Comments
LA WATCHDOG - By rejecting the increase in our Street Light Assessment, we can send a message to City Hall that it is time for them to clean up their act and reform its budget and financial policies. This would help eliminate the Structural Deficit, stabilize the City’s finances, improve public safety and the City’s poorly maintained infrastructure, and allow for greater transparency and accountability.
There is no question that the Bureau of Street Lighting would benefit from the $80 million, 180% increase in the Assessment, from $45 to $125 million. Since Mayor Bass was elected, the single street light outage response time has increased from 61 to 266 working days (a calendar one year).
Street Lighting is a complex enterprise that has been and is underfunded. It needs to maintain, repair, and upgrade its system of 223,000 streetlights, protect its system from copper wire theft, replace LED lights and poles at the end of their lifecycle, install solar powered streelights, pay its electric bill (already $120 million past due), and provide support and administrative services for its 180 employees.
The City argues that the Street Lighting Assessment has not been increased since 1996. This is the fault of our mayors (Hahn, Villaraigosa, Garcetti, and Bass) who have been reluctant to incur the pushback from property owners and instead kicked the proverbial can down the road.
Shockingly, there has been no effort to reach out to Angelenos about this increase. Rather, just a ballot in the mail with little very little information, a policy designed to keep us in the dark.
Instead of increasing the Assessment, the City should treat street lighting as a basic city service, part of its core infrastructure, and fund it through the City’s budget. Since 1996, the City’s budget has increased 250%. If only the City had provided Street Lighting with $3 million more a year for the last 30 years, there would be no need for an increase.
Nor would it be necessary to hit up the Department of Water and Power for $200 million to install 60,000 solar powered streetlights and maintain its system.
By not approving the almost tripling of the Assessment, we will be putting the Mayor and the City Council in a pickle. This is the plan. Does the City provide the necessary funding for Street Lighting by hitting up cash strapped “balanced” budget? Or do the Mayor and the City Council continue to endanger public safety with its unlit streets by underfunding Street Lighting?
The simple answer is to implement reform by requiring open and transparent labor negotiations, prohibiting the City from entering into any new labor agreement that creates a deficit, and establishing an independent Office of Transparency and Accountability to review and analyze the City’s budget and finances in real time.
It is important that we vote NO and mail in our ballots because the City and other government entities will vote yes for the properties they own. A NO vote will send a message to City Hall that it is time for budget and financial
(Jack Humphreville writes the LA Watchdog column for CityWatch, where he covers city finances, utilities, and accountability at City Hall. He is President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, serves as the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and is a longtime Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. With a sharp focus on fiscal responsibility and transparency, Jack brings an informed and independent voice to Los Angeles civic affairs. He can be reached at lajack@gmail.com.)
