🗳️ June 2026 Primary Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Measures (nee Propositions)

[cahwyguy]

Here in California (and in Los Angeles in particular), we have an election coming up. You know what that means: Every election, I do a detailed ballot analysis of my sample ballot. This is where I examine each candidate and share my conclusions, and invite you to convince me to vote for the other jerk.  Because this is a long ballot, I’m splitting this analysis into a few chunks (note: links may not be available until all segments are posted – unposted segments are marked [PENDING]):

1. Governor of California
2. Other State and National Offices (excluding judges)
3. County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
4. Measures (nee Propositions)
5. Judicial Offices (County and State)
6. Summary

Note: This analysis is NOT presented in the same order as the Sample Ballot (the ballot order makes no sense). I’ve attempted instead to present things in more logical order.

This part covers the State and Local Measures

• Los Angeles County Measures: Measure ER
• Los Angeles City Measures: Measure CB ❦ Measure TC ❦ Measure TT ❦  Streetlight Maintenance Assessment (separate ballot)

🗳️

Los Angeles County Measures

Measure ER: Sales Tax Increase for Health Services Measure 

Shall the measure to help our community address severe federal cuts enacted by the President and Congress; reduce the loss of essential services, including healthcare for County residents; reduce the risk of closing the County’s four public hospitals and numerous clinics, and significant healthcare provider layoffs and other service cuts by enacting a 1/2 percent (0.5%) general sales tax for 5 years, generating approximately $1 billion annually, with independent audits, be adopted?

The following is from the LA County Fact Sheet:

The Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Sales Tax Measure is a proposed ½-percent general sales tax. The County estimates that the tax, if the measure is passed, would generate approximately $1 billion annually. The measure would also establish a nine-member advisory citizens’ oversight committee to recommend and review expenditures from the sales tax and provide annual reporting to the public.

Revenues generated by the sales tax would be placed in the County’s general fund and used for purposes consistent with general fund expenditures. The Board of Supervisors ultimately decides how general fund dollars are allocated. An advisory citizens’ oversight committee would be established to review the receipt and expenditure of the revenue from the tax, including the County’s annual independent audit, and make recommendations to the Board on how to allocate the revenue generated by this sales tax. The review would be completed in conjunction with the County’s budget process.

The Board adopted a spending plan that allocates these tax revenues, as follows, subject to the County’s annual budgeting process:

• • • 45% for the Department of Health Services to fund a program under which a limited network of non-profit partner providers, licensed under Section 1204(a) of the California Health and Safety Code, shall furnish no cost or reduced cost care to low-income residents of Los Angeles County who do not have health insurance.
    • 22% for financial support to the Department of Health Services to safeguard its public hospital and clinic services.
    • 10% for the Department of Public Health to support core public health functions and awarding grants to support health equity.
    • 5% would be allocated proportionately based on patient visits to nonprofit health agencies in Los Angeles County serving low income and underserved populations, primarily furnishing family planning and reproductive health services
    • 5% to support non-profit safety net hospitals in Los Angeles County, as determined by meeting one of a specified set of criteria
    • 4% for school-based health needs and programs as determined by the governing board of L.A. Care Health Plan.
    • 3% for the Department of Public Social Services to support Medicaid outreach and enrollment activities, and work and volunteer programs.
    • 2.5% to support Correctional Health Services.
    • 2.5% for in-home supportive services (IHSS) for the elderly and those living with disabilities, with a priority on enhancing wages and benefits for IHSS providers.
    • 1% to provide financial support to the City of Pasadena Public Health Department and the City of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services to safeguard their public services

The tax would last for 5 years.

Discussions and references reviewed have noted that (a) this is a general sales tax, not a special purpose tax, which means the revenue goes into the general fund and is then distributed. The percentage split listed above could be changed by the Board of Supervisors. They went the general route because that only requires a majority vote, not two-thirds.

The stated reason for the tax is that H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress July 4, 2025, includes changes to federal eligibility, enrollment and work requirements to qualify for and maintain access to Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, known as CalFresh in California). As a result of those changes, many County residents will lose their Medi-Cal benefits because of these changes. Our public County hospitals, as well as other hospitals and clinics outside the County system, rely on
Medi-Cal funding to pay for patient care. Hospitals and clinics losing those Medi-Cal payments means less money to keep services running. Although residents will lose coverage, their need for health care will remain. This puts extra pressure on the County health care system to serve more patients without enough resources, making it difficult to keep hospitals and clinics open and emergency medical services running. The general fund revenues generated by the sales tax measure may be used to address these gaps and support other essential services for County residents that are at risk due to federal funding reductions.

