Not sure if anyone's posted this yet (I didn't see it anywhere), but evidently "tax" and "fee" are interchangeable in the new Gov's mind....remember, he said he would not raise taxes?

 The second to last paragraph states that the fee is for fire prevention. For clearing defensible space around structures and not for wild land fires.

 Does this mean the state will do all the weed eating and brush clearing around our houses. Some folk in my neighborhood received an inspection notice from the fire folks and were told that if they do not weed eat or clear their land properly then it would be done for them and they would have to pay for it.

 "Do what we tell you it is for your own good."

 It may be, but the government oversteps its authority and we as good decent folk just say ok, and soon they tell us what size tv we can have and they ban toys in happymeals. This whole time they, the government do nothing about the money that is wasted.

 When the roads are in good shape.

 When the schools are in good shape.

 When the border is secure.

 When they can keep the lights on.

 When the government performs the most basic function with the slightest success (not counting tax collection.)
 Then they can look at forcing us to weed eat and clear brush.

 Disclaimer- I believe that you should as a property owner do your best to reduce the risk of fire and weed eat and clear brush and have a defensible space. I also believe the government has no right to make you do it or to do it for you with out your consent.

Couldn't agree with you more my friend.

I bet if your house was taken by a fire, originating from a homeowner's lack of upkeep to their weeds and brush, you'd be outraged that the State wasn't doing its job!

In this instance, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is a smart approach and I'm happy to pay fees/taxes to see it enforced.

BTW, the US border should be the Federal Government's responsibility, not the State. "Keeping the lights on" is the responsibility of the utility companies, not the State. If you're going to complain, then substantiate correctly.

Why is it that people who complain about the government infringing on their rights do so until laws no longer benefit or protect them?  Sheesh!

If you don't want to clear your property for fire prevention, I guess that is your choice.  If your house goes up flames that's your problem and your responsibility.  But when you refuse to clear your brush etc. and I live next door to you and my house goes up in flames because you couldn't be bothered to clear your property whose responsible then? I live sandwiched between two properties that can't be bothered to clear brush etc..  The property closest to me will make a half assed attempt at weedwhacking, but then they just leave all the debris to dry out and become a fire danger. And they will only do it once a year.  It has already grown back and starting to dry out.  They won't limb their trees etc.  And while parts of their property closest to their house are mowed, they aren't cleared the reccomended 150 ft, and my house is only about 50 ft from their fence and the worst part of their property.  I have no recourse.  Fortunately I keep my property mowed and watered, but if might not be enough.  If a fire were to come through their property there is so much ladder fuel on the ground and tree branches close to the ground I probably wouldn't stand a chance.I think the law should be you have to clear 150 ft from ANY structure, whether it is on your property or not. In years past I offered to clear part ofiti and limb the trees, closest to y property but thy wouldn't allow me to do it,  Now they have put up cheap field fencing blocking me from doing anything.  I think I have the right to trim any limbs that extend over the property line.  I may have to do that.  Plus that will make the tree heavier on their side so if there is a fire the trees, hopefully, will fall on their property not mine.

I'm not much of a political guy....that's evident as I don't usually get involved in these deep debates. But what I understood simply is that I am giving the gov't more money and I still do all my own clearing (as I should as a homeowner). So am I paying the gov't for my services to my own property that I am doing on my own? Maybe it's just the fact that I'm not a native Californian and back where I'm from (in the country and where wild fires take place), our gov't wasn't doing any of this sorta of stuff to "raise revenue to cut the deficit" due to their ridiculous overspending.....I know California is not alone here these days, but geez.........where will it end?

Okay, I'll let you 2 or three political educated fella's take it from here. I just read along and usually learn for what ya'll say...............guess I'm just an instigator...

In the July 20th edition of The Territorial Dispatch, Assemblyman Jim Nielsen states that if enough public outrage is expressed, both he and Senator Doug LaMalfa will fight to repeal this fee in next year's budget (the way it was implemented this year, there was no public or legislative input).  If you oppose this fee, do not suffer in silence; contact your legislators!

