REGION: Fire-tax campaign off to slow start
Supporters say effort will begin after Labor Day
By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer | ∞
With the November election a little over two months away, the campaign for a countywide tax that would raise money for fire protection has yet to ignite.
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed Aug. 6 to put the proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot. At that time, some proponents of the measure expressed concern about how little time there was to convince voters of the need for an additional tax.
But as of last week, there was no campaign committee formed or money raised to promote the ballot measure, or Proposition A. Opponents of the measure have not done much, either, beyond offering an argument against the proposal to be included in the ballot.
If approved by a two-thirds majority, Prop. A would create a new regional fire agency and assess a minimum annual tax of $52 on all property owners in the county. The estimated $50 million in revenue that the tax would generate would fund the new agency and increase funding for local fire departments.
Fire and county officials say they need more regional resources to fight wildfires, such as those in 2003 and 2007 that scorched hundreds of thousands of acres.
The firestorms destroyed more than 4,000 homes and killed 27 people.
Several recent assessment reports have criticized the region for not being better prepared to stem wildfires before they become firestorms.
Bad timing?
Supervisor Dianne Jacob, a member of the committee that developed the proposal, was among those who expressed concern about the short time they would have to prepare and promote the measure.
Jacob's East County district was among the most affected by the 2003 and 2007 wildfires.
"The timing is not great and the proposal is not perfect," Jacob said last week.
She also said she was uneasy about placing the measure on a ballot crowded with other tax increases and bond measures.
Encinitas and Del Mar are proposing increases in hotel taxes. La Mesa and El Cajon are asking voters to approve sales tax increases.
There also are seven school bond measures, including a $98 million bond proposal for Escondido Union High School District.
The campaign's slow start has fed some critics' skepticism that the supervisors are not enthusiastic about supporting the plan.
"It's exactly what we expected," said Steve Erie, a UC San Diego political science professor who has criticized the parcel-tax proposal. "It's all quiet on the Western front."
Supporters of the parcel tax, however, said plans are under way for the campaign. They said most campaigns begin in earnest after Labor Day.
"People are working behind the scenes, and I think you are going to see things moving soon," said Luis Monteagudo, a spokesman for Supervisor Greg Cox, whose district includes much of South Bay.
Cox was one of five fire and elected officials who signed the statement in support of the measure that will be included on the ballot. The other four are San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender, Lakeside fire Chief Mark Baker and San Miguel fire Chief Augie Ghio.
In their statement, supporters say the parcel tax would help pay for new fire trucks, firefighting aircraft, communications equipment and brush management programs to help reduce the spread of wildfires.
Opponents of the measure say local governments should use existing funds to pay for fire protection. Those listed as opponents in the statement include San Diego Taxfighters Chairman Richard Rider, Encinitas City Council candidate Joe Sheffo, and San Diego County Libertarian Party Chairman Michael Benoit.
Erik Bruvold, president of the San Diego Institute for Policy Research, a local government research organization, agreed that most voters don't pay much attention to elections until September, when people typically return from summer vacation.
Bruvold was vice president of public policy for the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp., where he oversaw the organization's efforts to pass a ballot measure to extend TransNet, the county sales tax that helps fund transportation projects.
The successful campaign to pass the TransNet extension began in July 2004, with mailers sent to voters explaining what the tax would pay for.
But Bruvold said the comparison between TransNet and the parcel-tax ballot measure is not fair.
A regional concern
Coming on the heels of two of the most destructive wildfires in the state's history, people don't need much to remind them of the need to improve fire services, Bruvold said.
"I think this is a broader, regional concern," he said of the parcel tax. "People get the importance of fire protection."
The parcel tax and the fire agency proposal was formed by the Regional Fire Protection Committee, a group appointed by the supervisors to study fire protection in the region.
The committee, headed by Supervisor Ron Roberts and Mayor Sanders, included several other elected officials and fire chiefs.
After months of debate, the committee last month recommended the plan for a joint fire agency funded by the parcel tax. Half of the money generated by the parcel tax would fund the agency and the rest would stay in the cities and fire districts.
Jacob said she plans to provide information about the proposal to people in her district, but said she would not actively campaign for it, citing legal restrictions.
"As a member of the Board of Supervisors, we are prohibited from campaigning on county time or spending public resources," she said.
John Sansone, the county's chief attorney, said there are limitations on what the supervisors can do to promote the ballot measure.
Elected officials may not spend public funds on the campaign and may not campaign during work hours, he said.
"The basic rule is that you can't spend tax dollars on a campaign," Sansone said.
The campaign will need outside resources to fund it. As of last week, it was unclear where the money would come from.
Supervisor Bill Horn and Jacob said they did not know where the money would be raised. Ghio, who is president of the San Diego County Fire Chiefs, said members of his organization would help explain the proposal to the public, but would not tell people how to vote.
