More than seven months after the Jesusita Fire scorched nearly 9,000 acres of the Santa Barbara front country - destroying 80 homes, damaging another 15, seriously injuring numerous firefighters, and costing $17 million in its wake - two men have been charged in connection with the start of the fire.
On Thursday, the District Attorney’s office filed charges against Craig Ilenstine, 50, and Dana Larsen, 45, who have each been hit with one misdemeanor count of not obtaining a “hot work” permit when they were allegedly doing trail work on May 5, 2009, the day the fire broke out. The D.A.’s press release indicated that the investigation and evidence collected by the fire investigation team showed that Ilenstine and Larsen were using gas-powered weed cutters to trim vegetation along the Jesusita Trail in the area where the fire started at approximately 1:45 p.m. It’s been long speculated that the fire was caused by trail work of this type, which is usually conducted by volunteers who are known colloquially in hiking and mountain biking circles as “trail gnomes.”
Ray Ford
Origin of Jesusita Fire just 45 minutes after it started along Jesusita Trail. Specific point where the fire started is at the left, or west, side of the image.
The charge is a violation of California Fire Code, Chapter 26, Section 2601, which requires that a permit must first be obtained from the fire marshal for any “welding, cutting, open torches, and other hot work operations and equipment.” To get such a permit, applicants must demonstrate an ability to take precautions to prevent a wildfire, including - but not limited to - having firefighting equipment onsite and monitoring the area for at least 30 minutes after the completion of work to make sure that there is no danger posed by smoldering materials. According to the D.A.’s office, neither man obtained the required work permit, there were no fire extinguishers at the work site, and no one stayed afterwards to check for hot spots.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Jerry Lulejian, who is prosecuting the case, wouldn’t say whether there were other people on the trail at the time. He wouldn’t comment further on any of the facts of the case beyond what was contained in the press release. “I don’t want to talk about the circumstances in any more detail,” he said.
A study by The Independent of GIS parcel maps shows the start of the fire was within the Los Padres Forest but on the edge of land owned by the county and land owned by the La Cumbre Ranch Living Trust. The trail itself is managed by the U.S. Forest Service through this section via an easement that dates back to the 1960s. From the evidence, which included cleared brush and cut weeds and grass, work was being done both on the county and La Cumbre Ranch private holdings and on the trail managed by the Forest Service.
Ray Ford
Jesusita Trail near Inspiration Point was the first of the local trails to be impacted by the fire. It will take a community effort to rebuild all of the trails impacted during the Jesusita Fire.
There are concerns in the trail user community as to the charges’ implications. Getting permits for trail work and other trail-related activities is neither a common practice nor one that those who frequently do trail work have historically been expected to know about. Santa Barbara boasts numerous established volunteer organizations that frequently conduct trail improvement projects, including trainings and all-day workshops. According to one such volunteer who’s done 14 years of trail work, this is the first mention of a hot work permit. “None of the local volunteer organizations have ever been informed about, or required to have a hot work permit in the past,” he said.
County Fire spokesman Capt. David Sadecki, whose department oversees county and state lands as it applies to the use of hazardous equipment, said he didn’t know of anyone who has applied for a permit from County Fire for work on the trails in the past. Jurisdiction can be complicated, he said, as trails pass through city, county, federal, and private land. Kerry Kellogg, the wilderness trail manager for the Santa Barbara District of the Los Padres National Forest, said that, to his knowledge, neither man had participated in any prior trail projects in the forest.
Despite community sentiment calling for much harsher charges - especially given the lack of serious prosecution for those thought to be the cause of the November 2008 Tea Fire - the D.A.’s office determined after a lengthy investigation that it would not bring felony charges against the men. That’s due to a “good faith belief” that the D.A. could not “prove beyond a reasonable doubt the required mental state” needed to convict the men of felonies.
