THOSE UNEXPECTED bills for $99 probably came as a shock to the 1,252 Ventura homeowners who were recently charged by the city for weed-abatement inspections on their hillside properties.
They've been given a reprieve for now. After listening to feedback from residents, Mayor Christy Weir has asked the council to waive the fee for this year until it can be given a proper hearing.
"The proposal for a weed abatement fee wasn't given the opportunity for public input. We need to bring it back to the council and the public, explain it, debate the issue and take a look at the trade-offs," she said. "The choice is, should every taxpayer in Ventura pay the city's costs for a state-mandated weed abatement program through their sales and property taxes or should this cost fall on just the immediately affected property owners?"
The weed-abatement inspection program, which costs more than $120,000 a year to administer, has been a success, Ventura Fire Chief Mike Lavery said. "We credit vegetation management on these properties with aiding our efforts to successfully fight the School Canyon fire in 2005. The 100-foot clearance created a safe, defensible space for firefighters and no homes were lost."
RECOVERING COSTS FOR FIGHTING wildfires statewide has been a goal for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, too. He wants to levy an annual fee of 1.25 percent on all property insurance premiums in the state to generate $125 million a year for fire protection equipment and services. State Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill proposed another plan. She believes the costs should be levied only on the residences located in the 31 million acres where the state has the main firefighting responsibility.
Living near the ocean has its own set of problems. Pierpont beachfront residents are currently fighting the city in court over who bears the responsibility for clearing the large accumulation of sand from in front of their homes and implementing a state-authored sand management plan. They believe the city -- and thus other taxpayers -- should pay. The cash-strapped city has asked the homeowners to help bear the burden.
And so it goes.
In a state where homes are often built on the fringes of wilderness areas and near the unpredictable forces of ocean waves and sand, who should bear the expense of preventative measures designed to help protect these residents from the elements?
What do you think?
Note: The "preview" function in the comments system is not working. Please just hit the "post" button.












IS SHRINKING A REVENUE-GENERATING portion of

