Home

Measure L "May be Repealed or Amended by the City Council Without a
Vote Of The People"

October 19, 2004
By WatchOurCity.com

Huntington Park, CA - "Measure L" is officially on the County's General Election
November 2, 2004 ballot and is titled the "Community Safety Enhancement Measure" that
"city council unanimously voted" to place on the ballot for "approval by the citizens of the
City".

The City printed and mailed a brochure informing residents about the measure and urges
residents to vote on election day. The Brochure is titled "The Facts About Measure L",
listing five "facts" and states that it will provide "new funding for Huntington Park city
services". WatchOurCity.com notes that an amendment clause in Measure L is of concern.

A second mailed brochure declaring "Yes on Measure L - Safer Neighborhoods" is in fact
quite deceiving. One side of this brochure flatly states "Lower Taxes" while the others side
declares "Lower Taxes for Most Homeowners" superimposed on a grainy nighttime
background black and white image showing a seemingly defenseless young lady trailed by
an ominous looking fellow.

This second brochure indicates that it is "Paid for by Huntington Park Residents for Safer
Neighborhoods - Yes on Measure L" and lists the following address: 7115 Arbutus Street,
Huntington Park, CA". Public records show that this address is where councilman Mario
Gomez lives.

Why is Councilman Mario Gomez and the financial backers of Measure L seemingly
deceiving and causing potential confusion with the voters? Councilman Gomez's brochure
neglects to inform or educate the voters about the measure and instead resorts to instilling a
sense of fear as a motivation to vote. He neglects to point out that an additional $750,000
is projected to be raised, in addition to the existing $750,000 that the current lighting
assessment already brings in as revenue. Gomez' message insinuates that residents can get
something for nothing. Mario Gomez neglects to illuminate that some of the city's property
owners will in fact see combined higher assessments equivalent to three quarters of a
million dollars. Why is Gomez obfuscating facts?

The Los Angeles County's "OFFICIAL SAMPLE BALLOT AND VOTER
INSTRUCTIONS" booklet for the general elections on November 2 includes a more
detailed description of Measure L's contents not included in the City's brochure nor in
Mario Gomez's mailer piece. Listed is an "Argument In Favor of Measure L", and also
states that "NO ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS MEASURE WAS SUBMITTED".

The city's brochure claims as one of its "facts" that there will be a "reduction in taxes paid
by homeowners in Huntington Park", and goes on to make another general statement
indicating that "Measure L will reduce the amount of local property taxes paid by the
majority of homeowners" in the city and that "some commercial property owners may pay
slightly more property tax". A note on the backside of the city's brochure states: "This
information is provided by the City of Huntington Park as a public service and represents
no position advocating or opposing the measure presented in this brochure". Yet,
councilman Gomez, who represents the city in an official capacity, sends out a mailer
unequivocally advocating for the measure. Is the city truly "taking no position advocating
or opposing" Measure L?

During the July 6, 2004 council meeting, council members approved a city contract
totalling $22,000 with TMG Communications, Inc. "for public information dissemination to
the residents of Huntington Park regarding the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance
District measures".

The County's official ballot booklet fills the information gap left by the City's brochure by
clarifying that Measure L will in fact reduce taxes "for our single family homeowners" by
"approximately $10 per year"; it also states that Measure L will "improve inadequate street
lighting" and "increase funding for the maintenance of our City Parks, Landscaped Median
Islands, and Parkway Trees".

Not mentioned in the City's brochure but outlined in the County's official ballot book, are
the exact amounts to be assessed for each property type. The County's official ballot states
that a Single-Family Residence will be assessed at $78.64 per year; a Residential with two
units at $147.18; a residential with three units at $215.70 and a four unit residential will be
assessed at $284.22. Five or more apartment units will be assessed at $342.62. The most
expensive property assessments are scheduled at $629.14 each for Department Stores,
Hotels and Motels, Mobile Home Parks, and Supermarkets and "other intensive uses".
Stores will be assessed at $314.56, representing a reduction in assessment, according to the
city attorney's "Impartial Analysis of Measure L".

A representative of a very active apartment owners association has been curiously silent on
this new Measure L. Marial Sanders of Property Management Services, has in the past
been very vocal about any issues that directly impact the interests of apartment owners.
Public records reveal that on behalf of the Apartment Association, Mrs. Sanders donated
$500 to John Noguez's campaign on March 3, 2003, a day before elections. After the new
city council was installed in office, councilman John Noguez nominates her to a position in
the City's Planning Commission, which pays over $100 per month, including
reimbursements for travel and city issued daily cash allowance when traveling (city warrant
draft and warrant register reveals payment of several hundred dollars to Planning
Commission members for travel reimbursements). It is indeed puzzling why the
representative of apartment owners has remained silent and has recently not been doing her
job of seemingly representing the interests of apartment owners. John Noguez is a good
friend of hers.

Reportedly, a call to the city clerk's office to inquire about the details of the measure was
routed to Don Pruyn, the City's Finance Director, who answered questions from a
concerned resident. According to Mr. Pruyn, the current assessment for street lighting
totals $750,000 per year; the proposed measure is calculated to generate an additional
property tax revenue twice that amount, or $1.5 million. His comments parallel statements
in the County's ballot book: "The...measure replaces the Existing Citywide Lighting and
Landscape Assessment District...while generating twice the revenue as the old assessment
district". Evidently, some property owners other than single family homes will bear the
brunt of raising the projected additional $750,000 per year in revenue.

A company called Property Tax Advisors in San Francisco donated $500 to John Noguez
on 12-3-03, according to Noguez's campaign contribution statements.

One more "fact" stated in the City's brochure is that the funds "will be restricted and used
only for improving public safety, parks and streets". Proposition 62, passed by State voters
in 1986, imposes such restrictions on the use of revenue.

An "Accountability" clause listed in the County 's ballot book under "Proposed Ordinance
of Measure L", as required by Proposition 62, states that:
- "(a) Proceeds of the charge shall be used only to fund park maintenance and
improvement, street landscaping maintenance and improvement, and the operation
improvement and maintenance of street lighting, and for no other purpose".
- "(b) Proceeds of the charge shall be maintained in a separate account, the principal and
earnings upon which shall be spent only on the purpose set forth in subdivision (a) of this
Section".

If Measure L is adopted, it would not be imposed "until Fiscal Year 2005-06" and would
amend the portion of the Municipal Code dealing with the current lighting assessment
district, according to the County ballot book.

However, WatchOurCity.com notes that the "Accountability" clause of Measure L
becomes questionable due to a clause titled "Section 2. Amendment or Repeal" which
states that the proposed ordinance, once it is incorporated into the Municipal Code, "may
be repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the people" and as
"required by Propositions 62 (yr. 1986) and 218 (see link).

This clause is of concern since it seems to indicate that once the measure becomes a city
ordinance, city council members can potentially modify the parameters of the allocation of
funds, all without the voter's knowledge, and potentially bypassing any safeguards set up
by Propositions 62 and 218.

Proposition 218 has the following requirements:
- Local governments must hold a hearing at least 45 days after the mailing.
- If a majority of affected property owners present written protests to the proposed fee it is
rejected.
- If a majority does not protest, then the local government must hold an election to be
decided by a majority of property owners or two-thirds of the electorate.

Voter beware.

Source of Data:
1. "Official Sample Ballot and Voter Instructions General Election - November 2, 2004" booklet, Los Angeles County
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's office.
2. "The Facts About Measure L, The Community Safety Enhancement Measure", a brochure printed and mailed by the City of
Huntington Park, CA.
3. City Council Agenda, July 6, 2004.