How Would Candidates Seeking To Become Councilmembers In Districts 2, 6 and 8 Vote On Property Tax Raising/Debt Bond For "Affordable Housing" And Homeless Facilities? Here Are Their Responses (And Some Non-Responses)
If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you, who would?
No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report.
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.
(Jan. 3, 2020, 12:40 p.m.) -- LBREPORT.com asked the candidates seeking to become Councilmembers in City Council districts 2, 6 and 8 (March 2020) how they would vote on whether to put on the November 2020 ballot a property tax raising debt bond that, if approved by 2/3 of LB voters, would increase LB property taxes by $100 per year per $400,000 of assessor-assessed property valuation. The funds would give LB City Hall [agendizers' text] nearly $300 million dollars that city officials, ultimately with LB City Council approval, would decide how to spend for [agendizers' text] "creation of affordable housing in Long Beach, with funds available for extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and workforce housing, crisis shelters and homeless services facilities, motel conversion programs, and other solutions to address the housing and homelessness crisis in Long Beach."
Agendized by Council incumbents Rex Richardson, Mary Zendejas and Dee Andrews, the Jan. 7 item (full text here) needs only two other Council supportive votes to ask the City Attorney to prepare election-related documents for a subsequent Council vote to put it on the ballot. On Jan. 7, Council incumbents Jeannine Pearce (district 2), Dee Andrews (district 6) and Al Austin (district 8) will (if present) vote on the item. Councilwoman Pearce has chosen not to seek re-election. Vice Mayor Andrews and Councilman Austin will face the challengers below.
At 10:50 a.m. on Jan. 2, LBREPORT.com emailed the challengers' campaigns (using their City Clerk-listed campaign email addresses (and in one case via Facebook message.) We didn't invite statements by the candidates but included them if they provided them. LBREPORT.com independently includes some of their salient supporters.
[Scroll down for further.]
Council district 2
Dr. Eduardo Lara [endorsed by 2nd dist. incumbent Jeannine Pearce and "Our Revolution Long Beach"]: Would vote Yes
I'd vote yes and applaud the City Council for taking this bold step to address our homelessness crisis. But make no mistake, this is only a first step and likely won't have immediate impacts since building housing takes times. Additional shelters, rapid rehousing programs, and systemic changes to how we address mental health and drug abuse are needed to fully deal with this crisis. My top priority as Councilmember will be to build on this critical first step and lead Long Beach out of this crisis.
Robert Fox [part of LB Reform Coalition's Reform Ticket] Would vote No.
I would vote no on such a bond. We keep asking Long Beach taxpayers to front more money all the time, yet we never seem to have enough. I believe instead of asking for more money we need to really look at where the money we have is going. When the $300,000.00 club doubles in 12 months, when the Mayor and City Council Members want raises, When our staff at City Hall increases exponentially, and the monies we have already received are not adequately accounted for, I do not believe another general tax to the general fund will do any good for the "cause" claimed. I recall for the past 4 taxes, they were all to restore our police department and fire department to proper levels and we have still not accomplished that. Instead, we have given raises for existing personnel, overtime without restrictions or restraint, and we still have a pension and retirement benefit program problem that no real solutions have been presented for. I do not believe another tax will solve any problems until we solve the problem of transparency, accountability, and honesty in government. The City refuses our Public Records Requests so they have themselves to blame when we distrust them. Ignoring the Freedom of Information Act has created this erosion of trust. Why would we give them more money when they will not disclose how the money is being spent already. ( And it would be interesting to see how each project they fund is invoiced. I wonder how one could spend 9.5 Million dollars on a snack shack on the beach without even doing the interiors.) No sir, I simply cannot support a new tax.
I do support prioritizing the budget to set aside 40 million for very very low income housing ( you know how they changed the definitions on us such that $85,000.00 is low income now in their languaging God forbid you figure out what moderate income is. ) After we set aside the money for housing as 1st priority in the budget then we can deal with the Police and the Fire Departments. This is all about making sound business decisions based upon facts, not spin.
Nigel Lifsey: Would vote Yes
We as a community must decide if we will allocate the proper financial resources to address the issues of housing affordability and homelessness in our city.
Candidates Cindy Allen, Ryan Lum and Jesus Cisneros didn't respond by 12:40 p.m. Jan. 3.
Sponsor
Sponsor
6th Council district
Dr. Suely Saro [endorsed by L.A. County Democratic Party, state Senator/former 1st dist. Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez and by Council incumbent Roberto Uranga]: Would vote Yes
Homelessness is the number #1 issue in the City of Long Beach and a priority issue for me. I think it's important that we at least explore this idea - so I would vote YES. But a YES vote is not an endorsement of the measure. Assuming it gets on the ballot, I will decide on my support or opposition after reading the measure and fully understanding its impact.
Craig Ursuy: Would vote No
The homeless crisis is a priority that we must solve, but we have approximately $32 million dedicated to this issue from the County and the State, including $12 million from Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP). If the City of Long Beach cannot come up with a solution for the homeless crisis with the $44 million, then how is an additional property tax and debt/bond going to solve our problem?
Sharifah Hardie: Would vote Yes
Josephine Villasenor: Would vote No
I too have been homeless and know what is it like to go with out food, without a shower but I was lucky to have a car to live in and I know how the shelters are. I can still feel the coldness of the concrete underneath me when I slept outside and had little with me to cover to keep warm. It is not a feeling or memory that will never be forgotten. I know that by throwing money at something will never solve the bigger problem with homelessness. I would vote No on this. The more that we keep on asking our Long Beach constituents for more money and more taxation on them we will be pushing people out of our Communities. I have come up with a 5 year set program for homelessness. This program will not tax nor ask the residents for money for we can work with Organizations and pursue grant money. I believe we are putting a band-aid on this issue with this bond suggestion. We need to really dig deep and pursue other options, connect with Organizations that help with the homeless, capture grant money and reach out to local businesses for job placements.
