There’s a new world of “limited government” coming, and it’s a world on fire. Recently, firefighters in rural Obion County, Tennessee watched a home burn to the ground because the homeowners failed to pay a yearly $75 fee for fire protection. It was more than just that home burning. The entire concept of a government by the people, of the people, and for the people went up in flames.

Imagine a privatized Police department....

Video spoof..
http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/videovault/videoplayer.html?uri=channels/405150/1039452

 lol..the video spoof.. 

but the thought of having to pay for fire protection?? that is outrageous. Why is it then you pay taxes? it's barbarous. 

This is an atrocity, an outrage and obviously an affront to human decency and something should be done about it. But in fairness nowhere in this report did they attribute this to limited government or privatization but did call it a city policy in effect since 1990. How and why this became city policy is altogether another question.

Sounds like the tales from old London Town..When homeowners paid  fire insurance and were given a plaque to place on their building so the firefighters would KNOW they had paid their dues..

Very 17th century of them.That's one city I think I'd see about moving from as soon as possible..because we all know how todays' computerised systems are so efficient and accurate.

Plus of course it's an obvious money earner and If I were the voters in that county that's one mayor I'd vote to get out of office.In fact I'd stand against the SOB and promise a return to a sensible and humane firefighting service.

I guess if someone's life were at risk they would do something? I'd damn well hope so.

So I'm guessing his home insurers won't pay out because he didn't have fire protection insurance ($75) ?

This is an interesting case.  The person whose house burned down did not live in the city.  All city residents are covered, as their taxes pay for the fire department.  The residents outside of the city limits need to pay the fee in order to support the fire department.  This is only fair.  The person refused to pay the fee, and so he reaped what he sewed.  It wasn't just that he failed to pay, he refused to pay.

Now, what I supposed could have happened, is that the fire department puts the fire out, and then charges the guy for the full cost of doing so.  ie, full cost of labor, rental of equipment, etc. 

My question stands though about saving lives..

*Now, what I supposed could have happened, is that the fire department puts the fire out, and then charges the guy for the full cost of doing so.  ie, full cost of labor, rental of equipment, etc. *

Sounds like a good idea at first glance but it has a huge drawback.

First it would encourage more property owners outside the township to not pay the fee for service.  "I will pay for it if I need it" mentality.

Having been an officer in a volunteer fire department I also understand the problem of maintaining coverage within its corporate limits.  How would you explain to a tax payer or a "fee payer" whose home was on fire that his fire department was busy fighting a fire out of town for someone who had in essence told the city it's service wasn't wanted?

If a city is large enough to have more than one station it will shuffle equipment and men to the emptied station to keep an area covered.  Volunteer units usually have like mutual aid plans.  It sounds like the town of South Fulton, Tenn. may not have the facilities to fulfill its obligation beyond its city limits unless a property owner "contracts" with them to get the service.  The size of the town and amount of people who pay for coverage will dictate the amount of equipment and number of firefighters necessary.  It is too late to buy another fire engine after the fire starts.

The folks outside of South Fulton have two choices: pay the fee so coverage can be provided by the city or form their own volunteer unit.  Actually a third choice, do neither and gamble your life and property on your decision.

Trust me it was not the firefighters decision to let it burn but it was also a difficult line that the decision makers had to draw in order provide uninterrupted coverage for its primary area.  If the poor guys whose house was destroyed lived within a volunteer fire departments area he would probably not been a supporter of that either. My guess anyhow.

@ Incognitas

I would bet my home and paycheck that had human life been at stake the firefighters would have done what had to be done, no questions asked.  That is the medal of a firefighter. But I can at least understand the decision making process, right or wrong in this case.

I think most all fire fighters are first responders to medical emergencies nowadays also, at least in my part of the country. What about the heart attack victim that lives within a block of an empty fire house?  How far outside the town limits do you offer extended coverage for a fee, one mile, two miles, 50 miles? 

Unprotected areas is what has spawned volunteer fire units for decades. 

Well I'm glad I live in the UK then and  taxes cover all of us..The only fire insurance I need is the one that will pay to rebuild my house.

What gets me is that the fire department responded and were standing there watching the fire while the home burned to the ground. It isn’t like they were busy in some other part of the city putting out another fire. They could have doused the fire, saved the house and then charged the home owner for the cost as Jcleaver suggests. The guy was in a pinch and probably would have payed double/triple the amount on the spot to save his home. Now he'll probably go on some government assistance program and the tax payer will take the hit which no doubt will cost more than $75.