What prosecutors do intend to do, however, is seek restitution on behalf of the victims of the Jesusita Fire, a pricetag that’s floating in the millions of dollars, considering the injured firefighters and destroyed homes. “Restitution is a constitutional right for victims of any crime,” Lulejian said. The prosecution will not have to prove during the trial that the alleged crime itself is the causation of the fire, but the connection will have to be made at the sentencing hearing, when the judge will determine whether restitution should be given to victims. Restitution aside, the maximum potential criminal penalty for the misdemeanor is $25,000 fine and 90 days in jail.
The matter will also find its way to civil court, as Cal Fire, the state’s fire department, could pursue civil cost recovery to recoup the costs of fighting the fire, according to spokesman Daniel Berlant. “Cal Fire does have the authority to recover those costs if there was negligence,” he said. Officials at the state level are still determining whether there was a violation of law or negligence, as well as still totaling the amount of costs to the state. There is a lesser burden of proof in civil claims.
Both men have been sent letters requiring that they appear in Santa Barbara Superior Court for arraignment on January 15, 2010. Ilenstine is being represented by attorney Sam Eaton, whose receptionist said the attorney is not taking calls on this matter. A message left with Ilenstine was not returned. A man who answered the phone at the law offices of Larry Powell and Michael Damen - whose attorneys are representing Larsen - said they would be faxing a statement sometime soon. Beyond that, not much is known about the two men charged with crimes, though it appears Ilenstine is a San Marcos High School graduate from 1977, owns a Santa Barbara tile company, and has participated in mountain biking races.
Lulejian - a prosecutor from the D.A.’s North County office - prosecuted the men who started the Zaca Fire in 2007, and noted his experience in fire-related prosecutions as a primary reason he took the Jesusita Fire case. Over the months, various prosecutors have hinted at a potential conflict of interest for many prosecutors in the office, because of the homes affected by the fire. Acting D.A. Joshua Lynn himself had to defend his home from the fire at one point. Lulejian wouldn’t comment on how long the D.A.’s office has been reviewing the facts and evidence of the case, nor on how many prosecutors in the office were involved in the decision.
The D.A.’s office came under scrutiny in its handling of the start of the previous fire to scorch Santa Barbara, the Tea Fire, which damaged or destroyed more than 200 homes. Again citing the need to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the D.A. filed misdemeanor charges against the 10 alleged to be responsible for the fire. At the end, the 10 - who were mostly Santa Barbara City College students - pleaded no contest to trespassing and, as part of a plea deal, a charge of having a fire without a permit was dropped. The members of the group received 75 hours of community service and a $500 fine as their sentence.
Meanwhile, the D.A.’s office is currently appealing a Superior Court judge’s decision to not make the men who caused the Zaca Fire in the summer of 2007 pay restitution. Originally charged with five felony counts of recklessly causing a fire with great bodily injury, as well as special allegations of arson with aggravating factors, Jose Cabrera, Santiago Cervantes, and Rancho La Laguna LLC, saw those charges thrown out by Judge Zel Canter, who determined the workers’ actions didn’t amount to recklessness. Instead, the judge explained that federal officials allowed the fire to burn in different directions, so those who started the fire were no longer responsible for what happened. As such, charges against Cervantes and the LLC were dropped, and Cabrera pleaded no contest to a lesser misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to probation and a $200 fine. The D.A.’s office recently filed its brief in this appeal, and the defense will be filing its appeal next month.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Wow.... Get out the torches and pitchforks.
OOPS. What I meant to say is, these gentlemen are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Ahem.
If convicted, I can't imagine anyone is going to be interested in supporting a couple of rogue "gnomes."
Do these charges also open them up to civil suits from owners who lost their houses?
CitizenWatchdog (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This looks like a case where more education and prior proper enforcement of rules would have helped to avoid such a situation.
Hard to legally place the blame for the extent of the fire on the starters, despite their obvious role. As (as was ruled in the Zaca Fire case) there are many other factors which limit the strategies for stopping the fire, including that the fire suppression cannot begin on a fire when it is on forest service land until it is a certain size. Yes, there were terrible results, but pretending that a couple weed-eater-yielding bikers can pay everyone restitution is a reach. Sometimes accountability is not equal to culpability.
