Fire Protection Fee (Sacramento, Santa Ana, Merced: hotel, house, buy)

[eccotecc]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

I would say from the amount of burnable vegetation up against many rural homes, "anyone" doesn't quite work.
Educating the rurales is a good idea. As are the programs



If the money is used for prevention and pretreatment, that too is a good thing.

Where we lived, there were no Cal Fire engines up until a few years ago, only USFS, and since we sno mo'd in November to March, there was no suppression available.

In 40 years of wildfire suppression I saw many houses burn, and many houses saved, it depends in large part on pretreatment and prevention, before the fire comes. I had corrals and pastures on my windward side, yet my neighbor had a dog hair thicket of small dense Jeffries, I might save my place, he would have had no chance. A meadow ran the length of our valley that cured up in the summer, and would not stop a fire. Burning it in the fall would have greatly increased the spring grass growth, and would have kept greener longer. There was no budget to burn it. If this fee allows for that, great.

highnlite,

You sound like a knowledgeable rural inhabitant, why not disc a perimeter of defensible space around the meadow? Of course it depends on how large a meadow it is. Meadows usually are pretty small.

[Fontucky]

We'd eat at a Denny's type place if the fire wasn't large enough for a kitchen set-up or a food delivery. One time we overnighted in a motel after being released from a week-long fire near King City. The drive back to So Cal was too long for not sleeping after fighting fire all day. The rest of the time we slept on the ground in paper sleeping bags.

[eccotecc]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

We'd eat at a Denny's type place if the fire wasn't large enough for a kitchen set-up or a food delivery. One time we overnighted in a motel after being released from a week-long fire near King City. The drive back to So Cal was too long for not sleeping after fighting fire all day. The rest of the time we slept on the ground in paper sleeping bags.

Fontucky,

That must have been when the State was solvent. Now that it's insolvent they spend what they don't have.

What I posted previously, I saw convoys of trucks driving back and forth between Mariposa and Merced. I spoke to local merchants in Merced and they are who told me what was happening. You could see the trucks parked in the motel parking lots. Think about it, 100 miles round trip to stay in a motel.

Would you like me to get into how CDF fire captains get paid and how they pump up their retirements. Like going to out of area fires to pump up their pays so their pensions are bigger. I'm sure you already know about that.

So now the State wants to charge us an additional fire protection fee.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, the argument seems somewhat silly and off-center to me. Simplistically, it appears to be a matter of getting what you pay for. I don't think there's any question that fire suppressing and fire fighting costs have risen over the years and at the same time, more and more homes have been built in what were once remote areas which has also driven up costs. As has been pointed out, not all homeowners are smart, knowledgeable or take reasonable precautions to safeguard their homes.

CalFire can only do so much with existing resources yet the needs are constantly on the rise. If I lived rurally in California (I do so in my state) I wouldn't bat an eye about a relatively minor, targeted annual assessment that might just save my home someday. Talk about a good and prudent investment! The real issue is ensuring it's used wisely and for the purpose assessed.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by eccotecc

highnlite,

You sound like a knowledgeable rural inhabitant, why not disc a perimeter of defensible space around the meadow? Of course it depends on how large a meadow it is. Meadows usually are pretty small.

This meadow is over 100 acres, with multiple owners including the FS. The old hippies and survivalists that were my neighbors would not have approved disking, unsightly, not as unsightly as a burned forest full of burned homes, but there you go.

In addition, disking will allow the strong afternoon winds to blow dust into all the various homes, there was already a dust problem from the dirt roads.

Oh well, off to the high country for me.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

This meadow is over 100 acres, with multiple owners including the FS. The old hippies and survivalists that were my neighbors would not have approved disking, unsightly, not as unsightly as a burned forest full of burned homes, but there you go.

In addition, disking will allow the strong afternoon winds to blow dust into all the various homes, there was already a dust problem from the dirt roads.

Oh well, off to the high country for me.

I had a disc get away from me multiple times in one summer. Funny it was always on the West side of the property I went over it with water right after and the downwind farm didn't even notice.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

There is a choice, the fee or a lower level of service. The urban wildland interface has grown hugely in the last twenty years. The cost to save a home from a wildfire is substantial. Essentially you need an engine per house, that is a huge commitment of resources.

Our rural home lay in classic east side of the Sierra Jeffrey pine forest. Dry as a bone, low humidities, we worried about fire from spring melt to autumn snow. Our home was 12 miles some dirt road from the nearest fire station. Our homeowners insurance ran about $300.00 per year, then a spate of wildfires on SoCal burned a bunch of homes. Our homeowners insurance jumped to $3,000 per year, then, to no insurance, that is right, none. Insurance companies stopped writing policies for homes covered by CalFire or USFS (not that USFS was equipped to stop a house fire) All we could get was a policy that covered the mortgage, so that if we lost the house, only the mortgage was covered.

If the fee helps Calfire to keep up a good level of service, works for me. and a case for fairness can be made, why should the general population pay for fire suppression in rural areas? That sounds Socialist!

Why should a rural resident pay taxes for fire protection for those in a non rural area then? They do you know?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Actually, the argument seems somewhat silly and off-center to me. Simplistically, it appears to be a matter of getting what you pay for. I don't think there's any question that fire suppressing and fire fighting costs have risen over the years and at the same time, more and more homes have been built in what were once remote areas which has also driven up costs. As has been pointed out, not all homeowners are smart, knowledgeable or take reasonable precautions to safeguard their homes.

CalFire can only do so much with existing resources yet the needs are constantly on the rise. If I lived rurally in California (I do so in my state) I wouldn't bat an eye about a relatively minor, targeted annual assessment that might just save my home someday. Talk about a good and prudent investment! The real issue is ensuring it's used wisely and for the purpose assessed.

If those living in rural areas had the fee go to fighting a fire, it would make sense.

But for "education" that just pumps money into some politicians friend's pocket who owns a printing business, it is a waste of money.

[SunnyTXsmile]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

We'd eat at a Denny's type place if the fire wasn't large enough for a kitchen set-up or a food delivery. One time we overnighted in a motel after being released from a week-long fire near King City. The drive back to So Cal was too long for not sleeping after fighting fire all day. The rest of the time we slept on the ground in paper sleeping bags.

After fighting fire all day?!!! That's unacceptable.

[DMenscha]

We DO pay for fire protection in the country. Our local fire district charges $65 per parcel in addition to getting a small portion of the ad valorem taxes from the county. We would get a discount off our $150 but not in the full amount of $65.

This "prevention fee" is a freakin smokescreen. It won't add any suppression personnel and quite frankly won't do much of anything to "pretreat" areas since a huge amount of the State responsibility area is private property. So, they might get a chance to clean up some BLM land with hand crews in the winter time, but there hasn't been any prevention plan made public, it's just a grab for money with no assurance of any real benefit to those paying for it.

Procedurally, it also should have had to pass the legislature on a 2/3 vote since it really is a tax. I'm sure this will be overturned in court if not killed by the legislature outright soon.

Why don't we charge a fee to those in active earthquake zones while we're at it, surely there is more damage and loss of property in an EQ than a fire.