Opinion: Fire fee is an illegal tax on Californians
By Ted Gaines
Despite my efforts to stop it by referendum and legislation, the illegal fire tax is being assessed on more than 825,000 people starting this month.
This so-called fee was passed in 2011 to extract up to $150 per habitable structure from rural property owners. The tax will not provide any more fire protection and will actually make it harder for local fire agencies to raise the money they need to keep people safe. It’s a lose-lose proposition for the people in my district and for anyone concerned with public safety and the rule of law.
State Sen. Ted Gaines in the Angora burn area in June. Photo/LTN
This tax should have been subject to a two-thirds vote in the Legislature just like every other tax, but the Democrats called it a fee to get around that requirement. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will file a lawsuit disputing the fee’s legality and I hope it gets overturned ASAP.
Until that happens, though, the state Board of Equalization (BOE) plans to begin mailing the first bills for the new fire tax this month and hopes to have all bills sent by December. The BOE also plans to mail an advance notice to the affected property owners to warn them that the bills are coming, and to provide them with a brochure explaining the “fee.”
No matter how many mailers or explanations or warnings any agency sends out, it doesn’t make this tax any more right or more legal. It was, is and always will be a shakedown of rural property owners that takes their money every single year but gives them zero in the way of additional fire safety.
The answer to fire protection in California is not bogus taxes, but budgets that invest in core government services that protect every citizen in the state — rural, urban or suburban. My office will be watching this issue closely and will keep you updated on any new developments.
Visit www.calfirefee.com to see if you live in a “State Responsibility Area” and will be paying this tax. For questions regarding your bill, contact the BOE at 888.310.6447. For more information regarding the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association litigation, contact (916) 444.9950.
State Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, represents Lake Tahoe.
This is really annoying. The author raises some serious concerns about the ability of the fee to increase fire protection:
“The tax will not provide any more fire protection and will actually make it harder for local fire agencies to raise the money they need to keep people safe. It’s a lose-lose proposition for the people in my district and for anyone concerned with public safety and the rule of law.”
And then does not mention fire protection ever again. As I read the article, the text I quoted stuck out to me as the thesis statement.
The article is incomplete.
Can we read a little more about fire protection and public safety?
Or was that all hyperbole….
The article isn’t about fire protection, it’s about an illegal tax.
This particular tax is particularly egregious because they took an end run around the legal process and created a total shell game. A supposed fee for service, while the same amount of money is being removed from that service and stuck into the general fund where it can pay for legislators’ pet percs.
I still wonder, since this “fee” is not being added directly to our property tax bills but being billed separately, what happens if we DON’T pay them. Will the state still lien our property? I always pay my property tax bill whether I agree with the added fees or not. But I’m wondering about this new one.
Dogula is exactly right about how this fee is working. The fee raises $89 million and CalFires budget is getting cut by $89 million. This has nothing to do with fire protection but does make it harder for actual fire departments to raise money.
Never thought I would say that actually.
The fee is not illegal just because Ted Gaines says so. It’s fair to ask those who decide to build houses in rural areas prone to wildfire to pay for fire protection.
Ted Gaines, on the other hand, chose to saddle the cash-strapped state with a $1 million expense for the two special elections it took for him to get his wife the Assembly seat he vacated last year when he moved up to the State Senate. Both elections would have been unnecessary if he hadn’t played a clever game so the Gaines family could collect another $165,000 from the state every year.
TheTruth, NOT
Your name is called into question with your statement about Ted Gains calling it a tax just cause he says so.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or just a biased perspective?
Gains Identified clearly why it is an illegal tax and you lie about it.
Howard Jarvis was a wealthy scumbag slumlord that was mad that his property taxes were raised in the 70’s from almost nothing to reasonable rates in proportion to his holdings. He and his fellow greedheads got Prop. 13 passed and the rest is the sad history of California’s decline. Teabag Ted and his dullard supporters ^ have created most of our financial problems because they are unwilling to pay the price of admission to a civilized society.
“The article isn’t about fire protection, it’s about an illegal tax.”
vs thesis statement:
“The tax will not provide any more fire protection and will actually make it harder for local fire agencies to raise the money they need to keep people safe.”
The article is about more than the tax, going on to say that if enacted it will; a) not provide any more fire protection and b) make it harder for local agencies to raise money
I want to know about these claims. They are important. The article is incomplete. Better information -> better decisions.
Thing fish, a lot of fire departments are trying to augment their normal funding with tax overrides to fund wildland fuels reduction. It is a new service designed to implement the “fire adapted communities” recommendations. Lake Valley FPD does it with grants. But they have chippers, defensible space inspections and fuels reduction crews. Heck of a program really. But that is a new business for fire departments and where grants are scarce, the fire departments try to get additions to ad valorum taxes. The fear is that the new “fee” is going to crowd out local fire districts from being able to go after additional tax revenues. So in this way the new fee will hurt fire protection.
Interesting. But there isn’t enough grant funding for everyone who needs it. The problem of sprawl in the urban-wild land interface isn’t going away.
I don’t know what to do about it. The expansion in fire prone areas is a large burden for fire departments and land managers.
If no one is willing to fund the fire protection, then we need to accept the consequences and eventual loss of property. The fire interval in these areas is 10-30 years or so, and they haven’t burned for 150 years…. and now there are 10s of thousands of homes there. It brings up the discussion on handouts and subsidizing bad decisions. Why should these areas rely on money from outside of their community to ameliorate the risks of their location? It isn’t fair, and it is not reliable in the long term. And expansion in fire prone areas is only going to increase. So that grant money will even less sufficient.
