[Scroll down for further.]

Over the past nearly six months, Long Beach's Mayor and City Council have shown the entire city their civic values. By this we mean what they consider right and wrong in seeking the consent of the governed, in how they really view those who elected them. This matters far beyond one ballot measure. It shows what LB's electeds consider right and wrong in what they say and do on multiple neighborhood-impacting, taxpayer-impacting matters.

Here's how LB's current Mayor and Council operated in seeking a sales tax increase to 10% (when it's 9% in Signal Hill/Lakewood and 8% in most OC cities) that they can spend on nearly any general fund items they wish. A few days before Christmas, a city management report materialized on infrastructure. Then a few weeks later, a survey materialized via the Mayor [that LBREPORT.com was first (again) to report was funded by LB's police and firefighter unions about to negotiate new contracts] indicating voters would vote to raise LB's sales tax if they were told it would provide police, fire and infrastructure.

The Council could have offered a ballot measure that guarantees these items for taxpayers but it didn't. Instead, it put forward a ballot measure that doesn't mention or legally guarantee any these items while simultaneously showing LB voters the following text as they prepare to mark their ballots:

[All caps in original] "CITY OF LONG BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MEASURE. To maintain 911 emergency response services; increase police, firefighter/paramedic staffing; repair potholes/streets; improve water supplies; and maintain general services; shall the City of Long Beach establish a one cent (1%) transactions and use (sales) tax for six years, generating approximately $48 million annually, declining to one half cent for four years and then ending, requiring a citizens' advisory committee and independent audits, with all funds remaining in Long Beach?"

By approving the misleading title and burying four words -- "and maintain general services" -- deep in the text, the Mayor and Council show they think it's fine to try and trick voters by camouflaging the truth that Measure A doesn't mention any of the listed items and is actually a "general tax" that current and future Councils can spend on any general fund items they choose.

What does that tell you about this Mayor and this Council's civic values? About whether they should be "trusted"?

Wait, there's more.

CA has a law forbidding false or misleading ballot labels, but Sacramento's lawmakers wrote it in a way that forces a plaintiff/petitioner to file a legal action (likely cost: thousands of dollars) and then convince a judge that the verbiage is false or misleading by "clear and convincing" evidence, which is beyond the usual civil standard needed to prevail. A few years ago, a northern CA judge upheld verbiage like the verbiage LB copied and although that court action isn't binding here, LB's Mayor, Council and City Attorney likely figured no one would bring a legal challenge here. They figured right and got away with what they did. Their action showed the entire City that this Mayor and Council think it's fine to take an adversarial "us versus them" attitude toward LB taxpayers.

What does that tell you about this Mayor and this Council's civic values? About whether they should be "trusted"?

Wait, there's more.

California voters put Prop 13 and Prop 218 in the state constitution to ensure that government promises to use taxes for specific purposes can only be legally guaranteed if they're in writing in the tax measure itself and gain approval by a 2/3 vote of the people. These taxpayer protections -- in the state constitution that LB's Mayor and Council swore oaths to uphold -- didn't deter LB's Mayor and Council. They didn't list any specific items in the tax measure, sparing themselves the Prop 13/218 requirement and legally making their proposed tax a "blank check" general tax that they can impose with 50%+1 votes and then spend on any general fund items they wish.

What does that tell you about this Mayor and this Council's civic values? About whether they should be "trusted"?

Wait, there's more.

While doing an end-run around the taxpayer protections in Props 13 and 218, LB Council members offered seductive sounding but legally impotent measures that bind the City to nothing. The first, a Supernaw-Mungo production, would create a so-called "citizen advisory committee" with its members handpicked by the Mayor with no legal power to change his spending recommendations (as if they would) or change any Council spending actions. The second is a Council Resolution that the Council can disregard the day after the election and won't bind future Councils. It expresses the Council's "intent" [as of Feb. 23] to prioritize spending the sales tax revenue for "the costs of providing public safety services, consisting of: police patrol, response, investigation, apprehension and law enforcement, emergency 9-1-1 response, fire prevention and suppression services, paramedic services, and ambulance services" [and] the costs of improving and maintaining streets, sidewalks and alleys, improving and upgrading the City's water system for conservation, and improving and upgrading storm water storm drain systems."

