I have to disagree with the editorial stating that “there is nothing wrong with having to defend spending decisions to voters every few years” (TNT, 4-9). The editorial goes on to say that fire and emergency services are “vital.” Of course they are, and that’ s why having fire districts constantly going back for yet another levy is ludicrous.
If having a certain level of fire response and Medic One capability is good in one year, why does it makes sense to wonder if it should still be funded a couple of years later? If the loss of revenue that had previously been approved causes the closure of a neighborhood fire station resulting in greater response times and less paramedic availability, is that a good thing?
In other states that I am aware of, there is not a requirement for fire districts to forever renew their funding. Here, the process makes it difficult in the extreme for fire department managers to do long-term planning for their communities, when they never know from year to year what their budget will be. A reasonable, dependable budget makes sense.
I think the TNT got it wrong this time.