It isn’t possible to draw a direct line between the blizzard that clobbered Kansas City on Jan. 5 and the California firestorms. Our snow was a major inconvenience, and expensive, but the fires are an historic calamity by any measure, with deaths and injury and property loss.

The heart sinks (or soars) at every story of courage and resilience from our neighbors near Los Angeles.

But we can and must learn a lesson from both emergencies, which is this: Everyone hates the government until disaster strikes — and then government becomes essential, and must be paid for.

With both Missouri and Kansas offering various property tax relief programs for seniors, and with tax cut discussions already burgeoning in both state houses, we need to look at why and how the taxes we do pay work for us.

This is true in the simplest terms. Tens of thousands of us grabbed shovels and snow blowers after the storm to plow driveways and sidewalks, but taxpayer-supported plows and trucks were the only approach for a foot of snow in the streets.

There was the usual grumbling about missed neighborhoods and frozen intersections. Some municipalities even conceded their failures and promised to do better next time. No one, though, seriously believes an instance of underperformance means public agencies should abandon snow removal, or ask private citizens to do the work themselves.

Paying for snow removal

It’s easy to take snow removal for granted. In truth, though, snow removal is the purest example of a public service, easily seen and judged. Snow removal is a major reason we pay taxes. Woe be to the mayor or public works director who fails at this most basic service — poor snow removal will cost you your job.

But let’s pause a moment and consider how complicated this equation really is. You could, theoretically, plow every street in Kansas City within hours of a snowstorm, and make everyone happy. But you would need hundreds of additional plows, massive purchases of salt and sand, and thousands of additional workers to pull it off.

It would cost tens of millions of dollars. And you would have to prepare ahead of the storm: It is all but impossible to hire drivers as the snow falls. Cities purchase salt in the summer for the next winter. Trucks are delivered months ahead of schedule.

Then what happens if it doesn’t snow? All that extra money would sit idle, and the public would be outraged. Better to spend my tax dollars, the public would say, on police, or parks and swimming pools, or some other municipal service.

Or even better, some would say, to leave the money in private hands.

Providing a public service like snow removal requires a difficult, ongoing balancing act for politicians and administrators. What is the reasonable risk, they ask themselves. How can that risk be mitigated? What level of service should the public expect? How much will it cost?

The answers are not clear, which is why some streets aren’t plowed immediately.

Preparing for and fighting wildfires

Which brings us to the California fires.

The second-guessing of that government’s response to the destructive wildfires began while the embers were still warm. That’s a good thing: We should all consider what went right, and what went wrong, in the lead-up to the fires.

But let’s be clear. You might be able to prevent the disaster of another Palisades fire, but at an astronomical public cost: more fire trucks, more hydrants, more pumps, more firefighters, more airplanes, more construction rules, more shrub removal, more fire suppressant machinery in every home.

You could irrigate the hills and keep them green. You could bury every power cable. You could patrol fire-prone areas.

Would taxpayers and homeowners willingly accept those monumental costs? Would the nation? It’s easy to say yes after the fires. But before?

California is routinely attacked by anti-government zealots already. The property tax revolt began in California, decades ago. Now the same voices who say high taxes are driving people out of the state say California should have done more, at more expense, before the fires snaked down the mountain side.

The same people who want to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget whine about a $17 million line-item reduction in the $800-million-plus Los Angeles fire budget.

Such hypocrisy is a serious danger. As the climate changes, we need a national conversation about the cost of disaster preparation and remediation, as quickly as possible.

What would it cost to be better prepared for natural calamities? Would it be worth it? Who would benefit? Should Kansans and Missourians pay for floods and hurricane response, or Floridians for tornadoes and blizzards?

Should Californians be allowed to rebuild in a fire zone? Or North Carolina in a hurricane zone? Or Missourians in a tornado zone? The questions and answers are difficult, but the discussion and decisions are inescapable.

Because we know this: It will snow again. Maybe next week.

_____

©2025 The Kansas City Star. Visit kansascity.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.