willytinawin, I believe that during times of emergency, all citizens should collectively be responsible for coming to the aid of those in need.

I do not follow your logic of making people in San Francisco responsible for costs associated with a fire that did not start on property that is owned by SF. (FWIW, I do not live in SF.)

SF property owners pay fees (taxes) associated with many local hazards, most especially those associated with earthquake emergencies. Should the residents of Groveland (for example) also pays those fees??? I don't think so but perhaps you do?

Groveland residents (or property owners?) pay a fire fee (tax) for reasons that I'm unaware although I suspect it is so people that live in fire country pay for that pleasure just in case massive resources are required to fight fire in their neighborhood...as just occurred.

There have been some terrible fires this year, it is a tragedy. Unfortunately, it may become the 'new normal' from what I have been reading. CA is suffering from long-term drought, that and fire suppression over the past few decades have coupled to make conditions for some terrible infernos. To make matters worse, these fires are being started by people. The fire by San Jacinto last month started on private property, I'm not saying it was arson, but it was not a lightning strike. Now Yosemite is burning. I'd bet it was started by SOMEbody, not lightning.

Unfortunately, these things are very expensive to put out and clean up. With large fires projected to become more common in the West, the expenses will only continue to mount. Perhaps fire fighting (wildlands fire) will make a good career for todays young people, I am not kidding. Like all things in life, someone has to pay for it. When governor brown took over a couple of years ago, he was facing a large budget problem. Basically, taxes were raised, Prop 30 last Fall raised taxes on everyone, and made the wealthy pay even more. Another clever tactic by the State lawmakers was to make everone who lives in an SRA pay $150/year to the State, an annual "fire fee", paid once every year. Thatenabled the state to take about $100 million from the CalFire budget and spend it elsewhere. It was gimmicks like this that enabledCA to get back onto a path of "fiscal responsibility". Another example was back in the 1980s California started the state lottery, where they touted that "our schools win too". but what really happened was that when the lottery money started rolling in, they took away money they usually gave to the schools and spent it elsewhere, and backfilled the budget with lottery $$, so that in the end the schools got about the same amount of money. Anyhow, today the rural residents are now paying the CalFire budget that was hollowed out last year and spent elsewhere. CalFire is the team that responds to wildlands fire like the one now burning in Yosemite.

I'd bet that if you ask any lawmaker in Sacramento though they'd say "yeah, we love our firefighters" but will not say we took their budget money away and started charging rural Californians for it now. That's how they "balance the budget". Just like they raise tuition every year at Cal state or UC, because the State has defunded education. They make the users pay. Just like Brown said last fall "you pass Prop 30 or I'm really gonna cut the schools" - he did say that. Now that the new tax revenues are rolling in are the schools richer? No, they just stopped cutting, that's it.

So I said all that to say this: the residents of Groveland are required to pay the state $150/yr fire fee now. Now that their city is charred, I guess they got their money's worth. Now that there's nothing left to burn will California say, it's Okay, you dont have to pay your fire fee next year? heck no, the state will still make them pay. Now many decades ago the city of SF went into the heart of the Yosemite and dammed Hetch Hetchy, and also put in power plants. Today SF is a very wealthy city, drinking pure water from Yosemite, and doing very well. A lot wealthier and better than the people of Groveland. In my opinion, yes, SF should step in and pay for the fire that has burned their watershed all the way to Hetch hetchy. Why should less affluent rural Californians have to pay for fire services whether they use it or not, and a big rich city get fire service for basically free? After all, this fire did burn to Hetch Hetchy, and it was created by and for San Francisco. It did not burn SF city, but it did burn up to one of their major assets, and a lot of money is being spent to extinguish it, and a lot more will be required to do some restoration to the watershed.
No, I dont live in Groveland or the SRA, nor do I live in
frisco. I lived in Santa Clara once. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do marvel at how clever the lawmakers in
sacramento are, and how they miraculously balance their budget without telling the whole story. somebody is paying for this fire, and it's not the cities.

Interesting reading: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... ange/?_r=0

Pot-growing operation near Yosemite may have sparked blaze
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 2937.story

Tuolumne Meadows was clear of smoke Monday, but the view of the smoke columns from the summit of Rafferty Peak was something I'll never forget. It was like something out of the Apocalypse. Driving back to Truckee there was thick smoke around Walker, but relatively clear elsewhere.

It's inaccessible by foot or vehicle yet there's an illegal marijuana growing operation found there. Who is this McNeal fellow and what class in elementary logic did he fail?

They've backed off the pot farm theory:
http://www.weather.com/news/yosemite-wi ... d-20130904

Up to 80% containment, thank God it's coming to an end. Once again my heart goees out to those that live in the area and either lost property or had to endure the anguish.

> It's inaccessible by foot or vehicle yet there's an illegal marijuana growing operation found there

Given the inaccessabiltiy (and lack of water) on some of the VWA grow operations- nothing would really surprise me on the location of these farms.

A better term might be "difficult access" then, rather than "inaccessible". Clearly someone has found it accessible on such properties.

They could have air dropped in- not unheard of for those operations.

Anyhow, the latest theory is now a hunter fire:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 1208.story

fedak wrote:They could have air dropped in- not unheard of for those operations.

That doesn't pass the plausibility test.

Bob just has a different viewpoint on what plausibly constitutes "impassible" terrain than the rest of us mere mortals

Seems they have a hunter that is responsible for the fire.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hunter-who-alleged-started-yosemite-fire-remains-free-20130905,0,6843606.story

Seems like they're not entirely sure that a hunter started it, but that they're mostly ruling out marijuana plantations just because of the logistics of trying to grow in the area. Although, from the way the first paragraph is written, it sounds like they have a specific person in mind, so maybe they have more evidence than they're letting on or it just didn't make it into the article. A hunter started the Cedar Fire in San Diego County back in '03, so maybe that's where they're drawing conclusions from.