Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I’m not sure which story is worse. Under South Fulton, Tennessee’s, “Pay For Spray” program, rural property owners won’t receive fire fighting service unless they have the foresight to pay a $75.00 fee. In September, 2010, the city was lambasted when a home was allowed to burn because the homeowner hadn’t paid it. Now just over a year later the same thing happened again as firefighters watched helplessly when city officials refused to let them fight the fire of Vicky Bell. Bell isn’t eligible for the service because she can’t afford homeowner’s insurance.
To add to her misery, National Review Online deputy managing editor, Kevin D. Williamson, thinks that’s just peachy keen. Writing after the first incident in 2010 and from the security of a city that wouldn’t stoop to this fiscal insanity and downright inhumanity , the former employee of the Institute for Humane Studies opines:
And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.
Williamson, you see, apparently thinks government is a business. And its citizens? Why they ‘re just “customers” who enjoy no benefits except by virtue of their payments. No sense of shared responsibility, no sense of community banding together in a social contract to “promote the general welfare,” and certainly no sense of a collective march forward against the troubles that beset us all. Nope, just fee for service.
It’s a disturbing trend in our national consciousness when citizens become mere customers. Instead, of public servants dedicated to the welfare of all and funded by the taxes of all who can pay, we now have proprietors who precondition their public duties on remuneration and not public spirit.
One wonders about the conscience of those like Williamson who would accept a catastrophe being suffered against someone like Vicky Bell.”We have no idea where we will go from here,” said Bell. “We are very lucky it was minutes from getting us.” If it wasn’t for the couple’s cat, they might not have woken up. He was shaking Brian’s leg and Brian yelled at me to get up,” said Bell. “We don’t know where the cat is now.”
At City Hall , this recent incident is already causing a stir. The city issued a press release saying the policy has been in place since 1990. It was reviewed in 2007, but not changed. If the property owner does not pay, then the fire department will not respond. According to the city, everyone should be aware of the importance of fire protection.
I wonder, indeed, what those city officials, fireman on the scene, and maybe even Williamson would have thought if Vicky and her family were trapped by the flames when help arrived. Would they have made her search her home amid the smoke to come up with the $75.00 fee before extending a hand to save her?
I think I know. If they have any conscience at all, they’d be worried another fire strewn location where eternal admission is free for those who deserve it.
Source: Digital Journal; NRO
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
“Obviously in this incident there was no entity for this City to make a mutual agreement with.”
That’s not exactly quite true, there is the county.
But even assuming it was true, you’re missing the point.
“No, this is a question of human decency.”
The City Volunteer Fire Department provides life saving emergency services to those who cannot pay.
As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 2,517 people, 1,081 households, and 729 families residing in the city. The population density was 814.4 people per square mile (314.5/km²). There were 1,199 housing units at an average density of 388.0 per square mile (149.8/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 78.98% White, 19.47% African American, 0.28% Native American, 0.12% Asian, 0.20% from other races, and 0.95% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.56% of the population.
There were 1,081 households out of which 27.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 48.2% were married couples living together, 15.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 32.5% were non-families. 30.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 16.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 2.83.
In the city the population was spread out with 22.9% under the age of 18, 7.8% from 18 to 24, 24.5% from 25 to 44, 25.5% from 45 to 64, and 19.3% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 42 years. For every 100 females there were 85.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 83.8 males.
The median income for a household in the city was $27,462, and the median income for a family was $35,608. Males had a median income of $27,458 versus $20,212 for females. The per capita income for the city was $15,983. About 15.0% of families and 16.0% of the population were below the poverty line, including 22.2% of those under age 18 and 18.1% of those age 65 or over.
Mike, your shouting to blame the 1% rich of South Fulton seems to miss the point.
Your nasty disdain for the Guest Bloggers here apparently is not limited to me.
Mike, I protest! This is totally false. I do not have a nasty disdain for the guest bloggers, or for any of the individuals who post here either as bloggers or commenters.
I have a nasty disdain for the “rivial, thoughtless, dim, robotic, hackneyed, rote”.
That you conclude this means I have a nasty disdain for you is merely an example of correlation is not causation and metonymy, and synecdouche.
(That last pun was honestly, completely unfounded and not what I mean at all, but seemed to cheap not to pass up.)
“Unless of course they had mutual aid agreements in place, which is the common (in the state in which I live, and includes agencies from the neighboring states).”
Obviously in this incident there was no entity for this City to make a mutual agreement with.
