are residents of XYZ city or pay their $75 dues.

Most oaths I've heard state I promise to "serve and protect the citizens of the City of Happyville".

Why should the taxpayers of the City of Happyville pay to support a service to a community that is not part of there city and refuses to help pay for it?

If those people in the unincorporated area want fire protection they can:

1)pay the city for it

2)have the county provided it (and tax them for it)

3)set up a rural fire protection district (and pay tax to support it)

4)Ask the city to expand and incorporate them into the city services (and be taxed for it).

or

5) roll the dice.

[INIT915 1,119]

I guess the point that I fine hard to swallow is that in a country where we can agree to disagree, where in the field of Emergency Services we are supposed to provide assistance regardless of status, race, color, religion, sex or economic standing, where we are supposed to treat first and worry about payment second, that such a system can and does exist. My posts are more out of sheer disbelief in the original information rather than anything else. I guess it just proves that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, especially if you forget to pay the $75.

Forgetting to pay $75 and choosing not to pay $75 are two very different things. It appears after not mailing back in the form, or as you say, forgetting to do so, the city takes the initiative and follows up with phone calls to confirm they are not participating. Seems to me like the City has done it's due diligence.

From the article:

At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.

“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”

[Bnechis 3,961]

I guess the point that I fine hard to swallow is that in a country where we can agree to disagree, where in the field of Emergency Services we are supposed to provide assistance regardless of status, race, color, religion, sex or economic standing, where we are supposed to treat first and worry about payment second,

We are suppose to provide assistance regardless of status, race, color, religion, sex or economic standing but only if you are on my side of the line.

In Westchester almost nobody ever crosses that line. If we did we would be dispatched by closest available unit, not dept. x & dept y. This is why we have communities that have only had ALS for a few years while others have had it for decades. This is why some communities have local police depts and other have NYS.

When White Plains had ALS but it was before Harrison even had BLS (just a stretcher car) and a cardiac arrest call came in in Harrison, you got what you paid for. Did you deserve ALS...yes..did you pay for it...no, did you get it....no.

[PEMO3 523]

Washington, DC - International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger today issued the following statement on the September 29 fire in Obion County, Tennessee:

“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.

“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.

“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. 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 International Association of Fire Fighters, headquartered in Washington, DC, represents more than 298,000 full-time professional fire fighters and paramedics and is the leading advocate for health and safety of first responders in North America. More information is available at www.iaff.org

http://www.iaff.org/Comm/PDFs/SouthFulton.pdf

[INIT915 1,119]

Washington, DC - International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger today issued the following statement on the September 29 fire in Obion County, Tennessee:

“The decision by the South Fulton Fire Department to allow a family’s home to burn to the ground was incredibly irresponsible. This tragic loss of property was completely avoidable. Because of South Fulton’s pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.

“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.

“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection. 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.”

His indignation doesn't actually change the fact that that how the residents in Obion County have arranged their fire protection. I still don't think anyone is suggesting this is how it should be done, but the case remains it is.

It's also interesting he actually faults South Fulton who could just refund everyone's $75 and tell the County residents to go take a hike.

[PEMO3 523]

From the South Fulton Fire Dept Web Site:

Department Facts

• Member of the West Tennessee and Western Kentucky Mutual Aid Pack, and Automatic Mutual Aid with City of Fulton, Kentucky on all structure fires within the corporate city limits.
• ISO rating of Class 5 within the City limits.
• 5 mile radius coverage area under Rural Fire Protection Service.
• 19 Fire Fighters involved in an ongoing, intense training program.

http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Lets remember, this is how the fire service STARTED, back when it was run by insurance companies.

[PEMO3 523]

This topic actual had piqued my interest about the "Rural Fire Protection Service" in Tennessee. Here is some of the information I have found along the way and have found quite interesting. I am not to proud to say that I have actually changed my position about this particular incident after reading much of the background information on the area and departments and must agree in part with Bnechis and Chris although my sense of duty would have made it hard for me to sit back and watch without acting.

Obion County, Tennessee Myths & Facts About Rural Fire Protection Services

The Obion County Fire Department - A Presentation Regarding The Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department

[abaduck 123]

A lot of good points, none of which add up to not a heck of a lot. I'll give you two simple propositions:

1. Firefighters should never be put in that position; if a homeowner in that position calls 911 asking for fire service, they should be told 'Sorry, you don't have fire service'.

2. Proposition 1. above should NEVER happen in a first-world country that considers itself a superpower. If a community or city doesn't have fire service, the county or state or federal government should be REQUIRED to provide it. In a civilised country, no-one should EVER have to worry, before calling 911, 'have I paid my subscription?' or 'can I afford the bill?' or 'will they help me?'. Period. End of. No argument.

[Bnechis 3,961]

“Everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.....“Instead, South Fulton wants to charge citizens outside the city for fire protection.

I agree it is the municipality’s highest priority. And the municipality is the county, since it is "OUTSIDE the City".