Republished: The State Legislature passes a cynical fire fighting fee starting Sept. 1, 2011

This column appeared in the Sept. 2011 Upcountry News. Published by permission of the author.

I have had great difficulty writing this column because I am so angry...and therefore have postponed it until I was up against my publishing deadline...and I am still angry.

The issue I am addressing is one of the most cynical pieces of legislation I have ever witnessed, and I am 89 years old, a lifelong registered Democrat. In my opinion, what I am about to describe was passed because those voters living in rural, eastern California areas are mainly Republicans, and therefore, there would be little political fallout as a result to the legislators supporting the governor's budget.

So what's the issue?  The governor has called for "...a new, $150 annual state fire protection fee for rural areas."  Under a plan approved by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (which is the state board responsible for rural areas), CalFire will be authorized to charge upward of $90 annual  fire prevention fees to the estimated 850,000 rural residents living in these "state responsibility areas".  This is scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1, 2011.  The fact that no one knows better about our fire dangers than we who actually live here is seemingly unknown even to our local legislators.  Over generations dating back to the Gold Rush, we have created multiple fire districts with paid staffs and volunteer fire fighting organizations, and have voted to pass special sales taxes to fight fires, as in Amador county's Measure M. How is it possible that the legislature was either unaware of our own ongoing fire fighting programs--or just didn't care?

Yes, some of California's general taxes do apply to our "state responsibility" areas.  But state taxes are never applied evenly. For example, if that were the case, there would be toll booths along the freeways to tax those drivers who actually use them daily.  We who live in remote, rural counties rarely ride them.  Perhaps in our "naiveté", it doesn't occur to us that therefore some of the money we pay for state taxes should not be spent on maintaining and developing freeways.

I  perceive this fire fighting issue as one of cowardice--the legislature is going after the most vulnerable citizens--easy pickings. I haven't read anything about the legislature asking the federal government to increase fire protection funding for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land which surrounds us.  Or, asking Sierra Pacific Properties--the second largest landowner in the United States--to come up with fire fighting funds for their land which is also surrounds us.  The legislature obviously knows these attempts would be futile.

Easy way out, legislature?