Let’s Find the Money, But Pasadena’s Measure PFD is the Wrong Vehicle

By Daniel Yukelson, Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles

Without any question or hesitation, my organization and I support all our first responders. Our first responders absolutely should have the best equipment and training facilities our money can buy, and they should be well compensated for the dangerous jobs they do. Every day, our first responders go to work and place their lives on the line, and I thank them for their service to our communities.

In fact, I would be ecstatic if the Pasadena Fire Department received the estimated $22 million per year that Measure PFD is targeted to raise. I’m not against the money, I am against the means. Measure PFD is the wrong way to go about this, and I take issue with the manner these funds are being raised. I believe there are far better alternatives than taxing one segment of the community being those who own property – those who have invested in the Pasadena community to provide badly needed housing and to establish businesses.

Here’s Why Measure PFD is the Wrong Way to Go

First, I think Measure PFD is just plain unfair. If passed, Measure PFD will be the third time the city has gone to the well with property owners – this means, Measure PFD will result in a triple tax on property owners who already pay property taxes which in part fund the Pasadena’s general fund that pays for fire services. Then, property owners (and others) are still paying a higher sales tax, a three-quarter percent increase to 11%, under 2018’s Measure I which was intended to benefit fire services but never did – Pasadena’s residents need to investigate where all of the Measure I funds went because they did not go to the fire department as intended.

Second, Measure PFD sets a terrible precedent by establishing a parcel tax to cover Pasadena’s fiscal irresponsibility, and as a result, this proposed parcel tax may be the first of what may be other future new parcel or special taxes.

Third, there is a reason why fire services are primarily funded through general funds. That’s because fire services benefit the entirety of communities, and not just property owners. Yet Measure PFD sets out to saddle one segment of Pasadena, that being property owners, by asking them to solely foot the bill. Measure PFD will be the third time property owners are being asked to help pay for fire services on their own, yet there are about 60,000 to 110,000 daytime visitors in Pasadena and tens of thousands of Pasadena residents who do not own property, who are not being asked to pay a dime for fire and paramedic services.

Finally, and the most egregious unfairness of Measure PFD, is that the city’s residential landlords operate under one of the most extreme rent control regimes in the country. Many of these “landlords” simply cannot afford this additional tax burden, particularly any owners operating today at the margin and struggling to make ends meet.

Measure PFD is Also Illogical

Under Measure PFD, Pasadena property owners are being asked to pay the same amount of money regardless of their property’s value, and irrespective of household income and ability to pay. Measure PFD assesses 19-cents per built-out square footage of a property. So, someone who owns a 2,000 square foot property worth $500,000 would pay the same tax as someone who owns a 2,000 square foot property that’s worth $2 million.

Also, inevitably, Measure PFD will indirectly cost everyone in the community more money. Businesses that own or lease property and pay the Measure PFD assessment (either directly as owner or indirectly passed through as a commercial tenant) will be forced to increase prices to cover the new tax. Yes, eventually everyone in the community pays.

City Council Has Not Done Its Job

The City has not yet conducted a detailed financial analysis to identify as much of the needed funds as possible. Before asking voters to agree to this new tax, the city absolutely must conduct a financial and operational review to identify cost cutting measures and operational efficiencies. The City simply must do what any other business in this situation would do—make sacrifices in the name of public safety.

Far Better Solutions Than Measure PFD Exist

As stated earlier, the city needs to begin by conducting a proper financial and operational analysis to identify as much of the needed funds as possible. There are tough decisions that must be made before reaching into the pockets of citizens. In addition to identifying cost cutting and revenue generating opportunities, this analysis would include allocating surplus or unappropriated general funds to help support fire services and to bridge the gap to lessen the blow on taxpayer finances.

Also, the city should consider funding sources which are paid for by the community at large since everyone, residents and visitors alike, clearly benefit from fire and paramedic services. Options here might include increasing transient occupancy taxes, increasing sales taxes by one-quarter percent to the allowable maximum (11.25%), issuing general obligation bonds, and charging higher service fees for fire and paramedic response. Further, the city should look for Federal and State grants to help bridge the gap needed for the fire department.

As I stated, at the outset, my organization and I support our first responders and want to ensure the brave men and women who serve communities like Pasadena have the necessary funding to accomplish their mission at the highest levels and highest degree of safety. It’s not about the money, but it’s the plan of attack to get there that I find troublesome.

Daniel Yukelson is currently the Chief Executive and Executive Director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA).