This harsh state of affairs was on L.A. voters’ minds in November, when 65 percent approved Measure JJJ, an initiative launched by the L.A. County Federation of Labor that ended up winning a fair amount of business support. It creates an unusually strong affordable housing mandate that affects all projects with 10 or more units that need a zoning change, general plan amendment or height-district change to proceed.

Such projects are required to include construction of below-market-rate rental units — the term some prefer to the more vague “affordable housing.” With single-family housing, duplex and condo projects, developers could be forced to have up to 40 percent of the units be below-market-rate. With apartment projects, the mandate is up to 25 percent of units. Builders have the option of building the cheaper units elsewhere or paying into a city housing trust.

Measure JJJ’s de facto project labor agreement controlling construction pay caused considerable griping in some business circles. But in a city where housing stock has lagged behind population growth for decades — driving the average rent to nearly $2,500 and forcing one-third of residents to pay more than half their income toward housing — its victory was celebrated as progress on a huge issue.

2-year moratorium on planning exceptions called catastrophic

Now, less than four months later, Los Angeles voters are again being asked to vote on a housing proposal — Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative — that could negate what Measure JJJ hopes to accomplish.

Its critics say the measure would make the housing crisis in Los Angeles even worse. Defenders say it’s needed to respond to what they depict as shady City Hall approvals of zoning exceptions which allow for construction of large, high-impact projects that aren’t in neighbors’ interest.

If approved in a March 7 vote, it would ban for two years the granting of special project approvals to allow development contrary to what’s now permitted in Los Angeles’ 35 neighborhood planning documents.

No one disagrees that the documents are often badly out of date, reflecting the needs and concerns of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The Measure S moratorium would end if all 35 documents were updated before the two-year ban came to an end.

But city officials say the process of revising the plans is cumbersome and will take years. From Mayor Eric Garcetti on down, they depict Measure S as a disaster for a city with an acute housing shortage. Garcetti has also warned it will make it far more difficult for the city to deal with its homeless crisis.

Local labor unions are also alarmed. “Measure S will block much of the affordable housing that voters just voted for when they approved Proposition JJJ,” Rusty Hicks, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, said in a statement issued last week.

Zoning exception / donation link drives corruption argument

Garcetti and other city officials say suggestions of corruption in the way Los Angeles grants exceptions to its neighborhood plans are unfounded. But this argument is countered by the Yes on S campaign pointing to heavy campaign contributions to officeholders from developers who benefited the most from the planning waivers.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has been the most prominent face in the Yes on S campaign effort. Founded 30 years ago this month by Michael Weinstein, the foundation has long been active in health care issues, most recently with Proposition 60, the failed November state ballot measure that would have required adult film performers to wear condoms.

Weinstein’s prominence in the Yes on S campaign suggests the Hollywood-based foundation now hopes to make its mark on a broader range of issues.

By Dave Roberts

When you take on the firefighters’ union, it helps to have an asbestos hide.

Kris Hunt, executive director for the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, has waged a number of political battles over the years, including once receiving a death threat. But her recent battle against a $197 tax hike in a small fire district on the eastern edge of the Bay Area turned out to be the nastiest yet.

She was slandered as a “community terrorist” and repeatedly called a liar. One blogger placed her and five other tax opponents (including myself) on a hit list of people to contact if your house burns down. Hunt was told that a board member asked a staffer to find out her address.

Hunt jokes that she’s shopping for alligators for her moat.

“I have never been in one that was made so personal before,” she said. “Usually people will argue with you, but this thing actually devolved into name calling. They are still at it, that we are lying. Wow. They can’t accept reality. This is probably going to continue just because we have hit where they hurt. And when they didn’t have a solid argument they really let it get personal, and that is unfortunate.”

As for being on a hit list, Hunt said, “That’s another level of viciousness. By that time I decided the only way to deal with this, if you aren’t going to be able to convince these people, then you make fun. I said that I am number one on the list — I am bragging about it. That seemed the only way to deal with this.”

But she also acknowledged, “There’s a level of concern only in that there are crazy people out there. People can go over the line and get very emotional.”

Despite fire tax proponents spending $177,000 (to zero spending by opponents), the tax hike failed to gain a majority of the vote, let alone the two-thirds required to pass.

It was always going to be a tough sell asking for an additional $2,200 per home over 10 years when most people have lost 39 percent of their net worth in the last three years and many are still staggering from the aftershocks of the Great Recession. But the district board decided to go for it anyway, doing the bidding of the firefighters union as it seeks to increase salaries, benefits and jobs.

Fire tax hikes were not that popular throughout the state. In addition to the failure of the East Contra Costa tax hike, a $100 tax hike in Higgins, a $40 hike in North Auburn-Ophir, a $79 tax in Placer Hills and a $59 tax in Crest all failed.

