Crash tax craziness

Fiat Punto
This guy’s not even from ‘Merica. Cha-ching!!!
Creative Commons License photo credit: Niccolò Caranti

I still can’t believe that 5 humans, not to mention 5 city council members, think an out-of-towner “crash tax” is a good idea. Apparently in California, unless something is specifically illegal, you can find some group of idiots who’ll think it makes sense. And if you need a group of idiots, who better than a roomful of California politicians?

With the chorus of boos around the region about the “crash tax,” including a threatened tit-for-tat response from Yolo County, I am thinking its days are numbered.

In looking around at other instances of “crash tax” in the news I found out that another municipality undergoing such an experiment is none other than New York, New York. However, in the case of the Big Apple it is merely a charge on at-fault drivers for FDNY response to a car crash. Compared to the City Council’s laugher of charging our neighbors this almost makes sense.

I still can’t make sense of Senate Bill 949, which

prohibit[s] a local authority from enacting or enforcing an ordinance or resolution on matters covered by the Vehicle Code, and would expressly include an ordinance or resolution that establishes regulations or procedures for, or assesses a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a violation of, matters covered by this code

This law goes into effect on July 1, but it seems like it might come into play here? Or on the flipside, won’t SB949 be to blame for a slew of “creative financing” plans by various municipalities who will no longer be able to assess certain fees?

Author: CoolDMZ

"X-ray vision to see in between / Where's my kimono and my time machine?"

5 thoughts on “Crash tax craziness”

  1. California drivers are required by law to carry auto insurance, so the plan is to bill insurance companies when a nonresident driver causes an accident that leads to a response by fire officials. Drivers without insurance will be billed directly.
    The city plans to hire Roseville-based Fire Recovery USA to do the billing in exchange for a portion of the proceeds collected, up to a total of $775,000 by the end of 2013.

    So, we got this going for us…which is nice.


  2. Yeah that’s another wrinkle. From what I know about insurance companies they don’t necessarily love having to pay for shit. So if they refuse to pay these fees then drivers will probably have to pay, right?

    Also, wait — they’re HIRING A ROSEVILLE COMPANY TO DO HANDLE IT??? I think Rosevillians should picket that company.


  3. And now Roseville is looking to repeal their version of this

    With budgets so tight these days, cities are looking everywhere for new revenue. Sixty California cities now charge fees to drivers involved in accidents requiring a fire department response. But the backlash against Sacramento’s vote last month has been particularly harsh – including calls to boycott city businesses. And in Roseville, one of the first cities in the region to charge the fee, the city council could repeal it this week. City Manager Ray Kerridge:

    Kerridge: “There were expectations that it would bring in a certain amount of revenues for the city, and those revenue projections were not met – even close.”

    Just $40,000 in a year-and-a-half, Kerridge says, instead of the hoped-for $100,000 a year.

    Kerridge: “On that basis alone, it wasn’t worth continuing the experiment.”

    Kerridge also says it contradicted the city’s message that Roseville is open for business.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: