Vista Watchdog wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:02 PM:Kill two birds with one stone: Sell TCMC, convert the Hospital District into an Emergency Mangement District, use teh proceeds from teh sale to build out a world class ER/Trauma Center at the Hospital, contract a Helecoptor for Trauma evecuation and Firefighting, contract other airial firefighting services to protect the back country and chapperal areas, build a North County Communications and Emergency Operations Center, aid cities to buy new communications equipment for Police, Fire, Parametics and other Emergency Service providers, and provide regualr funds for many years to come to aid cities and the county in providing Emergency Services to the area.

This could also be done in the Escondido area with PPH.

Time to put the PEOPLE's Assets to good use by selling those things that can be operated by private corporations, like Community Hospitals! It has worked elsewhere in CA, so why not in San Diego? (or are we too stupid to make it work here!)

Jack wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:19 PM:Just what we need more fire fighters and more Ritz firestations. What time is the BBQ. Its not like City's need to build parks are maintain roads or anything right?

Reardon wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:46 PM:If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to provide collective protection -- fire, police and military. Those budget items need to be funded FIRST, to the maximum extent needed, then IF there is any money "left over" THAT should go to things like public art.

Politicians KNOW that there is minimal support for many programs, but they can buy votes there -- and then if they need to they can have police, fire etc. on a public vote and it will pass.

This is the old Air Force Ploy, which used to take their budget and build an Officer Club, a Sgt. Club. a golf course, and two swimming pools. Then they went back to Congress for the money necessary to build a runway!

Escondeeter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:40 AM:The revealing phrase in their announcement was "professional firefighters". What this looks like to me is the unions deciding to oppose the plan because it doesn't guarantee that they'll get new members from it. Combined with the objections of the areas that are already paying for their own fire services and would be asked to help pay for rural fire services on top of that, it'll probably kill the plan.

The sane route here is a parcel tax on just the unincorporated areas distributed to the rural departments currently protecting them. That, at least, could leave them with a single consistently dependable funding source. The funds should then be provided to the rural chiefs, allowing them to staff as they feel is appropriate. I can guarantee you that most of them will be hiring, and the unions can then try to organize the rural departments if they want to. The county can then use its current 11 million to provide air support. A tax measure that mandates that it only be spent on hiring union members is a non-starter.

And by the way, the story once again mentions the county's expenditures as if that's the only money being spent on providing fire protection in the back country. Almost all of those agencies have their own funding sources. If we're going to start talking about the current situation, we ought to use the real figures rather than some hyped numbers that don't honestly represent the current situation. The credibility of those proposing a regional department is not enhanced by peddling around a lot of low-ball numbers.

Granny wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:22 AM:The 17% of the people who live in the unincorporated areas should pay this fee. We who live in cities already pay for police and fire protection. This 'fee' is way too expensive for anyone anyway. I'm guessing 70% will vote against it or more. We have had enough of bonds and 'taxes' and assessments. Remember the mosquito fee? My neighborhood is inudated with them yet the mosquito patrol is running around in new trucks. No more taxes or assessments for me!

Just another wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:50 AM:scam to get tax money. The agency would be to big to have any accountability so who knows where the money would go. They get tax money now. If they can't do it for that, don't do it. Protection won't increase one bit as regardless what they say the extra money will go to overhead and admin costs. JUST SAY NO!

Escondeeter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:16 AM:The Board reached unanimous agreement on the specific form for the proposal, and will take final action on it tomorrow. Approval is a foregone conclusion.

In its final form, the ordinance will provide for a board of ten, consisting of a representative from the county, the city of San Diego, four representatives of fire departments in the incorporated cities, and four representatives of the independent fire agencies. The proposal to mandate hiring was not included, nor was a long list of specific pieces of equipment to be bought.

The proposal will still involve using a portion of the tax paid by residents of incorporated cities to provide fire service to the unincorporated areas. Essentially, city residents get to pay for the level of service they already have, then give additional money to the authority which will give some of it back to their city for whatever the authority deems appropriate (so much for local control) and give the other half of it to the back-country departments.

What we have here is a wealth redistribution scheme disguised as a public safety measure. For that reason, passage in November seems unlikely.

JF wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:16 PM:Granny, most (but not all) major fires start in the rural areas and then move into incorporated cities. If we can keep them small in the rural areas, then incorporated areas benefit. Further, there isn't a fire agency in this county that couldn't use more funding. One study showed that the city of San Diego is short staffed by 50%. A portion of this tax would help fund that. The reason Bowman's group opposes the tax is that it doesn't require bodies -- theoretically the volunteers could use the money to built massive stations and buy rigs they don't need just because they have the money. Now that may not happen here -- but look to Long Island for a good (or bad) example. Jack complained about 'Ritz' fire stations. Sorry, but most stations are barely big enough for the numbers of folks who work out of them.

Union Input wrote on Aug 5, 2008 1:31 PM:I think Escondeeter nailed this one. In the past, it was always reported that the major problem was a lack of equipment, not a lack of firefighters. For this to be first on the list of complaints screams union intervention. Then, you've got "study" that needs to be done before anyone can really say what is needed. This is what you get when you put together union reps with retired union members, and then add in a college professor and a community activist. What other conclusion do you think they would come too?

Dave wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:37 PM:The county wants to raise my property tax 50 bucks for fire. The TCMC wants 50 bucks for the hospital. The Oceanside voters just passed another bond. Whos next and where does it end.

Carter wrote on Aug 5, 2008 4:42 PM:Those guys seem to be in a hurry to spend our money as they choose. Well, come election day we the voters will do as we choose.
Those that have rental property will get their $52.00 back and more - from their renters.
Those guys seem to be in a hurry to levy. First, assure that the laws are in place that will mandate the following - the public safety is at stake here:
I suggest aerial photos be taken of those areas most likely to burn, and then do drive by, visual inspections and taking photos of parcels that are not be in compliance, starting with the parcels owned by members of the Board of Supervisors, fire chiefs, city officials, etc. The list of those that are not in compliance should be posted in the newspapers, with their names remaining on the list until their property comes into compliance.
We the people have a right to know that our workers/employees are complying with the law - the public safety is at stake here.
levy heavy fines every month for those that are not in compliance. Make it worth their while to comply with the law.
Do the same with utility companies that are not in compliance and do it in a manner that the CFO and CEO will find fixing their infrastructure problems and cutting back the right-of-way the more lucrative action. They have already showed that is what will make up their minds for them. Give them a monetary incentive and they will do the right thing every time.

Prop Phase II wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:37 PM:Time to pass a Prop 13 Phase II that sets a maximum limit on total percentage payments for all current bonds against a single property. This would mean that those wanting to pass a bond would have to get on the Bond Wagon early before the total bond limt was met. However, this would not actually end all oportunity for bonds, as even when the limit is reached, there would be openings due to the rise in porperty values and increased total available properties (new houses/buildings). But, even then as the limit is again opened for additioanl Bonds, those desiring to pass a bond would have to compete with others for the scant resources and thus fully justify their needs over those of their competitors.

You know, it just might work! Anybody for helpping to write thi one up in legaleze and help get it on the Ballot?