"In explanations and predictions of human action and inaction culpability is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible. Culpability marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held responsible and natural evil, like earthquakes, for which no one can be held responsible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability
I think in cases like these the culpability for starting a fire (could be called a 'moral evil' I guess, I would call it a stupid accident) and the extent to which a fire spreads on the landscape (which depends on weather patterns, landscape, and the resources and strategic decisions of those involved in suppression--a 'natural evil') is murky to say the least.
scapegoatsrevenge (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
" ... The prosecution will not have to prove during the trial that the alleged crime itself is the causation of the fire, but the connection will have to be made at the sentencing hearing, ..."
To me, the above is the most interesting part of the story regarding culpability.
Its also interesting to recall the reports that were made at the time of the fire.
There was that KEYT news interview with the person who maintained that he and his neighbors living in the area never heard any power tools being used before the fire started. He was saying they would have heard the tools if they indeed had been used.
I also recall the guy up on East Camino Cielo who claimed he heard an errant piece of a Vandenberg rocket hit the area right before the fire started.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Restitution is a constitutional right for victims of any crime," Lulejian said.
Oh, really. The constitution does not include the word "Restitution". I'd be interested in learning more about this "constitutional right".
SezMe (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 2:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SEE MY [pending] posted two (2) comments @ the NOOZHAWK blog story today -- avoiding needless duplication.
HOPE-FULLY = The D. A. investigators HAVE ALREADY availed them-selves of THE QUITE ABUNDANT "PAPER TRAIL" - be it print, on-line and/or electronic (using those multiple T-V cameras for 'live' telecasts from several roofs in downtown SB and stationary ground-level views)!
It was my under-standing, at that time, that even The White House Staff was "tuned in" to the 'on-line TV' / real-time coverage, with radio reports from KFI's "1070 NewsRadio" (out of LA - with several rotating radio news reporters on-the-scene)!
THAT in anticipation of a Federal "emergency declaration" - after the CA Governor's 'de rigeur' on-site visit - including chats with victims evaculated to Goleta, near the local SB airport.
gogosian2001 (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee Whiz! When I was a kid, I remember walking on trails for hours all over the woods near Cape Cod, Massachusetts and nobody ever had to have power tools to get through.
Snapping a branch or to is not that hard.
What is the matter with you guys that you have to use these noisy power wood cutters all over the place. You're all out of control.
Fortunately nobody has yet invented an air or water cutting device; you'd be doing that too. And causing floods and air vacuums.
mcsherman (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How come you have spam on this site now? I just suggested removal. Doesn't someone monitor the site?
susie (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
uh....KFI is AM 640. KNX is AM 1070.
azuresees (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reading the statute, it's not clear to me that a gas-powered weed trimmer is included in "hot work operations and equipment." It's certainly not on a par with welding or torches.
jimstoic (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about those rich kids that started the Tea Fire?
The DA is all upset that the judge didn't make the guys in the Zaca fire pay restitution.....with no possibility of them paying cause, they are poor.
Why are they always trying to prosecute poor people....and leave the rich alone?
Those kids parents have DEEEEEP pockets....but of course or prosecutors don't go after them.
Isn't this Lulejian dude the one that prosecuted that black lady for killing that detective on 154...the one that got 15 years with no priors, while another drunk driver from montecito with a lengthy record ran over this guy and didn't get one minute of jail time?
