Scuze me wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:08 PM:The details are not important? Then neither is a yes vote, because I'll be darned if I'm gonna give the frickin County a blank check and trust those blood suckers to "do the right thing"!
They got us to fall for Prop 172, a 1/2 cent public safety sales tax, then stole all the money from the cities and used it to supplant the Sheriff and D.A. budgets!
I say heck NO to this rip-off!

Should be paid for by beneficiaries wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:12 PM:I am not opposed to a tax to provide fire protection but is it fair to tax coastal residents with zero risk at the same rate, for the benefit of back country residents who moved to a high risk area.

Jeff wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:32 PM:How about indexing the charges according to location and fire risk, seems only fair 1 size should not fit all!

No thanks... wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:45 PM:i pay enough already thank you. NO NEW TAXES...what is difficult to understand about that concept?

Michael wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:46 PM:Looks like the city of san diego has railroaded this through. Last October, my wife and I saved our house because all of the north county equipment was in rancho bernardo.

So the rural areas get screwed by the flatlanders again.

I hate California. I hate ron roberts. I hate sanders. Guess I have to pay to protect their mansions. Sad.

Enough wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:09 PM:With Obama most likely soon to be elected by socialists throughout the country, we don't need this extry added tax on us homeowners. I don't know when all of this will end. Government run amok. Enough. Enough. Enough. Secure our borders, live within our means, and stop taxing us into oblivion.

Derek wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:18 PM:Shouldn't the homes that lie within fire zones pay more than those in the more urban areas?

Escondeeter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:03 AM:Here's one of those "unimportant" facts they don't want you to focus on. If you live in an incorporated city, only 26 of the 52 bucks comes back to you to pay for your fire protection. The rest of it goes to the back country departments. Essentially, you get to pay for your own fire protection and somebody else's too.

Fire protection is more labor intensive than capital intensive. So the need for funding will go on forever, meaning the 'expiration' date on the parcel fee is a joke.

Remember, despite all the spin, none of our out of control wildfires in recent years were in the areas protected by the small, mostly volunteer, departments. The well-funded "professional" departments had the responsibility for suppressing those fires, and failed.

If we're going to throw money at the problem, we probably ought to understand that major wildland fires are a force of nature, and no amount of money is going to be enough to suppress them once they get started. Pretending that this tax will somehow overrule the laws of nature is the most dishonest kind of politicing. Yes, with enough equipment and manpower we can better manage these events, and with appropriate fuel management we can reduce them, but they're always going to be with us.

What can be accomplished is to provide a higher level of medical responses to the back-country, to fully equip them and SDFD, and to give them a hand with staffing. The more cost effectively that's done, the more impact it'll have. Nothing in this measure guarantees that it'll be spent wisely, and putting the money in the hands of the politicians instead of the fire districts pretty much guarantees it won't.

Let's stop playing empire building games, listen to ALL the chiefs not a selected few, give them what they need, and get on with it. All this is going to accomplish is to push meaningful change back another two years.

To Derek wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:06 AM:The plan is just the opposite. The urban areas will be required to subsidize the rural areas. It's basically a wealth redistribution scheme.

Country Girl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:43 AM:Fire is fire. Period. For those of you suggesting a higher tax on the backcountry areas ONLY, maybe you need to stop and think. Think Malibu. Think Big Sur. Urban costal cities devistated by fire recently. Do NOT become complacent. Coastal communities can and HAVE burned. They are NOT, as some have implied, a 'zero risk'.
Someone needs to hold this committee accountable if this measure passes in November, and make sure that the funds go where they are intended to go-more firefighters, newer and safer equpiment for the fighters, aerial equipment designed to fly at night, and the list goes on...If we're going to be taxed yet again, better to have that money spent on fire protection for ALL.
Thx for listening-have a great day!

jr wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:22 AM:Don't trust gov't. No More Taxes. No more pension raises.

No More wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:26 AM:Every home that is built in San Diego city and county pays fees for a building permit which includes fire services. This along with monies from city budgets (from our taxes) and lets not forget the assessment property owners in Escondido already have on their tax bill for our fire services, should be enough. Look on your tax bill under City of Escondido and you will find on average at least a $125 per year charge. This habit of cities taking money for vital services and spending it on something else, the arts center is a goood example, then coming to the property owner for more has to stop now. Vote NO! even if you rent because the property owner will pass the increased cost to you in the form of a rent increase. As a matter of fact vote no on any type of tax increase including all the sales tax increases planned for the ballot. We are already one of the highest taxed states and striving to be number 1. When you OK one increase, then it sends the message to come back for more.

Double-taxation wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:38 AM:There are many areas that are taxed by the collection of mello-ros police and fire protection. They already are supposed to get fire protection through the county, but the newer developments and/or the major remodels as well as everything that is redeveloped pay into police and fire already. It looks as if this will be taxing many people three times - not double-taxation but triple-taxation. Enough really is enough and it is up to the people to object to this triple-taxation ! If these people weren't supporting their own fire departments it would be different, but to charge them the same amount as others who aren't paying is absurd. Didn't the original colonists of America fight a war over just such an unfair tax ? It was called the Revoluntinary War, which began with the Boston Tea Party.

