Other recent letters to the editor have asked me why I’ve reversed my position on Measure U and now reject the measure. Here is my answer to that question.
Although the intent of Measre U is to provide residents with information and voter approval of new and increased taxes and fees, intent is not good enough. It is my belief that Measure U tries to do too much.
The following is what I’ve found after carefully studying Measure U, reviewing the independent fiscal analysis and the city attorney’s analysis, as well as my involvement in the City’s budget and operations over the last 14 months:
There are sufficient taxpayer protections in State Propositions 13, 218 and the recently adopted Prop 26. Conflicts with these propositions and Measure U might not have been the intent of the authors, but this is the practical effect of the charter amendment.
There is no other city that has these restrictions. Our independent fiscal expert concluded that, “The lack of a comparable initiative reveals the difficulty drafting a single initiative to address complex municipal operations.”
Passage of Measure U would require voters to weigh in on many different service fees, from false-alarm permits to overdue-book fees. Again, this was not the intent, but yet another practical effect of Measure U.
A city our size must maintain the ability to stay flexible and move quickly and decisively to attract development. Measure U would cripple our ability to make continued development feasible. Many revenue-generating businesses that we currently rely on would never have been possible under Measure U (i.e., Home Depot, Costco, auto dealerships and many more.) We depend on these tax dollars to thrive and provide outstanding public services.
It has been my honor to serve on the City Council. Voter trust in me was apparent during the election last year, and I am working hard to keep that trust. Like many residents, I signed the initiative petition. I feel strongly that Signal Hill residents should be protected from unnecessary fees and taxes. I would support Measure U today if that is all that it would do. However, Measure U is more harmful than helpful. Its implementation will become a great burden to our City’s operations and community services. I will be voting “no” on June 3.
Lori Y. Woods
Councilmember
Signal Hill
With age comes not only wisdom, but experience. I am old enough to be Matt Simmons’s grandmother, and I have a lot more experience with Costco than he does [Letter to the Editor, “Looking at U,” May 2, 2014]. I was on the City Council with Louis Dare when PriceCo contracted to open in town. I met with its founder, Saul Price. PriceCo became Costco.
In the 1980s, Signal Hill had almost no sales-tax base. Signal Hill was desperate to bring in new business to fund municipal expenses. That is why my friend, Councilman Louis Dare, the original proponent of the Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote Citizen Initiative, made a policy decision to use state economic development funds to assist in the clean-up of contaminated soil on the PriceCo site.
What Mr. Simmons fails to comprehend is that there is no more money coming from the State to finance future Costcos.
If the current City Council intends to economically assist another business with millions of dollars— and that is what the Council proposes to do under its New Economic Ordinance— that money is coming out of new taxes, bond debt and assessments from property owners in Signal Hill.
Mr. Simmons also fails to take the next logical step to understand that tenants, like Home Depot or Applebee’s, pick up the landlord’s yearly tax and assessment increases as part of their lease payments. A large sewer assessment fee in Signal Hill drives the business to Long Beach, whose assessments are a small fraction of the cost paid in Signal Hill, thanks to our City Council.
Business will be harmed by increased taxes, fees and assessments.
Measure U, the Taxpayer’s Right to Know and Vote, was written by people for people, not for politicians and their so-called “experts” who want to replace lost State funds with access to the property owner’s wallet.
Carol Churchill
Signal Hill
