Comments
LA WATCHDOG - My recommendations are influenced by my fiscal conservatism (hate deficits, debt, deferred maintenance, and unfunded pension liabilities) and my lack of trust in our elected officials, especially when it comes to budgets. They place their self-serving interests and those of the public sector unions ahead of what is best for Angelenos and Californians.
I have a bias against measures that are placed on the ballot at the last minute, that are too complex, and that lack transparency, public input, and adequate time to review and analyze the impact of such measures. This is the case with many measures, including the state’s two propositions to issue $20 billion of debt, the measure to increase the County’s sales tax by half a cent ($1.1 billion) to fund homeless services, and LAUSD’s measure to issue $9 billion in bonds. In these three situations, there are no detailed plans and no outreach, compounded by poor management and inefficient operations.
While there are no financial measures on the City ballot, Angelenos share of the $20 billion of bonds being proposed by the State (10%), our share of the $9 billion of school bonds (90%), and our share of the proposed half cent increase in the homeless sales tax (40%) amounts to $1.1 billion. This is the equivalent of a 1.1 cent increase in the City’s sales tax or a 13% increase in our property taxes. See Hold Onto Your wallets, It’s Ballot Season.
State Ballot Measures
Proposition 2. No. Authorizes the issuance of $10 billion in bonds for public schools and community colleges. The annual cost over the next thirty years is estimated to be in the range of $500 to $600 million. The State’s budget deficit is $68 billion. Red ink is anticipated over the next three years. The State already has too much debt (over $80 billion) and hundreds of billions in unfunded pension and other retirement liabilities. What happened to the $100 billion General Fund surplus that would have paid for the many facilities.
Proposition 3. Yes. Repeals Proposition 8 that was approved by the voters in 2008 that stated: “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Proposition 4. No. Authorizes $10 billion in bonds to invest in climate resilience. The annual cost is estimated to be $500-$600 million, higher than the State’s estimate of $400 million over the next 40 years. See Proposition 2 above. And talk about pork.
Proposition 5. No. Allows 55% of the voters to approve local infrastructure bond measures. Under Proposition 13, two-thirds of the voters are required to approve local bond measures. Do you trust City Hall? Do not amend Prop 13 that saves homeowners, renters, and employers billions every year.
Proposition 6. Yes. Involuntary Servitude for Prisoners. No opposition argument to this measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature.
Proposition 32. No. Minimum Wage. This is a matter for the Legislature, not the ballot box. It would raise the minimum wage to $18 in 2025. No analysis of the impact on state and local governments and the business community.
Proposition 33. No. Rent Control. This is the third effort by the Aids Healthcare Foundation (“AHF”) to repeal the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. If enacted, it would discourage investment in the construction of new housing units. And just imagine the rules and regulations the City Council would pass. This proposition is opposed by the California Apartment Association. Even the Los Angeles Times is a No on 33.
Proposition 34. No. Limits spending by healthcare providers, in particular AHF. While the California Apartment Association is out for revenge against AHF, this matter is better settled by regulators or the Legislature, not at the ballot box.
Proposition 35. Yes. Provides permanent funding for medical healthcare services. Prevents Governor Newsom from diverting these funds to the General Fund. No opposition argument. On the other hand, the funding of healthcare services is extremely complicated.
Proposition 36. Yes. Allows felony charges and increases sentencing for certain drug and theft crimes. Modifies Prop 47 that is essentially get-out-of-jail-free card. Sponsored by local district attorneys and selected large retailers that have been victims of smash and grab robberies.
County Ballot
District Attorney: Nathan Hochman. There is too much confusion surrounding George Cascon, the current DA, whether it is his leftist policies, his mismanagement of the office, or his poor relationships with other law enforcement and governmental entities. Hochman is an experienced prosecutor and good administrator.
