The City of La Mesa posted an announcement today on its website, reminding La Mesans that they approved Proposition L, the City of La Mesa 3/4 cent sales tax increase.  According to the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters, the measure passed 55.51% to 44.49%, with 24688 votes cast.  As a result, on April 1, 2009 the local sales and use tax will increase from 7.75% to 8.5%.

Despite the recessionary economic environment, La Mesa voters apparently bought the "oogedy boogedy" marketing of this needless tax increase.  The City Council's resolution warned of widespread plagues and pestilence if Prop L did not pass:  increased crime and gang violence, deteriorating streets and sidewalks, parks with broken playground equipment hidden amongst overgrown grass and weeds.  Voters were warned that the State, which taketh away and never giveth, would not ride to the rescue because of its huge budget deficit.  La Mesa's reserve funds were forecast to run out "in less than two years".  Without a tax increase, "La Mesa will be compelled to implement devastating service cuts . . . . "

The majority of voters did not heed the "No on L" message, possibly due to the late launch of this opposition, which would not have caught mail-in voters in time.  The San Diego County Taxpayers Association noted, "The City of La Mesa's need for a revenue increase is clearly self-imposed, as the City has allowed expenditures to exceed revenues annually since 2001."  Furthermore:

• "The City spends approximately 75% of its budget on employee salaries and benefits, including a pension program in which the City fully finances the employee contribution, which is then considered as part of the base determination of pension benefits."
  
  
• "The City maintains that its police officers are the lowest paid in San Diego County, but analysis of the City's provision of police protection since 1992 does not support claims of hampered recruitment and retention efforts."
  
  
• State takeaways have not affected La Mesa "significantly more or less than other local municipalities. Additionally, these takeaways have been in place since 1992, and do not represent a new fiscal challenge to the City. While the current State budget crisis may impose additional fiscal challenges on the City, the presence of a structural deficit in La Mesa's General Fund has been in place since 2001, a result of the City's inability to reign in expenditures."

If the City has been unable to live within its means since 2001, it is difficult to believe that it will be a wise steward of its new tax dollars.  Moreover, it is under no constraints to use the funds for the purposes set forth in its resolution.  According to the La Mesa City Attorney, "Because the tax would be a 'general tax,' the tax revenue would go into the City's general fund and could be used for any legal municipal purpose. The City would not be legally bound to use this tax revenue for any special purpose or for any specifically identified special services, facilities or programs."

Today's announcement does nothing to allay fears of further fiscal irresponsibility.  It shows that the City's primary reason for the tax increase was to shore up its balance sheet, with preventing service cuts a secondary concern:

This is the beginning of giving the organization an opportunity at long-term financial solvency and a means to address ongoing State impacts on La Mesa's budget. This will also allow the City to avoid the immediate reduction in services to the community that would have been enacted without the community's support for Measure L.

The time is overdue to elect a fiscally conservative Mayor and more Council members like Ruth Sterling, who opposed Prop L.  The City needs to cut expenses, as Sterling suggests, and stop following the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger/State Democrat program of tax increases and ever-expanding government programs and services.  Richard Rider, Chair of San Diego Tax Fighters, wrote an excellent article that lays out who really wins and loses due to Prop L's passage.

Fortunately, Shannon O'Dunn, who endorsed Prop L,  did not prevail in her bid to join the Council last month.  Unfortunately, Dave Allan did.  The next Mayoral election, however, is in 2010.  Who will challenge Mayor Art Madrid?