Should The Times back a second anti-gang parcel tax effort?
In the same Nov. 4, 2008 election in which Barack Obama was elected president, Los Angeles voters defeated (but just barely) a $36-per-property parcel tax measure to fund youth and anti-gang programs. Measure A was spearheaded by Councilwoman Janice Hahn; as a local tax, it had to pull in two-thirds, or 66.67% of the vote to win. It got 66.27%. Times endorsements may not have the clout they once did, but I think it's safe to say that our opposition helped make a difference on this one.
Hahn wants to try again, and wants to know what it would take to win us over this time. Fair question.
The subject came up at Tuesday's City Council committee hearing, at which Deputy Mayor Jeff Carr reported on the last six months of the city's still-new Gang Reduction and Youth Development programs.
When the Times called for a "no" vote on Measure A, we said the city had not shown it was ready to use new tax money properly. We explained that Los Angeles had floundered with anti-gang efforts for years, throwing money at programs without knowing whether they were working or even defining what they were supposed to accomplish. Just months earlier, the city had scrapped L.A. Bridges and authorized the mayor to take charge of gang programs and to establish standards and evaluation methods. Carr was a newcomer. It was too early to tell whether the city had improved. Here's a snippet, in case you don't want to click on the link and wade through the while thing:
But nothing real has actually happened yet. No evaluators have been hired, no evaluations have been completed, no evidence yet shows that the city has turned a corner.
So, what about now? Is the city ready yet? That's what Hahn was getting at when she quizzed Carr at the committee hearing.
Do you think you would have enough data, enough facts, enough, you know -- We have got it right, we’ve got our programs in place, we’ve got accountability, we have a form, that really the L.A. Times would finally give their stamp of approval to that proposition if we put it before the voters again. Because obviously that was their criticism last time, that we didn’t have enough, kind of, under our belt to actually….
Committee chairman Tony Cardenas jumped in at that point, saying the Times "didn't even understand what we were talking about."
In fact, I think we understood it just fine. For more than three decades now, federal, state and local governments have been de-funding programs that used to provide top-flight education, employment opportunities, recreation and counseling for youth and support for their families. If Los Angeles is to give up its place as the world's gang capital, it must again invest in more than just law enforcement and crime suppression. So we're going to have to pay more. But if taxpayers can't see that every dollar is being spent wisely, any new tax will just add to the current wave of anti-government, no-new-taxes sentiment.
Connie Rice of the Advancement Project said before the election that pumping new money into city anti-gang programs would have been tantamount to putting the cash in a pile and setting it aflame. "You might as well just have a bonfire," she said at a City Hall meeting. But she quickly added that Carr's arrival, and the new protocols for evaluation and training, made a huge difference. She endorsed Measure A.
We weren't convinced. But what about now? I don't think we need to wait until the next ballot measure to gauge the city's performance. For the present, I don't have the answer. Off the top of my head, I'd like to see Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa use his clout with members of the school board and the teachers' union to get the school district to work more closely with the city on youth and anti-gang programs; I'd like to see the academy for training intervention workers up and running; I'd like to see a couple rounds of evaluation of city contractors.
But I'd like to know what others think. Is the city ready? How will we know? Should taxpayers pay up?
I also wonder whether it's too late -- whether the political window for a new tax, with optimistic and liberal Obama voters crowding to the polls and the severity of the recession not yet fully appreciated, is now closed. Or perhaps the Los Angeles Unified School District will arrive first at the parcel-tax well, asking voters for more funds to make up for state cuts to schools. I'm rooting for City Hall, and would love the Times to be able to back a smart, responsible program to protect kids from the gang life, encourage those already in that life to shun crime and violence, and help people who want to leave that life behind to do so.
Click here to read the status report Carr presented Tuesday to the Ad Hoc Committee on Gang Violence and Youth Development on Tuesday, then share your thoughts about Parcel Tax Round Two.
Photo: Al Seib / LAT
i HAVE BEEN A BIG CRITIC OF UNEVALUATED GANG REDUCTION PROGRAMS, BUT ANOTHER YEAR HAS PASSED, THE CITY IS LAUNCHING ITS SECOND SUMMER NIGHT LIGHTS PROGRAMS, AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, HOMICIDES ARE WAY DOWN. THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER AND MONEY DOES MATTER.
SAY "YES" THIS TIME, TIMES.
