Four Councilmembers Agendize Report From City Mgr/Police Chief On "Gun Violence" And "What Add'l Resources Needed"...Three Weeks Before Election Day On City Hall-Sought Sales Tax Hike

LBReport.com

News

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 15, 2016) -- While vote by mail ballots are flying and three weeks before election day on a City Hall-sought sales tax increase to 10% (while currently 9% in Signal Hill/Lakewood and 8% in most OC cities) for any City Council desired general fund items (Measure A), Councilman Al Austin, joined by Councilmembers Lena Gonzalez, Roberto Uranga and Rex Richardson, have agendized an item for the May 18 City Council agenda seeking a report from the City Manager and Police Chief [agendizing memo text] "on gun violence in Long Beach within the past year, including what steps are being taken to address the violence and what additional resources are needed to assist with those efforts.gun violence and steps being taken to address the violence."

[Scroll down for further.]

[Austin/Gonzalez/Uranga/Richardson agendizing memo text] While crime remains among the lowest rates in the past 40 years in Long Beach, the City has seen an increase in violent crime over the past year and a half.
Any shooting in the City is one too many for the families and neighborhoods impacted.
During the past few years, Long Beach has utilized multiple approaches to combat violence in our neighborhoods, including funding for a prohibited possessors task force and additional use of cameras in high-crime areas.
In 2016, the City will be conducting two police academies in a year for the first time since before the start of the recession in 2008 necessitated significant reductions to our police staffing.
We would like to request a report from the City Manager and Police Chief on the recent increase in violent crimes, what steps are being taken currently to address the increase, and what additional measures the Police Department could take if additional funding were made available.

No other materials accompanying the item are currently online for public or press review prior to the Council meeting.

Two weeks earlier (May 4), city management agendized an item that presented a list and map of infrastructure projects which it indicated could be funded if additional revenue materialized. Once again no details were available for public or press review prior to the Council meeting...although a number of individuals (including reps from the LB Public Library Foundation and the LB Area Group of the Sierra Club) were already seated in the audience and came to the speakers podium to testify in support of management's plan...without uttering the words "sales tax increase" or Measure A (likewise avoided by city management and Councilmembers.)

Unions representing LB's police and firefighters, currently preparing to negotiate new contracts with the City, are the major financial contributors to Measure A ($100,000 from LB police officers union, $50,000+ from LB Firefighters union.) The LBPOA didn't testify in opposition to Council budget actions from Sept. 2009 to the present that erased roughly 200 sworn officers (including eliminating LBPD's former field anti-gang unit). The LBPOA PAC went on to endorse and provide campaign contributions to Councilmembers who either voted for the budget actions or subsequently failed to restore eliminated officers for taxpayers.

The LB Firefighters Association opposed a city management paramedic deployment system (implemented when faced with Council budget reductions; halted by L.A. County alleging patient safety issues) and opposed fire service reductions as they occurred. Leaders of both unions have routinely declined LBREPORT.com's request to release recordings of their candidate endorsement interviews.

On February 23, 2016, the Council voted (8-0, Austin absent for entire meeting) to show LB voters a ballot title and label that highlights potential police, fire and infrastructure uses but adds four words -- "and maintain general services"-- which effectively acknowledges that the ballot measure would let current and future Councils spend the tax for any general fund items. (Council resolution below shows key words highlighted in red, below.)

In putting Measure A on the ballot, the Council approved a non-binding resolution expressing the Council's "intent" to prioritize spending for purposes including public safety and infrastructure but also includes the following verbiage:

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 з1(d) of the California Constitution, California Government Code зз 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 з1(a) of the California Constitution, and as set forth in the proposed TUT ordinance. [Source: LB City Council Resolution 16-0018, Paragraph 3.]