USUAL SUSPECTS EYE TAXPAYERS' POCKETS.

Byline: JON COUPAL local view

BY a vote of 13 to zip, the Los Angeles City Council has instructed the city attorney to draft a property tax increase of $72 per parcel for an upcoming ballot. The money from this new burden on property owners is to be earmarked for reducing gang violence.

Somehow, the arguments from the proposal's author, Councilwoman Janice Hahn, and other supporters sound familiar. Less than a year ago, these same suspects were touting an increase in trash fees as the way to hire more police and reduce crime.

Just last November the council asked voters to approve a $1 billion affordable-housing bond issue that would be repaid exclusively by property owners. Fortunately, the voters rejected this scheme.

However, there seems no end to the council's mischief when it comes to burdening property owners. Under active consideration over the last year has been placing a $1.5 billion bond measure on the ballot for street and sidewalk repair. Again, homeowners would be asked to dig deeper to provide a service that residents of most other cities take for granted.

Hahn, however, seems determined to follow through on the tax-increase efforts begun by her brother when he was mayor. When James Hahn first campaigned, he promised the city more police officers. After spending nearly 3 1/2 years under his desk -- during which time virtually every dollar of new city revenue went to the care and feeding of our nation's highest-paid municipal work force -- Hahn emerged with an idea to fund more police. His plan was to increase the city sales tax.

Strangely, the City Council that usually embraces tax proposals failed to back the mayor in his 11th-hour attempt to keep a campaign promise. However, that decision probably had little to do with wisdom and a whole lot to do with politics and who would be the next mayor.

The voters went on to boot James Hahn, and now it's up to sister Janice to carry on the taxing tradition. Perhaps being part of a political dynasty numbs one to the concerns of average folks who pay the bills.

A few years ago, she used her taxpayer-provided office account to buy a party dress to attend a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Her rationalization was that the dress was to wear to a public event. Taxpayers may have been charged, but they didn't buy her arguments. When the expenditure became public, a chagrined Hahn wrote a personal check to cover the cost of the dress.

Proposals for tax increases that are regressive, as parcel taxes are, reveal a profound level of political tone-deafness. Wasn't it just two months ago that the California electorate rejected a statewide property tax, Proposition 88 -- for education no less -- with a resounding 76.9 percent no vote?

Gangs are a serious problem. But perhaps the City Council will do something out of the ordinary and address waste, fraud and abuse in the city budget as a source for new funds. Taxpayers would like to see this happen, but given the mentality of the tax-and-spend City Council, don't bet the farm -- or your home.