The Freedom Minute

LAPD Cooks the Books on Photo Red Light Enforcement Statistics

On November 9, 2009, investigative news reporter David Goldstein of the local CBS affiliate here in Los Angeles aired an expose’ on the city’s photo red light (PRL) enforcement program. The report showed that contrary to claims by the LAPD, at intersections with red light cameras accidents actually increased rather than decreased. In response, the LAPD prepared its own study. Not surprisingly, in this report by the LAPD to the L.A. City council, the LAPD claimed that the statistics used by CBS (which were provided by the LAPD) were flawed. In fact, in one section of the report is the following statement:

From 2004 through 2006, which was prior to the installation of the cameras, there were nine reported traffic fatalities, five of which were red light related that occurred at the current PRL intersections. It should be noted that there have been no red light-related fatalities at any of the intersections since April 2006 when the first cameras were activated.

Months later, in June 2010, when the City Council was debating whether or not to go out to bid on a new photo enforcement system, these same representatives from the LAPD advocated that the program not only be continued, but expanded. Their testimony included virtually the identical claim that appears in their report.

This statement is clearly intended to suggest that had photo enforcement been present, the five fatalities that occurred prior to the installation of the enforcement cameras would not have occurred and that the current system is preventing fatalities. A number of city council members seemed quite impressed with this statistic. However, on further analysis, it is clear that the above statement is misleading, and possibly intentionally so.

At the invitation of Sgt. Matt McWillie, head of the PRL Program, I reviewed the accident reports on the five fatality accidents the LAPD claims occurred prior to the installation of the current photo enforcement system. My analysis appears below and as you’ll see, none of these accidents were of the type that could reasonably be expected to be prevented by photo enforcement and therefore can’t be used as an argument for the installation of a red-light cameras. In fact, two of the five accidents were clearly not even red-light related.

Details of Fatal Accidents Used to Justify the LAPD Safety Claims

Accident #1 – 1/21/2004 Victory Blvd. and Laurel Canyon
Accident was caused by DUI, not a driver trying to beat the red light. Also, at the time of the accident, this intersection was being enforced with a photo red-light system administered by the previous vendor, ATS. This was not a fatality that occurred “prior to PRL enforcement”, but rather a fatality that occurred during PRL enforcement with a prior system. Furthermore, as this type of accident makes clear, photo enforcement cannot prevent crashes caused by drunk drivers. Unquestionably, the red-light camera had no effect on whether this drunk driver ran the red light, as is the case with virtually all serious collisions that occur when drivers enter the intersection well into the red phase due to impairment, distraction or fatigue. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was caused by a drunk driver and occurred at an intersection that was being photo enforced with a red-light camera.

Accident #2 – 2/9/2004 Western/MLK
Accident was caused by a pedestrian under the influence of drugs j-walking a bicycle across the street late at night. Furthermore, the accident occurred 33 feet beyond the intersection, not at the intersection itself. Witnesses stated the driver entered the intersection on yellow. This was not an accident caused by a red light runner. LAPD stated that they included this as “red-light related”, because they believed that “it was possible” that the driver sped up to make it through the intersection before the light turned red, although they had no direct evidence for that assumption and the bicyclist was deemed at fault for the accident. Therefore, this accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it did not occur within the intersection and was not caused by red light running but rather by a pedestrian j-walking. Photo enforcement would have had no effect on preventing this accident.

Accident #3 – 6/23/2005 Beverly/Western
Pedestrian was struck in the crosswalk by a sanitation truck making a right turn from Beverly onto Western. The pedestrian was crossing Western. Witnesses claimed the truck had a green light. This is the logical conclusion as the pedestrian also would have had a green light to cross Western, accounting for his presence in the crosswalk. This accident was most likely caused by the truck driver failing to yield to the pedestrian possibly due to an obstructed view from the garbage truck. The truck driver was cited for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, not a red light violation. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was not caused by red light running. Photo enforcement would have made no difference in preventing this accident.

