Charter Changes: Yes on 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Los Angeles voters will be asked April 9 to approve several city charter amendments that would streamline election procedures, increase the limits on misdemeanor fines and limit rail transit assessments. We recommend votes for Charter Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Charter Amendment 3 would revise signature-gathering procedures in campaigns to recall members of the Los Angeles school board and reduce the time needed to resolve a recall effort. Charter Amendment 4 would make similar changes in recall procedures for mayor, city attorney, controller and City Council members. These changes would protect citizens’ ability to recall elected officials with whom they were dissatisfied while ensuring, by eliminating obsolete or ambiguous provisions, that the procedures and timing remained fair. Charter Amendment 5 would eliminate outdated provisions from the rules governing initiative petitions seeking to require action by the City Council.

Charter Amendment 6 would allow the city, if it wished, to impose higher fines for misdemeanor violations of city ordinances. California law allows a fine of $1,000 for conviction of violating a municipal ordinance, a sentence of six months in jail, or both. The city Charter sets a limit of $500 or six months’ imprisonment or both. The amendment would raise penalties to the maximum permitted under state law. The language change and potentially higher fines would be useful in deterring such violations as toxic-waste dumping and substandard housing.

Charter Amendment 7 is designed to protect owners of residential property located near proposed stations of the planned Metro Rail subway from paying higher taxes. Current state law authorizes the Southern California Rapid Transit District to establish special tax-assessment districts around Metro Rail stations on the assumption that property near a subway stop would increase in value. But state law makes no distinction between commercial and residential properties, and, while it is a safe bet that owners of commercial properties near a subway station would gain access to many more customers, the same benefits would not exist for owners of residential property. There is no significant opposition to the amendment. It should be approved as another step toward clearing the way for Metro Rail.