As of Sunday May 1, there is no "infrastructure investment plan" or accompanying memo or Power Point slideshow attached to the agendized item. That level of transparency would let the public see the materials in advance (and prepare challenges that might spoil the show.)

However, we believe Mayor Garcia tipped his hand about what City Hall intends when he spoke at a Saturday March 5 public meeting (promoted and attended by Councilman Daryl Supernaw) at a Los Altos eatery. During that meeting, Garcia discussed City Hall's ballot measure that would raise LB's sales tax to 10% (currently 9% in Lakewood/Signal Hill and 8% in most OC cities) and let current and future Councils spend its revenue on any general fund items they wish. In pertinent part, Garcia told about fifty people (responding to an audience comment):

[Scroll down for further]

[Garcia]...This is general tax and so I think what you're saying is something that I hear by the way from a lot of folks, saying well, OK, a general tax is a 50%+1 tax. There's what's called a dedicated parcel type tax where you set the 2/3 number and you can use it for x, y, z and be [audibility difficult] very much focused. [Clearer] That was tried with a parcel tax and dramatically failed. We believe that this [general sales tax increase enabling passage with 50%+1 votes] has a strong chance of getting support. The concern, and I think the main concern for some residents is going to be, "well how do we know you're going to spend it on police and fire and infrastructure." I think it's a valid question, and I think it's the key question for folks that might be [inaudible]...

We're going to put forward in the next 30 days what we're calling a $100 million plan, or the first $100 million of infrastructure that we would basically spend on this measure, coming from the City Manager's office, that is dollars that are on our CIP book [Capital Improvement Project] that are the needs, so that we're accountable.

Thanks to Councilman Supernaw and others we've also added a Citizens Advisory Committee which will be a five member committee that will be monitoring the dollars throughout every single year. There's annual auditing by the City Auditor that will audit every single year...We're going to have a big conversation about it but I hope it's a fair one where we can ask questions and go back and forth...Not everyone is going to agree to support this, and that's fine, but I think people will have the choice if they want to make that long term investment and fix this place for future generations.

Our understanding is that once a city's legislative body (City Council) places a measure on the ballot, CA law forbids any CA city, through its electeds, management and/or staff from advocating the measure on taxpayer paid time or using taxpayer paid resources. Cities have only a narrow, limited exception [our paraphrase] in which they can use taxpayer resources to provide neutral, factual information about the pending city measure if it's presented in a neutral non-advocacy manner.

Based on what what Mayor Garcia said on March 5, we believe the May 3 scheduled Council "study session" will amount to de facto advocacy. It's little different in substance than a politician standing on a tree stump making promises with no legal obligation to keep them, except using a Power Point machine.

The study session would be factual IF the Council had specified the CIP [Capital Improvement Project] items, or other neighborhood infrastructure uses, in the tax measure itself. The Council could have done so and made those items a legal guarantee for taxpayers. In that case, the City could properly hold a study session to convey that fact to voters.

But the Council didn't do so and thus its infrastructure study session can't and won't be factual or neutral. The sales tax increase ballot measure doesn't specify any infrastructure items. The City clearly won't be presenting factual information by trotting out a CIP list of infrastructure items that the tax measure doesn't include and the City may never provide. Current and future Councils can make (and have made) endless excuses for promised items never delivered.

We expect the study session will amount to de facto advocacy, which in our view is very problematic since it will use taxpayer-paid city staff with Power Point slides, likely echoed thereafter on the city's website, social network feeds and cable TV channel, all calculated to hit about the time vote by mail ballots begin flying. That clearly won't be neutral.

What Mayor Garcia said on March 5 is even more damning. He mangled a few factoids but appeared to be saying that listing specific items in the tax [which would make them a legal guarantee] would require a 2/3 vote of the people to pass. That's 100% true...although he didn't mention why.

The 2/3 voter requirement is because the voters of California put Propositions 13 and 218 in CA's Constitution, requiring 2/3 approval when officials seek a tax increase by promising to provide specific items. If that principle is good enough for the CA Constitution, it ought to be good enough for elected officials to respect in the City of Long Beach.

Instead, LB's Mayor and Council show their disrespect for Prop 13 and Prop 218 by trying to get away with a 50%+1 blank check tax by inviting the public to draw the false inference that it will deliver specific items that it doesn't include and doesn't guarantee. The Council could have included and guaranteed those items but didn't do so, preferring to give itself a blank check.

A toothless "Citizens Advisory Committee," added by Councilmembers Supernaw and Mungo, in our view doesn't serve taxpayers and amplifies the disrespect since it offers a Mayor-chosen body with absolutely no legal power to change any Council spending decisions.

And a resolution expressing the Council's "intent" to prioritize spending for specific purposes includes self-collapsing text (which we quote below) demonstrating that the Council doesn't mean to legally guarantee any of it's supposedly intended items, specifically referring to Prop 13's taxpayer-protective standard:

The adoption of this Resolution shall not be construed, and it is not the City Council's intent, to convert the proposed TUT 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 XII1C §1(a) of the California Constitution, and as set forth in the proposed TUT ordinance. [Source: Resolution 16-0018, Paragraph 3.]

The entire city can see that LB's current Mayor and Council have taken an adversarial "us versus taxpayers" stance. We believe the Council demonstrated this in its Feb. 23 vote (8-0, Austin absent for entire meeting) approving a resolution that will show LB voters a misleading title and ballot label listing multiple items NOT listed, NOT mentioned and NOT guaranteed by the tax measure but adding four words -- "and maintain general services"-- to camouflage the fact that the Council's ballot measure is a blank check tax. See this yourself below (LBREPORT.com reported this in February.)

We believe LB's electeds are showing the City their real civic values, what they consider fair, truthful and honest in dealing with the public that gave them power. In our opinion, this should have consequences beyond the proposed sales tax increase.

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