Accident #4 – 3/5/2005 Venice/Grand
A sixteen-year-old driver ran the light long after it was red. According to statements of those involved, this accident was caused by driver inattention. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was caused primarily by a distracted, inexperienced driver, not intentional red light running. Photo enforcement has no effect on preventing this type of accident.

Accident #5 – 4/6/2006 Manchester/Figueroa
Accident occurred just after midnight. The driver claimed she was tired and didn’t remember whether the light was red. This accident was most likely caused by driver fatigue. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was caused by a fatigued driver, not intentional red light running. Photo enforcement has no effect on preventing this type of accident.

When the details of each accident are considered, it becomes clear to any impartial observer that using these five accidents to suggest that the City’s photo red-light program has saved lives is not intellectually honest. For example, regardless of the fact that the LAPD was fully aware that the fatality at Victory and Laurel Canyon occurred at an intersection where a red-light camera was in use at the time of the collision, the LAPD chose to categorize this accident as a “before the cameras” fatality. It was not. It was a “before the current set of cameras” fatality. An unbiased study would never have included this accident in the “before” statistical group and no reasonable argument can be made for doing so since there was a red-light camera in operation and the accident was caused by a drunk driver.

In regards to the accident involving the sanitation truck, it’s extremely unlikely that a red light violation occurred. The evidence in the accident report strongly suggests that the light was green at the time of the incident. The pedestrian and the garbage truck were both initially traveling in the same direction and it is unlikely they both ignored a red signal. Moreover, neither the driver nor the pedestrian was cited for violating the red. What most likely occurred was that the pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk on a green light and the truck driver began his right turn at approximately the same moment and just didn’t see him. An unfortunate event, but not the type of accident that can be prevented using red light cameras. When we asked why the LAPD included this accident, the officer who compiled the statistics responded that, similar to the bicyclist accident at Western and MLK, he did so because “there was a chance the light might have been red”. “Might have been” and “it was possible” aren’t the proper criteria to use when deciding whether or not to include a particular data set in a before and after study. Since the LAPD knows that there is no evidence that a red light violation occurred, neither this accident nor the bicyclist accident should have been used to suggest that red-light cameras have prevented fatalities at photo enforced intersections, yet the LAPD continues to do so.

Finally, the two accidents caused by driver fatigue and distraction occurred well into the red phase, providing further evidence that the most dangerous red-light running accidents are not due to drivers trying to beat the light and thus can’t be remedied by installing photo enforcement. The photo enforcement approach to curtailing the incidence of red-light running is solely intended to influence those drivers who willfully ignore or try to beat the red light. No one has ever suggested that red light cameras should be installed to prevent accidents caused by fatigued or distracted drivers. If the LAPD had intended to provide an honest analysis of the photo red light program, they certainly wouldn’t have included accidents caused by distraction or fatigue.

But even if accidents or fatalities have decreased at photo enforced intersections, the reduction was likely not due to the presence of red light cameras. Concurrent with the installation of the current photo red-light system, the yellow signal timing at all photo red-light intersections was increased to comply with the minimum requirements set out in California law. In addition, the LADOT instituted an all-red phase at PRL intersections as well. This, more than any other factor would likely account for any increase in safety at the city’s 32 photo enforced intersections.

So, you might ask, what incentive does the LAPD have to promote the city’s photo red light program using bogus statistics? The LAPD has been pushing red light cameras for many years. They have invested a great deal of funding, man hours, and public relations good will on the program. To be shown that, after more than a decade of costs not only to the city but to the hundreds of thousand LA drivers who have had millions of dollars extracted from them, the entire program has been for naught would be a public relations disaster.   Furthermore, the department has been touting red light cameras as a “safety program”.  Acknowledging that their efforts have not made the public any safer would be a bitter pill to swallow.  Even worse would be the admission that the driving public is now less safe, both as a direct consequence of this program and due to the lost opportunity to have implemented engineering measures that actually would have made our roads safer.

