By Samuel Strait, Reporter at Large – June 18, 2021 It has long been the preeminent premise in this Country that equality and fairness be at the heart of any public vote taken no matter what the issue or who the candidate. Early in the history of this Country one of the dominant features of government excess which led to the separation of the United States from Great Britain by revolution was Taxation without proper representation. Taxes being levied on an entire population without recourse to the ability of a vote. When our early leadership tackled this thorny question of government reaching into the pockets of its citizens there was conscious consideration of the "little guy" and his ability to pay required taxes. As such, at the time it was felt that a simple majority vote was not always the best way to go about taxing and we find a distinct break from majority rule with a two thirds vote for approval for most tax measures. Granted that this protection has been eroded in many States and localities over the years, but the thinking that taking money from its citizen's pockets should be with the consent of more than a simple majority remains in the provisions of many voter approved tax measures. The reasoning behind such requirements continues to be rooted in that original premise that fairness must also give way to the idea that to institute a tax it must be at the behest of most of the electorate rather than the fifty percent plus one test. By doing so it is less likely to construct a significant opposition and resentment to the proposed tax, assessment, or fee imposed by the government. Fifty percent plus one after all generates fifty percent less one in the opposition, not a healthy position to be in for a government. In this State, California, many tax measures are passed using the fifty percent plus one mechanism which has created a growing resentment by those that try to exist in the State as the tax burden grows for what appears to be a very unresponsive, expensive and growing government. This has caused an increasing number of the population to move else where to be replaced by greater numbers of citizens who do not or contribute very little to the cost of this growing government. Recently here in Del Norte County the local citizens have experienced this kind of behavior by local government in an escalating fashion. Increased costs from taxation may appear to benefit locals, but by in large serve only to increase the cost of government without any appreciable benefit to the local population. Much of this activity, that is growth in government, can be attributed directly back to those that benefit the most from this government obsession with more money, government employees. In a second attempt by Crescent Fire Protection District to burden property owners with an assessment added to their property taxes, the first having failed in October of 2020, the CDPF has used a "weighted ballot" procedure to allow large valuable property owners to have votes based largely on the valuation of their respective properties. The ostensible reasoning is to allow valuable parcel owners to have a greater say over the normal single resident property owner because their loss would be greater for both the owner and the County should the unfortunate occur. Normally that would fall into the category of proper insurance. In this particular instance one vote one parcel does not apply, but money , or property valuation is the deciding factor. In the recent CFPD benefit election, most voters were under the illusion that 876 "No" votes as opposed to 858 "Yes" votes would doom the measure to failure. In a one vote, one voter scenario that would be the case; however, in a weighted ballot scenario a dollar amount is attached to each ballot where high dollar parcels would have a distinct advantage over poorer parcels. While the rational for this "weighted ballot" process appears to give nod to fairness, it does not account for the fact that cost to the CPFD would very likely be much greater when responding to multiple calls for incidents or for a major incident negating the rational for "weighted ballots". Equality and fairness seems to be absent in this mechanism for the vote. At this point it becomes more interesting when the CPDF has already established an unequal playing field with "weighted ballots", quickly moves to tilt the playing field even further by capping assessment obligation to those that can most certainly afford it to $1,000. In 1996 Californians passed Proposition 218 in order to protect the citizenry from, at the time, the feeling that government taxation had over reached by a significant margin. While the provisions that are incorporated in Prop 218 provide little in protections to the disadvantaged in this particular instance, it DOES NOT APPEAR TO ALLOW FOR A CAP OF ANY KIND ON THE AFFECTED LAND OWNERS. All parcel owners seem to be obligated to pay the full amount of their obligations, NO CAP ALLOWED! It will be interesting to see just how the CFPD responds to what was clearly an unfair manipulation of the voting process to make the outcome much closer than it should have been. Will this manipulation, should it be allowed to stand, be a continual template for future assessments? Only time will tell.