3 ms·
There are a lot of small private holdings within public lands. They should receive some property tax relief, in exchange for understanding that the forest aroun
by spfzero 5y ago
There are a lot of small private holdings within public lands. They should receive some property tax relief, in exchange for understanding that the forest around them is going to be managed naturally.
That doesn’t mean that their property won’t be defended as much as possible, just that stopping the entire fire itself won’t be the goal.
- 8note 5y agoWhy relief, and not a higher tax for the additional work required to stop their house from catching fire?
- lazide 5y agoThat’s a good way to get voted out if the people in the area all want to have their little cabin some day, is why.
- notatoad 5y agoAnd that's why nothing will ever change. Everybody can't have their own little cabin some day, and nobody ever wants to be the one who has to tell people that.
- lazide 5y agoWell, if all the cabins burn down one year due to it becoming a wildfire nuclear apocalypse, and therefore nobody wants to build cabins - I guess we might get a short window until everyone forgets about it? Usually <= 5 years from what I’ve seen. Though <= 2 years might be more realistic now a days. And California seems to be heading in that direction, though not there yet.
- zdragnar 5y agoWhy should only the wealthy not only get to have remote cabins, but also the full might of the government to prevent natural forest fires from damaging their property? Raising taxes to fix things is always the most regressive solution- the wealthy, and only the wealthy, will be able to afford it. Instead, treat it like a rural flood plain, acknowledge that the land is simply worth less because it is prone to natural damage, and leave it at that. Fire coming? Issue an evacuation order and let nature take its course.