Imagine if some thoughtful neighbors on your street organized a potluck, with everyone contributing a dish. How delightful, you think! But when you arrived at the party, it doesn’t seem so … delightful.
It seems that by participating in this potluck, you’re locked in to bringing food to future potlucks, indefinitely. The people from one house on the street were forced to bring 10 dishes, even though only two family members were attending the potluck. And only people from the left side of the street were allowed to eat.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly how Measure A, on the Nov. 8 ballot, would impact Los Angeles County. Measure A would levy a per-foot tax on residential and business structures to fund local parks. While it sounds promising, in reality it’s a tax levy that lasts forever and disproportionately impacts middle- and lower-income neighborhoods, which will pay for parks being built in upper-income neighborhoods
Few can argue against providing more local parks. And sometimes, these community services can be supported by parcel taxes, when those taxes are imposed fairly. But Measure A, though well-intentioned, is predicated on a formula that is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Voters should vote “no” on Measure A.
Proponents fail to make a convincing case that another tax levy is needed to fund parks, instead of better managing of existing funding.
News stories show that funding for parks doesn’t necessarily end up in completed parks. Despite $400 million in earmarked taxpayer funds from passage of 2006’s Proposition 84, less than half of the promised parks have been built; in Los Angeles, where one-third of the total park projects were slated, one-third are still incomplete.
So does Measure A contain safeguards to ensure greater accountability? No. While Measure A specifically says the “proceeds of the Special Tax” will be allocated by “grant programs,” there is only a vague description of what the programs should cover.
Measure A also vests the authority to award and administer grants to the director of the L.A. Regional Parks District. Given failures of the past, vesting this much power and this much new funding to a single administrator is too risky — especially since this year alone, existing county property taxes are expected to rise by more than $700 million, which could help fund parks.
Like potluck perpetuity, Measure A is essentially a “forever tax.” There are no provisions that the tax will end, while the amount increases annually — forever. For a year or two, the tax may seem a fair tradeoff for more parks fairly apportioned throughout the county. But do you want to be responsible for them for the rest of your life?
Measure A is inequitable. Ocean-side estates, tiny bungalows and your home would be taxed at the same rate, under a formula that doesn’t take into account how much a family can afford or make allowances for seniors or veterans. Small businesses, which are struggling to succeed in a recovering economy, would pay the same per-square-foot tax as West Los Angeles millionaires. Some wealthy residential communities without industrial facilities could end up contributing the least.
There is no guarantee the taxes paid by local communities will stay in those communities, or that any specific region will receive funds equal to what it pays. The measure’s funding formula shows that many cities will become “donor” cities, funding parks in more affluent areas across the county.
Happy, inclusive parks are a big part of a neighborhood’s character, with the added benefit of attracting skilled young workers to our communities. But good intentions don’t always lead to good policy.
Like that wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing potluck, Measure A should be rejected.
Tracy Hernandez is founding CEO of the Los Angeles County Business Federation (BizFed).
