THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Fire tax for rural areas is a good idea


image_pdfimage_print

Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the July 24, 2011, Sacramento Bee.

If people choose to live in areas prone to wildfires, shouldn’t they pay their fair share for the escalating costs of protecting their structures from inevitable infernos?

The answer should be a simple “yes,” but state lawmakers didn’t make it part of the budget until this year. That’s when they approved a $150 annual fee on 800,000 structures that sit within the vast acreage where California has firefighting responsibility.

In tight budget times, this fee will raise revenue to ensure that the state’s firefighting capability isn’t excessively cut back, putting rural residents in danger.

Yet that argument doesn’t wash for Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville. Attempting to make himself out as a caped crusader for taxpayers, Gaines has filed papers for a referendum to eliminate the fee.

Gaines claims the fire fee isn’t a legitimate fee but a tax, and as such should have been subject to a two-thirds approval from lawmakers, instead of a majority vote.

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (5)
  1. dogula says - Posted: August 8, 2011

    Quack. Quack.

  2. John says - Posted: August 8, 2011

    Cal Fire did an exchange of acres with the Forest Service in Tahoe. That means the Forest Service is responsible for wildland suppression here, not Cal Fire. We shouldn’t be paying this. We have a total of two Cal Fire engines in Tahoe and would be paying $2.5 million. Let Cal Fire take their ineffective force and go home. Give the money to the locals and we could actually get some additional resources.

  3. Angora Resident says - Posted: August 8, 2011

    That is an interesting point John, but I am not sure that paying a local fee instead of a state fee is one of the options on the ballot. Maybe you locals should go rally for it.
    The fee should go to the agency that does the work, whether it is USFS, the local fire districts or CalFire. But no fee, no services, or where is the funding going to come from?

  4. lou pierini says - Posted: August 8, 2011

    What if you don,t want or need protection? I thought of freedon of choice.

  5. dogwoman says - Posted: August 8, 2011

    Angora Resident, that is the whole point of the problem here. It’s not ON a ballot as it should have been. The California legislature shoved a property tax increas down all property owners’ throats without the required 2/3 citizen vote by calling it a “fee” instead. That is illegal.