I want to make it clear, though, that I’m a strong supporter of the police in general. The vast majority of police officers do this thankless job with distinction and valor. But when the police become advocates for public policy, especially a policy that affects hundreds of thousands of citizens and costs the public millions of dollars annually, they have an obligation to be as accurate and unbiased as possible.

The police officers involved in the photo red light enforcement program may believe that they really are making the public safer. so to them, fudging on the numbers is ok. And this is why those with an inherent bias or vested interest in the outcome of a statistical analysis should never be the ones doing the study. There’s just too much temptation to cook the books.

Edit – Since this post was written, the LAPD has continued to use this bogus claim of preventing fatalities at photo enforced intersections both to the Police Commission and to the media.

Tweet

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Recommendations for May 19th Special Election

Local Races

City Attorney – Vote for Carmen Trutanich. His opponent, Jack Weiss, was our council member and was pretty much the worst representative you could imagine. He’s in bed with all the political elites in City Hall and has waged a deceptive smear campaign against Trutanich. Don’t reward him. Trutanich will be an independent prosecutor and work best for the people of Los Angeles.

Council District 5 – Vote for David Vahedi. Between Vahedi and his opponent Paul Koretz, there is no doubt that Vahedi is the better choice. Koretz is a career politician and would simply be a continuation of the status quo. He moved into the district just so he could run for the open council seat being vacated by Jack Weiss. I’ve listened to both men at various candidates forums and I’m convinced that Vahedi will be a much more independent voice and bring the possibility of real change. I also believe he will be more open to input for the constituents. He’s also a real grass-roots candidate having served on his local neighborhood council for many years.

Here’s what you need to know about the Propositions
Continue reading “Recommendations for May 19th Special Election”

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Additional Recommendations for Tuesday’s Election

Here’s some additional recommendations for Tuesday’s election.

Controller – Kathleen “Suzy” Evans
www.evansforcontroller.com
Suzy isn’t a career politician like the other two candidates and is likely to be independent from the political dealings of city hall. Wendy Greuel is the most well know of the candidates, currently serving on the City Council. Wendy has been all over the airwaves recently claiming how she’d fight waste and collect unpaid taxes. But what has she been doing all these years while on the council? Nothing. In fact, she’s been responsible for much of the waste and inefficiency of city hall. Plus, she and the mayor are so politically enmeshed, it’s highly unlikely she’d do any real fiscal cleaning up.

City Attorney – Carmen Trutanich
David Berger is also a good choice. Again, the most widely know candidate is political insider Jack Weiss. He has been a terrible council member for our district and is so politically cozy with the current mayor that he’d never be able to take an independent stance on anything. We don’t need another politician, we need someone who will make the people of LA his first priority. Vote for anyone other than Jack Weiss.

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Vote for Walter Moore for Mayor of Los Angeles

To say that anyone would be a better mayor than Antonio Villaragosa, would be the understatement of the year. Our current mayor is the typical career politician who caters almost exclusively to special interest groups and the politically connected. Under his watch, the City of Los Angeles has declined while taxes and fees have skyrocketed. Furthermore, Villaragosa has shown himself to be unconcerned with basic honesty. Remember Villaragosa’s misleading and deceptive Prop S which tricked LA voters into approving a tax which would otherwise have expired by calling it a tax reduction? Well we now have Measure B, another deceptively titled ballot measure (Solar Energy and Job Creation Program), which would stifle solar power innovation and give a monopoly to a powerful union. (See Related Post) Guess who championed this new boondoggle – right Mayor Villaragosa. The reasons to vote Villaragosa out of office are too numerous to list; his mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, disregard for the middle class taxpayer, and backdoor dealings should be enough to convince you. In addition, Villaragosa is likely to run for governor in 2010. The L.A. Weekly recently estimated that he currently spends only 11% of his time on his mayoral duties. How much time do you think he’ll spend on city business while he’s off campaigning?

