Advertisement

3 L. A. Measures Deserve a Yes

Share

There are many lessons to be learned from the San Francisco-area earthquake last October. One is that Los Angeles’ many city-owned bridges and buildings simply could not withstand a major temblor.

Proposition G, on the June 5 ballot, would authorize the city of Los Angeles to issue $376 million in general obligation bonds to make seismic improvements to bridges and buildings. Public safety warrants the investment.

Approval could result in a $30 increase on tax bills for the average property owner. That additional expense is the price of peace of mind.

Advertisement

As many as 460 bridges--ranging from major overpasses to small pedestrian crossovers--may need strengthening, a much cheaper proposition than replacing a collapsed bridge.

Nearly 90 municipal buildings--including fire stations, recreation centers and City Hall--also risk serious damage during a quake.

Because no warning precedes a quake, the best time to prepare is today. Voters can ensure that not one life is lost because a municipal bridge or building topples during the next major earthquake. Proposition G merits a Yes vote.

Also on the June 5 ballot is Proposition I, a ballot measure guaranteeing equitable treatment to all the surviving spouses of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty. The city of Los Angeles has three different pension plans for its police officers and firefighters. Under the terms of two of those plans, the families of officers and firefighters killed while on duty must wait up to five years to receive cost-of-living adjustments to their pensions. Passage of Proposition I will ensure that the families of officers and firefighters who gave their lives for the public’s safety will get cost-of-living adjustments each year.

Similarly, Proposition J makes technical changes in the city charter that will allow municipal employees simply to maintain their current level of benefits by bringing Los Angeles’ pension plans into conformity with changes in the Internal Revenue Code. It is a matter of common sense and equity and, therefore, deserves support.

Advertisement