L.A. County’s current sales tax rate is 9.75%. If Measure ER passes, L.A. County’s sales tax will increase to 10.25%. Any city taxes are on top of that amount. In communities such as Lancaster, the sales tax could be as high at 11%. The measure was approved by 4 of 5 supervisors; Katherine Barger voted “no”.

Useful references:

• LA County: “Fact Sheet: The Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County General Sales Tax Measure“
• LA Times, “Your guide to L.A. County’s proposed healthcare sales tax“
• LAist “Measure ER: What you need to know about the proposed sales tax hike in LA County“

◯ Yes

The “yes” camp notes that L.A. County’s Department of Health Services, which oversees four public hospitals and about two dozen clinics that serve many Medi-Cal patients, will be hardest hit by the Federal changes, the county projects. That department alone expects $700 million in annual revenue loss by 2028-2029. (It had an operating budget of more than $6 billion last year.) Nonprofit health centers and clinics that rely on Medi-Cal revenue in turn anticipate cutbacks, layoffs and closures. (LAist)

A coalition of health providers called Restore Healthcare for Angelenos argues that the tax is a temporary price to pay in order to protect L.A. County’s collective health system from total collapse. The coalition says over a third of residents will lose healthcare in some L.A. County cities without Measure ER. Many health centers anticipate losing about 25% of their Medi-Cal revenue, though estimates vary. As more people lose coverage, clinics will close and healthcare premiums and public health costs will rise for everyone, proponents say, including those with private insurance. (LAist)

The Yes side has a website where they detail all the benefits of this tax. The majority funders behind the Yes side is the St. Johns Community Health folks (think St. Johns Hospital in Santa Monica) and the SEIU (think the unionized healthcare workers).

The Yes side has endorsements from a large group of unions and healthcare organizations, as well as some Democratic clubs. Some elected officials are scattered in the mix.

A good example of the impact of this is highlighted by the King Community Healthcare information sheet. In response to the question “What could the passage of Measure ER mean for MLK Community Healthcare?”, it notes that nearly 8 in 10 patients at MLK Community Healthcare rely on Medicaid. If Measure ER passes, MLKCH will receive tens of millions of dollars annually in funding to mitigate federal cuts to Medicaid, and those funds will help to sustain the continued operation of the hospital and patient care.

The LA Times notes that Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who introduced the proposal, said she was determined to avoid the mistakes made in 2007 when the county closed Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center — a blow that left South L.A. residents scrambling to reach overwhelmed emergency rooms. The impact already has been felt, public health officials warn. The Department of Public Health recently closed seven clinics.

⚫ No

The Daily News came out against this Measure. They don’t like the fact that sales taxes are regressive, they don’t believe it will remain temporary. They don’t like the fact it is a general purpose tax, which means the Board of Supervisors could decide to spend the money on something else with no recourse; they don’t have a legal obligation to spend it on healthcare. But their biggest complaint is the rationale for the tax.

Supporters cite the 2025 passage of Big Beautiful Bill and blame the federal government for “cuts” resulting in hundreds of thousands of people losing their Medi-Cal coverage, but they note those “cuts” are administrative changes to ensure that only eligible individuals receive full-scope Medi-Cal. There is also a new federal rule ending a loophole that allowed states including California to draw down extra federal matching funds with a Managed Care Organization tax that inflated reimbursable Medi-Cal expenses. California used those extra federal dollars to subsidize the cost of providing full-scope Medi-Cal to all undocumented immigrants. Because federal law does not allow reimbursement to states for healthcare provided to undocumented immigrants except for emergencies and pregnancy, the Medi-Cal expansion was entirely at state expense. The cost turned out to be billions over budget every year, and in January, Gov. Gavin Newsom closed the program to new enrollment by undocumented adults. The requirements for some recipients to redetermine their income eligibility every six months is also causing some recipients to drop their coverage. Fewer Medi-Cal recipients means lower revenues for the clinics and other health care providers that serve the Medi-Cal population. This creates risks to the clinics and hospitals and some may close as a result.

