Success of Police Tax May Hinge on Valley : Public safety: Voters will be hard to sell on measures to hire 1,000 officers and upgrade the communications system, analysts say.

San Fernando Valley residents will make, or more likely break, two upcoming campaigns to get city voters to pay for 1,000 more police officers and an overhaul of the emergency communications system, political analysts, city officials and area activists say.

They cite three major reasons why Valley residents, choosing between increased police protection or higher taxes, will be a hard sell for supporters of the two measures:

* Population: At least 40% of the city’s voters in any given election live in the Valley. As such, if the historically pro-police Valley residents don’t get what they want out of the measures--including a significant share of the proposed police resources--the campaigns are doomed.

* Property Taxes: Valley voters have been the most fiscally conservative in the city since they came out in overwhelming force in favor of tax-reform measure Proposition 13.

* Distrust: Valley voters traditionally have a deep distrust of ballot measures cooked up by so-called “downtown politicians,” who political consultant Paul Clarke says use Valley tax dollars to fund programs in poorer areas of the city, with less than half the money going toward providing services to those living north of Mulholland Drive.

If voters pass the first November ballot issue, $100 million in annual property taxes will be levied to hire 1,000 additional officers and 200 civilian personnel and pay their pension and retirement benefits. The tax would be based on property size, and would cost the owner of a 1,500-square-foot home about $73 a year, according to Mayor Tom Bradley, who proposed the measures last week. Owners of commercial structures would pay more per square foot than homeowners.

Police and city officials say the officers would hit the streets within 18 months, and that the fund-raising program would be phased out when other revenue sources are found.

The other campaign involves a bond measure to raise at least $235 million to finance a complete overhaul of the emergency communications system, including upgrading the 911 system and possibly building a new emergency communications facility in the Valley. It would cost residents about $26 a year.

Both measures need a two-thirds vote to pass--an uphill battle even during heady economic times, according to historical precedent. Political observers say that such a margin of victory will be unlikely in the Valley, even with the Los Angeles riots fresh in residents’ minds and local crime on the rise.

“It will be a long, uphill battle,” City Councilman Joel Wachs said. He said calls from his constituents in the Valley have been “overwhelmingly” against the measures, “and they’ll make the difference.”

Wachs said he has assurances from new Police Chief Willie L. Williams that the Valley will get a proportional share of the new officers if the $100-million bond measure for more police passes.

But many pundits, including Wachs and Clarke, said such promises probably would not be enough particularly since most Valley homeowners would be asked to pay well more than the combined $99 a year fee increase cited by Bradley.

“I haven’t heard anyone here say they’ll vote for them,” Clarke said. “These are being sold as citywide measures, and Valley voters are too smart to be conned. The people who write these measures haven’t wised up to the fact that the Valley is not going to buy a pig in a poke.”

Allan Hoffenblum, a Republican political consultant, said Valley voters have been the most fiscally conservative in the city since they came out in overwhelming force in favor of tax-reform measure Proposition 13. And Ruben Rodriguez, a Valley-based Latino activist, said the need for more police won’t be enough to persuade local voters.

“My feeling is people don’t want any new taxes,” Rodriguez said. “And there’s a feeling we in the Valley aren’t getting our money’s worth anyway, in terms of police service and response time.”

Others are more optimistic. They predict that one measure or the other--and they are in disagreement over which--could eke out a victory given post-riot jitters and Williams’ honeymoon with the city.

“Seeing the National Guard on Ventura Boulevard made many people realize crime isn’t just somewhere else, that it is now a Valley problem that has to be dealt with,” said attorney Richard H. Close, president of the 1,350-member Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. “With an effective campaign, it will pass. But without the guarantees for Valley voters, everyone is wasting their time.”

As the ballot measures enter the political arena, there is little doubt that Valley voters will be courted heavily not only by those supporting the police measures, but by those fighting the tax increases as well. Voters accustomed to being able to both support the police and fight tax hikes will now have to choose one side or the other.

“They’re going to have to do some real soul-searching,” said Robert Gross, president of the 469-household Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization. Like some other homeowner leaders, he supports the measures, citing reports that police response times in the Valley have increased and that the 7,900-member police force has one of the lowest officer-to-citizen ratios of any major city.

Gross said the campaigns face stiff competition. “But I hope people realize that this is one time they’re going to have to bite the bullet and support it,” he said.

Councilwoman Joy Picus supports the measures too, but she acknowledges it will be a “very hard sell” among Valley voters and one that carries much political risk for elected officials.

Perhaps for that reason, Councilman Ernani Bernardi had no comment on his position. Councilman Hal Bernson--a staunch police ally--opposes the measures on tax grounds but voted to put them before voters so they can decide. Wachs is supportive, but only if it is written into the measure that the Valley police divisions will get their fair share of new officers.

Officer Arthur Holmes, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesman, said that it is “way too soon” to say how many officers would be deployed in the Valley.

“They’ll be deployed in the field, equally and fairly throughout the city, based on need and a lot of other variables,” Holmes said.

Similar initiatives to increase the size of the Police Department failed in 1981 and 1985. And ballot measures to upgrade the communications system failed in 1990 and 1991.

A review of voting patterns in those elections shows that Valley voters were less supportive of efforts to bolster the Police Department than voters citywide, particularly when compared with those living in South Los Angeles where crime is worse.

Even before the passage of tax-cutting measure Proposition 13, Valley voters fought tax hikes harder than residents of any other part of the city, City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie said. He attributed that to rapid escalation in Valley property values--and taxes. “That has carried over,” Comrie said. “They are very sensitive to property tax increases.”

State Sen. Ed Davis agrees. During the 1981 campaign for more police, Davis (R-Santa Clarita) told campaign officials to concentrate 95% of their efforts in the Valley because of the staunch opposition to taxes there. This past week, he recommended the same plan.

Most analysts and elected officials said the police ballot measure must clearly state that the Valley will get its share of patrol officers, and that the money will not be used to fill desk positions and personnel slots left empty due to budget cuts.

Davis, however, cautioned against catering too much to Valley voters, saying it would be dangerous to divvy up the 1,000 officers by geography rather than need. “You can’t do it that way,” he said. “It violates the whole principle of deployment by need. You put the police where the problems are.”

Davis and other supporters of the ballot measures said Valley voters may balk at the fact that the special tax to pay for the new officers would be determined by the square footage of the house, and not its value. “If you have a shack in Pacoima and a small house in Bel-Air, you’d pay the same amount,” Davis said. “If that is the case, I think they have to go back to the drawing board.”

Drafters of the measures haven’t even gotten to the drawing board yet. And in the end, the success or failure of the measures depends on what is contained in the fine print of the finished products.

“It really is up in the air in the Valley if people will be anti-tax or pro-police,” said Richard Alarcon, Valley-area coordinator for the mayor’s office, which will spearhead the campaigns. “We’re getting a very mixed message when we go to community meetings. Quite frankly, I think the jury’s still out until people see the specifics.”