After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that this was the only thing the fire department could have done.

The firefighters can't just put out the fire and then bill him the full cost of the service after the fact, because he lives outside the jurisdiction of the town, meaning that they have no working enforcement mechanism (can't cut off services because he doesn't use them, can't arrest him because he lives outside the town police's jurisdiction).  Not only that, but he could likely argue in court that, since he consciously didn't pay for such a service, he never asked for it to begin with, and therefore shouldn't have to pay.

For the same reason, the $75 tax could not be made mandatory - it was already charged by default from my understanding, he just chose not to pay, and there was nothing the city could do about it.

The firefighters can't put out the fire for free, since that would cause people to realize that they can get a service for nothing, whereupon people would stop paying for fire protection, and the fire department would eventually collapse, since that would essentially be getting something for nothing.  The corollary of this is that the residents of South Fulton would object to the freeloaders, and there would be pressure come municipal election day in South Fulton against anyone who endorses supporting the freeloaders.

The state and federal levels can't do anything about it, because fire protection is a service generally administered at the municipal level.  The state jurisdiction issue is further hampered by the fact that South Fulton is in Kentucky, while the Cranicks' house was in Tennessee.

Mind you, from a decency perspective I find this incident to be abhorrent, but when you're talking about structuring and maintaining a public services system, the situation becomes considerably more complex.  When you get right down to it, this isn't even a liberal vs conservative or libertarian vs socialist issue, but rather an issue of civics and personal responsibility.  The conclusion, I suppose, is that the taxes we pay in our lifetime actually do something when it really matters - for one, they entitle you to scream into the phone and get someone to bail your ass out ASAP when your personal safety is threatened.

wait, what the fuck?

you have to PAY for firefighters to save you/your house?????

fml, Capitalism really does find new ways to ruin peoples lives everyday.

If there's no reasonable solution to a situation like this, then the system is simply awfull and something should be done about it. Also, I hear he offered to pay "w/e it takes".

I don't think you understand ...

If you have a voluntary fee for something and people choose not to pay then the fee has to either increase for responsible people or the service disappears.Do you think that it is fair that a responsible person has to subsidize the irresponsible, or has to live without the protection of the fire department, because the fire department is reasonable?

One (major) element is being left out of this story to make this homeowner sound more like a victim which he talked about on CNN today. This home owner's son's home caught fire last year, his son didn't pay the fee, and the fire department did the responsible thing and put out the fire and allowed his son to pay the fee the next day. Having seen an example of how important fire protection was, and knowing the fire department would be reasonable, this home owner decided to "Game the System" and not pay his bill.

I know he said he'd pay any amount it takes.  As my first point established, South Fulton had no way to enforce his payment, since he lives outside their jurisdiction.  He could be a Grade-AAA douchenozzle, turn around and refuse to pay for any reason after the fact, and the town wouldn't be able to do a thing to enforce the verbal agreement.  Also, there IS a reasonable solution to this situation - since he doesn't live in South Fulton, he's not paying them anything for the service, meaning the best sustainable way to extend their protection to him is to charge a nominal fee for the service - say, $75 per year.  When you have homes that cost six digits, that is an absolutely miniscule amount to pay, especially when compared to insurance.  By actively refusing to pay the fee, Cranick gambled that he wouldn't have problems with fire.  He lost that bet.

No, I didn't?  I said not all taxes are mandatory... which they aren't... there are subscription taxes... like this one.

Reading HappySquirrel's post it makes more sense. And sure, I know there's no way to enforce his promise, but he'd loose all credibility he's ever got towards the whole town. Anyway, I understand it's a hard situation but still, the system is just bad imo.

I place firefighting in with police, in that both are involved with public safety, and if you don't act when a situation shows up, things can get out of control.  The guy needs to pay the fees necessary to keep the fire department going.  This is not negotiable.  You can't make fire safety optional, because you risk a fire getting out of control.  In this case, several animals died because they sat back and did nothing.  To sit around and watch the fire is absurd also.  You put liens on the house, or whatever else is needed, because it puts people at risk.  It is like why they require people to have auto insurance if they drive, so that costs of accidents are covered.

Letting the fire burn puts the neighbors at risk.  That is the issue involved here.  You could also have laws where the fire could be put out and the individuals lose their home, if they don't pay the bills.  Yes, he tried to game the system, but the situation is greater than what they do or don't want to do.

Fuck off man that was a question, don't act like such a snob

Some things. In fact quite a few things. Should always be run federally.

The fire service is one of them, as are the other emergency services.