I'm not clear on why you think reimbursing the EBRPD for their fire assessment is unfair.

Is not this entity serving our needs in maintaining OUR public parklands? Why should they not get reimbursed? They are not a private landholder, using the land for profit.

Our parks are paid for out of our taxes and bond issues anyhow--do we want to pay higher taxes?

Please clarify your reasoning on this issue.

Thanks,

Pat Frank

I'm not clear on why you think reimbursing the EBRPD for their fire assessment is unfair.

Is not this entity serving our needs in maintaining OUR public parklands? Why should they not get reimbursed? They are not a private landholder, using the land for profit.

Our parks are paid for out of our taxes and bond issues anyhow--do we want to pay higher taxes?

Please clarify your reasoning on this issue.

Thanks,

Pat Frank

Hey Pat, is there an echo in here?

The return-of-funds to the Park District appears to violate California Constitution Article 13D and Government Code Section 50078-50078.20. The proposed program also fails to meet Califonia Environmental Quality Act requirements (no Initial Study has been performed, leading to an Environmental Impact Report [EIR]), and the vegetation management program has violated the California Endangered Species Act (which requires an EIR). If the City Attorney will answer the questions that have been posed by the Tribune and others, including myself, then this can be resolved. On October 14 staff of the Fire Chief promised a legal opinion on the necessity for an EIR. We are still waiting.

For more information: California Constitution Article 13D: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13D and Government Code Section 50078-50078.20: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=50001-51000&file=50078-50078.20

Ralph Kanz

Ralph,
I think Pat is asking about the return of funds as a moral, big picture question.
If property taxes pay for a large portion of EBRPD's budget, and property taxes are expected to pay for WPAD, then taking money from EBRPD, EBMUD, UC or Peralta for WPAD would eventually result in those agencies coming to the voters for, you guessed it, more special districts, bond measures and property tax assessments. So Oakland homeowners will be stuck paying for it one way or another.
It's an argument that holds *some* water, but as regional agencies they getting their funding from the whole region. By shifting more of the expense on those agencies, we are essentially levying the burden onto homeowners in other cities.
On one hand I agree with you, Ralph, in that these agencies are getting a free ride, and they can pay for a fairer share---(and pay for that fairer share with the proceeds of their assessments on homes in Berkeley-San Leandro-Hayward-Ornda et al.) However, that seems a solution that while palatable to Oakland homeowners, it's not fair either, right?
The city needs to pay for the damn thing from existing revenue, or cut programs eslewhere. The only acceptable solution to me is gerrymandering the district to include Al Davis's track suit and pinky ring.

From a fairness & logic standpoint:
1. If EBRPD has its own Veg Mgt & Fire Dept, worthy of assesment refund, then it should not be included in the Assessment District, nor should it have any Yay or Nay vote.
2. If I spend funds to weed abate my property, shouldn't I, too, be granted some refund? [Or, since I'm paying the assessment, preferably the loan of an Oakland goat?]
3. From what I've heard in the past, it's these same large landowners that avoid weed abatement, thus forming a major reason for the Assessment District in the first place.
4. Based on City furnished data, approx 25,000 parcels will vote. If average assessment is $65 (some higher & some lower) then only $1.63 million will be collected, not the expected $1.8+. If the biggest parcel owners get their money back, in exchange for a Yes vote, then the District will be even more significantly underfunded.
5. The potential winners are being defined. Guess who loses.......?

Oh my god, not Article 13D!!!! I can't believe it. Is nothing sacred?
And violating subparagraph 20 of subsection 50078 of section 50078 of the Government Code, oh my have they no shame?
And interpreted (by opponents) as failing the nebulously worded Califonia Environmental Quality Act requirements for an IS and EIR? oh gosh, it's worse than Hitler.

Frank Grimes for Prez in 2004. It's time this great country of ours had some levity. Mr. Grimes obviously contains weapons of mass smiles.

A few more points...
If the concern is that taxpayers from outside the fire district will indirectly pay for the district through the assessment on the EBRPD there really shouldn't be a concern. The EBRPD lands are open to the public at large. The EBRPD lands were included in the district because they are receiving the same "special benefits" as private parcels in the district. While the taxpayers from other areas don't get to enjoy the special benefits (if they even exist) that go to the private parcels, they would certainly enjoy the benefits that go to the EBRPD lands so it is perfectly fair for them to have to pay for that benefit, just as we are being asked to.

The bigger questions have been raised above. The California Constitution only allows assessment districts to be created if they provide a "special benefit" (which has a specific legal meaning) to the parcels being charged. This proposed district doesn't provide that "special benefit" to the private parcels. One thing to consider is this...if the alleged benefit is a reduction in the odds of a wildfire in the district, how is a private parcel on the Oakland side of the Oakland/Berkeley border being "specially benefited" while a private parcel on the Berkeley side isn't? What this "district" does is provide a "general benefit" to the area at large and while that may be a desired effect, it is at odds with the constitutional definition of "special benefit" and thus the proposed district fails constitutional muster. That doesn't mean that the effort shouldn't be made, but it does mean that the proper method for funding it is out of general revenues of the city.

Finally, Government Code Section 50078 et seq. does not even apply to this proposed district. That section applies to fire SUPPRESSION districts. While it may seem to be a minor point of semantics, it is far more than that legally. That section only provides for expenditures on fire fighting items (e.g., fire stations, trucks and the personnel to fight fires). The proposed district doesn't have any of the enumerated fire suppression characteristics and it was an error on the City's part to use this section.

Of course, I've informed the City of all of the above and I still haven't heard back (for going on two months now).

Preventing wildfires is a valuable and needed service, but a special district is NOT the proper way to fund it.

I was looking at the map of the Wildfire Assessment District - and maybe I am reading it wrong, but could it be that the Leona Quarry property is NOT a part of the district, like Mills and Oak Knoll? I have a call in to Desley Brooks regarding this issue, but no return call so far.

Leona Quarry appears to be included in the WPAD. I checked the parcel list on the City website, and there are four properies listed for Gallagher Properties totalling about $9,000. This would be right as they have around 130 acres at $68.74 per acre. Oak Knoll is included in the District, but the City does not expect to receive payment from the federal government.
Ralph Kanz