Municipalities in California are forbidden from carrying any debt aside from those which have issued bonds, and in most cases, are voted on by the people.
That’s a very important thing above. It means that no city is beholden to a contract promising future remuneration outside of the current and approved budget.
The state, at the behest of rather powerful unions (considering that nearly 20% of the population of California either works directly or one step removed from the government) has put in laws which state that any government body is responsible for the contracts, even those which pre-date the current elected (or appointed) body.
The state laws also obligate the people to make up any shortfalls that happen to these contracts, promises and unfunded plans.
Strangely, none of these have really faced much of a court challenge aside from token resistance (mostly as a negotiating tactic), especially to answer the most critical question: Can a body obligate future bodies to spend budgetary money in a particular fashion or for a specified function, or does the current body which has budgetary powers have the option of disregarding these unpaid and unbonded liabilities?
And if such a thing can take place, couldn’t a current budgetary body specify how all future spending shall take place and negate even the need for future budgetary bodies to meet since the budget has already been determined by people who are no longer elected or appointed members of that body?
City of Los Angeles is closer to 18 billion in the hole, county of Los Angeles is about 7 billion in the hole, Los Angeles Unified School District is nearly 12 billion in the hole. And under existing court rulings, all these debts are mortgages on the properties of private citizens.
Even my very liberal younger brother (lawyer) is making plans to get out in less than two years when he is 62. He likely voted for much of the problem, but sees it spirally out of control and is bailing.
Wife and I got out over eleven years ago, it was weird enough even then.