Manteca Fire to charge a fee?

This week the Manteca Fire Department is proposing they be permitted to charge (actually, bill) people from “out of town” who get in car accidents in Manteca!

The proposal is riddled with problems:

1. The department notes that California law permits charges for certain services but it’s a bit more nuanced. The accident has to be caused by negligence. And while I’m sure most accidents are caused by someone’s negligence it’s often hard to figure out who. Now the fire department claims to have some method of determining fault?

2. There’s no provision in the law for provincial discrimination. In other words, there’s nothing that lets them charge one guy and not charge another guy depending on where they live.

The rationale they glibly suggest is that people in Manteca already pay taxes for the fire services and presumably “outsiders” don’t. But that is not so. Actually, anyone who stays at a hotel, fills up with gasoline or stops for a meal in a restaurant or buys a stick of gum in Manteca pays some taxes.

Is that enough to pay for fire services? Probably. Consider the entire public safety budget, and consider how long it takes a car to pass through Manteca’s jurisdiction on Hwy 99 or 120. Something like 90 seconds to 180 seconds. And when you figure it all out and divide the public safety budget by the number of minutes in a year, it comes to about a dollar a day, or a fraction of a penny for a passing through. If someone stays at a hotel, they pay about $10 in tax, enough for more than a week of public safety. I don’t want to get bogged down in numbers too much; but it’s obvious that many visitors do pay enough in Manteca taxes. And maybe everyone does.

Because, one could argue that for the small amount of time one passing through Manteca uses, (a minute or two of fire and police protection) they have already paid that in taxes paid to California and to the federal government. Based on my back of the envelope calculation, if Manteca takes in $1.8 million in federal or state aid or grants, then everyone in the United States has paid enough to the City of Manteca to cover the cost of providing life saving services for those who pass through.

3. What kind of a public relations disaster this would be! The city is trying hard to promote itself and encourage people to visit. How will it help our reputation once it gets known if some crazy Manteca driver causes an accident not only might you be hurt but the city will send you a bill! Our new slogan will have to be “Come to Manteca so we can bill you if we have to save your sorry ass.”

4. Maybe we should only charge people who reside in a city that would charge us if we were in their city and got in an accident! Fortunately, there are few cities that do this. Most cities save the lives of Manteca residents when they are visiting or passing through. Our way of thanking them for that is by charging their residents?

5. The charges are outrageous and arbitrary. Anything from about $500 to go out to the scene of the accident and do nothing, to over $2000 to essentially do nothing but watch a helicopter land and med-evac someone. Granted there’s an in-between charge of about $1800 if they have to use the "jaws of life” to pry open a door to get you out of a wreck. Now I have one more thing to worry about if I’m trapped in a wrecked car; if I’m still conscious I’ll be thinking “what is that thing costing me?… Maybe I can just crawl out the back window, just give me a boost….”

6. I saved the best for last. This company they are thinking of hiring brags on their web site how they collect at such a high rate, much more than anyone else. How do they do it? They won’t say. It’s a secret method, we’re just supposed to authorize that.

God only knows what they do! Do they call up and demand money? Do they threaten? Do they “forget” to mention that you have a right to contest the charge? Do they say they will sue? (They aren’t authorized to bring lawsuits.) Do they send out the goon squad who remarks what a shame it would be if your kneecaps were to “get in an accident like your car?” Who knows!

But one thing we do know. The City Council should not authorize a third party to do some secret thing they won’t tell us. Do I need to say it again? A public relations nightmare!

Handy city pay chart

Here's a handy email-able version of the city pay chart for those who may have missed it.

(courtesy of the Manteca-Lathrop Sun-Post, 30 Jan 2009, pgs 12-13)

The chart is readable if you click on the image to show it full resolution.

Stockton to Manteca: Raise your taxes, please!

The Record's endorsement: Stockton is telling us to vote for Measure M because it's good -- for Stockton!

The Record is a fine large city newspaper published in Stockton. However, I must respectfully disagree with the editorial opinion for the Measure M tax increase. (Or, as they put it, "seize the opportunity" to raise our taxes.) Before simply accepting their editorial opinion, consider:

First, Stockton would love it if Manteca would raise their taxes higher than Stockton's. If Measure M passes, Stockton will no longer have the highest sales tax in San Joaquin County! Stockton found out the hard way what happens when they were tricked into voting for their own Measure W. They raised their sales tax to 8 percent. They were promised a utopia of new police and fire protection, a safe, prosperous city.

