Leroy N. Soetoro
2011-07-19 00:33:37 UTC
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fire-fee-20110718,0,7442157.story
The bill mandates a $150 annual fee for fire-prevention services from
homeowners living in wildfire-prone areas. They are also debating the
revival of proposed land-use restrictions.
Reporting from Sacramento As Californians have crowded the state's
bucolic foothills and scenic mountains with subdivisions and cabin
retreats, pushing further into the combustible wild, state firefighting
has become a billion-dollar enterprise.
Now, with the state continuing to lurch from one fiscal crisis to another,
Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature are pushing back.
They are requiring rural homeowners who rely on state firefighters to pay
a $150 annual fee for fire-prevention services. Lawmakers are mulling over
whether to revive proposed land-use restrictions that were killed just
three years ago, after fierce objections from developers and local
officials. And, Brown has directed the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection to study how the state manages and pays for fires in
those zones and whether local governments should shoulder more of that
responsibility.
Brown has said that the cash-strapped state can no longer afford the
entire cost of battling blazes in fire-prone areas. The new fee could
raise as much as $200 million a year from the more than 846,000 homeowners
who live within more than 31 million acres of "state responsibility
areas," where Cal Fire is the primary responder.
A spokesman for the governor said the levy will "ensure that landowners in
these areas that receive a disproportionate benefit from Cal Fire's
services pay an appropriate portion of the state's wildland firefighting
costs."
Experts say the fire fee, if it survives threatened court challenges from
taxpayer groups, marks a significant, if small, shift in California's
approach to wildland development. Still, better management of growth in
fire-hazard regions, they said, will take stronger planning measures,
including mandating that counties have sufficient fire protection before
approving new construction.
For millions of Californians, the pull of nature is irresistible.
After the Cedar fire turned sun-drenched San Diego Country Estates into a
moonscape in 2003, homeowner Stephen Brown didn't think twice. He hired an
architect to rebuild his Mexican-style house in rural Ramona, in the
foothills of the Cuyamaca Mountains on the edge of the Cleveland National
Forest.
"You gotta do what you gotta do," said Brown, a financial planner. "It was
my home."
The last two administrations were frustrated in their efforts to rein in
firefighting costs. In 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill imposing a
fire-protection fee on landowners in state responsibility areas, a move
the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office had recommended a decade
earlier. But in the face of legal challenges, the Legislature repealed the
law before it took effect.
In Southern California alone, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that
roughly 189,000 homes were constructed in fire-prone areas from 2003 to
2007, at the height of the last real estate boom. In response, Cal Fire
developed a series of maps to classify fire hazard risks up and down the
state, soliciting local input.
At a meeting in Riverside County in 2007, Richard Halsey, director of the
California Chaparral Institute, a conservation group, suggested to fire
officials that "no-build" zones be created in the most dangerous areas.
His remark, he said, was met with silence.
"There are certain areas you just shouldn't build in. They are going to
burn no matter what," Halsey said. "But the political will to prevent that
just isn't there."
During the past decade, Cal Fire became the primary responder for tens of
thousands of additional homes in developed wildlands, according to U.S.
Census Bureau data. The agency's budget tripled, from $415 million to more
than $1.2 billion.
To help pay for the escalating costs, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
proposed in 2008 that a fire fee be tacked onto all Californians'
insurance bills. The Legislature rejected the measure, in part because
many lawmakers considered it a tax. A measure that would have imposed a
$50 fee on residences in areas protected by Cal Fire died as well, when
local governments fought it.
Land-use measures didn't fare any better. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill
that would have tightened building restrictions in fire-prone areas. The
California Chamber of Commerce had labeled it a "job killer."
The measure would have driven up development costs by requiring that new
subdivisions have two access roads and adequate water pressure and fire
protection.
"The building and development community would prefer to have as little
cost as possible and local decision-makers would prefer not to think about
it, either," said former Assemblyman Dave Jones, who wrote the bill and is
now the state's insurance commissioner.
Likewise, taxpayers in some of the state's most fire-prone regions have
resisted paying for fire services. In San Diego, which bore the brunt of
the deadly Cedar fire in 2003 and Witch fire in 2007, residents have
repeatedly rejected measures that would have increased taxes to pay for
more firefighters and upgraded equipment.
Comments:
Conservative Slayer at 12:50 AM July 18, 2011
MORE people who want infrastructure but don't want to pay for it?
Can you TeaTards explain why a USER FEE(AS RONNIE RAYGUN CALLED IT!) is
wrong?
1238712 at 12:47 AM July 18, 2011
"Those who live in fire prone areas should pay the full cost for defending
their property from fires." I own property (a cabin retreat) in a fire
prone area...absolutely agree. If you cannot afford $150.00 per year you
cannot afford to live there. "Businesses are leaving California." LEAVE!
WilliamPCaloia at 12:38 AM July 18, 2011
Here we go, boys and girls! Climb aboard the Governor Moonbeam Tax
Express! This flight requires no TSA pat down. We will climb to new
heights of idiocy as the Governor taxes and spends California into
oblivion
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion. On December 3, 2010, Congress voted to
censure Rangel for 11 ethics violations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fought removal of Charles B. Rangel from the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Felony President. 18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other
benefit for political activity
Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---
The bill mandates a $150 annual fee for fire-prevention services from
homeowners living in wildfire-prone areas. They are also debating the
revival of proposed land-use restrictions.