ANN REISS LANE
CHAIR, WOMEN AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE
Posted by: Ann Reiss Lane | July 15, 2009 at 03:47 PM
As the president of a Neighborhood Council whose area includes 2 gangs, I was, and still am, against this measure. It must be read completely in order to see that it will affect the city only in the worst gang areas as defined by the city. While our children have been killed, we received no help from the city other than a couple of press conferences PROMISING help which never arrived. It was only through the constant work of our neighborhood council that these deaths were remembered and programs put in place to work on gang prevention. We worked with our city councilmember, the police, our area DA's office, and various non-profits to put programs in place and to bring a Boys & Girls Club to one of our gang areas. It took three years of our work to accomplish this and more. We have still not given up. We are now moving into our other gang area. But make no mistake. It was not the city who made a difference, nor funding from the city. It was the neighborhood working together to prevent another child from being killed that made the difference. We are not the only area of the city facing this problem as the city focuses on 15 specific areas and releases no funding to other areas. As they push on their 15 areas, the gangs are moving out to other sections of the city. I know. Several of them have moved into our area.
Further, a parcel tax is an unfair tax to property owners. It means that a homeowner of a 700 sq. ft. lot pays the same as the auto dealer with a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. And the auto dealer can afford it more than the homeowner.
Posted by: Adrienne O'Niell | July 10, 2009 at 10:52 AM
The gang programs are a joke plain and simple just ask people who actually live in the communities where these gang bangers hang out. The Mayor is now giving money to programs outside of LA and Wendy needs to do a audit on all of them. At least 8 gang interventionists have been arrested on felonies and those are only the ones who got caught. NO NO NO waste of our tax dollars. This is dumb and irresponsible. All city council had to do is what they paid Connie Rice $900,000 for her study but city council failed to act on any of it.
Posted by: Maria | July 09, 2009 at 03:14 PM
"I only wish someone had proposed something like this when I was coming up" - posted by I Hate Gangs on July 8. No kidding, I Hate Gangs. I see every day what a little investment in a child's life can do.
If I had a dollar for every time I have heard from an alumnus of the LA's BEST After School Enrichment Program that if it weren't for LA's BEST, he or she would have joined a gang or dropped out of school, I might be able to fund Measure A myself.
It costs a mere $1,200 a year to send a child to LA's BEST every day after school. It costs $218,000 a year to incarcerate a juvenile. Measure A represents a sound investment in the future of Los Angeles and its most vulnerable children.
Catherine Stringer
LA's BEST After School Enrichment Program
Posted by: Catherine | July 09, 2009 at 11:35 AM
The reason why Measure A failed was not because the LA TImes did not endorse it. In my opinion, the deciding factor was the fact that the main proponents of Measure A were hardly engaged in the outreach and GOTV efforts on the ground. Many of the community based organizations that work with gang involved gang affiliated youth knew about the measure but weren't really integrated into the outreach efforts in any meaningful and impacting way. Ms. Hahn and movers of the next measure, you have youth and communities who would love a chance to be instrumental in bringing this money to the agencies that service them day-to-day. All you need, is to give them a role. We will perform and we will win if you do so.
Posted by: JC | July 09, 2009 at 09:13 AM
From Lee Mardesich (retired LAUSD teacher) and Stephanie Mardesich (concerned citizen/public advoct)
We absolutely supported Prop A - 500% - and feel it was a minor cost to us as property owners for the greater gain. It was clear to us the the potential for supervised afterschool and other programs would be effective and monitored with fiscal responsibility we are not observing with the addition of Rev. Carr who we are hugely disappointed in with all the "bravura" upon his arrival like a messiah of sorts. We cannot understand that the harbor gateway area is veritably "ignored" as being a concern for nefarious activiity of today's youth (we deliberatly do not use the "g" word) and fee GAP has been far more effective and responsive. It's been clear that his office doesn't seem to have effective internal communication, let alone extending out.
The L.A. Times was wrong not to support Prop A, never the less we didn't cancel our subsctiption. We urge you to be more realistic and get on board, though the minute percentage that it lost by is ridiculous, and truly we don't believe the paper influenced that, it was more a matter of "grass roots" getting out there and next time you can be sure we'll pound the pavement to get it passed.
Hooray for the courage of Councilwomen Janice Hahn, Jan Perry, and Wendy Gruehl (now City Controller) and all who will continue to promote this cause.
Posted by: Stephanie Mardesich | July 09, 2009 at 08:33 AM
As it is with all proposed taxes, this one is so little how could anyone miss $36 every year for every parcel of property. How many previous parcel tax proposals have we seen and how many more will we see if this passes. But then who will notice a few more $36 parcel taxes or a few dozen more $36 parcel taxes or even a few hundred more $36 parcel taxes for issues as important as or even more important than youth and anti-gang programs. Why not add a parcel tax of a few hundred dollars to fund Trauma Centers as the County proposed not too long ago. Yes one small parcel tax is not a big deal. It is the parcel tax after parcel tax that becomes a huge burden. This "Well" just looks too easy to tap into. But as government found out 30 years ago, tax payers eventually revolt.