The Daily News (really, the LA News Group, which hews conservative) really doesn’t like it because it is a sales tax increase to backfill the cost of providing healthcare services to undocumented immigrants. The two key phrases there are “sales tax increase” and “undocumented immigrants”. But the Daily News isn’t alone. Officials representing dozens of L.A. County cities from Norwalk to Glendale have come out against Measure ER, along with taxpayer groups and Supervisor Barger. They argue the tax disproportionately burdens low-income residents, with sales tax rates already above 11% in some L.A. County cities. The LA Times notes that some of these cities say they have the trust issues when it comes to county ballot measures. When voters approved Measure B in 2002 to fund the county’s trauma center network, an audit years later found the county couldn’t account for whether the money actually had been spent on emergency medical services. And some cities feel they never got their fair share of funds from Measure H, the homelessness services tax measure passed in 2017.

📋 Conclusion

I’m torn on this hand. On one hand, the country really needs the money with the Federal cuts. But on the other hand, we’re quickly reaching a tax tipping point that could lead to a revolt. Much worse things can happen with a revolt (I remember the impacts when Prop 13 was passed — it decimated the schools, as one example). With the high price of gas (and it is unlikely to go down as fast as it went up), the increased costs due to the tariffs, and other increases, it is getting prohibitively expenses for people to live in Southern California. When we have a sales tax that is approaching or crossing 10%, that is starting to get too high. People will feel nickeled and dimed to death, and most folks won’t see the benefit of this. Now, add to the fact that this is going into the general fund and the Board of Supervisors could decide to divert it to a different pet project if Federal Funding was restored. They need to find a different way to fund healthcare. Further, the tax is required because of a drop in Medi-CAL payments. The state should be making up the difference if the people are to be on Medi-CAL.

Conclusion: ⚫ No

---

Los Angeles City Measures

Measure CB: Apply Marijuana Tax to Unlicensed Marijuana Businesses Measure

Shall an ordinance be adopted to apply the City’s existing cannabis business taxes to unlicensed cannabis businesses at current rates (10% on cannabis sales; 5% on medical cannabis sales; 2% on manufacturing, cultivation or other commercialization; 1% on transportation, testing or research); generating approximately $30-35 million annually for general City services, such as street/sidewalk repairs, 911 emergency response, fire protection, and parks, until ended by voters?

According to Ballotpedia, a “yes” vote supports applying the city’s tax on (licensed) cannabis businesses to unlicensed cannabis businesses, amounting to: 10% on cannabis sales; 5% on medical cannabis sales; 2% on manufacturing, cultivation, or other commercialization; and 1% on testing, research, or transportation. A “no” vote opposes applying the city’s tax on cannabis businesses to unlicensed cannabis businesses.

Basically, this measure would tax illegal cannabis businesses in Los Angeles at the same rate as their legal counterparts. Illegal cannabis businesses have a competitive advantage because they don’t have to pay taxes or fees. Proponents of Measure CB argue that it would level the playing field and bring in revenue for the cash-strapped city. It’s unclear how many illegal cannabis businesses operate in L.A., but the city’s Office of Finance suggested in an August 2025 report that the illegal market was about the same size as the legal market.

Per LAist, Licensed cannabis businesses are also on the hook for remitting the city’s 9.75% sales tax and the state’s 19% excise tax. Altogether, cannabis taxes in Los Angeles amount to close to 40%. The city makes grants to some sellers to help support their businesses and pay their bills. Yet licensed cannabis businesses owe millions of dollars in back taxes and fees. Unlicensed businesses are not regulated or taxed, so they undercut legitimate cannabis businesses.

Useful resources:

• LA Times, “Your guide to L.A. City Measure CB: taxing illegal cannabis businesses“
• LAist, “Measure CB: What you need to know about the city’s proposed tax on unlicensed cannabis businesses“

⚫ Yes

If voters approve Measure CB, it could generate $30 million to $35 million annually for services like street and sidewalk repairs, 911 emergency response, fire protection and parks, according to city estimates. That amount could decrease as more illegal businesses are shut down.

The LA Times notes: “Cannabis is one of the few industries in the city in which illegal businesses aren’t taxed, Yaroslavsky said, and added that the potential additional revenue could be reinvested into closing down more illegal shops. At the January meeting, Councilmember Bob Blumenfield said he supports the measure as a way to crack down on the illegal cannabis industry, drawing a comparison with onetime Chicago crime boss Al Capone. “They didn’t get him for being a gangster,” Blumenfield said. “They got him for tax evasion.”

◯ No

City Council members who support the measure say it could be used to force the closure of illegal businesses that don’t pay taxes.

Opponents say Measure CB risks legitimizing the illegal cannabis industry while linking city finances to the tax revenue the businesses would generate. The measure also would undermine Proposition 64, the state law that requires cannabis businesses to be licensed. Amid the city’s struggles to track and close illegal cannabis businesses, it will be difficult to force them to pay up.

