Should Sacramento set aside more money for youth services? A pro and con on Measure L

Sacramento’s Measure L would direct a portion of city cannabis tax revenue toward youth services and career training for people under age 25.

Yes on Measure L

By Ryan Henry, City Vice President, Sacramento Area Firefighters; Joshua Wood, Chief Executive Officer, Sacramento Region Business Association; Diego Rodriguez, 14 years old, Member, Sac Kids First Youth Action Committee

Sacramento voters have many choices to make at the ballot this November. While those of us authoring this opinion piece disagree – and strongly—on some of the other issues you’ll be considering, we all agree in voting YES on L to help our kids, without raising taxes.

Your “yes” vote on Measure L will keep Sacramento’s children healthy, housed and safe — without raising one dime of your taxes. It will simply direct the equivalent of 40% of existing local cannabis taxes to a Sacramento Children’s Fund – increasing accountability over how that cannabis revenue is spent, while ensuring our kids get the help they need.

Many are surprised to learn that children’s services only comprise 5% of the total general fund budget — though kids are 35% of Sacramento’s population. Voting YES on L will make a small dent in this inequality by allocating the equivalent to 1.3% of the general fund into a children’s fund to make a difference in kids’ lives.

We must keep our kids safe and off the streets while they are not in school. Before- and after-school programs work in reducing crime and truancy by offering constructive alternatives to gangs, drugs, and violence. But they are currently under-funded, and too many kids fall through the cracks.

No child should grow up homeless. But today, as you’re fully aware, Sacramento has a homeless crisis. Children and teenagers are living in cars or on the streets, including young adults and foster youth.

The pandemic has shown the importance of a structured educational environment, and our kids need access to early childhood education. But we don’t have the money to ensure all Sacramento children have access to this strong start.

Our kids deserve better. We authors may have different ideas on how to address homelessness overall, but we agree on voting YES on L.

Measure L keeps our kids healthy by supporting vulnerable students and children, like those experiencing homelessness, foster children, and low-income students, and providing mental health counseling for children/youth.

Measure L will keep our kids housed by supporting programs that prevent young people from becoming chronically homeless and help foster care system youth transition to independence.

And Measure L can keep our kids safe by funding proven programs to reduce crime, drug use and gang violence and keep kids off the streets and out of trouble by providing them with safe and supervised places to be when school is out of session.

These investments will help our collective safety and economy, by funding job training and continuing education programs for 18–24-year-olds, including funding programs to help get good paying public safety jobs right here in Sacramento.

Some of us had concerns over previous measures to support children and youth. But the Mayor and City Council listened, incorporated our feedback, and placed a measure on the ballot that is accountable with significant fiscal oversight.

Please join Mayor Steinberg, the City Council, business and labor leaders, children’s and public safety advocates in voting YES on L.

No on Measure L

By Councilman Jeff Harris

Measure L, which uses a charter amendment to create a protected fund for youth funding is a terrible idea- let me explain why.

Spending money on youth supportive programs can bring positive results, and that is why the City Council spends many millions on youth every year, $37 million last year alone. This Council has consistently invested in youth programs over the last eight years. On any given Tuesday, the City Council can give money to youth projects. Measure L would lock up our options and make the youth fund the only program protected by the city charter. As our city manager has said, “If this measure passes, what does the Council want me to cut?”

Will it be homeless spending? Will we let our parks and roads fall into a deeper condition of disrepair? Will we neglect spending on projects to address climate change? Will clean mobility projects go unfunded? Measure L is poor fiscal stewardship of tax dollars. It doesn’t address constituent concerns which currently are about addressing homelessness, and the safety and cleanliness of our city. Addressing these issues will certainly have very positive benefits for youth.

Managing a city budget is difficult work; it demands flexibility and frequent prioritization. Creating a tax lockbox and budgeting through a city charter change (ballot box budgeting) will cause severe negative repercussions to our city budget and make future decision-making by the Council less effective in meeting the financial needs of the day. It sets a terrible precedent by enabling any special interest group to try to protect its funding. Essentially, this measure is a money grab by special interests.

Measure L states that the focus of the spending would be on mental health and substance abuse prevention. These programs are the responsibility of the County, which receives State and Federal dollars to do this work. The city is not set up to fund these issues for the homeless population or for youth.

A similar measure was passed in Oakland in 2008. The result was that the city faced financial disaster in the great recession and had to pass an emergency measure to halve the amount locked up for youth spending. They were laying off city workers while being bound by law to spend on youth non-profits. We are currently in similar financial conditions and could have the same problem.

Measure L will likely lower our bond rating. This can mean that future projects are in jeopardy-like a desired youth soccer complex. Measure L shoots itself in the foot in terms of supporting youth.

Measure L is not necessary, as the City Council can, and does, prioritize youth programs. It will, however, have significant negative repercussions in terms of managing our budget in a fiscally responsible way.

Uncertain economic times, rising interest rates, inflation, falling incomes and a looming recession mean this is the worst possible time to pass Measure L. As voters said twice already, by rejecting measures Y and G, there’s never a good time for it.