I suggest The City be careful about asking the taxpayers for more dollars for any program unless it has been perfected and proven. It is too easy to attach a hot topic name to program and then say “trust me”. If this program is so good and so ready to go The City should run the full program for a reasonable length of time with existing City dollars without asking for more taxes. The City cannot loose because “the youth and anti-gang program is already perfect.” After it is proven in the real world I am sure it will be easier to get the tax passed. This will save the huge cost of another unsuccessful ballot election with all its advertising costs. And if The City is afraid the program is not perfect, shame on The City for asking for this tax increase.
Ps: there are numerous wasteful City programs where the money could be found, just ask the City Controller’s office.
Posted by: Richard Otterstrom | July 09, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I totally agree with Janice Hahn and I certainly support the L.A. Times when it comes to "at risk kids".
Having been personally involved with "at risk" kids for a decade now (I was chosen Outstanding Volunteer of the Year in CD by Mayor Hahn in 2002), I know how vital it is to support programs and initiatives aimed at helping and guiding the younger generation away from gang life and give them hope for a bright future.
The reality is most people don't realize how important park and school programs are for these children. Life is much like a war to many children in that they feel alone in a world which they had no responsibility in creating...Depression, lack of hope, despair, and a lack of a solid support system leads many kids into a gang lifestyle, one in which deep down inside, they really don't want to live their lives that way but it's the only way for them to feel accepted and supported and gives them a sense of belonging in a family style kind of way.
The best way to keep kids out of gangs is to support Prevention Programs, programs that will give them a safety net, hope, self esteem, and a way out of the gang mill...Again, gangs are real people. Many wished they weren't in but I'm sure there are many who would leave that part of their world for one that is more positive and productive if they were given the direction and tools to do so...Jobs Jobs Jobs, will give many a positive self esteem and a life of responsibility and self worth.
The result? A far far better community, city, society, country and world.
Posted by: Fred L. Zaidman | July 08, 2009 at 09:41 PM
I support this initiative! Councilwoman Hahn has the right idea w this effort. I implore you to get behind it!
Posted by: Ryan | July 08, 2009 at 07:22 PM
As the former Executive Director of the Los Angeles City Commission on the Status of Women and founder of the Young Women at Risk Program (YWAR) we fought many battles with funders and legislators to get them to recognize the unique needs of at risk young women.
While there are more young men than young woman who join gangs, these at risk young women are particularly vulnerable to gang life. Many turning to drugs, crime and incarceration, many the mothers of children from gang members.
Because YWAR was funded by State and private dollars and monitored by the County, we were very purposeful in the development and accountability of our program.
However, it was right for the Times and others to question the effectiveness of programs that not only are funded by tax dollars but that have the lives of children and young adults in their hands.
No greater joy for me was to attend a YWAR program graduation and hear first hand from our graduates how YWAR changed their lives. How they discovered dreams outside of their immediate environment. How they wanted a better life for themselves and their families.
In this economy the community is and should be watchful of City spending and I believe that the City gets it!
Let's give them a chance to prove it. The next generation idpends on it..
Posted by: paula petrotta | July 08, 2009 at 04:29 PM
I definitely think it's worth another go. Gangs are such a problem right now, I think we ought to let Hahn, et al have their shot at it.
Posted by: Brian Boru | July 08, 2009 at 04:21 PM
What if you just re-brand the gangs as militias?
Posted by: Mitchell Young | July 08, 2009 at 03:03 PM
We know that our city is ready because it pulled off yesterday's tribute to an icon without incident.
I liked your thoughts. They made you think. On first glance, it angered me that the Times did not endorse Measure A. But the reasons you listed for not endorsing were good; obviously the next time it comes up for a vote, the measure will be crafted better (It had better be) so that it is better poised for an endorsement from you folks.
It is imperative that that this city continue to demonstrate it can spearhead a new beginning. It did so with the Lakers' celebration and the Michael Jackson service. Let's see a mayor, who is revered for mediating, bring together schools, gang leaders (past and present) and city officials to create something that works. It's time.
Posted by: Andrea Mulligan | July 08, 2009 at 03:00 PM
We cannot sit around and wait for government to be 100% efficient... we will never get anywhere. Gangs are a scourge. We must invest in these programs now, if we are to see any hope in the future. I appreciate Hahn's efforts to get this done.