Hold it....this isn't the guy with the coke bottle glasses that persecuted Michael Jackson?
rstein9 (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately, just in time for the Christmas season, there are two morals that we learn from this story. Number one: Never volunteer. Number two: Never tell the truth.
punkah_wallah (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a friend who started a brush fire with his buddy when they were younger. The fire burned about 100 acres and several homes. Their families had to pay restitution. I don't think a day goes by that they do not regret the mistakes they made that day. This whole situation strikes me as very sad. We have homeowners who lost everything they own on one side and two men who, by all accounts, were trying to do a good deed and made a huge mistake. It is hard to know what the just outcome will be.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At the press conference this morning, DA Lulejian said that under the CA Fire Code, entering into a high fire danger area to use equipment capable of starting a fire requires a hot work permit. Upon further questioning by me, he stated that a weed whacker using nylon string to cut the weeds like many homeowners have would not require such a permit. However, one with a metal blade attached would require one. When further pressed that this means the two men charged had used a weed whacker with a metal blade he said, "Yes, that is the case."
riveray (Ray Ford)
December 11, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For the fire starters of Gap, Tea, Jesusita: Public stockades.
Then THEY would never forget, just like their fire victims never will.
STUPID is not an excuse.
maximum (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ray,
Why has it taken so long for the story/indictments to come out? Did the accused deny culpability? Did they report the fire? Does the DA purposely drag their feet on these fires to let the public calm down after the devastation? How were these two identified? Did others know and wouldn't say?
There sure is a lot of missing info for such a huge catastrophy considering we now know every grunt and groan about Tiger Woods within a week of that little incident...
Where are the Tea Fire 10 now, still at CC? Has anyone ever interviewed them?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm... law enforcement has known about trail clearing activity for all this time and never once enforced a permit requirement? Maybe they need another 30% raise and the ability to retire at 40 with 100% benefits to take care of permit enforcement for dedicated volunteers. Those volunteers are mighty dangerous folks.
And perhaps we should all be clamoring for an increase in our property taxes to cover proper training of clearing personnel.
Were I on a jury, I can't imagine convicting these guys. They deserve a commendation for doing the right thing while our government officials sat on their hands in a variety of ways.
The Jesusita fire was a tragedy, and I am very sensitive to the tragic loss suffered by many people. The edge of fire country is an obvious risk and if you want to take it, you better lobby hard for proper measures to be undertaken by government officials.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right to restitution is in the California Constitution.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
" ... There sure is a lot of missing info for such a huge catastrophy considering we now know every grunt and groan about Tiger Woods within a week of that little incident..."
--sa1
The trail gnomes didn't use cell phones.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
7Dolphins yet again your posting is full of errors. Where did you get that law enforcement knew about the illegal ativity? Is a fire marshal really law enforcement? Probably but nut in the since of who you are pointing fingers at. Our cops and fire people never got a 30% raise, ever and they can not retire at age 40. Are you telling these lies to prove a point or did you really think that your info was true?
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ITK, you're right, the SB Police only asked for a 28% raise:
http://www.independent.com/news/2006/...
Right now, safety officers can retire with full benefits at 50. Maybe if they could retire at 40 they could find the energy and focus to enforce permit requirements.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The issues that need to be addressed here are, public safety & culpibility. We live in a scociety where the careless actions of a few may effect the safety of others. The people who started the Tea & Jesuita fire caused the destruction of hundereds of families homes, some of these, due to insurance problems may never rebuild, one couple was badly burned & others injured. These fire starters broke laws, & laws are created to protect society. Were these people just ignorant or should they be held responsible for their actions. Consider a ponigant analogy....There was once a farm-boy who grew up in the country. His favorite passtime was target practicing in the back yard with his rifle. Since nobody lived for miles around it wasn't a problem. Then he moved to the city. He went outside in his new home, set up his target and shot. The bullets passed through the fence and struck the neighbors child in the head and killed him. Is this farm-boy guilty of anything other than ignorance or should he be held responsible for his actions? After all there are laws that forbid discharging firearms in residential communities. So should the fire-starters be accountable for more than just ignorance? How do we protect the lives & property of those who live near high fire risk areas? Certinally if people are not accountable for such negligence then they should not have access to these areas. So during the fire season no culpibility=no access, earthling
earthling (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would we consider resorting to non-mechanical means to take care of trail clearance? What about hiring some Americorps kids to herd goats along the trails year-round and keep things trimmed and fertilized? A different type of trail gnome.
GiGi (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the more in depth reporting on this than most local sources, as well as the follow up in the comments section by Mr. Ford.
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Earthling, I lost my home in the Jesuita fire,& 2 fire trucks on my street burned saving the lives of 3 families who refused to leave. Many people don't realize how close we came to loosing many lives. 25 people died in the Oakland fire. People are starting fires in the front country during the fire season. I really don't care what their excuse is, I just don't want to see anyone else got burned. I agree w/ you ; if people are denied access to these areas then they just won't be able to start these fires. ( no brainer ), blue agave.
tequila (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The district attorney's office has been in the prosecuting business for too long. They've lost their ability to be human. Next election, lets get rid of the woman at the top just for this decision alone.
khiggler (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Farm boy did not move to the city, the city people moved to the country where the gun shooting farm boy lives. Some people moved right next to the boy's firing range and did not build a protective wall strong enough to stop the bullets. How does the rest of the story go??????
toadalee (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
7dolphins you wrote,
"Maybe they need another 30% raise and the ability to retire at 40 with 100% benefits to take care of permit enforcement for dedicated volunteers."
Then you write "ITK, you're right, the SB Police only asked for a 28% raise:"
The SBPD are not the governing agency for where this fire happened. Did you read the story? Do you know anything about this issue?
Let me educate you, this fire investigation was handled by the County... understand that? The County is not SBPD. You hatred of SBPD is mis-directed for this topic, as it seems they had nothing to do with this incident. But then again I doubt you care, you probably blame any "government" entity.
You provide a link from 2006 to prove your point of 30%, very current of you. What did they end up getting, they were ASKING for 28%? Over how many years was the raise, was it 8% a year? Do you know? Wasn't that article that you posted in relation to the amount of cops that SBPD was losing to other agencies because they were not equal pay?
And you post "Right now, safety officers can retire with full benefits at 50". That is not true. How is that even possible? They use the formula 3% for each year worked. In order to get 100% (which they are capped at 90% pay) they would need to work 33 1/3 years. That would mean that they would have to start being a cop at age 17 1/2, which is impossible since you have to be at least age 21 to be a cop in California. So how do they retire at age 50 with full benefits? Please explain that one 7dolphins or are you wrong again?
And how many cops do they hire at age 21? I know a buddy who is a cop he did not become one until he was in his early 30s after being in the military. But is sounds more convenient to you to throw out outrageous acusations right?
Your posting is full or errors or lies; which one only you know. There are three types of lies; "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" You seem to be using them all in your postings.
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does it take people?.. a multiple disaster of errors for a wake up call? When does a community wake-up, after it is wiped off the map? EDUCATE, (but who will listen?) CLEAR BRUSH CONSISTENTLY AROUND YOUR DWELLING, FOLLOW LOGICAL RULES don't even THINK about taking sparking tools or motors into the back country - Most of the local infernos in the last 1/2 century including the sad fatality in the Paint event were caused by stupidity. Do we see the big picture, folks? Sure, fires in the back country are natural but these incidents bring a heavy price for growing communities when they start as happened in the past several events. Isn't it beyond paying restitution?... whether it was done as a self-serving act to play later or was caused by a trail gnome mistake. When will adults (the CC students are adults, aren't they?) begin to use common sense in windy, dry conditions when fixing things or playing in up country? We all love living in our beautiful outdoor playground; we hike, ride horses, mountain bike, even build houses and (hopefully) target shoot responsibly. But we are not Chumash Indians, we don't use this area for our sustenance the way they did. You buy your food at the store without burning down houses but you lack awareness and become careless when entering the back country to play, work or clear. We've been in a long drought people. Teach yourselves and your children about our upcountry. Think twice and think again before you spark another blaze and destroy someone's life. The signs are posted but people generally don't read them - While the bad boys are locked in those stockades Ray, maybe the townsfolk who lost their houses will throw stones at the poor judgement they used- but this ain't gonna stop another brush fire. The way we care for our back country is going to take something bigger than a community embarassing a pair of goons.
cynluv (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Jurisdiction can be complicated, he said, as trails pass through city, county, federal, and private land. "... so the City is definitely culpable.
