Editor’s note: Breaking views are thoughts from individual members of the editorial board on today’s headlines.
How much does it cost to persuade voters to approve a tax increase?
L.A. County has already committed $9 million of tax money, with another $2 million on the way, to fund a campaign that includes online ads linking to a county website – safecleanwaterla.org – promoting the tax increase proposal.
And on Tuesday, July 17, the Board of Supervisors is planning to put on a little show at its meeting. Supervisor Sheila Kuehl told the editorial board of this newspaper that there will be “a lot of people in blue t-shirts.”
They’ll be there because the supervisors reached out to activists and asked them to come and show support for the proposed tax increase, which will fund programs and infrastructure related to stormwater capture and clean-up.
In fact, the vote on the proposal was postponed by a week, Kuehl said, to better align with the activists’ schedules.
About 400 activists are expected, according to another news organization that spoke with Kuehl.
The activists’ buses and t-shirts have probably been paid for, indirectly, by your tax dollars. The county previously awarded a $9 million contract for “stakeholder engagement” and “public education outreach” to a political consultancy firm called Conservation and Natural Resources Group, LLC. According to its website, the firm provides “a range of customized service” in the field of government affairs, including “public funding for projects and programs,” “campaign strategy and management,” and “ballot initiatives.”
The agenda for Tuesday’s meeting (on page 3, if you’re looking it up) says the supervisors are planning to vote on whether to authorize a $2 million increase to CNRG’s existing contract, bringing the total contract amount to $11.2 million.
“Stakeholder engagement” and “public education outreach” are terms synonymous with “political campaign.” And that’s what we’re going to be funding with our tax dollars – a campaign to pass the measure that Tuesday’s vote would place on the November ballot.
It’s not legal to spend public money on a political campaign to pass a ballot measure.
“It’s education,” Kuehl told the editorial board.
It’s propaganda. When 400 people in identical t-shirts show up at the invitation of politicians to rally for the politicians’ proposed tax increase, a photo or video clip of the event may appear to show a spontaneous outpouring of support.
In fact, it’s an organized, publicly funded campaign to pass a new tax on property owners.
Tuesday’s proposal would place a new tax of 2.5 cents per square foot of “impermeable” surface on every parcel of private property in Los Angeles County. That’s a tax on driveways, patios, parking lots, buildings – any surface that fails to allow rainwater to percolate into the ground.
The tax increase will hit businesses, like supermarkets, gas stations and retailers, raising their costs and pushing up prices. It will hit homeowners and apartment building owners, raising the cost of living for everyone who lives or works in the region.
The county has already decided how much each property owner will pay for the new “parcel impermeability tax.” There’s even a county website where you can see how much they’re going to bill you, or the owner of any other address you type in: http://egisgcx.isd.lacounty. gov/bos/m/?viewer= SafeCleanWaterLA
The tax would raise $300 million a year that the L.A. County Flood Control District will spread around to cities and regional watershed areas, with $30 million per year reserved for programs like “drought education” and workforce training.
County officials insist that they must meet the demands of regional water board regulators for stormwater cleanup, and they must have this tax to do it. But the tax would raise less than a third of what compliance with the regulations is estimated to cost – $20 billion over 20 years for L.A. County and the cities within it. This tax won’t solve that problem. It’s likely to be just the first bite at the taxpayers’ apple.
But it may not be needed at all. Serious questions have been raised about the regulations that have been imposed on L.A. County, which are far more stringent than the requirements other regional water boards have placed on local jurisdictions.
In March, the California State Auditor issued a report that called into question whether the water boards’ requirements are “necessary and appropriate.” Its key finding: “The regional boards have not adequately considered the overall costs that local jurisdictions would incur to implement pollution control requirements they impose.”
If county officials were representing their constituents, instead of shaking down their constituents to fund pork-barrel projects, they would have read the auditor’s report – it’s online here: http://auditor.ca.gov/reports/ 2017-118/index.html – and demanded to know why the regional water board has imposed these unaffordable requirements on Los Angeles County.
Instead, they’re using the water board’s requirements as an excuse to invent a new property tax on “impermeable” surfaces.
The occasional droughts that are part of California’s natural climate cycle provide a stage on which to produce a propaganda show, an extravaganza starring a new property tax, higher water rates, boondoggle infrastructure projects and more public debt (Water bonds! Now appearing! On every ballot!)
The show is so flashy, and so well-funded with tax dollars, that it completely drowns out discussion of the real source of California’s water problems: the intentional decisions to allocate water in a way that withholds it from farms and Southern California cities and instead flushes it out to the Pacific Ocean in the name of protecting fish.
Everything’s in place for the Board of Supervisors to vote for the parcel tax proposal at their meeting Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. Watch for the background actors in blue t-shirts. Sheila Kuehl might win an Emmy for best costume design.
__________
If you go:
Tuesday, July 17, 20189:30 a.m.Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration500 W. Temple StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
If you’d like to call:
Hilda L. SolisFirst District213-974-4111
Mark Ridley-ThomasSecond District213-974-2222
Sheila KuehlThird District213-974-3333
Janice HahnFourth District213-974-4444
Kathryn BargerFifth District213-974-5555
Susan Shelley is an editorial writer for the Southern California News Group. Susan@SusanShelley.com. Twitter: @Susan_Shelley
