District 1 council person Mike Stevens has announced that he wishes the recently proposed property tax rate increase to be readjusted. A new rate was proposed by Mayor James T. Butts and was on the city’s agenda dated December 18, 2012 but was not voted until the following day.

Inglewood has one of the lowest such property taxes in Los Angeles County, at $1.10 per $1,000.00. Of that amount, $0.55 goes to the City of Inglewood. The mayor’s intention is to place the resolution on the April 2 ballot to increase the city’s tax portion 728%, to $4.00.

Were Stevens to wholeheartedly oppose the tax— which would be put into the city’s general fund and from which unions such as the SEIU could benefit—then it would not fare well for Inglewood’s on-going financial strife. However, the councilman has made it clear that it is not a transfer tax rate increase he opposes, but a 728% tax rate hike.

Stevens declared that he was “not against a transfer tax; I’m against a transfer tax that is extremely excessive, like this approximately 725% increase.” The transfer tax rate increase resolution was pushed through by the mayor and was approved by District 3 and 4 council members Eloy Morales, Jr., and Ralph Franklin.

The resolution does not fully divulge the nature of the increase. By mention- ing only the portion that the City of Inglewood will receive—$4.00 per $1,000.00 of a “property’s assessed value”—residents may be unaware that the entire amount to be collected per $1,000.00 would be $5.10.

Such tactics to obscure the entirety of a tax hike appear to have been employed by City of Inglewood executive staff in the past.

Referring to a 2008 utility tax rate hike named Measure UUT, Inglewood city attorney Cal P. Saunders released an “impartial analysis” that stated, “The proposed ordinance would reduce the communications tax rate from 10% to 8%, resulting in an overall 20% utility tax reduction to taxpayers.” What was not disclosed was that Measure UUT reduced the existing utility users tax in Inglewood from 10% to 8% but extended it to more utilities, thus creating an overall tax increase for the city.