Who Pays Is the Issue Behind L.A. Initiative, Not Parks’ Need

Nobody disputes that parks in the city of Los Angeles are desperate for cash. The fight is about who should pay.

Measure K on the city ballot next week would tax property owners $776 million over 30 years for neighborhood projects such as building child-care centers, lighting basketball courts, fixing swimming pools and planting grass on soccer fields. It would cost $18.45 a year for owners of the average single-family home and $161.42 for landlords of a three-story office building. Renters would pay nothing.

Backers, from police officials to politicians, nicknamed the measure “L.A. for Kids” and say it is a long-term, crime-fighting strategy that could save taxpayers money by keeping children in recreational programs instead of gangs and jails.

Anti-tax activists and homeowner groups fighting the initiative say that it exploits a loophole to circumvent Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that requires two-thirds voter approval of any property tax increases, and that it unfairly burdens property owners for a problem plaguing all residents.

Most people would pay the equivalent of a nickel a day, hardly breaking the bank, proponents say. Foes counter that Measure K is one of four similar measures on November’s ballot--others would fund county parks and school and community college facilities--that could cost a homeowner in all four districts $150 a year.

The campaign has been a quiet one, overshadowed by the much better-financed Los Angeles County parks proposal. But this could be the city’s last chance to pump cash from property owners into the park system: A separate measure on the state ballot would close the loophole that allows such assessments to be approved by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

“We’re the largest city with the least amount of park space per capita in the nation, and we continue to ask ourselves why our youth are heading in the wrong direction,” said City Councilman Mike Hernandez, who spearheaded the drive for Measure K. “If a child has an opportunity to play Little League baseball, he’s not going to become a gang member.”

Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said he worries about the long-term costs.

“Everybody always weighs these things with the price of a movie ticket--it’s only one movie ticket, it’s only two movie tickets,” he said. “They always try to break it down to that, but if you add it up, that means it’s 100 movies you’re not going to make.”

Diana Plotkin of the Westside Civic Federation, one of several homeowner activists who signed the ballot argument against Measure K, suggested a sales tax--which also requires a two-thirds vote--as a fairer way to support parks because it would spread the expense to renters and tourists.

“Property owners are not the cash cows of the city of L.A. anymore,” she said.

Measure K would be the first tax for parks improvements in the city’s history. City parks did receive about $126 million from a county assessment approved in 1992, and they would collect $100 million more over two decades if the county measure passes.

Architects of the city and county parks measures worked together to minimize overlap. The county measure is mainly regional in scope, while the city measure focuses on smaller, neighborhood parks. The Los Angeles Zoo would benefit from both--the county measure includes $12 million for facilities improvements and the city’s $11 million to develop a children’s discovery area. The zoo has been the main financial backer of both, funneling $250,000 of foundation money into the county campaign, which in turn is helping fight for Measure K.

“Yes, it’s double-dipping on their real estate taxes, because they’ll have two separate assessments,” said Steve Soboroff, president of the city Recreation and Parks Commission, a senior advisor to Mayor Richard Riordan and a leader of the campaigns for both measures. “But this is real important stuff.”

Riordan has quietly endorsed Measure K, although he has not spoken publicly in its favor. The ballot argument in favor of the measure was signed by Soboroff and Hernandez, as well as several other city leaders, the president of the League of Women Voters, and the city’s Commission on Children, Youth and Their Families.

Opposing it on the ballot are Councilmen Hal Bernson and Nate Holden, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and several homeowner groups.

“It’s going to be paid for by property owners and not the general public--it’s just not the right way to do it,” Bernson said. “I think the parks need the money. If they’d done it on a straight bond issue, I would have supported it.”

Hernandez and other Measure K supporters say it is different from previous bond measures and assessments because it contains a lengthy list of specific projects, including price tags, that outline how the money would be spent. Also, about $300 million is set aside for grants to private agencies that would provide dollar-for-dollar matching funds and run programs for children or senior citizens in public facilities.

According to the project list, about $120 million would be used for 36 regional facilities, constructing gymnasiums and soccer stadiums, adding fences and lights, and doing various maintenance and landscaping at the zoo, MacArthur Park, Cabrillo Marine Museum and Hansen Dam Recreation Area.

An additional $113 million would go to 76 neighborhood facilities projects, plus $24 million for 19 child-care centers. Most of the city’s 15 council districts would have about 10 projects worth an average of $12 million in each.

The fewest projects, five, would be in the Westside/San Fernando Valley district of Councilman Mike Feuer. The least money, $4.7 million, would be spent in the Brentwood/San Fernando Valley district of Councilman Marvin Braude. The Eastside district represented by Councilman Richard Alatorre would have the most projects, 13, and the most money--$14.8 million.

Steve Afriat, the consultant running the pro-Measure K campaign, said the biggest challenge is the measure’s placement on the ballot: Last after 15 state propositions, three county measures, one each for the schools and community colleges, and seven city initiatives--not to mention all those candidates.

“The only thing after us is the end of the ballot,” Afriat said. “There might be a drop-off of voter generosity. And a drop-off, generally, of voters who get that far down the ballot.”