As to County Deputies etc... you find their pay and benefits packages. I don't think they've been furloughed like others lately, and definitely no-one outside of safety got the `3% at 50' package, which is quite generous.
You can definitely start accruing at age 18. So, OK, for full benefits you have to wait until 51 or 52. Sorry about that.
I don't object to the generous pay and benefits at all, *as long as a good job is done*.
Law enforcement did not enforce the law for at least 14 years (according to the article), it is dead simple. 80 homes, lots of firefighter injuries, and wrecked lives are the result.
Given the generous pay and retirement benefits, why shouldn't we all request better law enforcement?
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Meant to direct my comment toward Maximum's post...not to Ray Ford who always reports thoroughly and concisely regarding everything that happens in the front country. How fortunate we are to have such an astute messenger.
cynluv (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.
Here is California state site saying that peace officers can start employment at 18 years of age:
http://www.post.ca.gov/faqs/become.asp
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is Santa Barbara city site saying that Police officers MUST be 21 years of age:
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/sant...
Age: Applicants must be at least 21 years of age at time of appointment.
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a site (that the Independent sensored before) that combats most of your assumptions.
http://www.calpersresponds.com/pensio...
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another point that you keep contending is that the SBPD enforces the fire regulations, you are wrong. The fire marshals do. It is in the article. Your misdirected anger at SBPD for whatever reason is not warranted here.
And beside, the Jesusita trail is in the County portion, not City except for the trail head portion, which is not where the fire started.
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a site that you can read about fire marshals and what they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_mar...
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice to see SBPD starting officers, without college educations, get a starting salary of $67,000 a year, double what the average high school grad in the US earns, averaged over ages 18 to 65. Nice money if you can get it.
And it is simply a fact that one can start being a peace officer in another jurisdiction at age 18 and then move your retirement credit to SB at a later time. It is a simple fact that one can retire at 51 or 52 with 100% salary and health benefits. Arguing that this is rare does not cut the mustard. It should be illegal... any safety officer who cares about fairness and his fellow citizens would go back to 2% at 60. The 3% at 50 is greed.
At a time when most of us are taking pay cuts, employment being 17% or so (including long-term unemployment), the safety officers' packages are venal.
Rare that I've seen a fire marshal arrest someone, although maybe it happens. But they are safety officers too with the same generous compensation packages. Why weren't they enforcing the permitting law for the last 14 years?
For the salaries the taxpayer is paying for all these guys, the taxpayer deserves the very best, not 14 years of non-enforcement. It is insincere to toss off this valid criticism by attributing some sort of bogus emotion to me. We deserve the best, we pay for the best, and we didn't get it, it is simple and stark and logical.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2009 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You'll never admit when you are wrong huh?
"We deserve the best, we pay for the best, and we didn't get it, it is simple and stark and logical." Validiate that statement compared with you complaining "get a starting salary of $67,000 a year, double what the average high school grad in the US earns, averaged over ages 18 to 65. Nice money if you can get it." Seems contradictory to me. You complain about pay and then champion that we pay top dollar. So which one is it for you?
And again the fire was not in the city, you seem to keep glancing over that one.
"employment being 17%" Really? Only 17% are employeed? Wow where do you get your numbers?
"Arguing that this is rare does not cut the mustard. It should be illegal..." I'm arguing that it doesn't happen, prove it I encourage you to. Call SBPD and find out how many people they have that started as a cop at age 18 and that now works for them. Prove me wrong, because I know I'm right.
Did you read this website at all?
http://www.calpersresponds.com/pensio...
Kind of blows numerous holes in all the smoke out there. I encourage you to visit it, it has some good facts, not fiction.
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In case you don't visit the website here is some important fact vs myths that I commonly hear out there.
Myth: Police and firefighters retire at age 50 with 90 percent of pay.