This is why I am endorsing Walter Moore for Mayor. Walter has been an outspoken opponent of City Hall for a long time. He first came to my attention during the grassroots attempt to defeat Prop S and since then has been on the right side of almost every issue the middle class Angelino should care about. Here’s a link to his website. Walter can do a much better job speaking for himself than I could hope to do in this short blog post. I urge you to visit Walter’s website and vote for him this Tuesday. We can’t afford another four years of Antonio Villaragosa.

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Vote No on LA Measure B: Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Program

This is another deceptively titled ballot measure designed to trick the voting public into voting for something they would never want if they knew the truth – a monopoly by a powerful union and guaranteed higher energy rates. So here’s the truth:

Measure B amends the Charter and Administrative Code to authorize creation of a DWP program to build 400 megawatts’ worth of solar photovoltaics on land and rooftops inside the city. But it also mandates that the “solar power installations shall be installed, owned, operated and maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP)”. This gives the DWP a virtual monopoly on all solar power installations throughout the city and explains why the measure was created and pushed onto the ballot by the powerful union that represents DWP workers. They want to get through legislation what they can’t achieve in the open market – a monopoly. And we all know what happens when you have a monopoly – you block competition that could provide cheaper or better alternatives.

As explained on the VoteNoLA website, “Unlike giant power plants built to serve entire communities, solar power systems installed on rooftops lend themselves to private ownership and operation. Why not always get the best price for rate-payers by soliciting competitive bids? Wouldn’t that be better for rate-payers and the local economy? Of course it would. Competitive bidding and private ownership should be the rule, not the exception”. Private solar companies, with deep expertise honed in a competitive environment, could possibly provide the same solar service more cheaply than the DWP. But if Measure B passes, that won’t happen.

In addition, this measure isn’t even needed to achieve its purported goals. The LA Times stated in a recent editorial, “Los Angeles can do all of those things without Measure B. In fact, the DWP is already working on programs to generate about 900 megawatts of solar power, and it didn’t stop to ask voter permission. It should do the same with the 400 megawatts of in-basin rooftop energy”. Furthermore, the Times goes on to explain the political power grab that is also a part of this measure. “Something else is going on here. It’s a grab for power — the political kind, not the solar stuff — by the City Council and the union that represents DWP workers. Measure B, if passed, would transfer oversight of in-basin solar power from a five-member commission, with at least a modicum of political independence, to the City Council. But because the measure would allow the council to change or suspend everything that’s in it, the council’s new authority would not be accompanied by new accountability. On the contrary, this measure would give the council sweeping political cover.”

Measure B, is another disingenuous campaign put forth by the Mayor and City Council to hoodwink the public. Don’t fall for their deceptions again. Solar power is a good idea; Measure B is a step in the wrong direction.

Vote NO on Measure B.

Times Article
VoteNoLA
Vote NO on Measure B website

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Vote No on LA Measure E: Economic Incentives For Business Development

Amends the City Charter to state that the City may provide economic incentives to attract new businesses to the City or to keep current businesses in the City. Incentives must result in clearly identifiable public benefits, must follow applicable law, and must be approved by the Mayor and Council.

While this measure sounds good on the surface, it simply memorializes in the City Charter what the Mayor and City Council have already been doing, giving away millions of dollars each year of your hard earned tax dollars to rich, politically connected developers in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and other special treatment. These developers then turn around and support the campaigns of the politicians that transferred your money to them, assuring that these politicians will continue in office year after year where they can do more political favors for those that helped put them there. It’s an unholy alliance and this ballot measure makes it worse.

Economic studies show that “incentive” programs do not work: they do not create wealth; they just redistribute money from taxpayers to people with political connections. The best way to improve our business climate it to cut taxes and fees and reform the process that makes business owners and entrepreneurs wade through an unnecessary bureaucracy and mountains of paperwork in order to start and run their businesses.

There’s a lot of smart things we can do to improve business development in Los Angeles, but Measure E is not one of them.

Recommendation: Vote NO

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

Vote No on LA Measure A: Fire Department Independent Assessor

Amends the City Charter to create the post of Fire Department Independent Assessor.