There are times and situations where I agree with government stepping in. If your neighbors children were being abused, would you ignore it and say it's their problem? While it may be stretching a point, isn't allowing your property to become a fire hazard a form of neighbor abuse? It makes no difference how wonderful and nice the neighbors are does that allow them to put you at risk? Ideally everyone works together keeps their property "fire safe" and looks out for the general safety of  others, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. If local, county, or state officals have to move in to remind them of what common sense says, then so be it. Remember that lack of common sense makes you a perfect political candidate, but living in the foothills makes you aware of everyones needs for co-operative life styles and well being. 

just got my tax bill $200 for one house $78 for my rental, how is this computed. both green for 100 feet all around

Thanks oleguy. I don't know how to vote you a smiley. There are two symbols. I clicked on what looks like a thumbs up.

Who benefits form government? I ask that question of myself. WIIFM. What's in it for me. Who pays for the benefits? Who actuallyt benefits from what payment is made?

I am not satisfied with the way fire prevention is handled in California.

A CALFIRE inspector from Auburn inspected our property and the property of the neighbors on 5/10/2011. My property did not comply for 30 foot clearance, special clearance around the propane tank, oak trees hanging over the deck.

Form LE-100 "Notice of Defensible Space Inspection" was filled in to indicate there would be a violation reinspection the week of July 10, 2011.

I had the trees trimmed and the grass cleared by licensed contractors. The tree cutter commented that the trees were in compliance with PRC 4291 and 14 CCR 1299 and did not need cutting. I had the trimming and clearance work done to comply with the Inspection report rather than the tree cutters opinion.

In my mind I am still in an undefined status with insurance coverage. I had the clearance work done, but CALFIRE has not reinspected.

Will my insurance company use the inspection against me? If for any reason there is fire loss on my property, will the insurance company hesitate to pay a claim because there is an outstanding violation report?

DickBoyd@aol.com

If we in the foothills have to start paying $150 per structure as the Appeal-Democrat article implies, when will those in the Central Valley begin paying their $150 for the costs of flood protection? Or how about those in the Bay Area or Los Angeles? Shouldn't they be paying $150 as well for the costs of responding to earthquakes? And let us not forget about those along Northern California's coast... Shouldn't they be paying their $150 for the costs of responding to tsunamis? After all, they just experienced a tsunami several months ago.
It seems only fair that if we're now paying our own way up in the foothills, that we should not have to continue to subsidize disaster response efforts for every other community in the great state of California as well. And what's next? Will we have to start paying $150 for police protection because they have to drive farther to reach the communities in the foothills?

You know, it just occurred to me, if this is a trend toward us just paying for government services that we actually use, then I'm all for it. I'd be happy to pay my $150. Sort of like cable service, or mobile phone service or satellite service - I just subscribe to (and pay for) the government services I want and don't subscribe to those I don't want...

If I were able to get my subscription plan outlined above, I wouldn't even get upset about the fact that a not insignificant level of California's risk from fire stems from federal and state mismanagement of California's forests and other public lands to begin with. Nor would I be upset about the heavy-handed approach to fire suppression taken by federal and state governments over the past several decades that, in direct contravention of the normal fire cycle, has allowed massive amounts of dead organic material and excessive brush to accumulate in our forests, leading to increasingly catastrophic wildfires.

Well, that hypothetical scenario aside, it's funny, but I was under the impression that my taxes were already paying for such services as fire protection and disaster response. I guess I was just confused.

The new fire tax was passed without the 2/3rds majority needed for tax increases. Brown will do anything to bring in more revenue. I would opt-out if I could. We already pay for fire protection from our great Foothill Fire Dept. If our houses survive a wild-fire it is due mostly to our own efforts to clear a defencable space around our structures.

It seems more and more that we are subjects and our voices are not heard.

I wonder what would happen if we all sent the bill back saying "no new fees ie taxes without a 2/3 vote!"

Didn't we agree to an assessment or tax a few years back to help support the local fire department? How does that weigh in with this new fee?

As I understand it, the new fire fee ie tax will be in addition to what we pay to support the Loma Rica Browns Valley fire station. If you don't think we should pay this new fee you need to contact your state Representative and tell them. Also we need to support the Howard Jarvis people.