Tax would levy $225 per parcel per year; renters would split tax among units.
By Carolanne Sudderth/Ocean Park Gazette
The votes are in. After two days and many hours of debate, haggling and wrangling over prepositions and articles-let alone tax structure and amount-the Save Our Schools (nee Parcel Tax) Committee voted to recommend a flat $225 parcel tax to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board rather than going with one of the Berkeley-modeled versions that included allowances for square footage.
Essentially a pared down version of the failed Measure EE, the $300 flat tax that voters rejected last year, the newly proposed tax would be in place for six rather than 12 years. Another important change concerns the elimination of the senior exemption as it applies to renters over the age of 65. The tax could be passed on to renters, prorated among units. While landlords and homeowners over the age of 65 could still apply, the exemption for renters has been dropped as too difficult to implement. Interestingly, when the committee met on Friday, a representative of Apartment Owners’ Association of Greater Los Angeles said that landlords would stand behind any education measure passed through to renters, but solidly oppose any one that stopped at their doorstep.
The SMMUSD school board appointed the Save Our Schools Committee after Measure EE failed, and charged them with creating a new, more palatable alternative parcel tax measure. At that time, the school board claimed to be looking at a deficit of some $2.5 million for fiscal year 2002/03. After the election, schools officials alleged that proposed budget cuts at the state level would increase that amount to $11 million this year and increasing sums thereafter.
Several alternative taxes were designed. Rejected versions would have established a base tax with an additional stipend for square footage. Measure R, which would have established $110 per parcel plus .07 per square foot, was rejected after the results of a telephone survey were submitted to the board last week. Those surveyed had been equally divided between alternatives P (a flat tax of $225) and Q ($60 per parcel, plus .05 per square foot.)
A number of board members said they had arrived at the meeting prepared to support Q, but had changed their minds mid-meeting.
Overall, the attitude seemed to be “what’s going to win.” Committee member John Petz remarked that the turning point seemed to be renters.
Committee members noted that while Q would protect smaller homeowners, it’s important not to gouge those with deep pockets. Frankel noted that 50 percent of Malibu had voted against Measure EE, which would have required 67 percent for passage. “We have to get 70 percent of Santa Monica to get 60 percent overall.” According to Santa Monica’s Community Voices, some 60 percent of that city rents. The United States Census pegs the percentage at closer to 70 percent.
“To be honest,” said Frankel, “there are more low-income renters than there are low-income property owners in Santa Monica, and we have to keep that in mind.”
Committee member Matt DiNolfo said that if he were organizing against Q, “I would tell owners of large buildings that is overwhelmingly unfair to renters.”
Petz asked if it were not unfair to ask renters to come up with $70 a year, and Harley responded, “Fairness is in the eye of the beholder.”
Whereas the other two alternatives would have put all tenants on a base-plus-square-footage-basis, Measure P divides the flat $225 figure among however many renters live on the property. In the case of a 500-unit complex, such as Santa Monica Shores or Pacific Plaza, this could amount to 45 cents a year, whereas those in two households in a duplex would pay $112.50 apiece. Those living in or renting condos, or TORCA conversions, will pay the full $225.
During discussion of which measure to go with, and the tide turning toward Alternative P, committee member Ron Gray defied anyone to look him in the eye and tell him the measure was fair. “You think that renters aren’t going to see through a senior exemption for landlords and not a senior exemption for renters? Renters and businesses profit,” he said. “The average homeowner gets screwed.”
Gray held that the fair thing to do would be “what progressive cities have done” -analyze it and try to come up with something that’s equitable. “We’ve come up with this measure that is fairer. Now we’re afraid to use it.”
In addition, he said, the fact the board is asking for less money in the face of a burgeoning financial crisis could imply mismanagement on the part of the district.
Bristling, Superintendent John Deasy denied that there was a “shard of evidence” pointing to misuse of funds. Any idea of fairness, he said, was eliminated with Prop 13’s prohibition on ad valorem taxation by the schools. “I wish that we had the luxury of being able to tax around income, but we don’t have it, so we need to use a proxy for it.”
The ballot measure will be presented to the SMMUSD school board this Thursday for their approval.