Sponsor
8th Council district
Tunua Thrash-Ntuk (endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party and Councilman Roberto Uranga.). Would vote Yes
Juan Ovalle [part of LB Reform Coalition's Reform Ticket] Would vote No.
The quick answer is "No," I am not in favor of the proposed bond.
The City of Long Beach is now so indebted with both bonds and pension liabilities that, despite our being one of the highest taxed cities in the nation, the State Auditor has classified our fiscal risk as being one of the highest in the state (in the highest risk 10% percentile out of 471 cities). I have lost faith in City Hall's ability to manage our money, and the way for that faith to be regained is to cut the special interest driven waste and abuse built into our budgets. The issues of homelessness and low-income housing affordability are urgent, but we already have the money. Pretending otherwise to further burden taxpayers is at the very root of our problems.
Considering how over-taxed we are, this tax measure (let's call it what it is) would not only hurt property owners, it would hurt middle and working class families, as well as local business. We already have some of the highest property and sales tax, and we have a per capita debt burden in the thousands.
The city needs to prove it can be fiscally responsible by living within its means before embarking on any new tax that places all of us in greater jeopardy of financial distress, risking for ourselves and our children eventual municipal insolvency and/or a drastic reduction in core services, including public safety.
No on this bond tax. Reform City Hall’s budgets first. That will solve most of our problems.
Sponsor
Sponsor
Additional background / Amnesia File
Background /Amnesia File
In July 2018, Councilman Richardson and a number of Councilmembers signaled their support -- just not immediately -- for a LB tax increase ballot measure (details not discussed) to provide more "affordable" (low income/subsidized) housing and/or homeless related programs. (LBREPORT.com coverage here.) As LBREPORT.com reported at the time:
[July 26, 2018 LBREPORT.com text] Mayor Robert Garcia, Councilman Rex Richardson and a number of Councilmembers have effectively signaled their support for a Long Beach tax increase of some currently unspecified type on some currently unspecified group of taxpayers to provide what they called a "dedicated local revenue source" -- not for the November 2018 LB ballot [when Garcia seeks voter approval for Charter Amendments] but at some at some future point [after Mayor Garcia says tax increase is supported by sufficient constituencies to mount a successful campaign.] The publicly stated purpose for the "dedicated local revenue source"/tax increase will be to enable more "affordable" (low income/subsidized) housing and provide more homeless-related services.
That was the outcome of two and a half hour Council discussion (including public testimony) on a July 24 item agendized by Councilmembers Richardson, Gonzalez, Austin and Andrews who sought management options -- initially for consideration at the next available Council meeting -- of an unspecified "dedicated local revenue source."
Not one Councilmember supportive of a "dedicated local funding source" publicly uttered the word "tax." (Lead-agendizer Richardson only acknowledged in a single reference that his proposal involved what he called the "t" word.)
Mayor Garcia went so far as to defensively claim that he and the Council aren't responsible for increasing LB taxes.
Mayor Garcia stated: "As a reminder, the City doesn't, we don't tax anybody. The taxes that pass the City are voted on by the voters, and so this Council doesn't go and increase someone's tax or do a parcel tax. That is only decided by voters in the city..." [Editor note: Garcia headed the political committee carrying his name that ran a roughly $600,000 campaign for the June 2016 Measure "blank check" sales tax increase, put on the ballot without dissent by the Council, that brought LB the highest sales tax rate in CA, tied with only a few other cities.]
At the same time as he absolved himself and the Council of responsibility for LB tax increases, Mayor Garcia stated: "Should this City look and work with the community a local source of to fund more affordable housing? The answer in my opinion is absolutely "yes."...[W]hen you put measures like this in front of a community, you have to bring everybody to the table. You don't pass things without some kind of community conversation that involves all the affected people that are going to be part of this type of campaign that would need to take place."
Garcia argued that some type of "dedicated local revenue source" is needed for affordable housing after Sacramento dissolved local Redevelopment Agencies statewide [that had allowed LB City Hall to divert property tax revenue to float debt that enabled City Hall-favored developers to buy "blighted" properties for projects in locations and types approved by City Hall.]
3rd dist. Councilwoman Suzie Price was the only Councilmember to speak the word "tax"...in citing reasons on the merits why she didn't support Richardson's proposal as agendized. Councilwoman Price said the item combined two complex, important but separate issues -- "affordable housing" and "homelessness" that deserved thoughtful but separate discussion. She added that in her view, the agenda item attached "homelessness" to make it sound more attractive politically...and said she couldn't imagine supporting, or her constituents supporting, a tax increase, as proposed in such preliminary form as was agendized.
Councilman Richardson defended his proposal, arguing it reflected previous Council discussions, including a 2017 Council meeting at which a city staff memo listed the option of a "bond" (debt bond) among measures to fund affordable housing. Richardson also insisted that "affordable housing" and "homelessness" are linked.
However, Richardson ultimately backed off proposing a measure for the November ballot, saying it would require a special July 31 Council meeting to hear city management's "revenue" options and select one in time for an August 7 Council vote to meet a deadline for the November 8 ballot. Richardson stopped short of opposing a November ballot measure; instead he invited (effectively dared) any of his Council colleagues to make such motion...and none did. That effectively deferred the tax increase discussion at that time.
Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really 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.