Fact: Our records indicate that over the last seven years, safety workers who retired at age 50 with 30 years of service represented 1 percent of all those retired. The reason very few ever would receive this level pension is that they would have had to start working age 20 to earn 30 years. Most start their safety careers at age 27, 28, or 29.
Twelve percent of all public safety members are subject to the 3 percent at age 55 formula. They would need 37.5 years of service at age 50 to get 90 percent, and would have had to start working at age 12.5 to earn 37.5 years. And 7 percent of all public agency safety members are subject to the 2 percent at age 50 formula. They would need to have 45 years of service at age 50 to get 90 percent, and would have had to start working at age 5 to earn 45 years.
Myth: The average CalPERS pensioner gets 80 percent of their pay.
Fact:The average CalPERS member receives 50 percent or less of their pay in retirement.
Myth: Public pension benefits are excessive and a drain on the public.
Fact: The average CalPERS pension is about $25,000 per year. Half of CalPERS retirees receive $16,000 per year or less in benefits. Unlike the private sector, many CalPERS members do not receive Social Security, making their CalPERS pension their sole source of pension income, other than savings.
Fact: Seventy-eight percent of CalPERS retirees receive $36,000 per year or less.
WOW!!! 1% collect 90% (not the 100% that you write that is possible) and you go on and on about it! WOW!!! Did you know about these facts! WOW is all I can say. There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there that is repeated as fact by people.
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These men weren't trying to start a fire. They were trying to help in a small way, but didn't think all the way through. Yes, I believe acknowledgement of their lack of thought is to be punished, but I think that has already been done. I do not believe that they were extremely irresponsible. Have any of you ever done something that MIGHT have IN RETROSPECT been disasterous? Has anyone ever drank 2 cocktails and driven in their life time? Has anyone evermade a mistake. True, this one has cost a tremendous amount of pain suffering and money. I feel for every single person, but accidents happen. We don't need to blame ... we're all guilty of something. Don't you think these men and their families have a difficult time living with this tragedy they have contributed to, by MISTAKES they made? Don't you think their lives are already extremely affected? And lastly, do you think that ruining their lives and their families lives and their financial future is going to help? Do you think they have any amount of money to help or cover even one of the houses lost? Their lawyers are getting all their extra cash I assure you. I guarantee... it's a useless outcome. Unless it's profitable or worth ruining two additional families and adding two more to this disaster. They should pay for stupidity and for the mistakes they made, but still... in the end... we're all still S O L and I for one don't want to add another to the list. Forgive and move on is where your energy is most wisely used at this time.
MuddyPuppet (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MuddyPuppet,One needs to distinguish between punitive & preventative motives in the law. There are strict laws against driving drunk, just show up @ a MADD meeting & you will know why. Innocent people die every year because people drink 2 cocktails & drive. These people don't intend to run over a small child, but despite their lack of malice they can never pick-up that child's crumpled body & restore life. I agree that these people don't intend to destroy communities or sometimes even life......but they just do. Laws are in place so they don't. Unfortunately most people just don't connect the dots. Wildfires can be so INCREDIBLY DESTRUCTIVE that we cannot afford every nieve fire starter "find out the hard way" that they did something stupid. Tequila
tequila (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2009 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any response from 7?
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The fire department might want to make weed trimmers with nylon cutters necessary for a hot work permit as well.
You have to gas up these machines and they become very hot after several minutes of continuous whacking.
All it takes is a mistake during refueling or setting the hot weed trimmer down in the dry grass to start a fire. There are many idiots out there that could potentially mishandle one of these nylon weed trimmers on homeowners' properties. I would not want someone using one near my rental on Camino Cielo without a permit or fire equipment nearby. By the way, hire a legitimate landscaper, not a blow and go illegal. You get what you pay for!
SantaGarbaga (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I like the goat trimming idea with americorp volunteers. Idiots with portable gas powered weed whackers aren't doing anybody any favors despite thinking they are. Or use a machette. Or let the weeds grom over the trail and let people tramp on them to abate them.
rabbitrun (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)