The measure carried in LB's other two eastside Council districts (3 and 4) but at levels lower than the citywide passage rate.

[Scroll down for further.]

The measure carried by barely 51.9% in the 3rd district with roughly a third of its precincts voting it down. The sales tax hike carried by 58.4% in the 4th district overall but failed passage in most of the Los Altos precincts generally considered strongholds for incumbent Daryl Supernaw.

Ballots cast in LB's 1st (Gonzalez), 6th (Andrews) and 9th (Richardson) Council districts approved "Measure A" by more than 70% margins. In one 1st district precinct (polling place at 1133 Atlantic Ave.), Measure A received 82.2% "yes" votes.

The net result: Measure A carried by a roughly 60% to 40% margin citywide.

Graphic source: Adouki & Associates

Advertisement

Advertisement

Measure A failed passage in 26 of the 30 precincts comprising LB's 5th district, where Councilwoman Stacy Mungo will face voters in less than two years if she seeks a second term. Mungo and Supernaw both joined in Council actions that put Measure A on the ballot as a general sales tax increase (which the Council can spend for any general fund purposes) after the pair advanced what they called a "citizens' advisory committee" (five individuals to be chosen by the Mayor who won't have power to make changes to any Mayor recommended or Council approved spending.)

Neither Mungo nor Supernaw, nor any other Council incumbent, moved to proceed under the process spelled out in Propositions 13/218 that would have guaranteed funding for taxpayers in specific areas by listing them in the tax measure itself with passage required by a 2/3 vote of the people.

Measure A didn't come close to meeting the Prop 13/218 standard citywide despite a $600,000+ campaign with major funding by LB's police and firefighter union PACs ($250,000 from LBPOA's PAC.)

LB's police/firefighter unions PACs spent roughly $20,000 combined for a professionally conducted voter survey which indicated LB voters would approve a sales tax increase if they were told it would fund police, fire and infrastructure. The $600,000+ campaign reiterated the police/fire/infrastructure message in multiple mailers, amplifying City Hall's actions which approved a ballot title and text (approved by the City Attorney's office, put on the ballot with voted Council approval [8-0, Austin absent]) which showed voters the following verbiage as they marked their ballots for the general sales tax increase:

[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?"

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Adouki and Associates release text stated in part:

[T]he results from the June 7th election show a quite durable skepticism on the part of Long Beach voters, deep and widespread, and representing a majority on much of the city's east side. Despite the fact that grassroots opposition to Measure "A" was outspent by nearly 300 to one, or more than two orders of magnitude (with the no campaign focusing its limited resources on online social network advertising and word-of-mouth community outreach), over 40% of Long Beach voters resisted the hailstorm of propaganda raining down on them from the downtown political machine...

Understandably, most voters, having limited time, are vulnerable to the influence of false and misleading mailers, such as the following real example:

Measure A campaign mailer, reproduced for comment by Adouki & Associates

The above real mailer from the yes on Measure "A" campaign clearly implied that with passage of Measure "A" the city will add on the order of 200 new sworn officers, making up for those positions lost during recession era cutbacks. That was as close to a boldface lie as the mayor could have come without crossing the line of outright deceit. It was, at the very least, extraordinarily disingenuous and flagrantly misleading.

...The biggest beneficiary [of the Measure A sales tax increase] will be the mayor himself and incumbent council members up for reelection in two years. They did not want to face the prospect of running for reelection under the cloud of multi-year budget shortfalls (and attendant cuts to core services), which before Measure "A" were projected to be at least $7.5 million annually starting in fiscal year 2017. They may not have been responsible for all the bad decisions which led to this fiscal situation, but they both lacked the courage to tackle the problems in a manner fair to low and middle income Long Beach taxpayers and to be honest about Measure "A" being as much about solving politically treacherous impending deficits as it is anything else, far more than truly necessary infrastructure projects or expanding public safety.

...And, of course, not a word was printed or spoken about the particular form of taxation chosen, that as a tax on most basic goods and necessities, it burdens lower income residents the most through regressivity. That is a fact perhaps easier to dismiss at low levels, but when taking Long Beach to nearly the highest level of sales tax in the nation, the social justice aspect cannot be ignored -- except, of course, by hypocritical self-described 'progressives' like Mayor Garcia (not that Mayor Garcia has always been a self-described 'progressive'). The fact is, as the mayor is surely and keenly aware (as a former campaign manager and lifelong politico), low income residents are the lowest propensity voters among all income groups, and they obviously play virtually zero role in the funding of political campaigns. In other words, to most politicians they are invisible and dispensable.

And the result will be a quick, if ephemeral, infusion of cash to City Hall coffers and the pie will be big enough to pay back those who funded Measure "A" and have enough left over to build the one piece of infrastructure you can count on – the bridge over troubled fiscal waters that will get the mayor to a second term of office.

Adouki & Associates served as pro bono consultant to the grassroots and only registered campaign opposing Measure "A" for the June 7th election. We have made it our mission to serve honest aspirants to local office and genuine grassroots community efforts for over a decade. We will continue to support those efforts wherever and whenever possible and to blow the whistle on corrupt politics and practices in local government.

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