Wed. Jul 24th, 2024

Opinion Piece By Linda Sutter – June 24, 2021

Dennis Sutton who works as a volunteer for the Crescent Fire Protection District had choice words to say regarding the Fire Tax. Every other word that came out of his mouth was F**K and that does not stand for fire truck.

Mr. Sutton is ANGRY that voters are not allowing themselves to be taken advantage of. Usually when someone does not let you get a word in edgewise, dropping the F bomb, instead of giving a point of view, it is a sign that their argument is weak.

These volunteers do not understand voters and property owners that think they should not have to pay for medical services they don’t receive. Keep in mind that 63% of the 2,000 calls that the Fire District takes are medical. Mr. Sutton is under the assumption that the Board of Supervisors prevents the Fire District from charging medical calls to the person’s insurance. If that is in fact the case, this needs to be a topic of discussion at the BOS meetings. Mr. Sutton believes that a few taxpayers should pay for the many (63%).

Mr. Sutton reminded me that the Fire Protection District is responsible for up to 27 miles outside the district boundary. WHAAAT? If we the taxpayer is responsible for the outside perimeter as well as the inside of our district, why are we the only ones responsible to receive the tax? Why not everyone?

Mr. Sutton complained about the ambulance service which takes up to 12 minutes to respond. Ok, let’s discuss the ambulance service.

Why is the ambulance service so sluggish?

Who monitors over this service?

What needs to be done to get a better service?

Do we need competition? Is Del Norte County that irresponsible for ambulance service?

To end this madness, it is unfortunate that the fire district volunteers take a hard stance on this taxing of the public. They do not understand that there are laws that protect the homeowners. They do not understand that we homeowners know how to read what is presented before us and currently it is a sham. They refuse to take the matter up with LAFCO because it cost “money.” That’s a rich statement coming from a volunteer who agrees to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on not just one election but two. And if this election is overturned this fire district will be looking at lawsuits and a recall.

No Means No. Anyway you look at it, the Fire District wants to continue to RAPE the homeowners even after they say NO.

  1. Yes you can say I’m definitely BIASED but read Tony’s Article on the FireDistrict …it makes a lot of sense!

  2. First of all we voted on this and defeated it about 200 days ago, and here it is again. Will they just keep introducing it until they get the results they want.Concerns…..1. The weighting given to the property owners discriminates against the small owner and gives favorable treatment to large property owners and limits their tax liability. So an owner of an apartment complex of 200 units would be taxed at only $1000 for protection for 200 units, but if taxed at the same rate per unit as the small property owner, they would pay $20,000… the large, rich property owner gets a $19,000 gift from the fire district, which is now passed on to the small owner…..discriminatory, unfair you say, this alone should invalidate the election….. 2 Several owners that should have received ballots did not and therefore did not get to vote. When the district was asked about this, they said that it was not their job to make sure that voters received ballots…….What kind of an answer is this? This alone should also invalidate the election. 3. The fact that this issue was voted on and defeated 200 days ago, and here it is again. What has changed between then and now? 4. The City and County do not pay their fair share which places an unfair burden on the tax payer. 5. There has been no public input on the procedures used. 6. The timing of public hearings were a joke, (scheduled at 11 am when people worked, only 4 showed up), the last public hearing was simply a CYA meeting, 1 day before vote, when input from the public will not be taken into consideration for this issue. 7. There has been no public input on the budget of this fire district, is it reasonable? Is it not? Where is the public input? 8. The issuance of this vote has not been vetted properly and is being forced on the public, and is improperly weighted in favor of large, rich owners that caps their liability and discriminates against the small property owner. This vote should be thrown out if they declare it passes, it should be litigated and the board member and fire chief should be held accountable

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *