Here's How Long Beach City Hall Gamed the System
In 2004, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wrote (in a publication on how to defeat local sales taxes):
“Local governments have been placing sales tax measures on the ballot in response to alleged “budgetary problems.” Such “budgetary problems” are often a result of wasteful or excessive spending by local government officials, including high pension costs and excessive personnel costs. Local governments also like to play budgetary shell games in which they place a sales tax measure on the ballot to fund a politically popular purpose, and if the tax passes, it would enable the local government to free up money from the general fund that can then be spent on the pet projects or programs of local politicians.”
Long Beach City Hall followed that playbook in the most recent election. It gamed the system, starting with the ballot text itself. Measures A and B both produce General Fund unrestricted revenue, but here’s the text the Long Beach City Council voted to show voters moments before voters mark their ballots “yes” or “no.”
On Measure A: “To maintain 9-1-1 emergency response services, police, fire, parks libraries, repair streets and support general services, shall...”
On Measure B: “To provide funding for student arts education programs, community arts, music, cultural programs and organizations, local museums and theaters, and the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center and maintain other general fund programs, shall...”
Courts have let city halls elsewhere attach terms like “general services” and “general fund programs” to a string of desirable items and that’s what Long Beach Councilmembers chose to do.
The council also adopted non-binding resolutions reciting its present “intent” to use the tax revenue as described but these aren’t legally binding now or on future councils (and the taxes will likely continue after the incumbents move on.).
In 2020 as in 2016, Long Beach’s police and firefighter unions were the two largest contributors to the campaign for the Measure A sales tax. As of Feb. 24, 2020, the Long Beach police officer’s union had contributed $230,000 and the LB firefighters union had spent $132,200 in support of Measure A. The 2016 Measure A sales tax is required by its terms to drop in half in 2023 and expire in 2027 and in 2020, the police and firefighter unions mean to ensure that it never drops or expires by its terms.
The unions grasp the fiscal truism that an infusion of additional General Fund tax revenue effectively frees up other General Fund sums that the mayor and council could use for pay raises in police and firefighter contracts. Those contracts are ultimately subject to approval by council members whose re-election or advancement to higher office the politically active unions can support or oppose.
Regarding Measure B, at least three Long Beach arts-related groups (that might receive part of the revenue if the council keeps its art-related words) contributed sums to support its passage: the Camerata Singers of Long Beach ($5,000), International City Theater ($4,000) and Musical Theater West ($9,990.) And “ASM Global and its Affiliates” of Conshohocken, Penna., the city’s contracted operator for the LB Convention & Entertainment Center, gave the pro-Measure A & B campaign $85,000.
As of mid-February, Mayor Garcia’s pro-Measure A and B PAC had amassed over half a million dollars that it tapped to send mailers citywide. The mailers told recipients Measure A would maintain [not increase] continued police and firefighter services, re-open [a smaller version of LB’s former] Community Hospital [for which the Council has already committed to spend up to $25 million over 15 years in seismic work] and (in one mailer that generated social network pushback) help homeless persons.
The city sent at least one taxpayer-paid mailer. It recited that it contained factual information and didn’t advocate a “yes” or “no” vote on the tax measures although that’s a matter of opinion. In 2016, the city did much the same thing on the initial version of Measure A, prompting former Long Beach Councilwoman (and present-day attorney) Gerrie Schipske to file a complaint with Sacramento’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The agency’s staff declined to pursue the matter.
There were no opposition mailers. Individual taxpayers waged a lonely bare-bones effort against the tax measures that relied mainly on social network comments, lawn signs and hand distributed fliers. ELB (Plaza area) resident Corliss Lee, president of the Eastside Voice, stepped forward to write the 200-word ballot argument in opposition.
Will City Hall’s election gamesmanship prevail or fail? Ultimately LB voters will decide on Measures A & B.
Bill Pearl publishes LBREPORT.com, now in its 20th year online.
SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM. CLICK HERE TO DONATE.
Category:
Featured Video
Beachcomber
Copyright 2024 Beeler & Associates.
All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced or transmitted – by any means – without publisher's written permission.
Comments
What would be your solution as to how our city can fix major funding challenges in these areas with existing general funds, without bankrupting the city in the process?
Corliss, Rae
There is a council meeting March 10th at 5:00 Pm.
We need someone to lead a charge on the council chamber en mass to protest the way the council and mayor are distorting the facts of A and B and prop 13.
There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of all of us to let them know enough is enough.
There needs to be people lined out the door to get in.
We need to let all the people in the other districts that we are all negatively impacted by their malfeasance.
The only problem is the way the forum is set up for people to be able to speak.
They purposely made it harder in a way that they can edit topics to be spoken about.
need your thoughts.
Try to put the word out on Next Door.
If we are more public other people in other districts might be more open to question the council and the mayor at the ballot box.
Im voting no on both measures, I live near MTB library and MacArthur park, and I have seen no contributions to any sort of improvements. The play park is the same as it was, and the field that they supposedly closed down for a couple of months went untouched. Suddenly the gates were put down and no real improvements were made. And $750,000 for a public restroom at MacArthur park??
All for what?
Community Benefits:
Provide private restroom amenities for the community
Improve safety features
Encourage outdoor public recreation
As if we need more public restrooms for the homeless to use their drugs in. They already sleep outside of the MTB building every day, and there are car break-ins almost every single night, as if the city would even would want to invest in an insecure area. with so much vandalism. Yet, you want us to believe that $750,000 was funded into a singular bathroom? Come on. And I don't see any recreation besides the public community that already exists in the building with current participants.
And when you compare the funding for a BATHROOM vs the actual park?
56,000 for all of this
Community Benefits:
Improve infrastructure quality
Increase operational efficiency and useful life of building
Seriously this city is corrupt, please vote progressive and do your homework on who you are voting for! I'm done living in squalor for hard work when these people are disguised as caring people who tip their greedy fingers into our pockets when we turn away.
I'd like to know where the funds came from to erect the huge "LONGBEACH" letters at the end of the 710 fwy?? Was that really necessary? Does anyone know how much it cost? Who is paying to have it illuminated at night? So wasteful...
Add new comment