Protecting property from destruction is the responsibility of all stakeholders. In the advent of rampaging wild fires, every individual living within and in California is affected either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that decisions that seek to counter the situation in California encompass all stakeholders. To effectively control and counter the wild fires, co-operation will essentially come from all quarters from the government to the people. The situation doesn't pose chances of changing for the better. Indeed, it is the sour truth that signs portend a worsening situation. The question on who should bear the cost and how success will be attained affects all within the block. However, the question of why those who are not affected linger around for long and facts need to be clarified as soon as possible.
The state has an obligation to ensure safety and prosperity of all. In the advent of the wild fires, the state has limited alternatives on how to finance state services. The millions that are needed need to be availed in a timely manner. The first option that the state has is to tax all citizens of California. This can be termed as cruel especially to those who have built strong houses. Indeed, the blame finger should target those that build wood houses in the grassy and wood covered country side. Also, with the current administrative burden it would be too much of a burden, but calamity doesn't strike because of prevalence of good will.
The other option would be the establishment of a mandatory charge for those who are prone to be affected by the disaster. Funds raised will go towards financing state services like fire fighters and fire fighting related costs. This will involve a surcharge of the insurance companies to ensure that those who build wooded property willingly bear the cost associated with the disaster. This point is buoyed and supported by the fact that these people do so willingly and in full knowledge of the risks involved. On the other hand, the fact that the state has an obligation to ensure that all persons within their area are well guarded makes this option questionable and inapplicable at most times.
The other option would involve the use of general funds. This option will mean that firefighting budget is restricted to the overall allocation it gets and the amount should be tailored to ensure that it can successfully handle the chances and events of wildfires. Whether this option is the best is highly debatable and allows for cracks that need to be holed up if the chances of success remain high. In fact, this would means that the sources of income be expanded to accommodate the exorbitant charge of the budget imposed by the inclusion of fire fighting expenses. This would strain the tax payers. But is it the right way to go? Should participation in fire fighting be obligatory or mandatory?
Financing through imposing charges makes sense. It can be said that the motivation that informs the erection of wooded houses is not ignorance. Therefore, when one seems happy to incur such a risk, they must be in a good position to cater for the related costs. Having evaluated general funding, it is quite clear that its ability to hold up is questionable. Disasters need prompt response and are not appreciative of definitive waiting. Therefore, by setting a charge, it will mean that a kitty fully dedicated to solving the problem once it occurs is in place. In addition, general preparedness will be guaranteed rather than stick to a general funding procedure that might offer duly slow response in the time of disaster.
However, such a move is disadvantaged. The number of people who should be charged is too little to raise the huge sums of money needed. Therefore, the firefighting efforts might have to seek for funds to cater for their budget allocation from other sources. This is where the appreciation of funds from general state agents comes in handy. In addition, some of the people being charged might lack the money. The choice to built wooded houses might not have been informed by choice but rather financial ability. Should they be overburdened? This raises eyebrows and decision makers could face an enormous task in setting the charge and modes through which it ought to be expedited.
The importance of insurance cover can never be understated. To design the charge, one will need to check out the volatile wooded facilities, their location and how exposed they are. This will mean a complex structure in which people who take caution and show concerted concern about losing their property are charged less than those who put on a don't care attitude. Also, the targets should be well set. This will also dictate the overall objective will be achieved. Cumulative data reviews should also be carried out to ensure that one fancies exact and sufficient amount of funds capable of totally covering the expenses at hand.
To reduce the damage, the charge should encourage a concerted effort to ensure people take sufficient measures to keep the fires off their property. CalFire will carry out fiscal examination of the premises and establish hoe the establishment is exposed; ranging from degree of the most exposed to the least. When, upon evaluation, one is charged exorbitantly, they will take appropriate measures to secure their property. If the state engages in an effort to protect that which belongs to people who care less, then it sets forth a dangerous trend because the people will have less responsibility over their property. They will tend to look upon the state for protection, thus exhausting the potential of the state. This also transforms into a form of exploitation because the state does not choose taxpayers. All are equal within the law. The charge would be enforced after fiscal examination of the premises to be covered is examined and the risk potential fully established.
Financing through CalFire is different from financing the fire department. Financing the fire department only ensures a ready fire fighting brigade but the previous initiative involves strategic measures to curb the damage caused by wildfires. The fact that there is involvement of all stakeholders means that they are in a perfect condition to ensure utmost care is accorded to their property. This is not the case for San Francisco who charge the tax payer and adequately equip the fire brigade in readiness for calamity.
To conclude, it is worth noting that a combination of the general revenue and charges is vital. The amounts of finances required are quite high. Indeed, none of the two modes can comfortably raise the total funds. Therefore, this will give some reprieve to property owners directly affected whereas instilling a sense of responsibility in that they pay an extra charge.