The problem is going to get worse, I don’t know what to do about it, this fee/tax might be illegal… It really doesn’t matter because even if it is legal, the problem isn’t solved.
I wouldn’t live in a community that is unwilling to fund their own protection.
But that is just me.
Too bad our memory is shorter than the already short fire return interval.
If the posters to the articles of this publication are a reflection of the communities intellect it’s no wonder how California got messed up…
Reading many of the points made in this paper about grants and anti free market I come to the conclusion that the people of this area are very poor judges of a sound economic system.
It’s no wonder you are in such bad shape.
Business is Hurting:
No lying, no reading comprehension problem – and no name calling! Democratic politicians say its legal, a republican politician says its illegal. Under our constitution, courts, not politicians, decide what’s legal.
Ted Gaines should pay back the $1 million he cost the taxpayers so his wife could inherit his seat in the Assembly. In our conservative district, Mr. Gaines was a shoo-in to win the Senate seat he wanted two years ago. He was also certain to win his Assembly seat. He decided to run for both, freezing out serious competition.
When he won both seats, he resigned the Assembly seat and put his wife up for it! That forced the state to pay $1 million for the two special elections it took for her to win. A completely unnecessary expense for the state, but a second fat paycheck each month for the Gaines.
If Mr. Gaines were consistent, he would repay to the state the money his sleazy political game cost it. Then his arguments against state spending would be believable.
Thing fish it does get rather interesting doesnt it. I think your second paragraph perfectly sums up the issue. A lot of local fire districts are developing wildland fire prevention programs and nationally there are common protocols. So I think the locals in the west are getting more involved. And programs like Fire Adapted Communities I think help. I heard a very high ranking Forest Service fire chief asking when he gets his vote on where the next WUI community gets built. I get his point, we build in places that can never be defended and then expect the feds to cover the massive costs of suppression. Its not very fair and the folks that live there do need to cover the cost of prevention. But it is also a new line of business for fire departments, the funding has to come from somewhere and the new fee is going to make that tough. CalFire is not going to take this on.
I understand the fire service is blocking the use of the large fire fighting jet that has the ability to drop 20,000 gallons on a fire. Instead the service uses fire systems that only can only deliver 3,000 gallons.
Is this true?
Why are they blocking it?
Business its not that anyone is blocking anything as much as people want to order the least expensive asset that will net the desired result. Remember Saddam’s adventure into Kuwait. At that point the air force was retiring A-10’s. But they quickly realized that a slow, low flying attack aircraft was far more effective than a big, fast fighter bomber even though the fighter bomber had a far larger payload. The end result was the A-10 was by far the most deadly aircraft in that war. Its not at all unlike that scenario. Not that there are not uses for the bigger aircraft, its just not on most fires. Can you imagine being a Hot Shot on a fireline and getting hit with 20,000 gallons of water? Imagine being in that forest when the trees and branchs started raining down. Ouch.
John,
What a bunch of whowee, dribble. … are you on drugs?
Are you actually arguing that the government is effective at getting a good price?
You must be one of those Tahoe stoners if you think that is true.
John with that type of logic you have no cred. NONE, you are not worth the read.
The thing we tax payers need to do is put the government liars in prison and get real brains working on solving our real problems, GOVERNMENT.
Hi Business. You trash John’s logic, yet fail to elaborate, breaking it down highlighting what you disagree with, and introducing your logic.
You did a great job accusing them of drug use and attempting to assassinate their character.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that character assassination is all you have.
Private companies are the solution? I think that irresponsible developers are a part of the problem. No foresight on the issue of fire, just selling parcels and leaving.
Add to the discussion or bugger off.
Troll.
Here is a possible solution, that is probably too little to late, but progress.
Make developers create buffers around the communities in the WUI and make them maintain them on a reasonable time line.
In many cases the buffers will end up being healthier landscapes. Kind of the opposite of green belts that are common in planned communities.
Residents end up with a nice loop trail around the community, some open space, maybe add a kickball field, disc golf course. And the plants will come back. And there is a defensible space, add some hydrants, wide paths for trucks, the fire people will love it.
Solves a lot of problems. I am sure insurance companies would acknowledge this.
I can’t be the first person to think of this…. right?
How can anyone trust someone who is just another whore for the tobacco industry? Perhaps Ted Gains should stop taking money from Philip Morris and tax the biggest perpetrator of these fires: ALTRIA/aka Philip Morris! Carelessly discarded cigarette butts are the leading preventable cause of fires! What a hypocrite.
Wow..some very informed people(Fish) and some not so informed people(Hurting).
The truth of the matter is Cal Fire is getting this money no matter what and Gaines nor his wife have any say in it because its below their paygrade.
Cal fire was stripped of the $85 million to balance our crumbling state budget back in 2010.
This backfill of funding must happen in order to keep Cal Fires doors open, boots on the ground, and helos in the air. Airtankers are air takers and each type has specific niches which they are good at. I know cause I worked with them for years.
To get back to Gaines article: he completely contradicts himself the full article, which this is not.
Gaines says,
“Wildfires are currently raging out of control across the North State and they won’t be put out by the phantom protections promised in this bogus tax. We need more firefighters, bulldozers, trucks and the other equipment that does the hard work of fighting these wildfires and protecting us, our homes and our property. This tax leaves us no safer, only poorer and more skeptical than ever of a government that takes and spends taxpayer dollars with no regard to the law or to fairness.” See full article at sierra sun.
Boots on the ground = Calfire’s doors staying open = $85 million.
Personally I think these dollars need to go to programs to manage unhealthy forests around communities, everyone should be made to pay,not just homeowners and anyone commenting on such matters should do their homework before commenting on matters they know nothing about. You sound foolish.