And if he refused again after wards?  Should the fire department then come out and set it back on fire?  I really don't know what the total cost would be, but i would not be surprised if it was somewhere north of $5,000.00. 

I believe they responded only because the houses on either side of him did pay the fee, and they were there to make sure it didn't spread.

It is obvious that the city policy needs to be amended so that if the fire department does have to come out to turn out a fire on your house or property, the property owner who does not pay the $75 fee will be fined for the total cost plus a surcharge for responding with the possibility of a lien on his home if he doesn’t pay the fine. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind paying an annual $75 fee then. And the tax payer wouldn’t have to be saddled for his calamity.  

But what legal recourse would the city actually have?   Can a city levy a fine on a home not in it's jurisdiction?  That is why this is such an interesting case.  I am not sure there is any recourse for the city if they put the fire out anyway.  If they did that, they would encourage all other homeowners around him to refuse to pay until needed.

The premise is that you don’t have to pay the $75 annual fee if you don’t want to but know that a heavy fine will be incurred if you should be unfortunate enough to have a fire on your property requiring that service. It is only fair since it would be an imposition to the city’s resources.

@ Quest:  I did not introduced my point in the story correctly..  I meant to show what a limited government could mean if we started going down the road of privatizing these public services.. 

@skiwillgee This woman paid her taxes and she lived in that house...   The fire department, in full gear, watched her house burn to the ground...  They were guarding the house next door...  She begged them to put the fire out.. and offered to pay anything..   but they just stood and watched..   Upon further investigation of this story, there was money in the towns governmental workings... to cover this persons house...   where were the community services. ?
The fire department services,  like a phone or electric utility service,  it was cut off for non payment..   Heartless and cold...

This house was their lives..  the point is not what would the firemen do if there was a life on the line...  the point is what a city tax run public service did when it became privately funded..   due to a non payment fee of $75.00 they sat on their arses and watched the property burn to the ground..

Thanks for the response all..

@Tom271, but the story has nothing to do with limited government or privatization. It has to do with city ordinances and policy making. To say otherwise is like trying to pluck feathers from a goldfish and smacks of political agenda.

@ Quest:  you are right it  was a political agenda on my part...   And this did happen due to a stupid local city ordinance law...  But my agenda meant to look a little further into the probabilities of cold hearten privatization...  I would not consider it a far reaching feathers to scales comment.. 
but a micro sample of what can easily happen in a grander scheme of things....

thanks for your civil educated response,,

His insurance paid..

We have the same policy here in the town I live in. .the only difference is that if you don't pay the yearly fee..you have to pay a much bigger one if you have a fire and call the fire dept.   It happened to us..we hadn't paid the fee and we had a much bigger fee to pay after and they still didn't save the house...they tried but couldn't.  My insurance paid..because homeowner's insurance covers fire.  They also paid the fire dept bigger fee.

This is strictly a county policy nothing to do with  the govt.

@tom271
won't happen!  the govt doesn't handle things like local fires or anything else that's local...its all done by county and city ppl...

In my case...I knew I had fire insurance coverage in my homeowner's policy and didn't see the need to pay the county a yearly fee....especially since I live so far from town that they probably could never get there in time..and the water had to be pumped from a creek about a quarter mile down the road....

*@tom271
won't happen!  the govt doesn't handle things like local fires or anything else that's local...its all done by county and city ppl...

I'm not sure what you meant by " won't happen"  nor I know where you live...  You seem to have special circumstances for paying fire protection...  All large cities or towns get their fire protection by paying their taxes...  That's why taxes are paid....  Taxes go towards roads, bridges, public schools, police and fire department...  There are exemptions all over this country...

I think my point did not succeed to mature..  :)

I live in southeast Missouri...and it is the same in all of the rural parts of the area.  It is just what they do when you  live out of the city limits.

I guess many people who live in cities and pay city taxes have not known about this until it hits the major news stations...but its been like that here for years.  My house burned in 1990.

I'm sorry to hear that your home burnt..   I never really had an Idea of the reality of this situation for many Americans..   Living in NYC..  you take the fire department for granted...  It is always there..
I too had my home go up in flames.. an apartment.. 

