And what if a Renter had occupied the TN home?

[Duer 157099]

I can only assume that things like property insurance must be paid by the OWNER, not the renter, so what would the fire department do if the OWNER had failed to pay the $75?

Or, conversely, if you say the RENTER had the obligation, what would the owner do if the renter failed to pay?

This issue is just not simple!

[taterguy]

1. There's millions of homes in Tennessee. Which one are you talking about?

God I hate obtuse OPs.

[Duer 157099]

3. Sorry. The one that burned down. n/t

[taterguy]

7. That narrows it down to a few thousand

:eyes:

[Duer 157099]

8. ...AND that has a brazillion threads about it on DU n/t

[DURHAM D]

4. LOL...

[virgogal]

6. The one that has been discussed in way too many threads.

[Cirque du So-What]

Isn't it just as obtuse

to feign ignorance over a subject to which you have replied in another thread? Just asking.

[uppityperson]

42. shhhh, that spoils all the fun

[ThomCat]

22. Um, unless you haven't logged in at all for the past few days

you must be playing dumb for some reason.

There have been at least 50 threads about one particular home in TN, and only one particular home in TN. So it's safe to say that this thread could only be a continuation of that conversation.

So if you aren't familiar with the conversation, you can go skim other threads and catch up on what is going on very easily.

Or, if you are already familiar with the conversation, why are you pretending you don't know what he's talking about?

:shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

2. I've been hiding every TN fire thread but this is a very good question.

[rocktivity]

5. Suppose the occupants of the house had never made it outside?

And shouldn't the county impose a tax and pay for city services out of that?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[DURHAM D]

9. Doesn't matter. Its the owner's responsibility.

Just like the property taxes and the homeowners insurance and the roof and the water well and the septic tank.

Having said that - Goodbye.

I am sick of the stupids about this event.

[kirby]

10. Anyone who supports what happened...

must support denying care at the ER for the uninsured.

[DURHAM D]

11. yet another false analogy

DU is simply amazing...

[TonyMontana]

16. That analogy couldn't be more apt

[DURHAM D]

17. really...

[kirby]

18. Not at all...

Doctors take a Hippocratic oath.

Public servants are supposed to protect and serve.

[DURHAM D]

24. Did the City Council that made the decision take the same oath? nt

[riderinthestorm]

12. Actually as a former landlord, it's in most leases that the renter must have renters insurance

to cover the contents of the property in case of fire or other catastrophe.

It's actually even in those pre-fab leases you get at Office Max.... sorry, just sayin'....

[MiniMe]

21. You are talking about the contents, not about the structure

There are still some things that can't be replaced by any amount of money.

[JVS]

26. Have you seen the contents of a house that has had a major fire extinguished in it?

Even if a fire is put out, people are lucky to be able to retrieve anything from the fire. One of my friends complains frequently that since his apartment caught fire all his books smell like bacon.

[tammywammy]

29. That's a complaint???

That would make books even more awesome than they already are. ;)

[JVS]

32. I guess the dream is never as cool as it sounds.

But seriously, he lost a lot of things in the fire, especially to water.

[tammywammy]

41. I can only imagine

And I want to second getting renters insurance. My friend lived in a bottom floor apartment. Last winter, the lady that lived above her, well pretty much didn't live there (she lived with her boyfriend). Anywho, during the winter, and these were freezing cold days, well the lady above her had turned off her heater completely. A pipe bust, as you would expect, and my friend's apartment was flooded. She lost quite a lot, but the payoff from having renters insurance really helped her get back on her feet.

[ThomCat]

33. Renters insurance is cheap, and provides enough coverage

to replace everything you own. For only a few hundred dollars per year I have a $75,000 of coverage to replace everything I own, including electric wheelchairs, computers, and special itemized stuff, in the event of a fire or other disaster. The only thing not covered is a flood.

It would replace every single book, every CD, every single thing you own up to the value of the policy you purchase. And renter's insurance is so inexpensive there is no reason not to buy a policy that would cover the full replacement value of everything you own.

If you rent, get renters insurance.

