default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

State fee unfair to rural taxpayers

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:58 am

Rural residents are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of protecting the state’s oak woodlands, rangeland, forests, open space, and watersheds through the imposition of the Fire Prevention Fee within the State Responsibility Area.

As noted in Watershed-Based Strategies for Amador and Calaveras Counties, “Watersheds in the Sierra Nevada are an essential source of natural capital for the state’s multi-billion dollar economy. Sierra snowpack is California’s single largest water storage system. The 24 major watersheds of the Sierra Nevada supply around 65 percent of California’s drinking water.”

Clearly, every resident of California is a beneficiary of local water resources and should help shoulder the cost of preventing wildfires, which foul our waterways by creating rapid runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants.

Every resident also benefits from the carbon sequestration our grasslands and woodlands provide and from the recreational opportunities, the history, the culture, the scenic beauty, and the simple assurance that each may find respite in the unspoiled rural regions of the state. Either eliminate the fee or charge every resident to protect what are valuable resources with multiple benefits for all.

The state should address the root of the problem, which is residential development in areas of high fire danger. The correct approach would be to pass land use laws which restrict such development rather than allowing the development and then penalizing those citizens who choose to live in a rural home that they trust is safe, because it has been legally approved.

Muriel Zeller

Valley Springs

© 2015 Calaveras Enterprise. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
  • 7 Printed Comments. Unless expressly asked not to publish your comments to stories and posts, we reserve the right to publish your comments in whole or in part, in our printed product.

Welcome to the discussion.

4 comments:

  • Mike Bullard posted at 4:59 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    Mike Bullard Posts: 569

    Never happen, SPI's Red Emmerson's too powerful and diabolical.

     
  • ecoalex posted at 4:29 pm on Sun, Oct 14, 2012.

    ecoalex Posts: 140

    The watersheds are being removed wholesale by clear cutting forest land.The aftermath of clear cutting is the same as a forest fire.End clear cutting,return to sustainable timber management.

     
  • Mike Bullard posted at 11:42 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

    Mike Bullard Posts: 569

    An "aftersend" thunk, if it really was a fire issue you'd think they'd tax everybody, then send inspectors out to problem areas and cite violators, they're probly just playin' the low numbers of rural areas' protestings aginst the higher slam value.

     
  • Mike Bullard posted at 11:29 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

    Mike Bullard Posts: 569

    Yeah, it sure seems somebody in the position'd get to work for the slighted and seal some votes at a real hard time. We paid ours right away, they're bigger'n us and to tell ya the truth I can do somethin' stupid at a higher cost than that and sleep just fine. Kinda like, "If that's my biggest problem I need to pick up my mail."
    Tell 'em a 109er took it.