Schwarzenegger's fire fee (surcharge aka TAX!) causes sparks to fly

When a devastating series of wind-driven wildfires ripped last fall through Southern California, manpower ran short and equipment even shorter.

In the end, more than 2,000 homes were destroyed. And the vast acres of blackened ruins drew the spotlight to an overextended state firefighting system that needs emergency help of its own, especially as a growing number of homes are built in fire-prone areas.

Faced with a $14.5 billion state deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a surcharge on property insurance bills across-the-board to pay for more resources.

But the plan raises questions over who should pay to fight wildfires - the Malibu homeowner who eagerly rebuilds on a piece of scorched paradise or the general population, which doesn't necessarily have the luxury of a forested backyard and an ocean view.

"I don't think it's reasonable for the people who live in urban areas to have to fund the additional money for the people who live in those areas," said Garth Carlson, a member of the Reseda Neighborhood Council, expressing his personal view.

"You're taking a risk living in the mountains around Malibu. Should I pay for that?"

In his State of the State address last month, Schwarzenegger proposed a 1.25 percent tax on property insurance bills - about $10 to $12 per California homeowner - that would generate about $125 million a year for the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

"It amounts to less than a dollar a month," said Aaron McLear, the governor's press secretary.

"The point is, when there's a fire and the state responds, all taxpayers pay for that. Taxpayers would pay less, no matter where you live, if there are more resources and consequently less damage."

The fee would provide the state agency, better known as Cal Fire, with 121 new engines, 11 more helicopters and a collection of global positioning systems to track fires and better coordinate resource assignments and evacuations.

During fire season, the new revenue would pay to increase from three to four the number of state firefighters per engine.

Year-round "surge" engines would be placed at municipal departments statewide, where local agencies would maintain them, use them for backup and agree to man them for mutual aid when catastrophe hits.

"It would offer more protection with additional personnel and more equipment," Cal Fire spokesman Daniel Berlant said. "We would be better able to respond to emergencies quickly.

"If there's a fire and we have a quick response, we keep it smaller. We don't have a massive wildfire."

Cal Fire has jurisdiction over 31million acres of wilderness, and contracts with 150 local governments, primarily smaller, rural cities and counties. The department also backs up municipal fire systems statewide, not only to fight brush fires, but in earthquakes, floods, mudslides and other emergencies, Berlant said.

Former Los Angeles Councilwoman Ruth Gallanter said urban residents have been subsidizing hillside residents for decades for public services from fire protection to sewage systems.

The problem now is that once-remote hillside homes are now within tracts of 300 houses, all in the natural path of a brush fire.

"The problem with subsidizing services for outlying hillside areas - building in flood plains is the same issue - the problem with doing that is that it makes it easier to develop in those areas, which are the most expensive to serve," she said.

The solution is to stop building in fire-prone areas, but that doesn't help the existing situation, Gallanter said.

"In order to craft a really fair solution, there has to be a fair way to apportion the cost somehow in proportion to the risk," Gallanter said.

"But it's not clear who should pick up the payment for extra risk. Should it be the homeowner who might have lived there for years and maybe not be as wealthy as some neighbors - or the local government who allowed the risk?"

Insurance company executives were briefed on the idea in early January, but the industry has yet to take a stand, said Greg Sherlock, a spokesman for State Farm Insurance, the largest property insurer in the state.

But county Fire Chief P. Michael Freeman is intrigued by governor's proposal and thinks it deserves serious consideration.

"Is this approach without flaws? Is there a better way to do it, to tweak it?" Freeman said. "We need to dialogue. How will it be used? Who pays for it? Who doesn't? Those are the questions we have to talk about, to answer."

Charlotte Laws is on the Valley Glen Neighborhood Council. She said she hasn't studied the governor's proposal but would tend to favor a nominal fee to help ensure the state is better prepared for disaster.

"Nobody likes taxes to be raised, but it's possible that the additional money would help us be better prepared," Laws said.

"We do have residents living in areas that are high fire danger. And we all pay for things we don't use. We all pay for public schools even if we don't have kids. You can make that argument all day long."

Last fall was marked by at least a dozen major brush fires from Lake Tahoe to San Diego, with five devastating blazes in Malibu and the Santa Clarita Valley.

Flames from October's 58,401-acre Ranch Fire came up to Scott Muir's home in Castaic's Hasley Canyon. Having grown up in Malibu, he knew the drill and he saved his house.

Per county requirement, he had cleared brush around his property and when his canyon was evacuated he stayed behind with a friend, equipped with a pool pump and hose to douse any flames.