Measure G. Yes. Reorganization of County government. Expands number of supervisors from five to nine, creates the office of County Executive, establishes an Ethics Commission, creates a County Legislative Analyst, and requires public budget meetings. While not perfect, reform has been discussed for eons without any reforms. Zev Yaroslavsky. a supervisor for 20 years, supports this measure, as discussed in detail in his book, Zev’s Los Angeles.
Measure A. No. The half cent, $1.1 billion increase in the County’s sales tax to fund homeless services. Increasing this sales tax is a reward for poor performance as outlined by the audit ordered by Federal District Court Judge David Carter and that of the State’s Legislative Analyst’s Office. Mayor Bass talks a good game but does not mention that individuals come in one door and out the other. And $600,000 to $800,000 for a unit of permanent supportive housing is not sustainable. In the meantime, the Homeless Industrial Complex can use the $500 million from the quarter of cent sales tax (Measure H passed in 2017) and come back to the voters in 2026 with a well thought out plan and a functioning organization.
Measure E. No. A parcel tax to raise $152 million for the County Fire Department to fund emergency services. This would supplement the County Fire Department’s $1.6 billion budget. The lack of transparency and outreach is shocking. These services should be funded from the County’s $46 billion budget. This measure does not impact the City of Los Angeles that has its own fire department.
City of Los Angeles
Five measures were placed on the ballot by the City Council as a result of the repercussions from the secret recording of a meeting involving three members of the City Council and a prominent labor leader that discussed increasing the representation of Latinos in the City government. The participants also made numerous inappropriate racial remarks.
While some of the ballot measures appear to be no brainers, there has been no outreach to the voters which is reason enough to vote no on the more complicated measure.
Measure DD. Yes. Establishes an independent redistricting commission for the City. While there are concerns regarding the selection of commissioners, it is better than the current situation where the City Council and the Mayor make the final decisions on the boundaries of each council district.
Shall the City Charter be amended to establish an independent redistricting commission to redraw Council district lines every ten years in the City of Los Angeles?
Measure HH. No. This measure will amend the City Charter to make various changes and clarifications regarding City governance, appointments, and elections. There has been no outreach by City Hall, leaving Angelenos in the dark as to the implications of this mishmash of proposals. Do you trust City Hall to do what is the best interest of Angelenos?
Shall the City Charter be amended to: require that commission appointees file financial disclosures before they can be confirmed; clarify the Controller’s auditing authority regarding City contractors; expand the City Attorney’s subpoena power; authorize temporary appointments to certain general manager positions; establish a process to evaluate the impacts of laws proposed by initiative petition; and make other changes and clarifications regarding City governance, appointments, and elections?
Measure II. No. This measure amends several sections of the City Charter to formalize various City administrative and operational practices. But again, there has been no outreach by City Hall, leaving Angelenos in the dark as to the implications of this mishmash of proposals. Do you trust City Hall to do what is the best interest of Angelenos?
Shall the City Charter be amended to: clarify that the El Pueblo Monument and the Zoo are park property; clarify that departments may sell merchandise to support City operations; include gender identity in non-discrimination rules applicable to employment by the City; clarify the Airport Commission’s authority to establish fees and regulations; and make other changes and clarifications related to City administration and operations?
Measure ER. Yes. While the City Council weakened the initial package of reforms, the proposed measure is better than what we have today.
Shall the City Charter be amended to establish a minimum annual budget for the City Ethics Commission; increase the Commission’s authority over spending decisions and hiring matters; allow the Commission to obtain outside counsel in limited circumstances; impose additional qualification requirements on Commission members; require the City Council to hold a public hearing on Commission proposals; and increase penalties for violations of City laws?
Measure FF. No. If approved, the City’s General Fund that is drowning in red ink will be required to make a one-time payment of approximately $23 million and annual payments of $1 million. Total one-time payments for all departments (City, Harbor, and Airport) is estimated to be $109.5 million with annual costs of $6.3 million. How can Mayor Karen Bass, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Councilmembers Krekorian, Blumenfield, Lee, and Park support this raid on the City’s depleted treasury? Even the Los Angeles Times is opposed.