Roberts, one of the main proponents of the plan, was not available for comment. His chief of staff, Jim Duffy, said more details about the campaign would be available this week.
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price's chief of staff, John Weil, also said that he and members of the supervisor's staff have begun educating the public about the proposal while at various community gatherings.
"We are not permitted by law to advocate, but we are allowed to give out information and educate people on what this is all about, and we have been doing that," Weil said.
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
Related stories:
REGION: Group opposes regional fire tax plan
REGION: Most North County mayors lukewarm on fire tax
REGION: Proposed parcel tax would generate $50 million
REGION: Property tax measure considered for fire resources
Advertisement
Tuck wrote on Aug 24, 2008 7:52 PM:I vote NO on all new taxes, period!!!! I already work through June for free, how much more do you want???
Aaron wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:09 PM:I, for one, an Encinitas resident, do not want to subsidize those people to my East, who fail to clear the brush from around their property. I already pay taxes to support a very good fire department (ENC), there is no reason to support those people to my east. They need to step up to plate and pay for their protection.
Karl wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:13 PM:Tuck, they want all of it and then some.
Barney wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:41 PM:Kinda makes one wonder how they are going to spend our $52/ea when they can't even get organized enough to get the campaign going... And have to add, that while the concept of raising funds thru property tax is not necessarily bad, $52/ea minimum seems very, very high. I am paying for a school bond that is raising $36M, in a small town... and am only accessed $12/yr. How can $52/yr be justified?
Robert wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:07 PM:Top scientists agree revolutionary climate control project will reduce hurricanes, droughts and wildfires.
Climatologists, biologists and physicists from all corners of the globe agree that U.S. based Gravitational Systems, L.L.C.'s revolutionary clean power climate control project INDRA will improve the lives of billions of people around the world.
Concerns have been raised about the projects impact on biodiversity as deserts are terraformed to rainforests.
Mr. Henderson, director of research and development for Gravitational Systems, L.L.C. ( a clean power developer), explains that the INDRA project, a proposed network of specialized evaporation channels moving sea water from the oceans toward the deserts, will convert world deserts into biodiverse rainforests. Deserts which cover 1/3 of all dry land will be terraformed into productive land.
The INDRA systems will give mankind control of the weather, ending dangerous storms such as hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, and dry heat waves within a decade.
Vast rivers can be turned on and off in hours, and reservoirs and salt marshes drained or replenished in days.
The increased bio-mass of the terraformed deserts will begin to reverse both global warming and thermal sea level rise. UNFCCC cap and trade certification of the INDRA project will allow individuals and business to fund the plan through carbon offsets. The initial projects will be targeted north American, and north African deserts.
Firebug wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:28 AM:My $52 can be spent on polish for the chrome wheels on the firetrucks!
Pile of Ashes wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:47 AM:This new tax, like every new tax, will die a swift death. NO means NO. This state, this county, this hospital district, has plenty of money at its disposal without new taxes. Until we see some fiscal restraint from our "leaders," the answer will always be the same: NO!
Reardon wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:57 AM:The proposed County Parcel Tax for Fire is flawed in so many areas, aside from the obvious treatment of a 200 acre ranch the same as a condo dweller.
It is the same old, same old -- because it works. Government spends money on items that would never pass a vote, then has no money for its absolute requirements. It puts the requirements up for vote, knowing they will pass.
This is the old apocryphal Air Force game: Build the “O” Club and golf course first, then go back to Congress for the runway money! “We can’t have an Air Force Base without a runway!” (O Clubs and all recreational activities are paid for by profits from commissaries and exchanges – so the story is technically false, and used only for demonstration.)
So long as we fall for this, government will continue doing it. It works!
I love it! The County spend money on “public art,’ the symphony., and programs that make illegal aliens comfortable, but has not sufficient money for comprehensive fire protection.
Tell you what, County! You spend the money on fire and police, and let me vote on “public art.”
Cockamamie wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:26 AM:Here's an idea: stop building along canyons, deserts, backcountries, etc. It is within the cycle of nature that such places will burn from time to time. You don't have to protect structures if there aren't any structures there in the first place. That way, maybe people who live far away won't have to subsidize the fire protection for people who live near fire-prone areas -- since there won't BE people living in fire-prone areas. Otherwise, let them pay for their own fire protection. I'm not paying to protect someone stupid enough to build his house on sand, or nect to an incinerator.
Carter wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:30 AM:I would like to hear more about this. What is the money going to be used for? I want to see a detailed shopping list. I want to see money spent in prevention - to stop fires before they start so to speak.
