This article realky stuck an already irritated nerve and i coulnt keep my rather in depth hypothesis, educated response and personql conservativealiberaloaspect personal opinion. Mr. Clark proposeld this question.. (probably not verbatim) Should a national tax be implemented to help pay for disaster relif efforts and should those that dont live in disaster prone areas be forced to pay for disaster relif of those that do? I am rather stuck in the middle of the road with this one. First, I dont believe anyone should be forced to pay for relif of disaster prone locations. My reason, most people that reside in disaster prone costal locations probably made a conscious, informed decision to reside in these areas at highest risk for devastating natural disasters and they are probably financially secure and these areas are, more than likely, retirement settlements, purchased for their natural beauty and relaxing qualities from the ocean views, lake front amenities and possibly even set upon a hillside prone to mud slides. It was a choice and with that, the risks involved are their responsibility for the risks with habitation there. Yes, there are those that live in the same genral areas that were not financially stable enough to be able to live in a safer location, for whatever reason, however, the decision can still be made to sell their property, even if it is at a substantially reduced price, because of the possibilities disasters will eventually occour and leave the dwelling a total loss...a decision can be made here, as well...either sell and take a partial loss or remain and eventually sustain a total loss of any assets. Personally, I would choose an area where the risk is lowest .. probably find me several acres of cheaper land in a very rural area where I can build the home I want that is not in a disaster prone location, but not so rural that public safety is local enough to keep insurnace costs lower w a moderate ISO rating, surrounded by forest, wildlife and the relaxation nature provides and still have the tranquility from peace of mind in a near unheard of crime rate, no neighbors so close theyd hear you snoring while napping in your hammock and the security of knowing that my conscious choice to build away from most natural disasters reach. This story is a first hand account a friend of my families made. They purchased 30 acres of pristine wilderness, built their dream home right in the middle and purposely left Destin, FL after a close call from hurricane Opal. They took a monetary loss of about 20% less than they purchased, however, had cash left over when all was finished. Now, I believe that disaster prone settlements and the owners that choose to risk their life, properties and assets need to be asessed for risk level and be assesed a recovery fee that pays for public safety agencies that are put in even more danger, pays for post disaster decontamination and demolition and helps pay for indigent care for those that are financially unable to relocate and suffered the loss of all assets because of disasters. The disasters fund will not be used to rebuild or refurbish habitations, in any way. The homeowners should have purchased the proper insurance coverage on their homes and if insurance was denied due to risk probability, still chose to risk complete loss, it is their problem to sort out. As far as the millage rate to determine the amount to be paid, it should be based on a set percentage of the asessed property value and be paid when other homeowners taxes are due. Last, No citizens living in areas where disaster probabilites, including severe storm prone areas, should be forced to pay for someone elses poor judgment. Other areas to be included in the Disaster Releif Fund should possibly include any residences prone to flash flooding w occurances more than twice per year, homes built on hillsides prone, by past historical data, to destruction from mudslides, homes purposefully built in a known active volcanic locations w/ residences greater than 40 years old made as an exemption, reason by USGS surveys compilation from historical data and the latest advances in gad emissions, seismic data and lazer measurement of the visible magmatic surface deformation possibly indicating magmatic pressure increased. (I am sure a lot of people will disagree w my opinions and some even thinking Im crazy and have no clue as to what Im talking about....please, feel free to check the facts) I also think earthquake proned zones be asssesed a percentage to the fund, as there truly isnt a proven method on prediction of quakes, however, the destruction can be mininal to catastrophic. Public safety agencies need the added subsidies for equipment maintenance, assist in paying for additional manpower activation from other municipalities; if deemed a necessary resource. North America has so many possible disaster zones that need consideration but statistically cant be placed on the Releif Fund as an active zone. Example, on 4-29-2003, there was a 4.9 scale quake located in Valley Head, AL. My ambulance station is approx 89 miles from the epicenter. My partner and I were both shaken out of our bunks around 5 am, as the tremors traveled to us. There is a known active fault that follows the Chattahoochee River basin from North Ga to Alabama and Georgia Tech seismology dept records several deep earth quakes per year, however, there is not enough evidence to place that area as a potential disaster zone. The Disaster Releif Fund must be based upon historical data showing that probability of a catastrophic event is imminent and expected without warning by evidence of past events, average between major events and a strong hypothetical probability for the funds to be required. No citizens that live in areas that evidenve is lacking and no burden of proof to make the zone into an eminent disaster threat should be forced to pay for services that cant be listed as a disaster zone of imminent concern. Taxes are high enough in most areas, even rural rates have been increased because of a lower tax base because of unememployment rates, the loss of revenue caused by manufacturing/production companies being forced to shut down, thus, further reduction in the totak tax digest and increased overall county government cut backs and furlough days no longer equal the offset....again, will cause increased rates to the citizens. Again, citizens in non-disaster rated areas should not be responsible to pay into a fund that will, statistically, never have a catastrophic disaster emergency occur. Last, even if the area is not in a disaster zone and the citizens opt to inact q SPLOST(Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) placed on a ballot for voting to approve or deny the tax, so be it. With q sales tax amendment, everyone that purchaes goods in the county, even tourist/travelers help pay into the fund and...the best aspect. ..it is a local government trust fund, not federal. ..so the revenue remains in our community to disperse as needed. Conclusion, Yes, the people that make an informed ane educated choice to live in a registered disaster zone should pay into a releif fund...Either a federal mandated fund or a local vote to collect it via SPLOST. Yes, exceptions to the mandated should be made by exmption of a homestead having maintained their homes for a decided upon grace perios and possibly even by the age of the residents that own the homestead. Yes, Even seismic zones considered unstable areqa should pay a percentage into the fund, however, an exception percentage rate should be assigned but not fully imposed just due to the inherently dangerous area that is considered as homesteads that are the least likely to be reimbursed even as little asv1/3 total appraised value because of the highest potential to sustain catastrophic damage/destruction to the residences and possibly even bedrock deformation and/or destruction of the infrastructure. No citizens in safe zones should be forced to pay in a single cent, however; if a disaster fund is voted upon ae SPLOST anr the proposal is approved, all citizens, travelers and visitors that purchase goods will fund the releif trust fund without federal involvementn, therefore, it is dispersed as The Board of Commissioners allocate the funds to all involved public service agencies to insure they are compensated as needs arise...even provide compensation for mutual aid provieers. I know this is a long post, however, hope my opinions that were based on scientific hypothesis, actual historical facts and some hypothesis and a simplistic, common sense approach with an attempt to correspond a fiscally conservative and liberal ideology as my personal solutions to appease a bipartisan response and solutions to the several issue s at hand.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:54:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015