Tag Cloud
Sacramento’s controversial “crash tax” was killed by the City Council, which voted 6-2 to repeal it Tuesday.
The fire cost recovery ordinance would have charged non-resident drivers for emergency responses to accidents in which they were at fault.
The ordinance was proposed by the Sacramento Fire Department last year in an effort to recover costs from people who don’t pay property taxes – a large portion of Fire Department funding. Fees would have ranged from $495 to more than $2,000, and estimates were that the city would receive about $300,000 annually.
Though the “crash tax” has been the subject of spirited debate and community outcry, it went down relatively quietly Tuesday night, with only Councilwoman Angelique Ashby speaking in favor of it.
“I would like to say that fire cost recovery was one funding mechanism that we could use to potentially keep fire stations open and firefighters available to residents,” she said.
Ashby acknowledged that brownouts are bad for everyone, but federal restrictions on some developments in Natomas that were built in a flood plain mean that homeowners there can lose their homes even if they aren’t fully destroyed because of building restrictions.
“If the insurance company decides that 50 percent or more of the home is damaged, we can’t issue a permit to them to rebuild,” she told The Sacramento Press Monday.
When called to a vote, only Mayor Kevin Johnson and Ashby voted against repealing the ordinance. Councilmen Kevin McCarty and Jay Schenirer, who both voted for the ordinance on Jan. 25, joined Council members Sandy Sheedy, Rob Fong, Darrell Fong and Bonnie Pannell in opposing it. Councilman Steve Cohn, who has previously supported the ordinance, was not at Tuesday’s meeting.
None of the council members spoke publicly about the ordinance after the vote.
Nicole Mahrt, spokeswoman for the Association of California Insurance Companies, applauded the council’s decision to repeal the ordinance.
“I think it was a good move,” she said. “All the backlash from the creation of that crash tax made Sacramento look really unwelcoming to all the commuters who come into town.”
She added that the ordinance served as a “double tax” and that the fees charged by these types of ordinances are typically not covered by insurers.
“Sacramento joins several other cities including Roseville, Oceanside and Vista, which recently repealed their crash taxes,” she said.
Nobody was ever billed under the ordinance, since no contract with the third-party billing service Fire Recovery USA was ever approved.
Schenirer used the discussion of the proposed contract with Fire Recovery USA March 1 as an opportunity to reverse his previous “yes” vote and call for a repeal of the ordinance.
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Neither Ashby nor Johnson seem concern that the crash tax 1) made Sacramento look really unwelcoming to all the commuters who come into town. 2) the ordinance served as a “double tax” and that the fees charged by these types of ordinances are typically not covered by insurers 3) the policy alienates out-of-towners and could drive business away from the city, and it sets a precedent for charging for other services 4) we could see the same policy charged for Police Department services, wherein non-residents would be afraid to call police when they are the victims of crimes (as stated by Councilmember Darrell Fong) not to mention 5) people can be victims of an accident and have to worry about medical, emotional, mental stress and these 2 elected officials want to have them worry about additional financial problems having to pay for the city’s funding mechanism to potentially keep fire stations open….WOW
Ashby was endorsed by Johnson. Both were endorsed by Police and Firefighters. And heck I now recall the concerning article I read of Johnson's "Troubling pledge to Union Firefighters" I never forgot how it could affect youth programs, parks and recreation..... Written in the article: “Johnson is apparently willing to jettison other city budget priorities to give union firefighters what they demand. The pledge he signed goes on to say, "This measure does not include a funding source and I understand possible cuts could be incurred by parks and recreation, youth programs, libraries and other city departments." See below link: scroll down to 4th article written 10/14/08)
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/the_swarm/add-category/ginger-rutland/
Oh, Ms Ashby I made a pledge too and that was to watch you like a hawk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDXrd_BWfew
(You'll have to turn up the volume once the mayor talks)
On the other hand, council should have found out how much cost reimbursement those cities raised and if the amount was worth the law being on the books to enforce. But most CM's or their staff rarely think and act based on a more comprehensive analysis on many issues---except in this case maybe Ashby and Cohn did.
I think it’s good she’s keeping her pledge to those in her district. I'm going to my councilmember district meeting tonight.. The difference is our forum will always discuss what is best for the city and include our neighborhood. While Ashby appears to discuss what’s best for her district and not the city as a whole. Is Ashby looking at her district needs or remaining in office? I think she did save face in the interest of politics- (political endorsement that is) .I think she’d be for a crash tax on other City residents from other districts who crash in her Natomas--she’s not a team player. Are you serious LOL? I think, if asked, she could care less of my scrutiny LOL, when she was running for office and previously commented to me on this site she did not see me; she responded simply writing of herself…..LOL. And also, why would she care what I think since I don't live in her district and can't vote for her to remain in office. Oh PW, I will keep watching LOL I have an advantage because while I’m looking at her she won't even see me because she appears so busy looking at herself LOL. I disagree but I respect your opinion and by all means Keep hope alive:)
Finally, I don't think it's reasonable for her to publicly elaborate both sides of an issue when she has decided to take a position...as long as she's taken the time to deliberate both sides, which, in this case, I can assure you she did.
I know you don't need me to give you a civic lesson - but I also feel that I need to speak up (not FOR) my council member. BTW: You're certainly busy today! I'm not even going to TRY to keep up with you! LOL!
I have to disagree with one point in the article though. You said that no one was ever charged under the program.
I was charged for being in a bike accident about a year and a half ago and I'm actually a city resident!
I was hit by a car and a concerned witness called the fire department. Fortunately I was not hurt but the fire department rolled a hook and ladder truck!!! and a parametic truck. The parametic took my vitals along with my name and address.
Since I was not injured, the police on scene decided not to file a police report and did not collect the driver's information.
Several weeks later, I received a bill from the fire department for the cost of rolling the trucks. I ignored the first couple notices but contacted them after they threatened to turn the bill over to a collection agency. I could not resolve the issue with the fire department so they turned the bill over to a collection agency. I finally decided that is wasn't worth ruining my credit so I grudgingly paid it but I'm still pissed.
Was it legal? I don't know. But they basically hassled me into paying the bill.
However, the fire cost recovery ordinance never went into effect, since the contract with the third-party billing service was never ratified. In the case of this ordinance, all bills would have come from Fire Recovery USA, and never could have legally been sent.
The fee that is the subject of this article wasn't even brought to council before 2010, so it isn't the same situation. I am not familiar with the situation you mention.