For VICA, Many Issues Are Far From Resolved

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) has been front and sometimes center in the charter reform process. Why? VICA has always sought better community representation, more accountability and flexibility and a more competitive-minded bureaucracy (an oxymoron, no doubt) to stem the tide of companies leaving the city.

To achieve these goals, VICA embraced the Fleming Plan (named after civic leader Dave Fleming), a specific model for decentralizing government, only to experience disappointment when the proposal failed to inspire non-Valley charter reformers from either the appointed or elected city commissions.

In a few weeks, the VICA board of directors will meet to discuss a formal position on the proposed unified charter. At this point, it is difficult to predict the outcome.

Many VICA members support secession and VICA itself has called for a fair and thorough study by the Local Agency Formation Commission. But VICA members realize that secession and charter reform are not mutually exclusive. The costs and benefits of secession are unknown, and it faces formidable political obstacles.

Instead, VICA members must evaluate the anticipated benefits of the proposed unified charter and ask whether those benefits--particularly for the Valley--promise to outweigh disadvantages of the proposed charter and the pros and cons of the existing charter.

As the City Council begins its review and the members of both commissions complete final revisions, VICA is going on record to express the following concerns:

VICA believes that district lines must follow natural community boundaries. The draft charter calls for an advisory redistricting commission, and it requires this commission to consider natural and community boundaries in the redistricting process. But ultimately the redistricting decisions will be made by the City Council, which is free to ignore community boundaries if it wishes. VICA suggests that district boundaries should always track neighborhood and community boundaries, except as required by the constitutional “one person, one vote” principle and the Federal Voting Rights Act. The charter ought not permit the council to ignore these boundaries simply because it is politically expedient to do so.

VICA supports a streamlined land-use approval process. We have often complained that the approval process in Los Angeles is more expensive and time consuming and less predictable than in other cities. VICA supports the creation of separate planning commissions that are closely rooted in the affected communities, but remains concerned that in the aggregate, the land-use approval process must be streamlined and shortened.

VICA does not believe the living wage requirement should be cemented in the charter. The organization has opposed such a requirement and feels that a charter mandate for a living wage unnecessarily restricts the political and fiscal options of future elected officials. If it cannot be omitted entirely, we believe that the scope of the charter provision should be very narrow. For example, if a business chose to accept a contract to do city work, would all of its employees receive the living wage or would the requirement be carefully limited to those employees who actually performed significant work on the city contract? How can we assure that for small or minority businesses that are eager to bid on city contracts, the audit and compliance enforcement mechanisms will be reasonable and cost-effective for both the contractor and the city? At the moment, these issues are ignored in the draft, left to the political will of future councils.

VICA is concerned about the cost of government. The city’s recently released tax equity study proves what we have known for many years: Los Angeles’ business taxes are completely out of line with the taxes assessed in other cities. We know that cities throughout California have no flexibility to adjust sales or property taxes, and thus business taxes have become virtually the only option to keep revenues and expenditures in balance.

Commissioners have insisted that the new charter include many measures to make city government more streamlined and efficient, and they say these efficiencies will offset the cost of new features such as the Neighborhood Council Network, a neighborhood empowerment commission and multiple planning commissions. To our knowledge, the city officials whose informational statements will appear in the voter information pamphlet have not yet agreed with these conclusions. More importantly, the charter should require the mayor and City Council to implement new initiatives only within the parameters of existing resources.

It is much easier to spend money on new or expanded initiatives than it is to cut or reprogram existing resources. Indeed, officials could conclude that taxes must be raised, since the new charter requires various new initiatives.

Separately, VICA supports the proposed expansion of the council, but as presently proposed such expansion may be both unlikely and unwise. It appears that voters will be asked to create six to 10 new seats for the highest paid City Council members in the country, at a total cost of $8 million to $13 million per year, based on current council expenditures. Surely voters will reject this option unless someone spikes the water supply on election day. Moreover, how are voters to decide between 15, 21 and 25 members if the commissioners themselves were unable to do so?

Consciously or not, it appears that the expansion of the City Council is doomed, depriving Los Angeles communities of better representation for years to come. If the commissions want the electorate to really consider a larger council, the new charter must require the council to fund its needs out of existing resources and prohibit increased taxes for a specified period after the new charter becomes effective. Such measures would impose no greater limitations on the fiscal prerogatives of future councils than the living wage requirement.

Although it is no big surprise, the unified carter has not achieved the objectives of many, including those on the commissions. Still, it is time to wrap it up and move toward consensus. VICA knows the clock is ticking but will steadfastly hold to seeking adequate answers to its concerns before supporting or opposing the unified charter.

Personally, I don’t make it a practice to second-guess the board of directors, but this one could go either way.