Reject Props. A, B and C : All three are flawed, and their timing couldn’t be worse

Three propositions on the November ballot attempt to address San Diego County’s shaky fiscal status. All are flawed. And their timing couldn’t be worse.

The four candidates vying for two open seats on the Board of Supervisors have promised a top-to-bottom reassessment of the county’s spending priorities. They say that as much as $100 million a year can be saved with only moderate reductions in services.

Whether those promises can be fulfilled is an open question. But, given the county grand jury’s recent contention that the county wastes $70 million a year on welfare fraud alone, there is reason to believe that a fiscal housecleaning can translate into substantial savings.

Certainly, that option should be explored before voters are asked to approve tax increases or impose ballot-box budgeting.

Proposition A is the latest attempt to increase the sales tax half a cent per dollar to help fund the criminal justice system. The last version passed in 1988 with 50.6% of the vote--only to be struck down by the courts as a transparent attempt to skirt Proposition 13.

The new version will need two-thirds approval from an electorate mired in a crushing recession. Virtually no one expects the effort to succeed, particularly when the new measure doesn’t have a sunset clause. Indeed, this is a particularly poor time to ask voters to let government back into their pockets indefinitely, especially when the county could still receive a criminal justice windfall if the 4th District Court of Appeal allows it to keep the $370 million already collected from the now-defunct tax.

The other two measures require only majority approval. Proposition B would amend the County Charter to require that any future amendments that involve additional costs spell out exactly how they will be funded. Facing up to the fiscal fallout of charter amendments is good public policy. But the county has not been overwhelmed by costly citizen measures. The real reason the board placed Proposition B before voters was to counterattack Proposition C, which would force the county to dramatically increase staffing levels for deputy sheriffs.

We agree that Proposition C should be defeated. But amending the County Charter to do it is overkill.

Proposition C is a citizens initiative sponsored by the Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. It would require the Board of Supervisors to allocate the funds necessary to virtually double the number of deputies patrolling unincorporated areas. That would cost the cash-strapped county $17.8 million annually, according to the county staff. DSA officials insist it can be done for less than half that.

Either way, the measure, which doesn’t suggest a funding source, is fatally flawed. During this economic crisis, the county needs full flexibility in budget negotiations, not a fiscal straitjacket.

The Times recommends “No” votes on Propositions A, B and C.