A Reddit post makes an interesting argument: This is a safety issue. Right now, legal dispensaries in LA have to follow insane testing standards—checking for mold, heavy metals, and pesticides. Illegal shops skip all of that. By creating a specific tax framework for unlicensed shops, the city is basically “normalizing” businesses that are actively hurting people. They note that independent lab tests on popular illegal products (like “Moon Rock Clear” carts) have shown they fail for some nasty stuff: (1) Myclobutanil: This is the big one. When you heat it up in a vape, it turns into Hydrogen Cyanide. Yes, the toxic gas. (2) Clofentezine & Tebuconazole: Pesticides linked to liver toxicity and suspected carcinogens. They believe that Measure CB gives the city a reason to keep these illegal shops around just for the tax check, instead of actually shutting them down for being unsafe. It rewards the people breaking the law and punishes the ones following it.

📋 Conclusion

I’m not a fan of cannabis. I know it helps some people, but I find the odor sickening. I also think that the Federal limitations have prevented us from studying its safety as sold as smoked, vapes, or edibles. I do believe it has medical value, but we need to extract those components and package them safely, at effective and consistent dosages. Remember that we once thought tobacco was safe and medical. But to each their own.

So, that said. I’m in favor of taxing the illegal stores. I don’t believe they will pay it, because, well, they are illegal. As such, the arguments that the city will become dependent on the revenue, or that the stores paying the tax will be considered safe, are specious. The main reason for the tax is enforcement of licensing for shops: the ones that don’t pay it can get shut down for tax evasion. That will encourage them to become legal businesses.

Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

◊

Measure TC: Expand Implementation of Local Hotel Tax Measure

Shall an ordinance be adopted to update the City’s transient occupancy tax, paid by hotel and lodging guests, to require online and other travel companies to collect and remit the tax (the current rate is 14%); generating approximately $5 million annually for general City services, such as street and sidewalk repairs, 911 emergency response, fire protection, and parks, until ended by the voters?

Ballotpedia summarizes this measure as follows: A “yes” vote supports expanding the list of fees, goods, and services to which the city’s 14% transient occupancy tax can be applied, to include: (•) service, booking, processing, and transaction fees; (•) charges levied in hotels, spas, fitness centers, and other areas; and (•) rental and reservation deposits, among other charges. A “no” vote opposes expanding the list of fees, goods, and services to which the city’s 14% transient occupancy tax can be applied.

The LA Times notes that this measure would require online travel companies and other intermediaries to pay the city’s hotel tax based on the markup price they charge to customers, not the discount price they paid for the room. This would increase city revenue, and level the playing field for a struggling hotel industry. It would apply to online platforms like Priceline, Expedia, Hotels.com and many others. It follows the model in Anaheim, where in 2022, voters required online travel companies to collect and pay the hotel tax based on the full amount customers pay. The measure is deemed necessary in the wake of court rulings that have exempted online travel companies from paying hotel taxes under existing law.

Note that this would not necessarily increase the price for end-consumers. My thinking is that the discount one gets for prepaying on a service like Booking.Com comes from the fact that Booking.Com doesn’t pay this tax. If you choose the option to pay at the hotel, then you would pay this tax because you are paying the hotel directly.

A related measure also on the ballot raises the tax on hotel rooms in L.A. from 14% to 16% until the end of 2028, then dropping to 15% thereafter. If passed, it also would apply to online companies.

Useful References:

• LA Times, “Your guide to L.A.’s Measure TC: tax on hotel bookings by online companies“
• LAist, “Measure TC: What you need to know about the city’s proposed update to the transient occupancy tax“

⚫ Yes

The folks in favor of this say that it does not create a new tax. It closes loopholes and modernizes outdated rules so the system works as intended.

◯ No

There was no “no” argument submitted.

📋 Conclusion

This one is relatively easy. The online booking companies should not be able to get away with evading the hotel tax.

Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

◊

Measure TT: Increase Local Hotel Tax Measure

Shall an ordinance be adopted to fund general City services, such as street/sidewalk repairs, 911 emergency response, fire protection, and parks, by: increasing the transient occupancy tax, currently 14% paid by hotel and lodging guests, to 16% through 2028 and then 15% thereafter; and requiring online and other travel companies to collect and remit the tax; generating approximately $22-44 million annually until ended by voters?