It seems that every time we experience a disaster it is taken advantage of to raise taxes with only superficial reasoning being given with the different government agencies in competition for my money. Well they are not going to get any as far as I'm concerned until they show me that they are in desperate need of it. Don't use the wildfires of the last few years as proof of need - they could be proof of need for a better job having been done. I know for sure that a better job could have been done preventing the electrical lines from arcing and causing our recent wildfires;E.G., We don't have so many high powered electrical line that fly-by inspections and photos of neglect can not be accomplished. Where negligence is evident heavy fines would be in order. I have a need to know and I will have it before the Board of Supervisors get my support on this one.
Deal wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:56 AM:Let's make a deal. How about the Supervisors agree to use their 10 million dollar annual slush fund to pay for back county fire services instead of buying poitical favors from groups that send them on all expense paid trips, and we'll agree to let them.
Bill wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:03 AM:Someone has some large ones!! They want new taxes, more money, while they are ignoring the cause of BILLIONS of our tax dollars being spent, to no benefit of those paying the taxes!!
GET REAL or GET OUT!!
Gil wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:27 AM:No taxation without representation!!!!
I think it is time for another tea party!!!
What could we call it this time. Any ideas? I have some.
Gosh Golly wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:26 AM:Well, I'll be... they're having trouble finding politicians to campaign for a proposal to force people to pay fifty two bucks a year to provide somebody else's fire protection. Who'da thunk it?
To Reardon wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:37 AM:Check out Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association versus Santa Clara County Open Space Authority decided two weeks ago by the Cal Supremes. Your argument about the fee needing to have some nexus to the benefit provided on an individual basis was addressed, and the Supreme Court found it persuasive. There's a significant possibility that the BOS's proposed parcel fee will be determined to be illegal.
Allen wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:50 AM:Fire departments protect the interests of insurance companies. Let the bloated beneficiaries--i.e., the money-changer corporations--foot the bill for fire services.
Ridiculous wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:41 AM:We are expected to pay for 17% of the county population who live out in the brush and chapparel. No thanks. My vote will continue to be NO as will about 70% of the people in the County.
To Gil... wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:47 AM:...while I don't like paying taxes any more than you do, this idea for a parcel tax is NOT taxation without representation. Our elected county supervisors have agreed to put this on the November ballot for US to VOTE ON.
You can protest taxes, but please don't spout off some patriotic-sounding sound bite when you don't know what it means. Be a better student of our counry's history and political process if you want to make judgments on current affairs.
To Aaron wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:20 PM:you mean like the money the folks in the East have to spend on replenishing your sand? Take a hike!
Gil wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:20 PM:First of all, I understand what it means and let me explain how the process will work. The people will vote, NO on this parcel tax. Then the legislature will come and “sneak” this tax somewhere else, like on another proposition. Do you really believe that you are being represented by the legislature? We have these “alleged” votes, then a judge or some emergency is declared and they end up taking our money anyway. While this case is not identical to the Boston Tea Party, it is similar in that we are being overtaxes and have almost no control over where the money is spent. The government uses scare tactics and lies to weasel more money out of the people, so you could say we are being misrepresented by the clown politicians. 90% of Americans want a border fence. However, 90% of the congress does not want one, does that sound like representation to you?
Vote NO wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:21 PM:More taxes, bigger organization, less accountability, more overhead, slower response, JUST SAY NO!
End-Around wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:22 PM:The supervisors are savvy enough to know that if you make this a straight per-parcel tax, and don't tie it to specific services, you can get around the requirements of Prop 218. It's like the TriCity Board doing the mail ballot. If there's a loophole, the pols will find it. After all, they write the laws to begin with. No on this parcel tax, and any other tax they send our way. Live within your means.
OCEANSIDIAN wrote on Aug 25, 2008 2:15 PM:#1: No matter how much this funding is needed, let's not load up property taxes with more and more extras. Goverments are doing an end run around Prop 13. Find another way to fund it.
#2: I agree Aaron that property owners in East County need to be more responsible in protecting their own property. Much of the damage could have been avoided if the proper measures had been taken by the owners. Also, why should I pay to provide extra protection for somebody dumb enough to build their house smack dab up against a wooded and brushy area? In November I will vote NO on this measure.
More firefighters wrote on Aug 25, 2008 4:31 PM:The entire San Diego City FD couldn't do anything in Rancho Bernardo. This is a show by the BOS so next time they can say "Not our fault, we told you so."
Im broke now wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:33 PM:I just got my homeowners insurance bill...of course it's increased. My tax bill will increase with the new school bond. My groceries are out of sight as is gas. We are paying for mosquito abatement yet not getting it. Enough is enough. Let people increase the premiums on their own insurance policies or..better yet...quit building in inappropriate areas without fire protection!
Local wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:30 AM:No trust equals no vote. Period.
Today's Stories
Advertisement