December 22, 2011 12:48:51 PM PST
This
stutter foot dance on SRA fire fees illustrates what I, Dick Boyd, think is wrong with the way California tries to govern itself. And fails.
This e-mail isn't about whether the SRA fire fees are valid or not valid. This is about the process that California uses to collect money to pay for services provided by government. These are Dick Boyd's opinions. With these opinions and three dollars you might be able to get a cup of coffee.
There is no free lunch. A developer wants to build a house in the woods. An ecologist already has a house in the woods.
No matter which label you use, developer or ecologist, there is a risk that the house in the woods will be lost in a fire. Someone has to bear the loss.
There are those willing to self insure for the loss of the house. Sometimes the house is of such little value, or the owner can afford the loss or someone else will pick up the tab to replace the lost structure. In those cases, there is no insurance.
Since Hurricane Betsy, people in the United States have expected government, especially the Federal Government to back up insurance companies.
The huge losses in the fifties from hurricanes prompted the insurance industry to ask for and get backing from the Federal Government. The claim was that insurance companies would fail if they had to make good on the tremendous losses.
Once the insurance camel had its nose in the tent, it took over. The attitude became that insurance was a pre payment for loss. Not a hedge against a random event.
California governments at all levels struggle with how to pay for services provided by government. The underlying problem that I see is the attitude of Californians. The attitude that California can afford anything as long as someone else pays for it. The attitude that taxes are evil, government is evil, but government, whatever that is, should pick up the tab.
From what I have seen of the Fire Safe Councils, the councils are an example of the free lunch mentality. For the most part, the various councils exist on grants. Grants which they look on as "free" money. I can think of only one instance, Yuba County's Loma Rica Fire Department, Measure F, where people successfully voted a tax on themselves to pay for fire services. From what I know of that tax, one benefit seems to be reduced insurance premiums.
The weak link that I see in California's process is the lack of an Executive Order 12866 process. E.O. 12866 is a ten page document that guides Federal Agencies in preparing administrative law.
Key features of E.O. 12866
THRESHOLD VALUES Any regulation forecast to cost above the threshold must follow the process.
BASELINE The existing situation must be explained. What happens if nothing is changed?
COST/BENEFIT In addition to cost, the expected benefit must be presented. Who benefits, who pays, must be disclosed. External costs and benefits must be disclosed.
PUBLIC COMMENT Proposed rules must follow a review process that includes public comment.
Perhaps someone in a fire safe council understands and can explain the process California uses to introduce regulations and the process ot justify the fees needed to implement those regulations that come from the Executive Branch?
Richard Boyd
9953 Gary Drive
Browns Valley, CA 95918
530 639 2360
The following is from Glenn Nader. The comment about the SRA fire fee is as good an example as any to get an explanation of how California introduces administrative law.
Subject: SRA fire fee put on hold
Yuba Fire Safe members,
The state legal office has put a hold on the SRA fire fees while they ask the Board of Forestry to develop administrative descriptions. To see more detail go to
Glenn
Glenn Nader
Livestock & Natural Resources Advisor
University of California
Cooperative Extension
