State Lawmaker Introduces 2 Bills to Ease Park Purchases, Projects

A Los Angeles County lawmaker is pushing two pieces of legislation to enable frustrated local park officials to remove what has proved a major roadblock to the development of park projects such as a seaside walkway in San Pedro.

Under current law, efforts to raise taxes to buy new parkland and upgrade existing parks have been stymied because the tax increases must win support from two-thirds of voters.

That requirement has been a high hurdle, blocking passage in the past seven months of two Los Angeles-area ballot measures that would have assessed property owners for parkland acquisition and improvements to local parks and recreation facilities.

As a consequence, Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier) has introduced two measures that either directly or indirectly would eliminate the two-thirds requirement.

One is a constitutional amendment that would allow voters anywhere in the state to approve funds for local park projects with a simple majority vote.

The second is a bill that would allow Los Angeles County to speed up the creation of a countywide open space district. These districts, in turn, would have the authority to levy property tax assessments for park projects with the consent of a simple majority of voters.

Hill introduced his proposals in the wake of last November’s rejection of Los Angeles County Proposition B, an $817-million measure for recreational and cultural projects. Even though it received 57% of the vote--a margin that most politicians would envy--the measure failed because it did not reach the magic two-thirds mark.

Proposition B’s funds would have paid for a variety of South Bay projects, including $2.7 million for the so-called Harbor Walkway, a seaside promenade stretching from the Vincent Thomas Bridge to White’s Point in San Pedro, and $250,000 for new soccer fields at the Wilmington Jaycees Recreation Complex on Figueroa Street.

Supporters of changing the law say the need for lowering the required vote for park measures was driven home again last week when Los Angeles city voters went to the polls. Proposition 1, a $298.8-million bond measure for parks and recreational facilities, won 58% of the vote, which still left it nine percentage points short of the two-thirds support it needed.

Hill’s proposed constitutional amendment to allow passage of local parks bonds with a simple majority vote is pending in the Senate. One of its provisions would prevent financing any local park projects with state funds.

“I want the state out of the local park bond business. I think it’s fine if we pass a state bond for state parks,” Hill said, but the money should not be used for local recreation facilities.

But local park officials have voiced reservations about that part of Hill’s constitutional amendment, in part because they have increasingly relied on state bond funds to buy local park land. These state bonds have met with a relatively high degree of success because they require support from only a majority of voters.

Hill’s proposal is backed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. But it is expected to encounter stiff opposition from anti-tax lawmakers who oppose any effort to alter the requirement of two-thirds approval for local bond measures.

Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said: “The two-thirds vote for what amounts to a property tax increase is an important protection for the individual against temporary and over-bearing majorities.”

Hill’s second parks-related proposal--his bill to ease creation of a county open-space district--is almost identical to a measure by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles). Both were introduced on behalf of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a state agency that purchases open space in a wide area stretching from Griffith Park to Point Mugu in Ventura County.

Hill’s measure has cleared the Senate and is awaiting action in the Assembly. Friedman’s bill was passed by the Assembly Wednesday and sent to the Senate. Eventually, they may be joined together into one bill.

In pressing the legislation, Esther Feldman, a conservancy official, said Los Angeles County has not adequately addressed its need for preserving open space. “We just haven’t kept up, and the needs have continued to grow,” said Feldman, who managed the Proposition B campaign.

Without the change in the law, the county would have to go through a potentially unwieldy bureaucratic process to set up an open-space district, including notifying owners of more than 2 million parcels of land. The Hill and Friedman proposals would streamline the creation of the district, allowing the Board of Supervisors to place a property tax assessment for park projects on the ballot as soon as next June. Passage of the assessment would require only a simple majority.

All the county’s cities would be eligible to share in the funds, along with the county and the conservancy. The exact split has not been determined. But Jim Park, chief of the county Department of Parks and Recreation’s planning division, estimated that the county could raise as much as $450 million to buy and maintain parkland if it levies a $20-a-year parcel tax.

Park said another question yet to be decided is whether land with commercial buildings or apartment houses would be hit with a higher assessment than property with just a single-family home.

Even though the Board of Supervisors has not taken a position on the legislation, Park said, the county has looked at the idea of creating an open-space district because “there’s a critical need for additional parkland.”

Los Angeles City Councilman John Ferraro, a major supporter of the city measure defeated last Tuesday, would welcome creation of a county open-space district, said his press secretary, Bill Gilson.

If residents “love this town,” Gilson said, “they’ve got to do something to bring” recreational and cultural facilities “up to snuff.”

But again, some lawmakers are expected to oppose any effort to make it easier to impose taxes for parkland acquisition.