Advertisement

THE LOS ANGELES BALLOT MEASURES

PROPOSITION 1: POLICE EXPANSION TAX WHAT IT WOULD DO

Levy a special property tax based on size of land and building. For first year, the maximum rate would be 32 cents for every 100 square feet of land and $2.36 for every 100 square feet of building. This would mean $32 for the owner of an 800-square-foot house on a 4,000-square-foot lot to $110 for a 3,000-square-foot house on a 12,000-square-foot lot.

After the first year, the City Council would adjust the tax rate to reflect changes in the cost of living and population.

Money from the tax increase would be used to fill up to 1,000 police positions at a rate of 200 a year for five years, along with financing equipment, expenses and civilian personnel needed to support them.

Advertisement

The additional positions could not be above the rank of detective or sergeant. And the new officers would have to be assigned to enforcement duties such as patrol and detective, narcotics and drug control work. ARGUMENTS FOR

A tax increase is needed, because the city does not have the money to hire enough officers to improve public safety.

This measure is fair, with owners of large commercial buildings paying proportionately more than homeowners and small building owners. All areas of the city will be guaranteed more police officers.

Supporters: Mayor Tom Bradley; Councilmen Marvin Braude, Joel Wachs and Zev Yaroslavsky; President Stephen Yslas of the Los Angeles Police Commission; George V. Aliano, president, Los Angeles Police Protective League; Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner; Alan Sobkin, president, Mid-Valley Police Citizens Council. ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Advertisement

Proposition 1 is a blank check, with the council having to increase the costs annually as the number of new officers increase. Landlords could pass on part of their tax increase to renters. Owners in affluent areas will pay the same tax as property owners in poor areas, if their parcels are the same size.

City has enough money to hire more police. The city could put 400 more officers on the street by paying cash for overtime worked, instead of compensatory time off. Increased use of one-officer cars would put 200 more patrol cars on the street.

Opponents: Councilmen Ernani Bernardi, Hal Bernson and John Ferraro; Paul E. Shay Jr., executive vice president, Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn.; Jane Nerpel, administrator, Taxpayers Watchdog Inc.; Samuel Sperling, president, Public Employes for Lower Taxes.

CHARTER AMENDMENT 2: INVESTMENT POLICY WHAT IT WOULD DO

Advertisement

Would allow increased real estate investments by City Employees Retirement System, Water and Power Employees System, and Fire and Police Pension Systems. ARGUMENTS FOR

Would enable city pension funds to diversify investments, as state, county and private funds do. Contains adequate safeguards.

Will increase investment returns.

Supporters: Councilwomen Peggy Stevenson and Pat Russell, council president; Rudolph D. Martinez, chairman, Real Estate Investment Advisory Panel; Walter F. Beran, vice chairman, Ernst & Whitney; Richard Volpert, partner, O’Melveny & Myers; Keith Comrie, city administrative officer; Gary Mattingly, general manager, Department of Pensions; David Bow Woo, president, Board of Pension Commissioners; George Aliano, president, Los Angeles Police Protective League; Andy Kuljis, president, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City. ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Advertisement

Would allow real estate speculation with city retirement funds. As much as $200 million could be invested in a single project.

Invites corruption by placing too much power and influence in the hands of a few.

Opponents: Councilmen Ernani Bernardi, Dave Cunningham, Arthur K. Snyder.


Advertisement