“This is not a question of for profit vs. non-profit fire departments. This is not a question of natural or man-made disasters.”
Anon,
No, this is a question of human decency. It is also a question of unfair taxation that leads to municipalities cutting back on services because certain well-off people have paid a lot of money to convince the public that taxation is bad and that we are NOT all in this together. That these cutbacks are needed, in a time when the top 1% with wealth flourishes, is a symptom of the rush of humanity back to rule by a Feudalistic Plutocracy.
“I think it’s a difficult issue and the NRO blog post makes some valid points that aren’t easily dismissed with the trivial, thoughtless, dim, robotic, hackneyed, rote hate the NRO attitude that mespo automatically goes to.”
Anon,
Your nasty disdain for the Guest Bloggers here apparently is not limited to me. I’ll make you a proposition since you seem to think you are more capable they we are. Why don’t you write an article on something and post it here as a long comment. I’ll ensure that people will know about it so they could read and comment. We all would so appreciate learning from your masterful writing skills, peerless logic and immense knowledge. That was sarcasm by the way. I can’t offer you a guest blog simply because JT’s rule is that guest bloggers must use their real names. I will wait breathlessly for your article.
States, counties and cities all over are cutting back on services. “We can no longer afford to keep the pools open, to keep the state parks open, to provide four Level One trauma centers in the metro area, ….” These are three examples from the shithole I live in.
Here, SF says they will provide full services to a) residents of their city, b) full services to non-residents who pay their fee, c) reduced services to all others, and d) no services to anyone in Long Island.
By doing so, they say, they can continue to provide full services to those who are actually taxed, by law, for their services.
Otherwise, they would have to either reduce services to everyone, provide no services, or raise taxes on the city residents to pay for full services to everyone in the county.
This is not a question of for profit vs. non-profit fire departments. This is not a question of natural or man-made disasters.
“Mahtso,
Using that reasoning on 9/11, when NYC was overwhelmed, the fire departments from Long Island, upper New York State and New Jersey should have demanded payment from NYC before sending out personnel to
assist….”
Unless of course they had mutual aid agreements in place, which is the common (in the state in which I live, and includes agencies from the neighboring states).
@rafflaw, no fears, I am certain we will disagree shortly, if not already.
“Why does she have to have insurance in order to be able to purchase the fire department services?”
My guess is they bill the insurance company for the actual cost of putting out the fire. ??
“Secondly, why can’t mobile homes get insurance? Is that a Tennessee thing or are these mobile homes in such disrepair that no insurance company would cover them? If that is the case, why isn’t there a high risk pool for mobile homes like there is for auto insurance risks?”
These are good questions that good reporting might uncover, sadly, not too much good reporting these days.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.TuOJ5GNCoXk
Last year’s controversy was sparked, NOT BECAUSE the Cranick’s had not paid the fee and wanted the fire fought for free, or for $75, but because the fire department still would not put the fire out even when the Cranick’s had offered to pay the entire costs.
And apparently neither the Cranicks nor Bell blame the firefighters for this.
firefighterblog
.com/2010/10/south-fulton-fire-department-you-pay-or-we-dont-play/
Every year we see people who built their homes in the hills above LA get burned out (even though Jim Morrison warned them), and we see people who build in flood plains that regularly flood get flooded out, and we see people who build on beaches get washed away by hurricanes.
Here the Bells were in a trailer that could not get insurance, and lived outside of city lines, and they are being served by volunteer fire fighters.
I think it’s a difficult issue and the NRO blog post makes some valid points that aren’t easily dismissed with the trivial, thoughtless, dim, robotic, hackneyed, rote hate the NRO attitude that mespo automatically goes to.
It’s not that the NRO jackass thinks government is a business, he acknowledges the government responding is NOT the Bell’s government.
Question: WHY do cities and fire departments feel it necessary to create mutual aid pacts?
The effort of all these city, county fire departments creating mutual aid pacts would seem to be a huge and giant waste under the mespo theory of a universal right to fire services.
“Williamson, you see, apparently thinks government is a business. And it’s citizens, why there just “customers” who enjoy no benefits except by virtue of their payments.”
Mark,
This is such an interesting statement in light of the National Review’s strong anti-tax sentiments. If we use Williamson’s business perspective then those who reap the greatest benefits from government should pay more percentage-wise in taxes. This concept is not the reality and the National Review specifically opposes any idea that would make the customers receiving the greatest services pay their fair share. That’s why I can only buy an inexpensive car, when others can buy BMW’s.