Shall the City Charter be amended to: allow peace officers employed by the Police, Airport, Harbor, and Recreation and Parks Departments to transfer membership and service from the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System to the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan; and require the City to pay associated costs, including refunds to certain Airport and Police Department members for prior transfers?
Los Angeles Unified School District
Measure LL. Yes. Establish an independent redistricting commission for the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Shall the City Charter be amended to establish an independent redistricting commission to redraw Board of Education district lines every ten years in the Los Angeles Unified School District?
Measure US. No. Authorizes the issuance of $9 billion of bonds by LAUSD to improve facilities. This ballot measure was introduced at the last minute. There has been no outreach or meaningful financial analysis. The estimates of the annual cost stated by LAUSD are understated by at least $150 million. Property taxes will increase by 6%, not 2.5% as stated by LAUSD. There is no plan to downsize LAUSD’s facilities because of the continued lower enrollment.
Local Public Schools Safety and Upgrades Measure: To update school facilities for 21st century student learning and career/college preparedness; improve school facilities for safety, earthquakes and disability access; upgrade plumbing, electrical, HVAC; replace leaky roofs; provide learning technology; and create green outdoor classrooms/schoolyards; shall Los Angeles Unified School District's measure be adopted authorizing $9,000,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, levying approximately 2.5¢ per $100 of assessed valuation (generating $456,123,000 annually) until approximately 2059, with audits/citizens' oversight?
Los Angeles City Council
Council District 2. Adrin Nazarian. He understands his district and the City because of his experience working for the late Tom LaBonge, the king of constituent services, and Paul Krekorian, the former chair of the Budget and Finance Committee. He is also a respected member of the State Assembly.
Council District 10. Grace Yoo. She is a long-time advocate for ethics reform and has an excellent understanding of the needs of her district. She is conversant with the City’s budget and finances. Her opponent who was appointed is part of the Herb Wesson machine.
Council District 14. A toss-up. Your call. Isabel Jurado is a Democratic Socialist while Kevin de Leon participated in a secretly recording meeting where racial tinged remarks were made. Jurado way to the left of KDL.
Judges of the Superior Court
My recommendations are based on input from trustworthy and knowledgeable sources. Some of their opponents are supported by groups backing District Attorney George Gascon’s reelection campaign.
Office No. 39. Steve Napolitano
Office No. 48. Renee Rose
Office No. 97. Sharon Ransom
Office No. 135. Steven Mac
Office No. 137. Tracey Blount
Los Angeles Community College District
I am not familiar with the finances or affairs of the LACCD, an important institution that serves over 200,000 students and has a budget of more than $10 billion. It is supported by our tax dollars. It covers an area of over 880 square miles that includes not only the City of Los Angeles, but other incorporated cities, including Culver City, Montebello, and San Fernando.
I have no recommendations, although a friend recommended incumbent Nichelle Henderson for Seat 5. This friend will not vote for the other three incumbents, Hoffman (Seat 1), Vela (Seat 3), and Iino (Seat 7).
President
My concern is that both candidates are not addressing the federal deficit that is almost $2 trillion and the federal debt that is approaching $36 trillion, up from $4 billion in 2000. Debt service is crowding out basic services, including debt reduction. This is a disaster in the making, yet both candidates are pushing programs that will increase the deficit and debt.
(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. He can be reached at: [email protected].)
Reference Materials
LAist’s Voter Game Plan <https://laist.com/news/politics/voter-game-plan> was helpful.
State Voter Information Guide <https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf> was mailed to voters.
The County’s Official Sample Ballot was mailed to voters but is not accessible online.
City Voter Information Pamphlet <https://clkrep.lacity.org/election/2024_General_Municipal_VIP201.pdf> was not mailed to voters.
