Firefighters Watch As Home Burns: Gene Cranick's House Destroyed In Tennessee Over $75 Fee (VIDEO)

A smoldering rage may be all that remains after Gene Cranick's home burned to the ground last week in Obion County, Tennessee.

Firefighters are usually the bold "veni, vidi, vici" sort, but those from neighboring South Fulton could only say "veni, vidi." They came. They watched. That's it.

Cranick lives outside of the city limits and he admits that he forgot to pay a $75 annual service fee that would have provided him with fire protection. Firefighters wouldn't lift a finger, much less the hoses that might have saved the house.

The fire reportedly started in some barrels outside. As the flames crept closer to the home, Cranick says he offered to pay whatever it would take. The plea fell on deaf ears. Hours later, the home was gone.

So were three dogs and a cat.

"They coulda' been saved if they put water on it. But they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC.

The South Fulton firefighters did show up and managed to save a neighbor's field. The neighbor had paid the fee. But they would provide no heroics for the Cranicks. A local news report shows them climbing back on their trucks, flames still dancing over what was once the family's home.

The event was dubbed "pay for spray" by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. It's a chilling vision of what could play out in a third world America, where paying taxes isn't enough to cover basic services. Fire protection, it turns out, is a privilege in some communities. On Monday's show, Olbermann railed against the larger implications the incident, calling it "a look now into the America envisioned by the tea party ... just a preview of what would come in a kind of a la carte government."

WATCH:

Think Progress was equally incensed:

As ThinkProgress has noted, there are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. One, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own society, and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. The other vision, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background.

The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee.

Cranick's wife, Paulette, doesn't blame the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault," she told WPSD.

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker didn't exude compassion when interviewed for the same report, comparing the service to an insurance policy. "Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't."

A family in Tennessee didn't accept. They lost their home over a $75 fee.

WATCH:

Comments

[Rantipole]

04:48 PM on 11/06/2010

Obviously, I did not read all 16,000 posts, but based on the dozens I've read, no one knows the basic facts.

Check this out:
http://hansenreport.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/burning-down-the-house/

[Djjeffe]

03:06 PM on 11/19/2010

Yeah Yeah.... policy, facts, money, blah blah blah... Look, either you have compassion for your fellow man or you do not. Period....

[cmartin5999]

01:46 AM on 10/15/2010

The city sounds like they are operating a crime ring almost like a gang. I wonder what they would've done if someone died in that fire.

[Waltereg0]

02:03 AM on 10/13/2010

I would have just told the firefighters that there was a person in the house.

[Fellow Traveller]

12:24 AM on 10/13/2010

For more information on the FACTS behind the situation in Obion County that led to this happening, and how to stop if from happening again, please visit: http://obionfire.blogspot.com/

[Steve Shierry]

01:50 PM on 10/12/2010

Let me see if I have this right. People in the county are offered fire protection service for $75/ year. They can choose to have it or not. If they pay the fee and they have a fire, the fire department comes and puts out the fire. If they choose not to have the service, their house burns down. Pretty simple really.

But it seems like many of the poeple posting don't get it. What would happen if the fire department did put out the fire. What is the incentive for anyone to pay the fee? The fire depart shows up either way, so why should I pay it. When the fire departement doesn't have money to support fighting fires in the county, they just stop going and eveyone looses.

[Aroddo]

03:26 AM on 10/12/2010

If the firefighters are volunteers, does that mean that they voluntarily let that house burn down?
Like 'duh, we could help you but we are busy wanking to betty boop.' voluntarily?
Or more like 'we warned you to pay us protecting money and we also mentioned how awfully imflamable your property looked to us, hur hur'.

this isn't a fire brigade - this is a crime syndicate.

[DarkandStormyNight]

04:26 PM on 10/11/2010

It really doesn't matter what or who was in the house or whether these people were volunteers. The point is that this is a basic service that people should not have to pay for in a civilized society. However, it is a sign of the times where the word GOVERNMENT is such a nasty word. Keith O is over the top sometimes, but he's right on the mark here. Pay for spray. Next, we'll all be calling 911 only to be told, no fee paid! no help for you!

[themagicdog]

06:09 PM on 10/11/2010

In the countryside, fire protection is often handled very differently than in the cities. Did you know that 75% of all firefighters in the U.S. are volunteers? Did you know that various forms of fee-for-service has long been common in rural area when it comes to firefighting and other services you deem basic? I guess not.

Oh, and are you aware that there's a depression on? Even in the cities, basic services are being cut, and there's much more to come. We're going to be seeing much more serious horror stories than this one, and they won't be just in the Tea Party states. Just wait.

[reddog55]

01:14 AM on 10/12/2010

"this is a basic service that people should not have to pay for in a civilized society."