Reality: After passing measure W, Stockton didn't really hire any more police or fire personnel than the normal number (more or less). The city spent the money on a sports arena, cinema, and a fancy restaurant. And I mean "fancy." The gift to the restaurant, $2.5 million is almost exactly what would have cost to build a fire station. Violent crime increased 14% or more, more than the rest of the nation. Stores and businesses closed under pressure from high taxes. Crime, poverty, joblessness, business failures, hopelessness. That is the legacy of Stockton's Measure W tax increase. And now they are telling Manteca "you should do the same!"

If the Stockton campaign sounds familiar, it's because it's being orchestrated by the same image consultants that Manteca hired. They tried exactly the same technique in Stockton. Promise them "Make Stockton Safer!" was the slogan. In fact, if you're curious, check out the "Arguments" for the measure from 2 years ago. Sound familiar? Stockton doesn't want to say they made a mistake, were duped, etc. Instead, they tell us in their endorsement that we'll be safer because the tax money over the years, will eventually, someday, make us safer. Just like Stockton.

In addition:

1. "In the quirky world of municipal finance in California..." and they say, this is our best chance. Translation: Politician squanders money. Politician needs money. Politician asks for help... from a public image firm. Image firm tells politician "people of Manteca are stupid, we can manipulate them with fear and promises of safety." Politician says "Great! Here is $160,000, make it so!"

Shouldn't we fix the "crazy way things are funded" instead of simply raising the tax every time a politician messes things up?

I love the way they call it an "opportunity." Like, it's not every day you get the opportunity to raise your taxes!

2. The editors are taking at face value the theory that more taxes = more safety. If it were that simple, we would be living in utopia by now, and Stockton would be leading the way.

3. There doesn't seem to be any consideration of the unprecedented campaign of propaganda funded mostly by tax dollars. Almost to a person, everyone touting the new tax is someone or some group that will be personally enriched by it. This is the best "community support" that money can buy. There is no public safety "crisis." There are no shortages of police and the extra fire crew needed can now be funded with existing surpluses.

4 .Why aren't the editors trying to cut through the nonsense, and not to simply echo "the party line." The campaign, on it's surface, seems simple, but is actually complex. Anyone can state the simple answers and just tell the people to "vote for it, it might do some good." The Record should have looked a little deeper into the issues.

5. Where do they get the idea that the community supports anything? See the massive spending noted above. If anything the ordinary citizen is overwhelmingly against the measure. Consider "letters to the editor" are running 8 to 1 against. People feel they are being lied to, are being blackmailed, threatened, using scare tactics, loopholes let the tax be misspent, etc. That 8 to 1 figure is based on excluding letters written by the paid consultants submitted by paid supporters.

If we're going to play the "who supports it" game, take out a paper and draw a line down the middle. Write "yes" on one side and "no" on the other. List the groups that support the measure under "yes" and those against under "no. Now, scratch out all the groups that are paid by the city, or somehow get money from the city, or are required to ask the city for money each year, or will be personally enriched if the measure passes. You will now have: under "yes," just about no one! (except a few fellow travelers if they haven't figured out how they are being used yet.) Under "no" is about 78% of the people of Manteca including me, and all of the non-incumbent
candidates for all local elections (fire board, school board, city council). That doesn't sound like "has community support" as The Record puts it.

Furthermore, why, does it matter, technically, if community groups support it. The readers want to know if the editors think if it's a good idea or not.

6. Note the error in the impact of the tax. Their math is off by a factor of ten. I'm sure it will be corrected. But it does suggest a mindset that had already decided "it's not much money." How else could that ridiculously low cost per person have gotten past the editors without noticing the error? The actual cost per taxpayer is ten times higher than what is listed.

From the time the sales tax was 2.5 percent to now, every increase has "just been a few pennies." And now the tax is 7.75 percent. And now they are asking for 8.25 percent. After all, "it's just a few pennies," we are told. One proponent actually asserted sanctimoniously that you're "letting your kids down" if you don't increase the taxes (paid by future generations!). And yet it will take $4 million or more from the people of Manteca.

Why would Stockton want Manteca to raise its taxes higher than Stockton's? Think about it!