The Measure would:
(1) Establish the position of independent Assessor, exempt from Civil Service, who reports to the Fire Commission;
(2) Provide the Independent Assessor the responsibility for auditing, assessing and reviewing the activities of the Fire Department, including handling of complaints of misconduct against firefighters and civilian employees, under rules established by the Fire Commission; and
(3) Authorize the Fire Commission to appoint and remove the Independent Assessor.

Recommendation: Vote NO

Proponents of this measure claim that in order to protect firefighters from harassment at work while protecting taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits we need an Independent Assessor. But we are already footing a multi-million dollar annual bill for an army of deputy mayors, mayoral aides, attorneys, risk management teams, etc. whose job it is to prevent harassment and defend against frivolous lawsuits. We need better management at the top, not more layers of management below. The answer to any real or imagined problems within the fire department is to hold accountable those who are already charged with managing the department correctly.

The Mayor, Fire Chief and the Board of Fire Commissioners are responsible for conditions at the Fire Department. The Mayor has a staff of 93 people. The Fire Department has a Professional Standards Division to handle complaints. The City’s Personnel Department, moreover, has an Equal Employment Opportunity Section that “monitors compliance by City departments with City, State and Federal EEO laws and regulations.” The City Administrative Officer has a Risk Management Team. So does the City Attorney. As for lawsuits, the City Attorney has a budgeted staff of 791 people, including over 300 attorneys. City Hall, moreover, spent $28.9 million last year on outside counsel. Under the Charter, the Mayor and the City Council make “the client decisions in litigation,” including whether to take a case all the way to trial, or whether instead to settle and, if so, on what terms.

If all of those people cannot protect firefighters and taxpayers, what difference would an “Independent Assessor” make? None. We do not need to add yet another layer of bureaucracy. We just need better people running City Hall.

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

California State and Local Ballot Initiative Recommendations

This is a summary. Please see the full discussion of each measure elsewhere on this site.

To download a pdf of this post Right Click here and choose “Save Link As” or “Save Target As”

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

PROP 1A – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 2 – Vote NO
It’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated. Could harm the economy and drive farmers out of business. Will raise food prices.

PROP 3 – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

PROP 4 – Vote NO
The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and if passed, Prop 4 could harm more girls than it helps. Furthermore, there is no indication that any of the problems this proposal is meant to address, actually exist.

PROP 5 – Vote YES
Saves billions of taxpayer dollars and frees up much needed prison space for real criminals. Provides treatment instead of incarceration.

PROP 6 – Vote NO
Simply mandating a 60% increase in funding to local law enforcement and then mandating an additional annual increase is not necessarily going to make anyone safer. Would raise taxes or require cuts for other items in the budget such as schools, healthcare, and other vital programs.

PROP 7 – Vote NO
Would raise utility rates. Unfairly sets arbitrary goals for the use of renewable energy and then prohibits smaller renewable energy providers from contributing towards that goal.

PROP 8 – Vote NO
Requires the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. Unfair and mean-spirited.

PROP 9 – Vote NO
Duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. Contains a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed.

PROP 10 – Vote NO
Most of the funding goes to encourage a shift from oil based energy to natural gas not to renewable energy sources. Would likely raise the cost of energy while enriching Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens.

PROP 11 – Vote YES
Anything is better than the current system in which incumbent legislators create districts where they are virtually guaranteed reelection.

PROP 12 – Vote YES
Helps veterans to purchase a home. Program has been running since 1922 and has yet to incur a cost to taxpayers.

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Prop A – Vote NO
Unnecessary. Raises property taxes.

Prop B – Vote NO
Overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. Intentionally confusing and misleading.

Prop J – Vote NO
At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO
Increases the sales tax. Would drive away consumers and businesses. Transportation priorities not well thought out.

Prop Q – Vote NO
It is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO
If the measure is defeated and you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service.

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments

LOS ANGELES CITY AND COUNTY MEASURES

Unlike the state ballot measures, I’m not going to take the time to explain every little nuance of each proposition. I’ll give a basic explanation and then my short recommendation

Prop A – Vote NO

CITY OF LOS ANGELES SPECIAL GANG AND YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION, AFTER-SCHOOL AND JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS TAX.

