By Bill Bauercan be reached at
Proposition V, the “Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Act” will cost us all a lot of money, that is if voters approve it on Nov. 7.
“V” covers almost anything that might mitigate water runoff. Traffic islands, curb extensions, park land, narrow streets and City Hall fountains all qualify under the city’s Watershed Management Plan (WMP). It’s a blank check to spend, spend, spend under the guise of a cleaner ocean.
If only that were true. Well-meaning “greens,” city bureaucrats and politicians know we want clean oceans, that’s why they’re huckstering this black-hole money pit.
It sets a base tax rate of $84 for each single-family dwelling. Multi-family and commercial units will be taxed more using a water runoff formula. There’s an annual cost-of-living increase. Operation and maintenance costs will push payments higher.
Single-family homeowners should expect to pay $50 per month, not the initial $7 supporters claim. Others could pay up to $74 per month. Who knows who much it’ll cost renters. With no “sunset clause,” this tax will never expire.
Controlling stormwater runoff is a basic service the city should provide with its $430-million budget. While City Hall spends hundreds of millions of dollars for non-essentials such as real estate (including buying the Sears property a few months ago) and millions more on social services and affordable housing for nonresidents, they want you to pay for Brentwood’s and Pacific Palisades’ water runoff.
The vast majority of runoff flowing into Santa Monica Bay comes from outside the city. Most of the city’s storm drains and conveyances are already “owned” by Los Angeles. So why are we being asked to pony up, and for what?
Even if this were a good idea, watershed management costs should be covered by state and federal Community Redevelopment Funds, but our politicians would rather squander that money on real estate, endless affordable housing projects and other pet pork.
Mark Gold, the executive director of Heal the Bay and chair of the Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment, said (April 17, 2006 SMTFE minutes), “Recommendations in the WMP, especially those with significant costs, should be accompanied by more cost-competitive alternatives.”
Maybe Gold is talking about purchasing the new “vacuum cleaner” street sweepers that suck up and contain pollution before it mixes with stormwater. But why spend, say, a half-million bucks for two sweepers when we can spend tens of millions of dollars on pie-in-the-sky pork and still not have a swimmable ocean?
For example, the WMP (table 4.2) recommends spending $67,699,000 for additional land acquisitions — twice the park area required for runoff absorption.The plan (page 3.1) also suggests throwing away $30 million dollars by replacing the entire stormwater system, even though there’s been virtually no street flooding during heavy storms and system performance has been very good.
Gold also said Santa Monica’s WMP “needs increased technical rigor.” The WMP has no goals or standards. There are no statistics, not even rainfall figures. There’s no science. There are no quantifiable benefits. There isn’t even a list of specific projects.
Proposition V would pay for only part of the plan. The plan states (Page 5.2) that additional surcharges on water and trash utility bills are absolutely necessary for immediate urban runoff program-related needs. These are estimated to total $50 per month per single family parcel, and more for multi-family and commercial buildings. Unspecified annual fee increases will be automatically implemented because they’re already “approved” if “V” is approved.
Craig Perkins, the city’s Director of Environmental and Public Works Management, is campaigning for voter approval. Solid waste management (garbage) and sewer operation under his jurisdiction have recently been criticized for inefficiency and poor management.
In two years, trash and water rates have increased 17 percent. Yet, it’s Perkins, by managing this flawed and incomplete plan (if it passes), who’ll expand his empire and receive a financial windfall for his inefficient, overextended operation. Maybe that’s why he’s lobbying so hard for the measure. Another cheerleader, Councilman Richard Bloom, promises Santa Monica and Los Angeles will “work closely together on water pollution, drinking water supplies and flood control.” Huh? Nothing in “V” indicates cooperating with another entity.
If you want to really protect the environment (and your wallet) from the sticky fingers of clueless city bureaucrats and well-meaning “enviros,” vote for the State Proposition 84 water quality bond, instead.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 9, 2006. Read the original PDF.