Ballotpedia notes that a “yes” vote supports increasing the city’s local hotel and lodging tax from 14% to 16% until 2028, and then decreasing the tax to 15% after 2028. A “no” vote opposes this.

According to the LA Times, In L.A., the transient occupancy tax — sometimes called a bed or hotel tax — is currently 14% of the price of hotel stays and short-term rentals under 30 days. The tax increase proposed by Measure TT would generate $44 million annually through 2028 and $22 million annually after that, according to city estimates, with the money going toward basic services like 911 emergency response, street and sidewalk repairs, fire protection and parks. Under Measure TT, rooms and short-term rentals booked through online companies like Airbnb, Expedia and Hotels.com also would be subject to the tax. A related measure on the ballot would require those companies to pay taxes on the total amount a hotel charges a guest, not just the discounted rate.

The measure basically jumps the lodging tax in the run up to and during the 2028 Olympics, and then drops it back later.  The Los Angeles hotel tax rate is on par for California cities but higher than in most other U.S. cities. For example, New York City’s hotel tax is 5.875%, plus $1.50 a day.

LAist notes the measure would also redefine the taxable room charges to include various add-on fees, including transaction fees and commissions, unrefunded advance reservation deposits, charges for additional services and other charges that are part of a travel package. Working in conjunction with Proposition TC, it would ensure that the tax is based on the full amount the customer pays to online travel companies and booking agents and not just the amount paid directly to the hotel.

Useful References:

• LA Times, “Your guide to L.A.’s Measure TT: hotel bed tax increase“
• LAist, “Measure TT: What you need to know about the city’s proposed increase on hotel room taxes“

⚫ Yes

The City Council voted 13-2 to put Measure TT on the ballot, taking advantage of the Olympics to add some jet fuel to our visitor-serving community. The goal is to help the city, which recently closed a $1-billion budget shortfall and is facing more fiscal problems as it struggles to provide basic services while taking on big-ticket items like a $2.6-billion expansion of the Convention Center.

There was no “yes” argument submitted; the consensus appears to be that this is a no-brainer.

◯ No

Opponents include hotel and hospitality groups who argue that higher taxes would make it harder to fill rooms.

L.A. could lose tourists to nearby cities like Culver City and Burbank, which had lower hotel tax rates than those proposed by Measure TT, according to an April 2025 report by the L.A. Office of Finance. They might also lose tourist to county areas (such as Universal City), which are not in the City of Los Angeles.

📋 Conclusion

Los Angeles is facing a budget deficit, and one way to address that is hotel taxes. Most folks think more about where the destination is than what the local taxes are (I recall that from when the conference was in Hawaii, and when we stayed in Las Vegas). Certainly, it will not impact business travels, who just expense it away. This does seem like an easy solution.

Conclusion: ⚫ Yes

◊

Streetlight Maintenance Assessment District № 5500: Assessment Ballot

BSL’s operations are primarily funded through a “special benefit assessment” on property owners. Under Prop 218, approved by California voters in 1996, these assessments can only be
used for services and improvements that directly benefit properties – and the amount charged must be proportional to that benefit. For street lighting, these special benefits were determined to be improvements related to: (•) Security and crime prevention; (•) Safety; (•) Economic activity and access; and (•) Aesthetics. Most individual street lighting property assessments have not increased since 1996. In March 2026, the Los Angeles City Council approved a proposed update to these assessments, which is subject to a property owner vote under Prop 218.

Funds generated by this assessment would be placed in a special account dedicated to the repair, upgrade and maintenance of streetlights within the Assessment District, in the City of Los Angeles. Official repair times for street light repairs average one year. Funding from the special benefit assessment will be utilized to increase resources for street light repairs and maintenance.

The cost per parcel is based on points determined by land use × parcel size, as described here. The Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is $58.84. For our parcel, our total benefits point are 2.500, giving a FY26-27 maximum assessment of $147.08. This appears to be based on a Class 2 Residential Standard Light (2.00 points) × Class 3 Single Family Residential 0.2–<0.4 Acres (1.25 points).

Note that this measure is a separate ballot sent only to property owners within the boundaries of this assessment district. It is mailed back, and not part of the regular election.

This is the ballot measure that has our local Nextdoor community up in arms. There are those who hate any form of additional taxes. There are people who are blaming this on corrupt politicians. Here’s a typical post: “Oh goody – a special assessment! When did the Los Angeles government become an HOA? We give them billions in taxes already. If they could or would manage those funds properly, I would consider giving them more, but they don’t so I suggest a No vote. If you are against it, please mail your ballots. They have stacked the deck…. an unreturned ballot will count as a yes vote.”

