| 23 February 2010
With the down economy, communities need to find ways of balancing their budgets. An increasing number of them are turning to holding their citizens hostages by charging extra for emergency services that property taxes nominally cover. The first such instance, though widely reported inaccurately, has the town of Tracy, CA, sending residents a bill for emergency services that can run individuals as much as $48 annually. A special dispensation for low-income households allows for a $36 fee for emergency services.
Now New Haven, CT is joining the ranks of billing it's residences for emergency services. To its credit, New Haven is rejecting a blanket fee for emergency services. However it is insisting that residents with home security systems register their alarms with the city. In addition, if police respond to more than one false alarm at your address you will be billed for their visit. Both of these provisions are troubling.
The municipal ordinance goes into effect next Monday and is supposed to include a two week grace period. According to WTNH, however, "as of March 1st, the department will be issuing fines." The requirement that individuals register their system marks this measure as a revenue generating measure. The requirement could easily be passed to the security service that monitors a home or apartment with an alarm system. In doing so, the company issues a notification to both the city and their customer to ensure the city knows about the alarm and that the customer knows that the city knows about the alarm.
By leaving the responsibility in the hands of individuals, New Haven is certain to hit a number of residents with fines for non-compliance of the ordinance. The fines are hardly trivial at $99 for failure to register your alarm.
The second series of fines are unrelated to the registration of the alarm systems, but seem to serve as the justification for the requirement to register the alarm systems. The city of New Haven will fine citizens when the municipal emergency services are called to respond to false alarms. The first false alarm is free (how very generous!) but subsequent false alarms are billed at $75 (for the second), $150 (for the third) and $250 for each thereafter.
The justification seems flimsy to me, as registering your alarm is not necessary to be fined for a false alarm. But on top of that, the decision to fine responsible property owners who elect to undertake the expense of private home security to supplement the municipal police presence should not be punished for false alarms. If someone hears a noise and calls the police because they think they have an intruder, we wouldn't bill them for the visit if the police found nothing. Emergency services are for emergencies, and technological glitches may create erroneous emergencies, but only upon investigation can that threat be proven unfounded. Billing citizens for their protection is valid, but double billing is criminal.
See, citizens pay property taxes on their homes (and make no mistake renters, your landlord's property taxes are factored into the rent they charge you) and their cars. The purpose of those taxes is to pay for things like emergency services. The problem is as the Christian Science Monitor describes Tracy, California's:
The idea to improve the emergency service came when the town had been flush with cash. Existing tax revenue only covered the infrastructure of having a 911 system, not costs associated with medical attention given as a result.
The town has growing pains. Through the 90s Tracy's population grew by about 70 percent. It is estimated that in the first five years of this decade the population of Tracy has grown another 40 percent.
The decision to implement an augmented emergency response system came in sunnier times, but now that money is tight and the bill comes due, rather than weighing the efficacy of this program against other municipal services, Tracy elects to bill its residents for 911 service. New Haven sets up a revenue generating system of fines to collect money from its citizens to cover the costs of emergency services. Why not cuts to non-essential city services?
Well you see, that would require these town councils, boards of aldermen and mayors to walk away from areas of control and influence of their communities. Patronage jobs could not be doled out. The opportunity for graft would be limited. So instead of responsible fiscal management, they hold their citizens hostage by billing people a second time for the police, fire and rescue services their tax dollars already fund.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