No more wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:46 AM:Just another ploy to suck more tax money out of San Diego residents. Why don't they use some of the pension money or money from the more than 3,000 city employees who make more than 100K?
Btw, the person who referred to socialists in this country electing Obama should maybe look up what socialism means before throwing around a term like that.

taxpayer wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:55 AM:One rate is fair, remember the Carlsbad fire from years past. Rancho Santa Fe burned this last time and it seems to me that the Rancho Bernardo fire was headed straight for Del Mar. Let's watch the details to see how it will be used, I think we all agree we need more protection.

to country girl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:58 AM:Fire is fire but history doesn't validate your position that all the risk is the same. Malibu, Big Sur may be coastal but heavily forrested. Not the same as Oside, Vista, Carlsbad, Chula vista, OB, PB etc. etc. When was the last time any of those cities suffered major citywide fires?

Retired Firefighter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:25 AM:Let the cities support themselves and those of us who live in the county pay for a county fire department. Poor Poway and San Diego City are just trying to get extra fire protection at all of our expense.

Jan wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:27 AM:Ron Roberts is a wack job liberal for proposing this huge build up in govenment. What a waste vote him and Jerry out as soon as we can.

Tax crazy wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:59 AM:Isn't this why long ago we bailed outta England? This is outta control!!

OCEANSIDER wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:28 AM:No more property taxes! This is just one more attempt at an endrun around Prop 13. TriCity Med Center wants to pay for its remodeling with added property taxes and now this fire protection tax to be added also. Find another way to fund these projects, don't start putting everything on the backs of property owners. My property tax bill has SEVEN additional taxes on it besides the tax on the property itself. Where will it end?

old firefighter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:37 AM:I agree with retired firefighter, "Let the cities support themselves and those of us who live in the county pay for a county fire department. Poor Poway and San Diego City are just trying to get extra fire protection at all of our expense." We pay enormous city taxes for or fire departments. We don't need to now pay for rural fire departments. Let the people that live there pay for there own fire services. They could move to a city and pay for fire services.

VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSED TAX

La Jolla Snob wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:15 AM:Let everything east of the 5 burn. Just don't raise property taxes on my 5000 sq ft palace! Waaaaah!!!!

Oh, and stay off of my beach!!!!

alfredo wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:15 AM:Ever since I came to this county I have been told that all those people in the back country "have a right to build on their properties because they own it". There has been no benefits to me because people have been allowed to be stupid enough to build out there. Let them now provide their own fire protection, provide their own water etc., etc. This will be just like .05% sales tax to ease traffic congestion. It has provided no relief just a license for developers to build more flimsy fire traps and continue traffic congestion. This will do the same thing. Just a license for developers to continue building more flimsy fire traps. Details or no details I will be voting no.

Facts wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:16 AM:Yes, the two mayors of San Diego (Sanders and Roberts) are trying to push this through no matter who says what. A city the size of Imperial Beach gets a seat on the board but San Miguel or Rancho Santa Fe does not?
Taxation without representation comes to mind.
VOTE NO

to to Country Girl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:45 AM:We haven't had any "major citywide fires" anywhere, but we've had major fires in all of the areas you've mentioned at one point or another. Buildings are made of flammable stuff, and one of the things about flammable stuff is that it burns. Vista was impacted by last year's brush fires, San Marcos had a fire in the Coronado Hills, the outskirts of Chula Vista were hit by the Harris fire last year. Oceanside had a major structure fire on its northern border last year. OB and PB have had multi-alarm fires in the past.

As for Carlsbad, the 1996 Harmony Grove fire cost the city 54 homes. (You'll find an in depth after action report on the Carlsbad Fire Department website)

UnTax wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:22 PM:21-member agency times $172,000 each, pay plus OT and bonuses for doing nothing. That’s 3.6 million for the committee another 6 million for staffing, 2 or 3 million for travel and expenses, 5 million for consultants, another 5 million for contracts. Not much remains to fight fires. No more Taxes. Where were they found when Rancho Bernardo burned? Many people saved their own property. Those that evacuated lost homes. The problem is a failed rapid response nothing more money will fix.

In Support of County Girl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:45 PM:Lets not forget Laguna Beach and all the homes lost there due to fire. That is NOT a heavily forested area.

dave wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:46 PM:The real problem is the ridicoulous salaries and pensions being paid to firefighters.

These are basically blue collar jobs with professioanl level salaries and pensions that people in the private sector can only dream of.

