NoTax wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:09 PM:That will be a big NO. Seems we have enough regional authorities, codeword for bureaucrat. NCT it doesn't matter how you lable the headline it will always be tax.

Rodger wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:28 PM:Let's see increasing a government tax will prevent mother nature from doing whatever she feels is fit for that time, that moment and to keep the balance, ya that will work, why not vote yes.

Say NO wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:41 PM:this is a very unfair tax. Break the county into fire zones, just like they do flood zones. Make property owners pay according to the level of risk.

Jake wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:12 AM:NO on all new property taxes and 'assessments'. This 'Fire Tax' is another chipping away at the property tax protection won by Prop.13. A 40' wide lot pays the same as a parcel of hundreds of acres. Also the $52 tax would increase every year. Enough already!

Prop Phase II wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:57 AM: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 debt 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 additional 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 helping to write this one up in legaleze and help get it on the Ballot?

Herb wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:10 AM:Giving the Board of supervisors more money to mismanage would not prevent wildfires starting in the back country. It is reported that the recent fires in Northern California were started by lighting. I do not know of anything that can be done to prevent such fires; however, there are things that people living in the back country can do to prevent their homes from burning. It must be considered that there will be homes and businesses burned regardless of how much preventive fire measures are undertaken. We all know that even in town, a house with ceder roofs are much more likely to burn than those with fiberglass roofs.
I contend that not enough is being done to prevent homes and building in the San Diego County back country from burning. Landscaping is the first consideration and that can be determined from the air. Another is closing in the eves of a house with metal.
People have a right to live in the back country if they like, and I don't blame them. Before I became a senior I would have liked too. But, when living in the back country and not complying with known fire prevention measures they are infringing on the rights of others by requiring them to provide fire fighting equipment for a home where a fire could be prevented.
Show me that every effort possible has been taken by the county to assure that preventive measure building codes and landscaping requirements have been complied with utilizing existing funding and then show that more money is needed and I will vote for the parcel tax.

Hey Folks wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:12 AM:No, No, No, on all new property taxes, assessments and fees. When is another bond just one too many????? Right now I have 5 on my tax bill...this is money I need to buy propane to heat my home. In case you didn't know, propane is based on the cost of a barrel of oil. It, like gasoline, is expensive. We already pay several times over for fire protection. We should be cutting our expenses with less programs during these difficult times. The County needs to figure out another way to pay for their "pet projects".

Sorry But wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:28 AM:Nope, ain't gonna vote in favor of this. A parcel tax is, by it's very nature, unfair, favoring large landowners at the expense of small landowners. And since the intent is to increase fire services not covered by local fire agencies, it isn't fair to those persons who live in areas already served by their own municipal service. Finally, it lets owners of multi-family dwellings pay one relatively small fee for what amounts to many people being served. Sorry, this one is a no-brainer. I'm voting NO.

Larry wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:41 AM:All the fire personnel and equipment in the world wouldn't have stopped last falls wildfires. The risk of fires is the price we all pay to live here. This is just another special interest tax aimed at lining the pockets of the already overpaid firefighters. Let me keep the $52 and I'll buy another garden hose and protect my own home!

NO wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:14 AM:I already pay for fire services at my home. I will not support paying for fire services at someone else's home. Let the board of supervisors buy fire equipment with their 15 million dollar slush fund that they seem to use to arrange Asian travel with.

JF wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:29 AM:Several have commented that this parcel tax is unfair because the owner of a small lot pays the same as the owner of a large lot. That is untrue. I won't look it up right now, but you can. I believe that there's a per acre increase for anything above 5 acres? Either way... large landowners are paying more.

Some say that they shouldn't pay because they don't live in wildfire prone areas. Did it occur to you that half of that money goes to increase local fire protection? Including near your house? Did you not notice the large fire in Encinitas a week or so ago? Fire agencies from across the county fought that fire.

The simple fact of the matter is that fire services are not funded enough here in SD. Not for major fires. Not each and every day. You can spend your time blogging here. Or you can spend your time demanding that politicians redirect funding. Or you can vote for the tax. More funding won't stop fires, but it will allow more homes to be saved.

Charlie wrote on Aug 7, 2008 11:28 AM:They're not getting my vote. They already tax us too much!