How Many Bogus Statements Can You Spot In <i>PT</i> Editorial Supporting City Hall-Sought Sales Tax Increase To 10% (Measure A)? Here Are A Few We See, Plus Our Comments

LBReport.com

Editorial

How Many Bogus Statements Can You Spot In PT Editorial Supporting City Hall-Sought Sales Tax Increase To 10% (Measure A)? Here Are A Few We See, Plus Our Comments

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(May 21, 2016) -- LBREPORT.com believes in the principle stated by former U.S. Senator (D, NY) and former U.N. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Below are statements we say are bogus in the Press Telegram's editorial supporting a City Hall-sought sales tax increase to 10% (currently 9% in Signal Hill/Lakewood, 8% in most OC cities) alongside our comments. To view the PT's full editorial text, click here.

[Scroll down for further.]

Press Telegram says:	LBREPORT.com says:
"No one likes to raise taxes, but there are times in the life of a city when leaders need to look seriously at ways to invest in the future and improve residents' quality of life.	A blank check isn't an "investment"; it's a guarantee to pay the tax with no guarantee it will deliver what's promised. The Mayor/Council could have put their promised items in the tax measure and respected Props 13/218's 2/3 voter approval requirement (part of the CA Constitution that LB's electeds swore to uphold) but they didn't. They seek to impose a general tax that they can spend on any general fund items after the election. The PT's editorial narrative fails to mention that police and firefighter unions are the major funders of the pro-sales-tax-hike campaign, as they (and other city employee unions) prepare to negotiate a new round of taxpayer-paid contracts with raises that Councilmembers can approve without voter approval.
"Long Beach is at such a crossroads now as officials on a tight budget struggle to find ways to pay for overdue improvements in infrastructure and public safety."	Tight budget? Nov. 2013: Council (with then-Vice Mayor Garcia voting yes) gives city management up to 15% pay raises over three years. Dec. 2015: Council votes to build a new Civic Center without seeking bids on a less costly City Hall seismic retrofit, imposes 40+ years of annual escalating (by CPI) taxpayer costs without voter approval. May 17, 2016: Council votes to give up half of LB's hotel room tax revenue for twenty years to "incentivize" the sale of prime located property at the SE corner of Ocean Blvd./Pine Ave. without an independent public appraisal of the property's value.
"Mayor Robert Garcia and the Long Beach City Council have decided the best way to deal with this sticky issue is to ask voters on June 7 to increase the city’s sales tax by 1 percentage point for six years and then drop it to a one-half percentage point increase for four years...After a decade, the tax would be eliminated."	The Mayor/Council didn't "ask" voters; they dictated their terms to taxpayers. City costs won't decrease without reforms that no current LB elected has proposed. The reduction in six years is a cynical way to lure voters now and kick the can to future Councils who'll ask taxpayers to extend the tax to maintain the status quo...and will likely ask taxpayers to extend the tax in ten years, not eliminate it.
"Much of the debate on measures A and B has boiled down to a matter of trust in Mayor Garcia and the City Council. How can residents be sure the new revenue from a sales tax increase will be spent on infrastructure and on a few public-safety positions as promised?	America was built on NOT trusting kings or politicians, especially with taxes. LB's current Mayor and Council (which could have made its promises legal guarantees but didn't) and their predecessors have given LB taxpayers ample reasons not to trust them based on their record. A few examples: The ~~Long Beach~~ Aquarium was supposed to pay for itself but has tapped or benefited from millions in public money (while the private Aquarium board refuses to hold open meetings and several years ago removed "Long Beach" from the Aquarium's official name.) "Queensway Bay" (since renamed the Pike) was supposed to provide a "critical mass" and become a regional attraction but has become what in our opinion is a mainly mundane outlet shopping center. Candidate Foster told voters in 2006 that he'd put 100 more police officers on the street in his first four years but instead left LB taxpayers in 2014 with fewer officers than LB had before he took office, leaving LB with a per capita citywide strength roughly equivalent per capita to cutting about 30% of LAPD's officers. (Other nearby cities weathered the "great recession" without doing anything of this; L.A. and Signal Hill continue to provide their taxpayers with higher per capita police staffing strength than LB.) Mayor Garcia applauded and the City Council approved demolishing LB's current Civic Center, giving part of it away permanently, shrinking LB's Main Library and paying an outside firm annual increasing sums (per CPI) for 40+ years WITHOUT seeking bids on the cost to seismically retrofit City Hall. The Civic Center transaction already costs more than what city officials first said. On May 17, 2016, the Council voted to give up half of LB's hotel room tax revenue for twenty years to "incentivize" the sale of prime located property at the SE corner of Ocean Blvd./Pine Ave. at a sale price without an independent public appraisal of the property's value. Amnesia File: In the early 1990s, the Council imposed a 16% surcharge on LB business licenses -- that remains buried within the annual license fee but no longer separately labeled -- that promised four major traffic projects and delivered none of them.
"Garcia has said he will veto any spending different on other than infrastructure and public safety needs, such as salary increases or pet projects. The City Council has passed a resolution saying the same thing."	Garcia won't have to veto anything because the current Council has rubber stamped basically whatever he wants. This leaves him free to recommend and the Council free to spend current revenue for raises and pet projects and then pretend the new tax will pay for police/fire/infrastructure, when it's the actually the de facto enabler for the raises and pet projects (a budget sleight of hand.) The Council "resolution" is non-binding, has no force of law and the Council can ignore it the day after the election.
"A citizens' advisory committee will be appointed, as we had suggested, to oversee spending from the increased tax. In addition, City Auditor Laura Dowd will conduct annual audits of the spending projects. Those provide strong safeguards against misspending. "	The so-called citizens advisory committee will be handpicked by the Mayor with no legal power to change (as if they would) any Mayor recommended or Council spending. Ditto the City Auditor. These provide no legal protections, much less strong ones, for taxpayers against misspending.
"We will hold officials accountable to do what they say they'll do."	Bwahahahaha.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.