« A Little Research | Main | Banking on a Tax Increase? »
July 16, 2007
Will Rescue Heroes Take Visa?
 |
| Has Councilor Tom Nickell taken a vow to introduce a
new law-per-week in Chico? It seems like every time I read the paper he's
proposed something new, and its always a headline. There was banning
skateboards and bikes at the downtown plaza, banning cars with loud speakers
downtown, putting retired police in Bidwell Park, and recently charging
citizen's for some rescue attempts in the park. In particular he wanted
drunk people to pay their way if they needed to be rescued. There's some validity to the idea, and examples of this kind of policy exist throughout the state. People sometimes have to reimburse fire departments for fighting fires caused by negligence. In some locales a DUI arrest comes with a bill for the public agencies that had to arrest you. But as the E-R pointed out in its recent "hits-and-misses" the idea of charging drunks for their own rescue has some problems. But is the real issue that somebody is drunk, that they made a bad decision, or that they are breaking a law when rescue is needed. If remuneration is required because somebody in need of rescue is on the wrong side of the law, then you might charge illegal immigrants if they need saving. Or people that run stop signs. If it's because they made a bad decision then of course anybody in need of rescue is likely to get a bill. And if it's just because they're drunk then I think somebody should explain the moral value system represented by that law. Why is somebody drunk in the park less valued than somebody sober who needs to be rescued? How do you value somebody stoned? Since you would be forcing people to pay for an otherwise free public service should they be given the option of choosing a rescue package(The platinum package has the life-flight service, while the bronze package is a ride to Enloe on a pedicab)? It should also be said that not a lot of doctors, professors, and lawyers need to be rescued after boozing in the public park. So a law like this would target a pretty specific economic and age group. Recently I watched as a dozen people from 3 or 4 public agencies showed up at Sycamore Pool (1-mile) to rescue 4 trapped salmon. There was special transport vehicle and lots of fish-rescue equipment. It must have cost the public hundreds of dollars to rescue these fish. These are the same fish that you can pull out of the Sacramento River and toss on the barbeque. Once the fish were rescued everyone clapped at a job well done. With that experience in mind, I wonder how drunk young people will stack up against wild salmon if we start requiring remuneration for publicly funded rescues. |
|
Posted by Lon at July 16, 2007 08:38 AM
Comments
It is sad how state & local levels of government have worked-around proposition 13 (and others) by charging ever increasing “fees” for everything under the sun. Fees which in many cases rise far faster than inflation. All the government agency needs to do is assign a bunch of “costs” to a given “service” (they are really really good at this) and then they have the legal nexus to charge the fee-for-service. Bammo – instant tax increase and more money for the government. They do not refund that “extra revenue” to the rest of the taxpayers – it just becomes icing on the cake.
Tom’s suggestion would appear to be merely the latest attempt to do an end-run around voter attempts to contain run-away taxation….
We need a new tool to curb this method of taxation.
But one aspect of this particular subject that the ER did not mention is: negligence per se.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=negligence+per+se&type=1&submit1.x=70&submit1.y=8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence_per_se (Andy H would love this one – it uses the word “intrinsically”)
I think that the target of the new fee would be people who are legally drunk, probably drunk in public or driving under the influence. Why do we have these laws? Because we know for a fact that the odds of injury and property damage rise dramatically, and we are trying to prevent accidents, injuries and property damage. These folks are guilty of negligence per se.
Posted by: Mark Sorensen at July 16, 2007 09:56 AM
Mark brings up some good points; however, I think the conclusion is a bit off base. As you, Lon, alluded to, the "negligence" that Mark brings up is already illegal -- if the city wants to recoup some money from these folks, then charge them the standard fee for "drunk in public" etc. The laws/fines that are already on the books are already there to address this behavior. The actual rescue is already built into the tax base and the operating budgets of the various departments -- we spent the money for the training, equipment, and personel with or without and actual rescue taking place. This seems to be another ploy to write more laws and grab more money for agencies that already take up over 80% of the city's operating budget -- I say no.
Posted by: Dave Brobst at July 16, 2007 11:32 AM