The scam is older than you think...they just haven't 'connected the dots'

In Ancient Rome, the fire companies would watch the place burn, while the leader would offer to buy the place; the price going down the longer it was on fire....

Just as an ending note:  that two dogs and a cat burned to death in the house.. and two people were taken to the hospital ..

articles.sfgate.com/2005-08-12/bay-area/17384489_1_apartment-dogs-kennel

We have the same situation in Knoxville. In the city everything is covered, fire, ambulance, police, garbage, even leaf pickup. In the county there is only a sheriff. My house is in the county. I pay $1300 in property taxes a year. The same house in the city would be $2800. I pay $680 for fire and ambulance and $217 for garbage. That still leaves me $600 ahead plus my homeowner’s insurance gives me a discount for subscribing to the fire service.
 

The city has been chasing doctors and lawyers west for the last 40 years. A new development/ country club is built then the city annexes and they build another a few blocks down. The city/county map looks like an octopus where the city has annexed the main streets and businesses for taxes but left the less valuable and accessible residential neighborhoods in the county. My house falls in that category. I’m 500 yards from the city boundary but Kingston Pike continues to be in the city for another eleven miles. It would go further but they incorporated another town called Farragut to protect Seven Oaks, Fox Den, and Avalon developments from annexation.
 

Unlike the story if I fail to pay Rural Metro still comes to put out my fire. They will however charge me $1200/hour with 1 hour minimum. My home owner’s will only pay the $680 I should be paying to subscribe. I personally would love to be able to give the city $75/year and get coverage.  The county and city fire houses are only a block from each other and less than seven from my house.
 

I  have no sympathy for the first people in the original story. I’ve seen my share of really rich, really cheap people. In my case, being in the county and having to pay for individual services is still cheaper than living in the city. Seventy five a year, I spend twice that on movies. On the other side of the coin read this story about a fire department that’s almost out of business because only 20% pay.
 

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/oct/11/karns-fire-service-forced-to-enact-fee/?partner=yahoo_feeds

"Just as an ending note:  that two dogs and a cat burned to death in the house.. and two people were taken to the hospital .."

I don't understand the latest link and comment.  The original fire discussed was in Tenn. in Sept. 2010 and the blaze that Tom271 noted as "ending note" occurred in Aug 2005 in Oakland (assuming California) and firefighters were fighting the blaze.   ?????

I think electroglyph understands the complexities of the situation and aptly elaborated on the financial problems some fire protection providers face.   The VFD I belonged to set adjacent to Charlotte, NC and Charlotte Douglas International airport.  We were subsidized by Mecklenburg county government to provide fire and rescue service within our fire district. The subsidy covered about 10% of our operating expenses.  Other than that, we were supported 100% by donations from residents and businesses in our district.  The residents living in the better subdivisions and large corporate businesses were the least apt to donate even a nickel to the department.  Large hotel chains like Holiday Inn and Mariott, national motor freight carriers that had huge terminal hubs in our district, etc...  would not give a penny because their corporate offices had a policy against giving donations to "charities".  We trained with and responded as backup to Charlotte's fire stations and Charlotte airport's crash units. We covered the Air National Guard and its planes adjacent to the air port.  None of those gave any financial support to our department even though we were expected to respond when called (and we did respond to ALL calls). 

Maybe this thread has opened some eyes to the "taken for granted" services that are/aren't provided outside city limits.

My VFD's history fm the web.
Wilkinson Boulevard FD was one of the first rural departments in North Carolina, organized in 1943 after two houses were destroyed on Gary Street off Wilkinson Boulevard, just outside the city limits. The department acquired hose and sponsored the installation of hydrants along a newly installed main. WBFD reformed in 1947, and a formal fire department was created. Apparatus was acquired, and a station was built. The first station was located at 2925 Wilkinson Boulevard, and relocated by 1967 to 2904 Little Rock Road just north of Wilkinson Boulevard. Due to annexations, WBFD merged with Moores Chapel FD in 1984 and formed West Mecklenburg FD. Became WMFD Station #2. Both stations subsequently closed and 66-member department relocated to Sam Wilson Road. Source: OH, FD, Charlotte Observer, 21JUN89, Charlotte News, 27MAR84.

Sorry for error.. my bad...