Choices for Los Angeles

Five charter amendments are on Tuesday’s ballot. The charter, which establishes most of the organization of the city, can only be changed by a majority vote. A clean water bond issue is also before the voters. A seventh measure is on the ballot in the South-Central section of Los Angeles.

Charter Amendment 1 would require the city attorney to provide official titles and summaries of initiative petitions before they are circulated. Without an impartial summary, voters can be misled by catchy but untrue phrases prepared by the sponsors of the petition. A Yes vote is in order.

Charter Amendments 2 and 3 would permit the city council to change the date of a regular city or school board election if it falls on a legal holiday or a significant event. Last month the primary election fell on Passover and during the Easter recess when some voters were away. We recommend a Yes vote.

Charter Amendment 4 would require the council to place initiatives on the ballot promptly--without delays of up to two years--if the proposed ordinance is not adopted or set for a special election. We endorse this measure.

Charter Amendment 5 would toughen the city’s campaign finance laws that regulate contributions and expenditures in elections. The new penalties and enforcement provisions would help candidates resist temptation and make them more responsible for their campaigns. A Yes vote is in order.

Bond Proposition 6 would allow the city to issue $500 million in revenue bonds for improvement of the city’s aging and inadequate sewer system. The city has come under intense criticism and legal action in recent years for its dumping of poorly treated sewage into Santa Monica Bay. The use of revenue bonds, to be repaid over the years through sewer fees and other sources, is the most practical and efficient method of financing this critically needed work. Voters should not hesitate to vote Yes for clean water.

Ordinance Proposition 7 would allow the city to tax property owners in South-Central Los Angeles to pay for 300 additional police officers. Although the need for more cops is critical, a special tax limited to one community would set a bad precedent and penalize the city’s poorest home-owners. Public safety is an expensive but important burden that all must share. We strongly recommend a No vote on Tuesday.