Some of you may remember the story about firefighters allowing a house to burn and pets die over $75 last year. Well, the pay for spray policy strikes again. It happened once again with the South Fulton, Tennessee fire department.
Another homeowner was forced to watch their house, and many possessions, burn to the ground, all because they didn’t pay the $75 “pay for spray” fee (known as a “fire subscription fee”). And, according to reports by WPSD, firefighters were right there watching as well.
Were The Firefighters Wrong?
The point of this article isn’t really to debate the actions of the firefighters in this particular case, but if you want to know my opinion, you have to read what the article revealed about Vicky Bell (the homeowner) first…
Bell and her boyfriend admitted they were aware but thought this would never happen to them.
They knew what the policy of the South Fulton fire department was, but they choose to ignore the fire subscription fee and simply take their chances. Now that their terrible gamble has come back to hurt them, they want the rules to be ignored and everyone to feel sorry for them.
I have sympathy for them because I know what it is like to make a horrible decision and live to regret it. However, they have no right to blame anyone else for their circumstance. They intentionally ignored the fee, and now they have to deal with the consequences. This is similar to the recent phenomenon of elderly foreclosure “victims” (although, sometimes even Bank of America foreclosures go wrong).
The Need For A Pay For Spray Policy
Since some of the rural areas in Obion County are too small to be able to support a fire department of their own, the city of South Fulton is kind enough to make their firefighters available to them. Instead of the residents seeing an increase in their property taxes, they are simply asked to pay an annual fire subscription fee of $75.
This way, they are helping to offset some of the operating costs of the fire department – especially since they now have the added responsibilities that come from servicing other areas. If someone doesn’t want to pay to support the fire department, then they don’t have to.
The mayor of South Fulton, David Crocker, stated that if they do not collect the fire subscription fees, then they can’t survive. He also noted that if they make exceptions to this rule, no one will ever pay the fee.
The Moral Dilemma With Pay For Spray
If a homeowner doesn’t pay the fee (whether by choice or if they forgot), then they are not able to access the services of the fire department for that year.
It is quite common for the residents of a rural community to pay a fee to the fire department of a nearby city, in order to secure their services.
As with the case of Gene Cranick in 2010 (the article I linked to above), the firefighters were simply following the rules and obeying orders. I’m sure that it was extremely difficult for them to fight their natural instincts and training, in order to properly carry out their duties.
The moral dilemma is simply the fact that they had to stand by and watch a home burn to the ground. They were not able to help by putting out the fire, or even trying to save some of the home owner’s possessions.
Every time someone who didn’t pay the fee suffers loss from a fire – and the fire department didn’t help them – there is a public outcry. Many people talk about how immoral and despicable the firefighters were, and declare that they should have helped the people despite their refusal to pay the fee when it was due.
A debate naturally ensues, between those who feel that the homeowner shouldn’t expect to get a service that he refused to pay for, and those who feel that the firefighters should have risked their jobs and lives no matter what!
I can see both sides of the argument, but I think there is something else which must be considered first.
Pay For Spray And Insurance
Here is what I wrote last year when making this comparison:
This is no different than insurance: You pay a fee (premium) for protection from a future event that may or may not happen. If the event happens, you’re covered; if it doesn’t, you don’t get your money back. No insurance company will let you wait until your house burns down to take out a policy! You must have the coverage BEFORE the incident.
Since Vicky Bell (the homeowner), decided not to take out a policy, she wasn’t eligible to file a claim [on the service] when she faced an emergency! I can’t get into a car accident without insurance, but then expect an insurance company to provide me with their service during an accident (even if I tell them that I’ll pay on the spot)! There are smarter ways to save money on car insurance.
You can’t have people decide not to pay, but be given the option to pay the fee at the time of an accident. As, Mayor David Crocker stated, doing this will remove the incentive for people to pay beforehand. This would ultimately lead to the fire department not receiving enough funds to cover the additional operating expenses associated with adding new towns to their responsibilities (unless there happens to be an abundance of fires in the rural communities).
Whether it’s home contents insurance, natural disaster insurance, hurricane preparedness, or any other consumer insurance information or coverage you can think of; you need to ensure that you are prepared for the worst (even if you plan to use an emergency fund to cover damages) at all times. Having regrets and trying to pass the blame won’t help you get through a disaster!
I think we can find a way to satisfy the insurance element of it being optional, as well as the moral dilemma that comes when “uninsured” homeowners are in danger of losing their homes.
How To Fix Pay For Spray
Treat it like other emergency services. There are two emergency situations which immediately come to mind. Health problems dealt with in the emergency room of a hospital, and roadside assistance.
The great thing about both health insurance, and roadside assistance is that they greatly reduce (and in some cases eliminate) the costs associated with the emergency service. In both of these cases, you are not required to buy insurance ahead of time (this maintains the “optional” quality of the pay for spray fee).
However, if you need emergency treatment or to have your car towed, you can still access the service, but you will be charged the full cost!
The same can be done with the pay to spray fee. Give homeowners the option of paying the $75 premium at the beginning of the year. If they choose to pay it, then they will be covered for the full cost of the fire department services they consume during that year. If they don’t consume any, they don’t get their money back; as is the case now.
If someone who chooses to forgo coverage has their home catch on fire, they can still receive the service, but they will be charged the full cost! I am not sure what it costs to send a team of firefighters with trucks and expensive equipment to put out a fire, but I’m sure it’s a lot more than $75.
This way, we will never have a case where firefighters watch as a house burns to the ground. Also, most homeowners will choose to pay $75 each year for a service they most likely will not use, rather than pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars when they actually need it.
Before the firefighters put out the fire of someone who refused coverage, that homeowner would have to agree to it. If someone doesn’t want to pay all of that money, they can choose to let their home burn to the ground.
There are probably two objections to this stipulation:
What If A Neighbor’s House Is In Jeopardy?
If there is a chance that the fire will spread to a neighbor’s home, then it must be put out, no matter what the desire of the uninsured homeowner is. They will then be billed for the full cost.
We have to make sure that one uninsured homeowner doesn’t cause a financial burden for his neighbors. This is why many states require car owners to have at least liability coverage on their vehicles.
What If The Homeowner Isn’t Home?
If the uninsured homeowner isn’t home and their house catches on fire, the fire department will automatically put it out. This will guard against it spreading while they are waiting for them to come home. Also, this is necessary to ensure that there are no unresponsive people trapped inside.
If someone was unconscious and in the middle of the road, they would immediately be rushed to an emergency room. No one would sit around and wait for them to wake up so they could be asked if they want to go, and if they agree to pay whatever the costs are.
We would do the same thing for an uninsured home that caught on fire. Err on the side of caution and take care of the emergency, even when it’s not 100% clear if the person actually wants help.
How Would The Fire Department Guarantee Payment?
This would be handled as any other unpaid debt. First, it would how up as a negative record on their credit report. Then, the fire department would simply put a lien against the house, for the amount of the debt as well as any debt-collection costs.
Think about what would happen. If he wasn’t willing to pay for the service – meaning that he was willing to lose his house and have it burn down – then he would just lose his house to the fire department instead of to the fire.
Most likely, they would have some level of insurance on their home. It can be mandated that the fire department receive their payout directly from the insurance award, unless other arrangements are made ahead of time.
On the other hand, if he actually wanted to have his house saved, he would be willing to work out a payment plan with the fire company. Then none of the debt collection measures would need to take place.
Having these procedures in place would encourage most of the residents to agree to the $75 fee (or insurance premium), since they understand the consequences. It would also ensure that no one who wanted or needed emergency services would be deprived of them, even if they don’t initially buy the coverage.
It also allows the fire department to be able to receive enough money to extend their area of service, and be fully reimbursed when they have to provide their services to someone who chose not to contract with them.
photo by dvs
What Do You Think?
- Do you think the firefighters were wrong for not ignoring the regulations and their orders?
- Should the homeowner(s) be held fully responsible for this loss?
- What do you think about this proposed solution to the pay for spray policy?
- Do you live in a town that has to contract with another city for emergency services? If so, has this ever happened?
I can’t believe this happen again. If I had a house next door to these people how would they have save my home while letting my next door neighbor’s burn to the ground?
I totally agree with the make-them-pay-full-cost model. Ultimately, I don’t think the fee should be optional. But if it is going to be optional, they should still put out the fire and bill them later, at a premium if need be. What if there were unconscious people in the house? Or pets? It is an emergency service, just like the emergency room. Hospitals are required by law to provide emergency services regardless of whether the recipient has purchased insurance ahead of time.
What if someone was breaking into your home while your family was asleep, and 911 told you they couldn’t send anyone to help because according to their records you owed back taxes (meaning, you hadn’t paid for the services you are now requesting)?
Bill the cost of the response plus a “convenience fee” for not paying ahead of time. I think that is the humane thing to do. Maybe they could even make a profit on it 🙂
This is absolutely crazy. Property taxes should be high enough to adequately cover fire, police, and other emergency services. You should not be able to opt out. It is part of the “greater good” theory. Everyone should pay so everyone is protected.
Why do they even make the fee optional? I don’t see what the problem would be if they just tacked on $75 to everyone’s property tax bill to cover the cost. The fire department would be fully funded and we wouldn’t be reading stories like this one.
I agree completely. If they can allow the city to tax the residents of the neighboring town directly, then all of this would be avoided.
I agree that it should just be rolled into property tax. Most places don’t have to pay a fee; just take the option out of the equation. Pay it in taxes and that is that. Otherwise, most people will believe that a fire won’t happen to them, so they won’t pay.
I honestly dont have any sypmathy for this couple. Not only did their neighbor/fellow county resident make NATIONAL headlines over a year ago when the exact same thing happened, they elected to do nothing because “it wouldnt happen to them”. Fires are not (typically) purposefully lit in your own home. They are accidents, and need to be mitigated by some factor. If I were that lady last year and had not paid my fire insurance, I would have surely paid up this year after what happened to her neighbor.
As for who should be held responsible – i’m not sure what you’re getting at. It’s not the county’s fault, nor is it the mother of the homeowner.
Your proposed solution is interesting to be sure, but what if the persons home/valueables are not worth as much as the full fee of sending a fire crew out there? Say that’d cost 10k, and they only have an old trailer home on a small plot of land that’s not worth that much – would they still let it burn?
I dont live in an area that contracts out with other services.
Great work khaleef – you really thought this post through and looked at the issue from all sides (I dont think I would have been this kind or through)
I only have sympathy for the fact that they may have lost everything. However, this is completely their fault. Originally, the post was going to be a rant about their irresponsible decision, and the fact that they are blaming the fire company.
When I wrote about the story last year, I was sure that every homeowner in that community would have paid the fee for this year!
I guess with me living in New Jersey, I never considered the fact that the home might not be worth as much as the full cost of fighting the fire. In that case, they would probably just take whatever the insurance payout was; or maybe agree to only take 50% or some other figure, so the family could have a small amount with which they could start over.
Thanks for the compliment! This was definitely a tough issue to think through, and your comment definitely added to the discussion.
My thought is that people shouldn’t have this choice. It’s a bad choice to elect not to have fire coverage, and I just don’t think people should be allowed to make it, only to have stories like this inevitably come about. Granted, 99.5% or more of people that would choose to take the risk would be fine, but this is a case where that miniscule amount that would be affected is too great a number to leave to chance. I’m not for government ruling our lives, but there are certain things that, if the government is going to have the responsibility over (such as fire protection), certain elements should be in place, including their ability to fight any fire rather than choose based on a ‘list’.
I agree with you in this case. I hate extensive government control as well, but they definitely need to make this mandatory.
I definitely missed this story when it happened the first time around. I have never heard of the “Pay for spray” policy, although it makes perfect sense. Although, it seems like there should be some sort of emergency fund clause that would help prevent this. or if the people could be billed the $75 in arears, so the fire department would actually help put the fire out. Seems dumb to just stand there over $75.
I think that if they were forewarned then the couple was definitely to blame. However, I find it a bit heartless that the firefighters stood around WATCHING it burn and could have saved the house. They could have billed the couple later. They simply didn’t save a house and a couple’s belongings over a mere $75 that they could collect at a later date. Sad.
The only problem with them putting out the fire and billing afterwards, is that no one else in the town would have an incentive to pay in the following year. Everyone would just take their chances, since they know that the fire will be put out no matter what. They would only have to pay the $75 if they actually had a fire. This would remove a lot of revenue from the fire company, and according to the mayor, they wouldn’t have enough money to be able to extend their coverage to the rural community.
I can’t imagine how tough it was for the firefighters to have to watch as this house burned down.
The problem with billing the $75 is that it removes all incentive to pay the fee ahead of time. No one would actually pay the fee until their house caught on fire, and they were billed after the fact. The fire company wouldn’t have the necessary funds to extend their coverage to an additional town (according to the mayor).
Since I grew up in an urban area, I never heard of this policy either until the first story last year.
The people in the city shouldn’t be expected to foot the bill for everyone. I agree that this shouldn’t be something where you have to opt in. I think everyone should automatically be charged the fee and have to opt out if they don’t want protection.
The firefighters do show up to make sure everyone is safe (they won’t let people die).
But as for your idea, one of the neighboring fire districts does put out fires for those who haven’t paid and then sends the homeowners a bill for $500 (still considerably less than it costs to put out the fire) and less than 50% of the people who receive the bill pay.
Making homeowners opt out would definitely reduce the amount of hate mail the fire company receives after one of these stories. I can’t imagine too many people opting out.
Charging $500 or $1000 would probably be a good compromise. That is affordable for many, and it is still more than the original $75.
Definitely an ethical dilemma. But nothing is free, and if people want services they should be prepared to pay, whether it’s insurance, pay for spray, or tax dollars.
I think the community should require all homeowners who don’t pay to watch the video above, and sign a document saying they understand their home will be allowed to burn to the ground. There are not many people who can’t afford 75 bucks A YEAR!
I think forcing them to watch the repercussions is a great idea. Even the couple in the article said that they knew about the fee, but they just didn’t think this would happen to them.
It’s like scaring other homeowners into paying their fee! I’m sorry, I have a problem with this. My family owns a volunteer fire company that was started in my grandfather’s garage (we now have a full-fledged station and my brother is the chief), and they would just never do this. Even a normal citizen just on the road watching someone’s house burn would feel compelled to do something.
Started in his garage? I know nothing about volunteer fire companies, but that sounds extremely difficult. Do you know how he was able to do this?
What do you think about the comparison of this fee to an insurance premium? The argument would be, since they didn’t pay their premium, they don’t have coverage.
I wonder what percentage of residents actually pay the fee. If everyone was forced to pay as a form of taxation, the cost could be reduced if the percentage paying is quite low. On the other hand, if only a handful do not pay, then a tax would be easy to implement.
My assumption is that the rural town doesn’t want to handle collecting the tax and then passing it off to the larger city. Maybe there is an issue with manpower or administrative costs. I wonder if the city can tax the residents directly even though they are in another town.
I would hate to be a firefighter in an area that required pay for spray.
I agree. It can’t be easy to have your hands tied like that, but still face ridicule.