Council Retreats on Inglewood Tax to Pay for Police

Inglewood City Council members are having second thoughts about a proposed property tax assessment district to pay for 20 new police officers, a measure critics say should be put to the voters.

Opposition among some residents appears to have worn down the initial support of Mayor Edward Vincent and council members Daniel Tabor, Ervin (Tony) Thomas and Ann Wilk for the $1.4-million police benefit assessment district.

The assessment would charge the owner of a single-family home about $45 a year. Owners of apartment units would be charged on a sliding scale beginning at $53 per unit, and commercial properties would be assessed based on frontage area. It would pay for a 20-officer “crime-suppression team” to fight gang and drug activity that has kept the city’s violent-crime rate high, despite an overall drop in crime.

The proposal advanced in February by Councilman Anthony Scardenzan was endorsed by the council and a task force of community leaders that was assembled by Vincent.

But at a hearing attended by 300 people last month, about 25 speakers voiced the first concerted opposition to the measure, which does not require voter approval.

Some opponents agreed that the city needs more police officers, but they demanded the right to vote on paying for them. Others called for budget cuts instead of taxes and threatened council members with retaliation at the ballot box.

The council decided to withhold action until Aug. 2.

In an interview this week, Vincent said he now favors scrapping the benefit assessment district proposal. He said he would prefer to put a proposal on the ballot.

The council could ask residents to vote in an advisory election, with the council basing its approval on the outcome, city officials said.

City Atty. Howard Rosten said that if the council decides on such a process, the city would design an election in which council approval of an assessment district would be subject to approval by more than 50% of the voters. Rosten said the council could act before or after residents voted.

Another option would be a ballot measure asking citizens to vote directly on a special property parcel tax for more police, which would require a two-thirds vote for passage. Council members rejected that alternative earlier this year because a staff report indicated that the chances of getting two-thirds approval were slim, and Rosten said Thursday that officials do not consider it a viable option.

The council still has time to put the measure on the November ballot if necessary, officials said. If the council chooses to directly approve the assessment district, it must do so by Aug. 15 in order to put the district on county tax rolls.

Vincent said he favors the assessment district, which last month he said was needed to “keep control of Inglewood.” But he said he has changed his position because of the reluctance of Tabor, Thomas and Wilk.

“I think it could be injurious to some of my colleagues on the council,” Vincent said. “I don’t want to tell people to do something that may hurt them.”

Vincent said the issue could create problems, particularly for Tabor and Thomas because they face the prospect of tough election challenges.

Tabor said it would be politically risky for him to vote for the assessment district because many of his constituents have demanded an election.

“I think there would be political fallout for all of the members of the council, including the mayor,” said Tabor, who will be up for reelection in April.

Tabor incurred the anger of Assemblyman Curtis Tucker (D-Inglewood) by challenging the veteran legislator in the June primary. Tucker won an easy victory and threatened to take revenge on Tabor by backing a council challenger.

Tabor said he would campaign in favor of holding an advisory vote on the proposal, calling such a vote the council’s best option.

“It’s the appropriate thing to do,” Tabor said. “We should get out and sell this to folks. If people don’t buy it, they won’t buy it, but at least we’ll have made our argument in an intelligent fashion. We are planning for the future needs of the city, and the people want to share in that process.”

Thomas, meanwhile, said he still supports the proposal because the city needs more police officers, but he said residents had not been sufficiently educated about the issue.

“The only thing to do is put it on the ballot,” he said. “Let the people defeat themselves. I don’t want to cram an assessment on people if they’re not ready for it.”

Thomas, a Vincent ally, remains on the council pending appeal of a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s decision last October that annulled Thomas’ 1987 election because of Election Code violations. If an appellate court upholds the judge’s order of a new election, Thomas will face a rematch with opponent Garland Hardeman, who opposes the benefit assessment district.

Political considerations did not change his position, Thomas said, because the issue could be used in an election “regardless of whether (the assessment district) passes.”

Longtime city activist and businessman Ken Gossett, a proponent of putting the police measure to the voters, said council members retreated from the original proposal after realizing the level of opposition.

“The law requires that people should be responsible for their own taxes,” Gossett said. “When it’s imposed on them, it turns the council into Big Brother. . . . Even if they don’t vote to put it on the ballot, a citizen’s initiative will force it onto the ballot.”’

Gossett also said he opposes an advisory vote because it would not be binding and would not require a two-thirds majority.

Gossett and Vincent said Wilk has told them that she leans toward supporting a ballot measure. Wilk was out of town and could not be reached for comment.

Councilman Scardenzan, whose support for the assessment district has remained firm, is in Italy with a city delegation.