Fire Tax

Dave is opposed to the County's proposed Prop A Fire Tax.

Read the stories / articles below to see why:

• Dave's Opposition to the Parcel Tax & Resolution to the La Mesa City Council (PDF File)
• Dave's Letter to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors (PDF File)

by Lyle E Davis
Commentary

Are you getting just a little tired of bond issues? Of initiatives that, one way or the other, are going to cost you and me some green? A little tired of high priced consultants, politicians and quasi-politicians figuring out the latest and quickest way of feeding at the public trough and putting it to the taxpayer one more time? A little tired of deceptive advertising and false promises? Well, if you are a taxpayer, and who amongst us isn’t? then you would do well to remember Proposition 172, passed in 1993, which provides local governments with a permanent additional half-cent sales tax for public safety purposes. As set forth in the ballot argument in support of Proposition 172, the tax proceeds would, among other things, "guarantee funds for fire protection."

Remember that phrase. It’s important.

Bear in mind, while remembering the above phrase, that your County Board of Supervisors have just authorized another “parcel tax plan” to go before you, the voters, this November. Guess what it’s for?

It’s to create a regional fire protection agency and establish a parcel tax for fire protection.

But, you ask, why do we need another layer of government? And why do we need money? After all, Proposition 172 promised us tax proceeds would, among other things, “guarantee funds for fire protection.”

(Continue to remember that phrase. It’s important. We will be coming back to revisit this phrase fairly often. We will also recommend our county politicians revisit that phrase and to re-read Proposition 172.)

To better understand how we’re being hoodwinked (again) we have to understand the rules by which these rascals play.

Let’s go back in our magic time machine to 1993 when the state of California was in a budget crisis. California was also just barely recovering from a devastating series of wild fires. The fires, as you will soon see, played an important role in this story.

To balance the state budget, the Legislature, at the urging of Governor Pete Wilson directed that property tax money be siphoned away from the local governments to help fund schools. To mitigate this loss of funds, and to mollify the local governments, city and county, that had funds taken away from them, then-Governor Pete Wilson called a statewide special election in November 1993 for the express purpose of passing Proposition 172, a one and one-half billion dollar annual state sales tax of 1/2 percent, devoted to public safety.

Proposition 172 was only getting a lukewarm reception from the public. Perhaps you remember the commercials. Crime - not fires - was the focus of the Proposition 172 campaign until the last few days. Polls at the time showed crime to be the second-greatest concern of California residents, after the economic recession. One of the Proposition 172 television ads featured Clint Eastwood's voice and an image of a woman walking alone through a dark parking lot.

Ballot statements in support of Proposition 172 stated: "Carjackings, ATM holdups, shootings in our schools, violence, murder and mayhem dominate the evening news each and every night."

But less than a month before the election, polls showed that three of four registered voters did not know enough about Proposition 172 to take a position.

But then a strange thing happened. When flames erupted in searing Santa Ana winds, campaign consultant Stu Mollrich moved quickly to compose new ads.

"It'll just be straightforward: Proposition 172 provides needed funding for fire services, and people ought to support it," Mollrich told The Los Angeles Times just days before the election. "We'll show footage of people fighting fires."

The television commercial promoting Proposition 172 in 1993 exuded urgency, even for a political campaign ad. Quick cuts between speeding fire engines, bad guys in handcuffs, and shimmering flames grabbed viewers' eyes.

With howling sirens and garbled radios interspersed in the background, a baritone narrator chimed in: "Californians depend on their firefighters and cops, every hour of every day. But budget reductions are threatening to make drastic cuts to our public safety."

The television ads featured firefighters and paramedics and several serious Southern California fires the previous month, including the Guajome fire near the Wild Animal Park. Proponents credited the measure's success, in part, to wildfires that burned hundreds of homes in Southern California the week before election day. All were attributed as a factor to the measure's passage, by 58%.

And once again . . . we were lied to and shortchanged . . . to read what and how these rascals managed to pilfer this money away from firefighters and neglect public safety, join us for this week's edition of The Paper. It is our cover story and could well be an example of what politicians are trying to do to you in your neck of the woods.

This story, by the way, will be forwarded, together with an official complaint over my signature, to the San Diego County Grand Jury.

We are hopeful that we make more than a few politicians squirm and fidget more than somewhat. They deserve it. Maybe more.

Go here for the full story: http://www.thecommunitypaper.com/archive/2008/08_28/index.php