[riderinthestorm]

35. I second that. In IL when we rented, I believe we paid $75/yr for $50k of coverage.

And that was years ago. It was totally worth it and I didn't do any research at the time - I just went with Allstate, one of the most expensive policies out there.....

[JVS]

39. Yeah, I know that, but some of my books would be very hard to replace.

I buy renter's insurance, but even after the payoff, I'd have a hard time getting my mitts on some og the stuff I read. The library fees alone for replacing the ca 80 books would be several thousand dollars.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Like a person or the pet.

[riderinthestorm]

34. Just addressing the legalese in the OP

Actually I completely understand that some things can't be replaced by any amount of money. I've been both a renter and a landlord so I've been on both ends of the spectrum. It sucks for the renter more imho.

The structure is typically "only" what the landlord is concerned about. The contents are the renters responsibility in their mind.

IF this case were about a renter in the house, I suspect we'd be wading into tricky waters over liability, the loss of the pets (where there isnt any good dollar value that can be assigned) etc.

Glad I'm not the renter or the landlord in this mess....

[ThomCat]

27. That's true. But the landlord would usually still be responsible for

all taxes and fees that apply to the property itself. So the landlord would usually be responsible for the fire department fee.

The tenant only usually puts stuff in their name that gets activated one they move in, and gets turned off once they move out. Stuff that must be continual usually goes in the landlord's name and get's added into the cost of the rent.

[salin]

40. Granted I haven't rented in this decade... but through the 80s and 90s as a renter

in three states (Va, Mi and Ca) I was never instructed to have renters insurance. Didn't even realize such a thing existed.

[Rex]

13. Bottomline - put the fire out.

Anything else is stupid.

[Duer 157099]

15. Exactly. n/t

[JVS]

14. Then we would have to look at the language of the lease as well as local statutes governing...

the obligations of landlords to tenants.

[aikoaiko]

19. It's still pretty simple in that it is the owner's responsibility to pay the fire protection fee.

Renter's have the obligation to insure their own stuff.

Would a renter have a civil case against the owner for failing to provide fire protection? -- maybe.

[DURHAM D]

28. I would say yes to your last question.

Or let me put it this way - I own investment property and would never consider not paying the annual fire protection fee. To do otherwise would make me stupid and reckless with my own property and the lives and well-being of my tenants.

[aikoaiko]

30. I agree, but then again I can't understand the shortsightedness of not paying in any situation...

[DURHAM D]

36. me neither

I can not understand the number of people who are supporting a guy who appears to me to be a jackass. He made a decision to buy a homeowners policy that will make him whole but not pay $75 even though he was given three chances to do so in the past 9 months and multiple times over the past 20 years.

He seems reckless and dangerous to his neighbors and perhaps to his family as he let his grandson start an uncontrolled burn. And, this guy's own son had a fire at his house up the road and that son won't pay the $75 a year either. I want to know if the grandson that started the fire that burned the house down started the other fire as well. I think there is a whole lot more to this story but it won't fit the DU victim narrative.

[riderinthestorm]

37. Agreed. As someone whose been on both sides, as a landlord, I'd do everything

to minimize liability in case a problem arose from a tenant. Paying off the fire dept fee would have been numero uno on the list. I am relieved I'm neither a landlord or renter anymore to be sure.

In any case, that isn't the situation here. The OP is totally hypothetical and would probably have been covered by a standard "renters insurance" clause in the lease.

[MiniMe]

20. It is a city vs a county problem. The homeowner didn't live in city limits.

The house was not in the city limits and they had to pay a fee since they didn't pay city taxes. However, I feel strongly that there should be some form of fire support in the county that would cover them through taxes they pay.

[Cirque du So-What]

23. I don't even pretend to have the answer to that one!

but I have a feeling that this fee system is headed for the courts. The civic leaders may find out that it would have been more expedient to just raise taxes by a miniscule amount instead of going for this stupid fee-bases system.

[Pithlet]

25. Another reason why these arrangements are awful.

It seems renters would be screwed if their landlords didn't pay. Or conversely, if the renters are responsible for it, the owners of the building if the renters don't pay. A damn good reason to vote for a tax supported fire department.

[jwirr]

38. Or someone too poor to pay the extortion money?