WHAT’S THE POINT?
Well, it’s that time of year again. Elections are now just two weeks away and there are two very important propositions that the City Council has placed on the ballot — Propositions V and W. I strongly urge everyone to vote no on both.
These two propositions are the latest examples of the City Council trying to stick their hands in everyone else’s pockets.
Proposition V is a revenue enhancement proposition, that’s code for a tax increase. Prop V deals with storm water runoff, and the budget for the new city Civic Center. This proposition is being promoted as merely a $7-per month tax on single-family homes, with varying rates for multifamily and commercial interests. Hidden within the proposition language is the real cost for homeowners — about $50 per month to start. Like all public taxes, this one will go up.
There are two main problems with this proposition. First is that it is being misrepresented as only $7 per month. Secondly, the proposition itself is very unclear to what it might be used for, and is in essence, writing a blank check. The city can use the funds however they want.
This proposition is one more example of the way in which our city government views it should be responsible for an entire region’s problem. The damaging effects of stormwa-ter runoff are not in dispute. The question of who should be responsible for cleaning up that mess is in dispute. While I applaud the City Council for taking a proactive approach to fixing situations, they are suffering from abused spouse syndrome and trying to take on all the responsibilities and making property owners foot the bill.
It would be more appropriate for our council to begin negotiations with the surrounding governmental bodies, particularly the globetrotting mayor of Los Angeles, and City Councilman Bill Rosendahl to achieve some sort of greater buy-in on what is really a regional problem. I understand that Santa Monica’s fortunes are closely tied with the health of the bay, and yes, we certainly use it more than the politicos downtown, but that doesn’t mean we need to pick up the tab for everyone.
Proposition W — “The Good Government Act 2006”is a prime example of how politicians use misleading names to trick the voters and line their pockets. In 2006, the voters passed Proposition LL, the local anti-corruption act. Prop LL strictly limited gifts and employment opportunities for current council members.
“The current anti-corruption law bars politicians from taking campaign contributions, gifts over $50 or employment from any person or company that the city awards a contract, a special tax break or other public benefit to,” says Carmen Balber of Election Watchdog Currently, council members are barred for two years after leaving office, or six years after a vote, which benefits the future employer, from accepting employment from a company that has benefited from a city contract. The city council has spent over $400,000 in attorneys fees and untold administrative powers attempting to fight and overturn Proposition LL. They have consistently lost in the courts.
Proposition W is the latest, and hopefully final, attempt by the council to bring back fat-cat politics, the revolving door of government service and private contractor employment. In a city that prides itself on doing the right thing, even to the extreme of limiting where people can smoke a legal cigarette, it is strikingly bad public relations that the council wants to relax the ethics laws of our fair burg.
The coincidence of this pair of propositions is curious, but perhaps, if these two propositions pass, this is why the city council is so willing to soak the property owners with new taxes. After all, the members would only have to take a “consulting job” with a city contractor and their taxes would be paid.
Both of these propositions are bad laws. They are badly written, badly explained to the public and they send a terrible message about what we can expect from our politicians. I’m appalled that this city council is spending time and money on this topic, when the public has so clearly spoken. We don’t need a new proposition to give us ‘Good Government’, we need politicians who are less concerned with feathering their nests, and more concerned with keeping us under budget.
The simple fact is that laws do not keep people ethical, they don’t prevent corruption, they just change the manner in which it is delivered. People who are incorruptible have no need for laws that allows, or prevents, them from taking advantage of their position. Proposition W is unnecessary, and it clearly is not what the public asked for six years ago, when we resoundingly passed anti-corruption legislation then.
The honest public servant will have no need for such laws, and the dishonest one will not respect any law that is written.
David Pisarra is a business development lawyer for the Santa Monica firm Pisarra & Grist. He
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 24, 2006. Read the original PDF.