I agree that individual persons should not be responsible for paying for these services. It is not even close to being a good way to do it, as it leads to these incidents. Unfortunately in rural areas it is often a subscription based service.

[SarahhJ]

02:53 PM on 10/15/2010

If the neighbor who paid the fee asked the firefighters to put the water on the burning house, yet the firefighters refused, then they are at fault. They should be ashamed for following such inhumane orders. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101015074350AAqzK75 clearly heroism is frowned upon in conservative circles as bein unamerican.
Sarah James

[Oilygarch]

12:58 PM on 10/11/2010

Had a living person been trapped inside, would the firefighters have let the house burn that person alive, just because the inhabitant failed to pay the protection money?

[themagicdog]

01:19 PM on 10/11/2010

Are you in the habit of commenting on things without even bothering to learn the basics? The FD in question has a policy of responding to all fires if there's a person inside of a burning building.

[Chris Matthews 1]

01:38 PM on 10/11/2010

And in all the panic, you can say for sure that no one tried to go in to save those animals that died? They didn't even go near the house to make sure.

[Chris Matthews 1]

10:29 AM on 10/11/2010

A lot of people have made it a point to say that these were volunteer firefighters, and as such they don't get paid for what they do. To that, I'd like to say:

1). You know this going in. So, if it's about money for you, you probably shouldn't volunteer for the gig.

2). Once you do volunteer, you're sworn to an oath. An oath where money is not the end all be all. If you cannot keep to that oath, you probably shouldn't volunteer for the gig.

3). I understand the fee. I get it. But for God's sake don't just stand there when a situation is happening when you have to ability to do something about it! If you can sleep at night after a act like what occured here, you probably shouldn't be a volunteer anything, or, really, a paid anything.

4). The concept of "You didn't pay your nickel? Die in the street!" is what is inherently wrong with this country right now. We're better than this mentality. We must be better than this.

I'm going to get slammed by some for saying this. I know that. But deep down, those slammers know I'm right.

[Oilygarch]

12:50 PM on 10/11/2010

No, Kudos to you for saying what's on your mind. You get 5 Internets!

Couldn't have said it any better. Thank you for your post.

[themagicdog]

01:20 PM on 10/11/2010

Okay, so once you start excluding the volunteers, then what?

[Chris Matthews 1]

01:35 PM on 10/11/2010

Then you have OFFICIAL TAXPAYER FUNDED FIREFIGHTERS to do the job that these guys didn't.

[Chris Matthews 1]

01:36 PM on 10/11/2010

Also, you missed my point. I'm not bashing people that volunteer. But when you do, you know what you're getting yourself into. So, if you don't like what comes with it, stay the $#%& home.

[Commandrea]

02:46 PM on 10/10/2010

If the neighbor who paid the fee asked the firefighters to put the water on the burning house, yet the firefighters refused, then they are at fault. They should be ashamed for following such inhumane orders.

[themagicdog]

03:43 PM on 10/10/2010

A neighbor pays a fee for service at his own place. It doesn't entitle him to send a fire crew to someone's else's place.

[Aroddo]

06:33 PM on 10/10/2010

strange... i heard of people that help other people in emergencies ... free of charge!
they are often called 'heroes' in the media.

clearly heroism is frowned upon in conservative circles as bein unamerican.

[Zenechka]

11:24 PM on 10/09/2010

Anyone who would let a home burn down over a $75 fee needs to be immediately removed from the community. They're a seriously bad role model for everyone around them. Can you imagine what the children must think about a group of losers who would let someone's home burn down for $75? The fee, along with a fine, could very easily have been sorted out after the home was saved. Instead, the only lesson this fire department has taught anyone is that they're not upstanding members of an American community. Quite frankly, they're thugs. They most certainly aren't FDNY material. They're pathetic.

[themagicdog]

03:54 PM on 10/10/2010

If you'd actually read anything about this story, you'd have learned that the town FDs have in fact tried to bill people after putting out fires, only to have more than half of them ignore the bills. According to an Obion County, Tenn. report, it's impossible for them to collect the unpaid bills.

Oh, and the "thugs" are volunteers. Apparently, you're too lazy to have learned that, too.

[Dahveed1]

04:37 PM on 10/10/2010

Anyone that refuses to pay a $75 fee and then sets fire to his house should be removed from the community. Wait, I think he just did that...

[rakrobn]

08:29 PM on 10/09/2010

The man is a Southern hick in a red state, and is most like a Teabagger himself who votes conservative and for Republicans. You get what you elect.

[Kyle Roberts]

06:35 PM on 10/13/2010

lol, so true

[reddog55]

07:09 PM on 10/09/2010

Response to Chris Matthews 1’s questions posted below:

1). They came out once the fire spread to the property of a neighbor that paid the $75. So, they were already active as far as putting out the fire to some degree. Wouldn't the best way to prevent any potential spreading of the fire been to have simply put the whole thing out in the first place?

