On the phone tax

Los Angeles voters did the right thing Tuesday in approving the city’s cellphone tax. Without it, the city would have faced gaping shortfalls in an already difficult budget year; with it, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council will still have trouble making ends meet, but at least they won’t start that much deeper in the hole. So we applaud the voters and join the mayor in a sigh of relief. But there’s another lesson in Southern California’s consideration of this tax: Los Angeles leaders are needlessly trying the patience of the electorate -- a case made by the experiences of Los Angeles and Pasadena on the same issue.

In Los Angeles, Proposition S was presented to voters as a tax cut. True, it technically reduces the tax on telephone usage from 10% to 9%, but it also broadens the tax to cover all calls regardless of the technology used, so many people won’t save any money that they’ll notice, and some will pay a tad more. The nominal cut was included so the measure could be described on the ballot as a “reduction of tax rate and modernization.” That did the trick: 66% of city residents who made it to the polls voted in favor of Proposition S, some no doubt driven by the pleadings of Police Chief William J. Bratton, a popular leader who warned of dire public safety consequences should it fail (funny that services would have to be cut if a tax “reduction” measure didn’t pass). For those interested only in winning, that’s all that needs to be said. Voters were misled and frightened, but for a good cause, and now the city is whole again.

Pasadena’s experience suggests that fear and misdirection are not the only way to voters’ sympathies. There, the ballot described the nearly identical Measure D as a “utility users tax continuation.” And those voters, a more conservative lot than the typical Los Angeles electorate, supported their measure as well, with 58% agreeing to tax themselves for the good of their city. Granted, that’s a bit short of Los Angeles’ mark, but a solid showing. The result: two cities, two victories.

Where Pasadena’s approach wins out, though, is in the next election -- and the next. City leaders can return to voters with the confidence that they have treated them honestly. They can ask for more money with the reasonable expectation that voters will trust their word. We supported Proposition S, doing our best to outline the actual changes it proposed, and its passage will help the city through a tough period. But each time our leaders choose to mislead, they forfeit some measure of the goodwill that residents extend to them. Eventually, that support runs out, as the proponents of Proposition 93, the state term-limits measure, found out this week (see above).