Reporting from Sacramento As Californians have crowded the state's
bucolic foothills and scenic mountains with subdivisions and cabin
retreats, pushing further into the combustible wild, state firefighting
has become a billion-dollar enterprise.
Now, with the state continuing to lurch from one fiscal crisis to another,
Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature are pushing back.
They are requiring rural homeowners who rely on state firefighters to pay
a $150 annual fee for fire-prevention services. Lawmakers are mulling over
whether to revive proposed land-use restrictions that were killed just
three years ago, after fierce objections from developers and local
officials. And, Brown has directed the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection to study how the state manages and pays for fires in
those zones and whether local governments should shoulder more of that
responsibility.
Brown has said that the cash-strapped state can no longer afford the
entire cost of battling blazes in fire-prone areas. The new fee could
raise as much as $200 million a year from the more than 846,000 homeowners
who live within more than 31 million acres of "state responsibility
areas," where Cal Fire is the primary responder.
A spokesman for the governor said the levy will "ensure that landowners in
these areas that receive a disproportionate benefit from Cal Fire's
services pay an appropriate portion of the state's wildland firefighting
costs."
Experts say the fire fee, if it survives threatened court challenges from
taxpayer groups, marks a significant, if small, shift in California's
approach to wildland development. Still, better management of growth in
fire-hazard regions, they said, will take stronger planning measures,
including mandating that counties have sufficient fire protection before
approving new construction.
For millions of Californians, the pull of nature is irresistible.
After the Cedar fire turned sun-drenched San Diego Country Estates into a
moonscape in 2003, homeowner Stephen Brown didn't think twice. He hired an
architect to rebuild his Mexican-style house in rural Ramona, in the
foothills of the Cuyamaca Mountains on the edge of the Cleveland National
Forest.
"You gotta do what you gotta do," said Brown, a financial planner. "It was
my home."
The last two administrations were frustrated in their efforts to rein in
firefighting costs. In 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill imposing a
fire-protection fee on landowners in state responsibility areas, a move
the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office had recommended a decade
earlier. But in the face of legal challenges, the Legislature repealed the
law before it took effect.
In Southern California alone, the U.S. Forest Service estimates that
roughly 189,000 homes were constructed in fire-prone areas from 2003 to
2007, at the height of the last real estate boom. In response, Cal Fire
developed a series of maps to classify fire hazard risks up and down the
state, soliciting local input.
At a meeting in Riverside County in 2007, Richard Halsey, director of the
California Chaparral Institute, a conservation group, suggested to fire
officials that "no-build" zones be created in the most dangerous areas.
His remark, he said, was met with silence.
"There are certain areas you just shouldn't build in. They are going to
burn no matter what," Halsey said. "But the political will to prevent that
just isn't there."
During the past decade, Cal Fire became the primary responder for tens of
thousands of additional homes in developed wildlands, according to U.S.
Census Bureau data. The agency's budget tripled, from $415 million to more
than $1.2 billion.
To help pay for the escalating costs, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
proposed in 2008 that a fire fee be tacked onto all Californians'
insurance bills. The Legislature rejected the measure, in part because
many lawmakers considered it a tax. A measure that would have imposed a
$50 fee on residences in areas protected by Cal Fire died as well, when
local governments fought it.
Land-use measures didn't fare any better. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill
that would have tightened building restrictions in fire-prone areas. The
California Chamber of Commerce had labeled it a "job killer."
The measure would have driven up development costs by requiring that new
subdivisions have two access roads and adequate water pressure and fire
protection.
"The building and development community would prefer to have as little
cost as possible and local decision-makers would prefer not to think about
it, either," said former Assemblyman Dave Jones, who wrote the bill and is
now the state's insurance commissioner.
Likewise, taxpayers in some of the state's most fire-prone regions have
resisted paying for fire services. In San Diego, which bore the brunt of
the deadly Cedar fire in 2003 and Witch fire in 2007, residents have
repeatedly rejected measures that would have increased taxes to pay for
more firefighters and upgraded equipment.
Comments:
Conservative Slayer at 12:50 AM July 18, 2011
MORE people who want infrastructure but don't want to pay for it?
Can you TeaTards explain why a USER FEE(AS RONNIE RAYGUN CALLED IT!) is
wrong?
1238712 at 12:47 AM July 18, 2011
"Those who live in fire prone areas should pay the full cost for defending
their property from fires." I own property (a cabin retreat) in a fire
prone area...absolutely agree. If you cannot afford $150.00 per year you
cannot afford to live there. "Businesses are leaving California." LEAVE!
WilliamPCaloia at 12:38 AM July 18, 2011
Here we go, boys and girls! Climb aboard the Governor Moonbeam Tax
Express! This flight requires no TSA pat down. We will climb to new
heights of idiocy as the Governor taxes and spends California into
oblivion
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion. On December 3, 2010, Congress voted to
censure Rangel for 11 ethics violations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fought removal of Charles B. Rangel from the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Felony President. 18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other
benefit for political activity
Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---