Permits the City of Los Angeles to levy an annual $36 gang prevention tax on each real property parcel.

Vote NO. Another tax for “safety”. The city has already raised the garbage collection fee with the promise to hire more police officers, but then used those funds for administrative and equipment costs. Also, during the last election, the city ran a deceptive campaign to trick voters into approving Prop S which allowed the city to continue to collect the illegal city utility users tax. That campaign focused on “safety” as well. Where is all that money going? It’s time the city started using the funds it has more efficiently. And if you think this tax won’t affect you if you don’t own property, remember that landlords will just pass the tax along in the form of higher rents. Vote no.

Prop B – Vote NO

UPDATE OF LOW RENT HOUSING AUTHORIZATION.

This proposition repeals propositions approved by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980 that placed limits on the density and height of low income housing units built in the City of Los Angeles. These restrictions also impede the City’s ability to get certain funding from the state.

A “Yes” vote allows the City to build low income housing in excess of the restrictions on density and height put in place in previous years.

A “No” vote maintains the status quo.

Vote NO. This ballot initiative overturns previous ballot initiatives passed by voters in 1973, 1977 and 1980. If it is necessary to update the provisions of those measures, the City should educate the voters with the facts and put forward a clear and concise initiative rather than create a ballot measure which is intentionally confusing and misleading. When in doubt, vote no.

Prop J – Vote NO

LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE CLASSROOM REPAIR, PUBLIC SAFETY, NURSING AND JOB TRAINING MEASURE.

Permits Los Angeles Community College District to issue $3.5 billion in bonds which will need to be repaid with interest.

Vote NO. The bond would be repaid by an additional property tax levied on real property within the district. At this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop R – Vote NO

TRAFFIC RELIEF. RAIL EXTENSIONS. REDUCE FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE.

Raises Los Angeles County’s sales tax one-half cent for 30 years. Most of the funds would go towards initial funding of the MTA’s “subway to the sea” project.

Vote NO. The last thing we need right now is an increase in taxes, especially an increase in the sales tax which hits the lowest income citizens the hardest. Also, raising the sales tax could decrease revenue overall as buyers look to alternative sources for goods and services outside the county or on the internet. This plan drives away consumers and businesses and would mean that Los Angeles County would have the highest sales tax rate in the State. Vote no.

Prop Q – Vote NO

SAFE, HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS MEASURE.

Permits the LAUSD to issue $7 billion in bonds which will need to be repaid with interest.

Vote NO. Four previous LAUSD bonds have been passed since 1997. These were mainly targeted to relieve overcrowding and the district now has enough money to do that by 2012. This new bond measure which is substantially larger than the others, would raise an additional $7 billion, much of it for vague and unspecified uses. The bond would be repaid by an additional property tax levied on real property within the district. As I’ve said previously, at this time of budget crisis, it is irresponsible to take on additional debt or raise taxes.

Prop U – Vote NO

THE UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY UTILITY USERS’ TAX CONTINUATION MEASURE.

Permits Los Angeles County to continue to levy the utility users’ tax on citizens living in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles but reduces that tax from 5 percent to 4.5 percent.

A “NO” vote means that the utility users’ tax on phone service will be discontinued in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles.

A “Yes” vote means that you wish to allow the County to continue to levy the tax and expand it to include a tax on other utility usage not now taxed such as certain internet services.

Vote NO. The deceptive campaign that tricked voters in the City of Los Angeles into approving Prop S during the last election worked so well that now the County is trying the same tactics. Don’t be fooled. If you vote no, you will no longer have to pay this 5% tax on your phone service. If you vote yes, the tax you now pay will be reduced to 4.5% but will likely expand to include a tax on utility services not now taxed. If you live in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles and this measure appears on your ballot, Vote No.

September 29th, 2010 Posted by freedomminute | Local Government | no comments