He said he opposes a statewide fire fee but wouldn't mind the surcharge if the money went to local fire departments.

"I wouldn't mind an extra $12 on my policy, but every time the government starts a new tax, they end up spending it on something else," he said.

Muir and others don't question the fairness so much of urban areas subsidizing fire-prone areas as they do Los Angeles County residents helping other less-prepared regions.

Los Angeles County, he said, proved superior compared to Orange and San Diego counties in the most recent spate of fires, primarily because of diligent brush clearance enforcement.

"I do live in a high fire zone, and the fire came to my front door," he said. "But I clear my property every year - if you don't, the county will do it for you and charge you two or three thousand dollars.

And Gallanter adds that Los Angeles area residents have taxed themselves in both the city and county to enhance fire protection while some neighboring counties have not.

The state alone spent $291 million of the total $1 billion cost of battling flames last fall. Manpower was stretched and resources were thin, with engines and aircraft shifted from fire to fire as erratic winds spread flames through neighborhoods.

"That particular day I felt the whole world was on fire," Freeman said of Oct. 21, the start of the first autumn firestorm.

The fee is within the governor's proposed budget, now before the state Legislature. Besides the issue of equity, it's sure to face a skirmish over whether fire "fee" is just a more palatable way of saying "tax."

"It's a tax; it is not a fee for service. It is not proportionate to the benefits derived," said association President Jon Coupal.

The fee would overwhelmingly benefit residents of tony hillside communities over those in the middle of the suburban flatlands, Coupal said. It also would benefit those who own vast vacant acreage yet pay no insurance.

"A guy who owns a 10-acre parcel in the forest but has made no improvements - he doesn't carry any insurance, but very likely (Cal Fire) is putting out a fire on his property," he said.

But Bill Maile, an aide to the governor, said the proposed fee passes the test of the independent Legislative Analyst's Office.

"The money gained from the fee goes for the specific purpose of fighting fires and by definition of the legislative analyst, it is a fee," Maile said.

Technical - and territorial - arguments aside, something must be done, Chief Freeman said. There's nothing more frustrating for firefighters and more heartbreaking for residents than knowing flames are charging toward homes on too many fronts for crews to handle.

More firefighters and more resources are needed, particularly as development moves toward hillside areas, he said.

"If we step back and see who's footing the bill that isn't covered by insurance, I think you'll find it ultimately comes back to the taxpayer," Freeman said.

Residents, he said, need to look at the big picture because boundaries are erased in emergencies and statewide resources are key.

"I don't live in Malibu. I don't want to live in Malibu," Freeman said. "But the reality is if we have an earthquake and my neighborhood is cut off in Whittier, I know the fire engines from Santa Clarita or Rancho Cucamonga or Cal Fire are going to be there."

If the people in fire-prone areas were smart, they would lobby the federal government for a bailout each time there is a fire. This has worked for people in flood-prone areas for years.

Of course, this idiocy begs the question... why are people allowed to build houses in areas like this to begin with?

It amounts to less than a dollar a month," said Aaron McLear, the governor's press secretary

The amount is immaterial, they wantg to tax everyone to benefit a few. These few happen to be better off than average too. But since its California, why be surprised?

Former Los Angeles Councilwoman Ruth Gallanter said urban residents have been subsidizing hillside residents for decades for public services from fire protection to sewage systems.

Uh-huh. And we've been subsidizing their failed public schools, failed welfare system for the homeless and illegal aliens, failed gay and lesbian outreach centers, failed public transit system, failed public libraries blah blah blah. I have no problem paying for my own fire protection if I can opt out of paying for all the liberal programs these thieves keep setting up. Deal?

Funny, I thought that's what the California National Guard was for.

I'll agree to a surcharge to protect the hill dwellers if they'll agree to a surcharge to protect those of us in flood areas. Hey, if they don't have to be held responsible for building on fire prone hillsides, why should I be held responsible for building on a floodplain between a major creek and a large river in an area without levees? Let's just relegate that whole annoying "personal responsibility" thing to the dustbin and be done with it. Nobody should be responsible for anything...we'll just tax all of our neighbors to cover the damage from our poor decisions. Hey, it's only "fair". Why should we have to carry the costs of our stupidity by ourselves?

Leaving the sarcasm behind, I could tell you all horror stories about the homes many of my nitwit neighbors are building around some land I own in the Sierra Nevada. One piece of property next to mine was recently subdivided and turned into vacation homes, and several of the new landowners complained to me about my thinning practices. Apparently I'm making the forest too sunny for their liking. One of these morons actually had his architect design his home around the existing trees so he wouldn't have to remove ANY of the forest. Idiots.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.