Posted by: Concerned in Koreatown | July 08, 2009 at 02:43 PM
$36 a year is a more than reasonable amount to pay for a chance to revive the large swaths of the city that have been taken over by gangs and the large numbers of our kids that have had no prospects of ever getting out of these areas. Measure A would have provided a large chunk of money for innovative programs to address the City's gang problems, and I hope it is revived and put before voters again. The price of not trying to fund and improve these programs is to give up on many of our youth, and they need us now more than ever.
Posted by: Ty | July 08, 2009 at 02:02 PM
These programs definitely work - I've seen firsthand the impact they have on kids, and it's life-changing. The impact a small tax increase would have on so many lives is definitely worth it.
Posted by: Ryan | July 08, 2009 at 02:00 PM
The Times should support a parcel tax!!! This wasn't just about gang intervention. It was about "PREVENTION, JOB TRAINING and YES, Gang Intervention. We ARE ALREADY SPENDING THE MONEY. We call it the criminal justice system. We are spending exhorbatant amounts of money in arrest, trials and lock up with the opposite results of what we SAY we want. If the Times really wants to see Los Angeles better, give it a chance to spend some money wisely - FOR A CHANGE!!! America wants to look young but hates young people. Invest in them in a meaninful way and see the results. It has been "proven" to work in other cities where programming vs. lock up have been employed. See New York City.
Posted by: Noreen | July 08, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Yes. The LA Times failure to endorse this initiative was the difference between winning and losing. So who won? Taxpayers? I suppose they saved $36 per year if they owned a piece of property. But did they really save money? How much is a child's life worth. Or thousands of children for that matter. $30 million dollars per year to LA's Best after school program would have allowed every child in Los Angeles to participate in quality care and stimulating programs between the hours of 3-6pm when their parents are at work. Every child. Now tens of thousands of kids don't have a place to go, play and learn after school. How many of them will fail? How many will join a gang. How many will be in the wrong place at the wrong time and get hurt. Statistics and history tell us that many of these kids will die without fulfilling their potential or realizing their dreams as productive citizens. How stupid can we possibly be? The Mayor was an idiot for not making this a bigger deal. $30 million a year for children was a no brainer. Where's the leadership and the outrage? Where's the old LA Times that cared about improving the quality of life in Los Angeles and not just making political points? Shameful.
Posted by: Debra | July 08, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Carr and Hahn are on the right track, and have been for a couple years now. More importantly they have furnished the city with evidence virtually proving that a GRYD program with clearly defined goals can be implemented with great success. As the economy worsens and unemployment increases, I can't think of a more prescient measure than one aimed at reducing gang violence and increasing development programs for LA youth.
Posted by: BCF | July 08, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Know what's great about gangs? Nothing!
And I should know. I used to be in one.
We need to be doing more to keep youngsters out of violent criminal street gangs. For all its POSSIBLE imperfections, this parcel tax is a huge step in the right direction.
I only wish someone had proposed something like this when I was coming up.
Posted by: I Hate Gangs | July 08, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The Times took the easy way out in endorsing against the Measure in November. Bold action is needed to stem the tide of the gang problem in Los Angeles. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Posted by: Russ | July 08, 2009 at 12:17 PM
As a counselor who has worked with kids that might be exposed to gang activity, I can say unequivocally that these programs work. When the LA Times can't support a miniscule property tax increase for a referendum that would have a dramatic impact on our streets, then I seriously question their insights into our community.
Having Pete Carroll go into South Central at 1 AM definitely helps a few kids. Holding these after school anti-gang programs helps a whole lot of kids and is an effective solution.
The Times should also take issue with local and state laws that require a two-thirds majority for these referendums to pass. When 66.27% of the people vote in favor of something, and it fails, then are serious problems with our political system.
Posted by: Phil | July 08, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I'm usually in agreement with your page, but wasn't on this one back when you suggested a 'no' vote on Measure A.
Given our State's dire fiscal reality and the negative social effects tied to unemployment and dropout rates (both on the climb)...I'd assume that you'd emphatically support the anti-gang parcel tax. Guess not.
I want to see these tax monies going towards keeping at-risk youth out of trouble...and our streets and communities safer.
The question of whether or not the dollars will be 'spent wisely' is idle pontification at its worst. This is government we are talking about. Of course they won't be spent in the most efficient manner. But, the cost of doing nothing is far greater. Just ask any victim of violent street crime.
Posted by: RB | July 08, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Yes the Times should definitely support it!
Posted by: Ken | July 08, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Absolutely - yes. Carr is making progress. A small monthly assessment is a pittance when it comes to the most serious problem facing our city.
Posted by: In Hollywood | July 08, 2009 at 11:25 AM