There were two successful fire tax measures: a $150 tax in Newcastle and a four-year extension of a $65 tax in San Mateo County.

Tax-paid propaganda

Despite the economic malaise headwinds, fire tax measures have several built-in advantages for passage. Foremost is the ability to use taxpayer dollars to propagandize for more taxpayer dollars under the guise of an “education” campaign. The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District paid $120,000 to a campaign marketing firm. That money could have funded a firefighter for a year. It instead provided alarmist fliers to every home in the district and a series of tax-hike sales meetings.

“Alarmism” was the theme of the tax-hike campaign. The district’s first flier kicked it off with an official-looking brochure containing emergency contact numbers, a bold headline on a flaming red background, “Attention: East County Resident” and a 470-word message from the police chief explaining why a tax hike is necessary.

The district’s second taxpayer-provided flier was another official-looking piece headlined, “A Critical Update from Your Fire District.” It argued that the district has a deficit because of a 35 percent decline in revenues in the past four years and because the district receives half the property tax revenue of other districts. There’s no mention of the skyrocketing cost of retirement benefits as a contributing factor to the deficit. But there is a rebuttal to an argument that the district “should slash firefighter salaries,” stating that they make 71 percent less than firefighters in a neighboring district.

Another big advantage for tax hike proponents is the firefighters union. The International Association of Firefighters Local 1230 poured $44,000 into the campaign, resulting in more alarmist fliers. One door hanger headlined “IT’S AN EMERGENCY!” warned that without the tax hike “your health and home [will be] at risk” due to longer response times [photo of house on fire] and insurance rates will increase by thousands of dollars per year [photo of four $1,000 bills burning].” Another flier featured a large photo of an auto accident.

It’s telling that the person who presented the pro-tax side in a Measure S debate was not the fire district president or a board member, but instead the president of the local firefighters union, who is a fire captain in another fire district. Vince Wells, who led the tax-hike campaign, is also a contributor to the fiscal problem resulting in the need for tax hike campaigns. Last year Wells received from taxpayers: $103,635 in base salary, $20,912 in overtime, $15,794 in health care, $30,468 contribution to his pension and $15,990 in miscellaneous compensation. However, he does contribute 26 percent of his salary to his pension.

Cushy retirement

Firefighters can retire at age 50 and receive a pension equivalent to 3 percent of their pay for every year worked. That equates to 90 percent of final salary for someone who started at age 20. And that adds up. Forty percent of Contra Costa County government retirees receiving pensions of $100,000 or more used to work for a fire district. More than half of those receiving pensions of $200,000 or more are former fire district employees. And the top pension profiteer, enjoying more than $300,000 a year, is a former fire chief.

Retirement expenses in the East County fire district increased 26 percent this year and are projected to increase another 30 percent in the next three years. At that point, one out of every four dollars spent on firefighting will go for retirement. The Fire Protection District is morphing into the Retirement Protection District. Ironically, not even the $100 million tax hike would have been enough to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging. The district was still projected to return to deficit spending in four years.

The hero card

Another advantage is the residual good will for firefighters from 9/11 — the hero card. One billboard shows a smoky firefighter who looks like he’s been through hell, with the message: “When others ran out, he rushed in. When the Fire District asked for 54 cents a day, you laid him off!”

With Measure S receiving just 46 percent of the vote, the district is making good on its threats of Armageddon. Half of the district’s six stations will close and 15 firefighters will be laid off on July 1, reducing the force to 27.

Chief Hugh Henderson warned that response times to the outlying parts of the 250-square-mile district could more than double. Despite that, the board — again doing the bidding of the firefighters union — rejected the option of leaving four stations open with two firefighters in each. Instead, they chose to go with three stations with three firefighters each. That will provide a reduced workload for the firefighters but will increase response times in certain areas.

Tax-hike opponents are offering numerous suggestions to cut costs while continuing to deliver good service. They include privatizing fire protection, consolidating the fire districts in the county, serious pension reform, hiring more on-call reserve and volunteer firefighters, rectifying the top-heavy staffing, asking the cities in the district to donate and filing for bankruptcy. It remains to be seen whether the board investigates any of these options. It will probably depend on what the union wants. Politicians defy public-sector unions at their peril.

But taxpayers from Wisconsin to San Diego to East Contra Costa are fighting back against government of, by and for the government unions. East County fire board President Kevin Romick said, in regard to a county water tax hike that he opposed: “Every once in a while you’ve got to stand up to the bureaucratic behemoth and tell them it’s not right.” Fifty-six percent of his constituents agreed, voting down Romick’s tax hike.

Note: This article was corrected. It originally said that Vince Wells contributed “zero” to his pension. In fact, he contributes 26 percent of his salary. We regret the error.