To ensure these seductive items carry no legally binding guarantees, the Council Resolution also quietly includes the following verbiage (not widely cited by others):

The adoption of this Resolution shall not be construed, and it is not the City Council's intent, to convert the proposed TUT [sales transaction/use tax] into a "special tax", as that term is defined Article XIIIC §1 (d) of the California Constitution, California Government Code §§ 53721 and 53724, or any combination thereof. Although this Resolution expresses the intent of the current City Council to spend future TUT revenues for certain priorities, this Resolution is non-binding on any future or subsequently constituted City Council, and the TUT shall remain a "general tax" as that term is defined in Article XIIIC §1 (a) of the California Constitution, and as set forth in the proposed TUT ordinance.

What does that tell you about this Mayor and this Council's civic values? About whether they should be "trusted"?

Wait, there's more.

The Council's actions segued into a Mayor-led "echo chamber" campaign spreading the misleading message that Measure A is for police, fire and infrastructure. It's visible in multiple junk mail pieces funded mainly by LB's police and firefighter unions that are now preparing to negotiate new contracts with the City. For the record: the LB police union's leadership didn't testify in opposition to Council budget actions from Sept. 2009 to the present that inflicted the largest budgeted police staffing reductions on LB taxpayers in the City's history; LB's firefighter union bravely objected to reducing fire resources but now appears to have given up and simply hopes there won't be more. It's a double-blow to LB residents that the leaders of LB's public safety unions recently endorsed the re-election of Council incumbents who voted to approve or perpetuate damaging public safety budget actions, and would now be in charge of spending a sales tax hike that could leave most of those damaging actions in place.

Less than a year ago, Mayor Garcia delivered his now-infamous "body count" budget remarks at an Aug. 18, 2015 Council session, boasting that there'd been no increase in Long Beach murders from a year before. Of course the Mayor stressed that even one murder is one too many but said "from a murder point of view, we're still kind of facing a historic low number." We found the Mayor's words disturbing at the time and said so, especially since his boastful words came in the context of trying to justify his FY16 budget that didn't propose to restore a serious number of the roughly 20% LBPD's citywide deployable officers (including its former field anti-gang unit) that he had voted to erase as a Council member.

Less than a year later, LB murders and violent crime -- led by gang crimes -- are up by double-digit numbers. In response, Mayor Garcia has tried to blame Sacramento and liken LB's crime increases to other cities. But no other nearby cities thought it was smart to erase a double-digit percentage of their deployable police officers (while finding money for management raises and a new Civic Center) at the same time as Sacramento imposed its de facto inmate-releasing "realignment" and voters imposed Prop 47. Through all of this, LB's Mayor and Council have failed to take responsibility for their own visibly discredited actions on public safety.

What does this tell you about this Mayor and this Council's civic values? About whether they should be "trusted"?

On Wednesday morning: June 8, Long Beach will awaken to one of two futures:

• If Measure A passes, it will show that Long Beach politicians can trick enough low-information voters (50%+1 votes) with a tsunami of misleading statements, amplified by obscene levels of special interest money. It will reward the worst civic values and encourage similar behavior on countless other future issues.

• If Measure A is defeated, it will send the message that LB voters can't be duped, that six figure junk mailings and machine-style echo chamber tactics don't work here. A David vs. Goliath outcome will reward the best civic values. It will send a message that LB elected officials can no longer try to con their constituents and must make overdue reforms in the way LB City Hall does business.

So...in what type of Long Beach do you want to live?

LBREPORT.com strongly urges our readers to Vote NO on Measure A...and send a message that will bring a better Long Beach.

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.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement