Writing Shotgun

HOLT SAYS THERE’S ANOTHER WAY TO PLAN AND PASS AN INFRASTRUCTURE TAX

 

Gabriella Holt lives up on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, so she doesn’t get to vote on Long Beach’s Proposition I—the $571-million property parcel tax placed on the November ballot by Mayor Bob Foster and the City Council (minus Fifth District rep Gerrie Schipske). But Holt hopes to represent a lot of the people who do get to vote on it, and as she runs against Bonnie Lowenthal for the 54th Assembly District seat, those people are giving her an earful. Anybody got a Q-Tip?

“People are very confused and frustrated,” says Holt, who has attended community meetings in three Long Beach districts—the Third, Fourth and Fifth—during the past 10 days. “They don’t seem to have a good grasp on what it is. They need to be better informed. This should have been more of a process.”

As a Republican, Holt emphasizes that she “isn’t boasting” that she oversaw the passage of three bonds and a parcel tax during her eight years on the school board of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). But she recognizes what an accomplishment it was.

“We passed three bonds and a parcel tax in an anti-tax community,” she says. “We were able to do it because we did huge oureach. We wouldn’t even discuss putting it on the ballot until we had some assurance the public was comfortable.”

Holt compares that with what she calls “the rushed approach” of Foster (who unveiled the special tax to fund Long Beach infrastructure on July 10) and the city council (which approved its placement on the ballot on July 20).

“There is concern that the process hasn’t been transparent,” she says, “and that they don’t have real assurance about how their money is going to be spent.”

The PVPUSD sought its parcel tax in 2003 when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took back some state funding to schools to help California through one of its budget crunches.

“The first thing wasn’t, ‘Let’s go tax, let’s go see what the residents will pay.’ Nuh-uh. No-no-no-no,” says Holt. “It was, ‘Let’s see what we’re doing with our budget first. Let’s see what the need is, really. And then let’s engage the public.’

“So for six months we tore the budget down to zero. We looked at everything. For example, we found we were spending $60,000 a year on bottled water for the central office. Sixty thousand dollars a year? Get rid of it! So we put vending machines in the central office—you might as well bring in a little bit of revenue and get rid of the expense.

“We looked at how we staffed the central office, who was doing what. We had spread sheets upon spread sheets and weekly dialogues and meetings. We had citizens in. We had the unions in. We had key site administrators, we had lead teachers, we had school site parent involvement, we had leadership team involvement, we had student involvement. We looked at it!  And at the end we had everybody’s buy-in because everybody saw how great the need was.

“At the end of six months it was, like, $173 per parcel, with a senior exemption and a five-year sunset—that is, after five years the tax goes away unless you bring it forward for the people to renew.”

And?

“It was easily passed, by almost 80 percent of the voters—79.8 percent, to be precise,” says Holt. “But that’s because it was transparent, everybody knew what the money was specified for. We made that very clear, and we had a citizen oversight committee to make sure that’s the way it happened.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • John_B
    Dave: I’m inclined to agree with Ms. Holt on this one. So much of what our local elected officials do, or attempt, on our behalf seems ill considered, poorly planned, abysmally communicated or some combination of all three. Both the currently proposed budget and the infrastructure bond proposal seem to be prime examples of this.

    Because they directly impact the electorate and public funding, all issues of public policy must be well and thoroughly planned if they are to have any chance of success. Once well planned they must then be just as well communicated to those who ultimately pay the bills (us).

    When elected officials fail in one or both of these criteria, the public tends to feel overlooked, dismissed and slighted…and rightly so. Our local infrastructure belongs to the public after all, as do the tax dollars that would be used to re-pay any bonds that may be approved. Given that perspective, our elected officials really should be better at including the people they represent (us) in their planning processes and then *much* better at keeping us informed as the process continues.

    Ms. Holt hit the bulls-eye on this one. She seems to clearly understand whom all of our elected officials are supposed to be working for…the electorate.

    For that, if for no other reason, Gabriella Holt should be elected come November.
  • Alex
    I too agree with Holt! Why are more people not holding the local officials accountable? Perhaps it's high time Long Beach put together a citizen oversight committee, rather than throwing something on the ballot and expecting peole to vote yes. Everyone should make sure to vote HOLT in November, as she seems to be what this city and state needs.
  • JuanPardell
    Why was Mayor Foster's parcel tax proposal rushed? Because he attempted an end-around on the taxpayers by supporting salary increases in the face of a budget deficit. By placing the cart before the horse, he and the city council probably thought there wouldn't be such an uproar of trying to increase taxes. They were wrong. Although I applaud Gabrielle Holt's explanation, she should remember that Long Beach is not Palos Verdes. Her area is far more affluent with a population base much smaller than Long Beach. However, her methodology is much better than what Long Beach city officials have so far offered.
  • Lindaonline
    When the parcel tax fails it will be for the very reasons Ms. Holt mentioned. It is so clear to everyone but the mayor.
  • DCinLB
    I t will be interesting to see how many people who agree with Holt will vote for her. Her approach is to look at expenses first, her opponent's approach is find what to tax.
  • Jane
    How refreshing...Elected officials who are responsive to their community..Based on this I would vote for Holt over Lowenthal and the whole City Council, for that matter.

    The taxpayers in Long Beach are already funding a ridiculous number of unsuccessful developments and all the same names seem to pop up over and over for the last 15 years at least. Here they go again trying to fast track some sort of crack pot tax scheme...for what and why, they don't want to answer. Nonsense! We need transparency and a city government that is not dismissive and disdainful of the citizens it serves. We have not had that in a long, long time. What will it take to get this to happen in Long Beach? A citizen revolt?
  • grdnsage
    If it is not maintained it will fall apart. Who will maintain?contractors? used a park restroom lately?,love that cleanliness?BUILD WITH MAINTENANCE IN MIND. Ask a maintenance person or a gardener what that means because it is not taught in college courses on public administration. If council would allow maintenance dollars to be spent on maintenance first and on their special projects second that might be helpful. Not that they are not needed but some are more helpful to politics than constituites.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.