From
2014 Los Angeles County Measure Ballot P
SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, GANG PREVENTION, YOUTH/ SENIOR RECREATION, BEACHES/ WILDLIFE PROTECTION MEASURE.
– To ensure continued funding from an expiring voter-approved measure for improving the safety of neighborhood parks and senior/youth recreation areas; assisting in gang prevention; protecting rivers, beaches, water sources; repairing, acquiring/preserving parks/natural areas; maintaining zoos, museums; providing youth job-training, shall Los Angeles County levy an annual $23/parcel special tax, requiring annual independent financial audits and all funds used locally?
From the
Los Angeles Times
Why does Proposition P apply a regressive, flat per-parcel tax, unlike Proposition A, which assessed its tax using a formula based mostly on a property's size? (That tax ranged from 3 cents to $10,000.) Why should so much of the burden for parks funding be transferred from wealthy landowners to average property owners? Why, if so many of Proposition A's projects were itemized in the ballot measure, does Proposition P not actually itemize anything? Why does it make sense to divide a huge chunk of the funds equally among the five supervisors, for them to spend as they see fit, instead of according to the county's greatest need?
This shows a decent way of reading into what seems to be a simple statement about a special tax. Questions need to be asked in order to 'read into' that line, such as 'what alternatives are there to a flat tax?', 'What are the potential types of parcels (large, small, expensive, cheap)?', exactly the types of questions raised by the Los Angeles Times Article.