The best way to prevent this problem is for the county to provide for fire protection service for its residents and not leave them to fend for themselves. Responding to every fire on this basis (preventing it spreading) creates an expectation of service without paying for it. You see this exact thing in this situation. Mr. Cranick said ‘I thought they would come put out the fire even though I didn’t pay . . .’

[Oilygarch]

12:56 PM on 10/11/2010

Why wait for the fire to grow and spread? Now you have a bigger threat before you. I thought these folks were all about fire prevention. If they simply threw water on the original fire it would not have spread to adjacent properties and become a larger threat.

SHAME!

[Chris Matthews 1]

01:45 PM on 10/11/2010

That's completely false, and you know it! A fire and how it spreads cannot be estimated. Since they were already there acting in some capacity, the could prevent the spread by putting out the fire at it's source.

[reddog55]

02:30 AM on 10/12/2010

How a fire spread can be estimated based on local terrain, vegetation and weather conditions. The park services do it all the time. In rural areas fires are often started intentionally for prairie conservation and other reasons. So I don't know that it is false. What kind of estimate was done here if any I don't know.

And once again, the fire fighters were not called to the scene until the neighbors property was in danger . . . the fire had already spread.

Good night all . . .

[reddog55]

07:09 PM on 10/09/2010

Continued - - - Response to Chris Matthews 1’s questions posted below:

2). How, exactly, does them putting out the fire hurt anyone?

Actually it hurts everyone. See number 1. If you obtain service without paying for it why would you pay for service in the first place? These are not big city fire department. These are rural volunteer fire departments that are always hurting for funds. There are continuing costs associated with keeping the fire department running. If no one is providing the annual fees who pays to keep the fire department running.

The city did try to collect post-response and it did not work.

The larger area you serve the more equipment you need, so serving the county has a cost. It was reported that %80 of the calls were to the county. The city residents should not be paying to protect the county residents from fire, hence the very reasonable subscription fee.

[Chris Matthews 1]

01:49 PM on 10/11/2010

No, it doesn't hurt anyone. So, if you're so worried about cost, why offer the service in the first place?

[reddog55]

01:28 AM on 10/12/2010

If the cost to the city gets to the point that it degrades their ability to protect the city's residents that will likely happen.

Would you as a resident of the city vote to raise your own taxes to fund fire protection service for county residents that won't provide funds for the service? Would you vote to double your taxes for this?

[Kyle Roberts]

04:08 PM on 10/11/2010

The county should have charged enough through taxes to pay for the firefighting service. Instead the greedy law-makers want to pay as little as possible for other peoples' 'public' services and so they pass a law or whatever that lets them pay for just themselves and lets those with less means rot. That type of system isn't the way a society survives and thrives, its the way one dies.

[reddog55]

01:18 AM on 10/12/2010

"The county should have charged enough through taxes to pay for the firefighting service."

Agreed

[Steve Shierry]

01:55 PM on 10/12/2010

The poeple of the county voted not to have taxes to cover firefighting services.

And societies die because people expect to be taken care of at someone else's expense.

[reddog55]

07:08 PM on 10/09/2010

Continued - - - Response to Chris Matthews 1’s questions posted below:

3). Once the money was offered to cover the cost by the neighbor via a blank check - which would have actually given the department more than the $75 charge, by the way - why did they still refuse to act?

There was no mechanism in place for this to take place. The fire department and firemen don’t have authority to do such a thing. Fee up front for a response is the system that was in place. What did the guy mean by a blank check? Would he have been ok with $5,000 – $10,000-$50,000? The cost isn’t $75 + $500. What is a fair cost to put out the fire? Then there would have been claims of extortion.

See 1 & 2 above.

Then once you accept X dollars per response no one will bother to pay the annual fee which is needed to maintain and purchase equipment. The thought will be, I will save that money and if I have a fire I will pay at that point. Which seem like the likely outcome as the county people don’t seem keen on a tax or fee to support the fire service.

[Chris Matthews 1]

01:48 PM on 10/11/2010

Incorrect. You charge them for the cost of putting out the fire, thus bringing in more revenue. There are ways to ensure payment, and if they couldn't figure it out at one time, that's on them (Personal responsibility, remember?). Also note, as I've said repeatedly, doing the right thing isn't a matter of money. It's a matter of one's own sense of morality.

[reddog55]

12:52 AM on 10/12/2010

Well since you are an expert I suggest you head down there and lend a hand getting them the money.

[reddog55]

01:23 AM on 10/12/2010

Fighting fires is a matter of money. It cost money to fight fires. That is a real world fact. If a fire department doesn't have money to purchase and maintain equipment then what? The city should bankrupt its fire department because the resident of the county don't fund fire protection services for the county residents?