“Most reports are showing that this home was not in the city (i.e., the city does not make residents pay a fee to buy fire service) and some reports show that the reason the fire department went to the scene was to help if anyone was in danger (e.g. people were in the home).”
Mahtso,
Using that reasoning on 9/11, when NYC was overwhelmed, the fire departments from Long Island, upper New York State and New Jersey should have demanded payment from NYC before sending out personnel to
assist. On Long Island for instance, many of the Fire Departments are manned by trained volunteers and the money for them comes out of local property taxes. However, in times of emergency these volunteers don’t first go through records to see if those in need are up to date on their property taxes.
The location of this fire would appear to be in a rural area that provides few services to its’ residents and their are probably not any volunteer fire departments around this sparsely populated area. Paying the $75 per year would seem to be a fair fee, yet to not assist someone in need who hadn’t paid the fee, is little more than an acknowledgement of those who don’t believe in a sense of human community.
As far as the pay for service fire department concept, this was the norm in NYC in the 1800’s. There were many, many cases of fire departments competing with each other and this led to two, or three different, for profit fire departments showing up at a fire scene and battling each other. After the public being discouraged with this outrageous norm, NYC formed what has become one of the premier Fire Departments in the world, well-paid and equipped professionals, paid for by City taxes. Perhaps not you, but many would now have us go back to for profit business entities providing this service.
I saw this on the news and the owner of the trailer said that at least the fire department was there to stop the fire from spreading to her neighbors homes.
anon,
We do not agree very often, but you are right here. Why does she have to have insurance in order to be able to purchase the fire department services? Secondly, why can’t mobile homes get insurance? Is that a Tennessee thing or are these mobile homes in such disrepair that no insurance company would cover them? If that is the case, why isn’t there a high risk pool for mobile homes like there is for auto insurance risks?
There seems to be some confusion.
Maybe it is my own.
The homeowner’s claim is that she could not pay the fee even if she wanted to, without insurance, trailers are not eligible to pay the fee for the fire department.
“In Monday’s fire, the homeowner hadn’t paid the fee either. However according to CBS affiliate KFVS 12, it wasn’t because the homeowner forgot or didn’t want to pay; the reason was because they weren’t eligible for the fee.
According to the KFVS 12 report Bell said none of the trailers in her area qualify for insurance and, due to this, they are not eligible to pay a fee to receive rural fire protection service under the City of South Fulton rules.”
The rest of the story never discusses this, just various officials talking about fees.
This is different from last year, which was bad enough, this is worse.
If there was no way she could pay the fee, then why have the fire engines stand idly by?
If there was no way she could pay the free, then why not lambaste the two idiot mayors (city and county) that don’t even understand the real issue.
Hopefully, the homeowners and taxpayers of the community will get the message and either vote the local commissioners out of office and get some new ones, or pressure them to simply add the cost to the property taxes and spread the nominal cost across the board. If everyone pays equally, they will not have to charge as much as $75.00 to cover all dwellings and businesses. Hit or miss charges are always going to be more than if everyone pays.
The same works with insurance. Insurance for everyone will cost less per person than if only those who can afford insurance pay for it.
I understand this on one level. If the rule is you pay $75 at the start of the year & you get fire protection then the only way you are going to get people to actually pay the $75 is to let those who do not pay suffer the consequences. The alternative, once you have started down this road, would be nobody would pay & the fire service would be even more shorted.
This grows out of the anti-tax sickness we have fallen under in this country. If it costs a certain amount to provide fire protection to a community then the costs should be spread across everyone that benefits from it. Add the cost to the real estate tax, don’t make it optional. If it is optional and you decide it is not worth $75 to you then don’t whine when you bet the wrong way.
I know virtually nothing of Ron Paul’s views. The blogger had misrepresented what happened and I thought people would want to know. And yes, the true situation is (to me) justifiable.
For those who disagree, one thing you can do is sent $75 to the fire department for every uninsured home you want to sponsor, because that is what we are talking about: insurance through a subscription service. Such subscriptions services are not uncommon in unincorporated areas (in the state in which I live).
mahtso
Does any of that make this situation more tolerable or justifiable or anything other than the full manifestation the Libertarian, and particularly Ron Paul’s, vision of the ideal America?
Most reports are showing that this home was not in the city (i.e., the city does not make residents pay a fee to buy fire service) and some reports show that the reason the fire department went to the scene was to help if anyone was in danger (e.g. people were in the home).
Money dissolves community.
TN is not living up to its travel brochures….