The unions have to stop screwing the tax payer

sdiacc wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:20 PM:A failed rapid response? your logic baffles me. A non-emotional response to that would be, there was not enough ff's, fire engines, helocopters for a rapid response. If we pass a tax and adjust our government budget, for firefighting resources you could end up with a rapid response. LA, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties pay more and get a better response. HMMM??? something to ponder, WE just might need to put more dollars to the fire service. Look at what our county pays and look elsewhere in Southeren California. SD County is spends much less in this vital service.

sdiacc wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:28 PM:Another comment. If you take all of the SD County communities and add up the total dollars spent on the fire service. The SD region spends much less money. Thats why our fire service dollars spent per capita and ratio of ff to citizen is far and away below ALL the other Southern California Counties standard.

Encinitas wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:08 PM:The devil is in the details. If they haven't figured out how to use this money, why on earth should we vote for this tax? There should be some accounting for location (risk) in calculating the tax rate.It's time for those of us in urban areas to stop subsidizing the lifestyles of those who choose to live "in the middle of nowhere".

We are screwed wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:42 PM:First, we have inept government who would squander any dime they can get their hands on.

Second, no one wants to pay new taxes.

The second point is understandable considering how irresponsible govt. is.

To country girl wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:55 PM:Get a clue. Malibu and Big sur are cities with hills and mountains and forests that run down to the ocean. Very flat, very little problem here in SD County by the beaches. Get out of the country once and a while and get a clue. NO MORE TAXES.

Herb wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:24 PM:By law, all public utilities have a right to use, and have assigned to them for their use, right-of-ways, and easements. And public utilities, as does an individual, take on weighty responsibilities when they exercise their rights.
When SDG&E exercised their right to the cross-country right-of-ways they took on the weighty responsibility of the right-of-way maintenance, repair, and upkeep. From fire evidence, and inspection reports by the state, they have not lived up to their responsibilities.
Everybody knows that if infrastructure is not maintained and kept up it will deteriorate to a point where it will fail causing loss of property and life.
The responsibilities do not end with SDG&E. There are checks and balances in our laws concerning public utilities that are supposed to keep the public utilities companies, such as SDG&E, in line and performing responsibly. As evidenced by the fires they have failed.
And we the people have an on going responsibility to maintain and keep trustworthy and responsible people in our governments that will assure that the right people, equipment, procedures, and policies are in place to prevent these preventable infernos. Our tools are the vote, initiative, referendum, recall, and point blank firing.
Don't tell me the fires aren't preventable. In less than a year, California has burned from the Mexican Border to the Oregon State line. These must be the worst fires in California history. I have lived in CA since 1958 and I cannot remember any as bad.
At a time when we need new and more sources of electrical energy we need the Rainbow Power Link. It will provide electricity regardless of the source. Recent reports show that SDG&E may build a large solar plant that could use the link to provide future energy to San Diego County. We must build that link; however, we must assure that the proper maintenance and repair procedures are in place and on going if we are to maintain our way of life and the quality there of. Those that are arguing against it are trying very hard to shoot themselves in the feet - foot - aw, you get the idea.
We the people of California must accept that we have failed in our responsibilities, hunker down, and get to work making sure that the people with the jobs concerning our safety, property, and lives work hard between fires to prevent the infernos from happening again. Hot, dry, weather had high winds are commonplace to CA. What we must do is assure that CA does not burn from border to border again by all of us doing our jobs on a continuing basis, which I believe would elevate the need for more taxes.
Any county supervisor that does see it that way should update his resume.
We the people have had enough and are well versed in the use of the vote, initiative, referendum, and the recall; i.e., we have you coming and going.

Bruce wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:14 PM:In these troubled times we live in it's not a smart move to ask for more money from already strapped taxpayers.
I would strongly suggest that the local governments take a hard look at priorities, and like us, utilize the resources they have and make do.
A good first step would be to get rid of overhead positions (anything that pays more than $100K no worker-bees just non value added fatcats), eliminate the current retirement plan to something that looks like what we get, and look at reducing our current property tax bills by 20% across the board so that we can make it through these tough times! Give back to the community instead of taking....just once....

Country Girl wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:23 AM:In response to 'to country girl' and the remark about 'getting a clue', I have a clue. What I meant to convey is that NO area is exempt from fire, be it the backcounrty or the city. The backcountry has alot of open space, room for a fire to spread, and the cities cram businesses and housing communities so close together that a fire in one building can rapidly spread to the next. You don't have to have forests and mountains for a devistating fire to happen anywhere.
I'm not in favor of any more taxes either, but fact is, taxes ARE going to happen, whether we like it or not, and whether we vote for or against. That's just the way our government works. So, since our taxes WILL be raised yet again, I'd rather see that money go to firefighting, education, or law enforcement, rather than line the wealthy politician's pockets further.
I'd like to rest assured that if I need to call 911, the department responding has the latest life-saving technology and trained personnel to help me or a loved one. I'd like to know that when my grandchildren are in their classrooms, their teacher has everything he or she needs to teach my grandchildren and their classmates, and that they will get the best education possible. I'd like to rest in the knowledge that when someone has broken the law, there are enough trained officers, on duty, that the perpetrator will be caught and justice served.
Maybe I'm a dreamer.....but the increased taxes are a reality.