Let’s attack that last bit first: “an unreturned ballot will count as a yes vote.” The material sent with the ballot explicitly states “If the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessment, the assessment will not be imposed.” For those that can’t read: That means they only count the ballots returned; unreturned ballots don’t count. As for weighting the ballots: Although there is nothing in the material mailed, the LA City lighting website says: “Ballots are weighted based on the amount each property would pay. If the total amount of ballots submitted in opposition exceeds those in favor, the assessment will not be approved.”. So, yes, large property owners can overwhelm the small property owners, depending on the nature of the property’s use and the type of lighting.

Let’s look at the second fallacy here: “When did the Los Angeles government become an HOA? We give them billions in taxes already. If they could or would manage those funds properly, I would consider giving them more”. Here’s what people don’t understand well about government: When funds are given to the government, and the government allocates them (either through legislation or the budgeting process), those funds cannot then be moved around. Streetlights are a great example of that. You can’t use road building or library funds for them: only the funds raised for streetlights can be used for streetlights. This isn’t like your home budget where you can move things around. Further, fund expenditures are subject to regular audits (that’s the job of the controller), so there actually is very little mismanagement. The process is transparent, but you do need to know where to look.

Then there are those upset that they didn’t get the ballot. The ballot only goes to property owners in the assessment district. They probably don’t remember their civics classes about special districts. If you are a renter, you don’t vote on this.

Then there are folks like this: “Everyone take note how they very smoothly worded if this is approved our right to vote against future light Maintenance increases would be removed. They’d have unchecked power to increase the fee every year. Essentially voting our right away. Right now the fee is fixed. Let’s keep it this way and vote no!!” Having a fixed fee is what led to the problems that resulted in the gas tax increase: A fixed level of funding with steadily increasing costs. Unless you can make up those differences, suddenly the funds available for maintenance aren’t there. However, the increase is limited: the percentage change in the annual Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CA region, compared year over year”. In other words, it is tied to inflation. Could it have been more specific to streetlight costs? Possibly, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Citywatch notes: “Street Lighting is a complex enterprise that has been and is underfunded. It needs to maintain, repair, and upgrade its system of 223,000 streetlights, protect its system from copper wire theft, replace LED lights and poles at the end of their lifecycle, install solar powered streelights, pay its electric bill (already $120 million past due), and provide support and administrative services for its 180 employees.”. These are all valid points. However, Citywatch’s solution is: “Instead of increasing the Assessment, the City should treat street lighting as a basic city service, part of its core infrastructure, and fund it through the City’s budget. Since 1996, the City’s budget has increased 250%. If only the City had provided Street Lighting with $3 million more a year for the last 30 years, there would be no need for an increase.” Perhaps, but the waiting for the city to do structural change like this, when there is already a special district set up specifically for maintenance of lighting, will take time. While we are waiting: Who will be fixing the lights? There are many potential solutions that are better than this assessment. But the real question is: Which will fix the lights now, and which are just excuses to kick the can down the road. Whether we pay for the lights through our property taxes or through some other city tax, we’re going to need to pay for the increased costs. That’s not going away.

The conclusion I get from reading Nextdoor is that the folks there are the anti-tax camp that don’t understand government services. Streetlights are like lighthouses: They are a public good, and all benefit from them. Costs have clearly gone up: Not only labor costs, but the cost of the materials (copper, steel, and aluminum, which is why folks are making money stealing and selling those metals). There is also increased maintenance costs from all the theft and the theft proofing. The last major update was when they went to LED fixtures. If they move to solar fixtures, that will reduce copper theft, but will also require storage batteries, which are more expensive.

There are also some interesting facts from the Apartment Owners website:

Why this ballot is easy to misread

The surface story is simple: the City wants more money for streetlights. The real story is more technical, and that is exactly why it matters. The assessment cannot be imposed if the ballots submitted in opposition exceed those submitted in favor, with ballots weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. The Bureau of Street Lighting says the same thing in plain English: ballots are weighted based on the amount each property would pay. This is why a large assessed parcel has more voting weight than a small one.

That one rule changes the way property owners should think about this. A weighted protest is not a one-owner, one-vote contest. It is closer to a financial allocation exercise wrapped in ballot language. Owners who skip the parcel math and focus only on the headline are missing the part that actually decides the outcome.

There is a second detail that many owners will miss. The Bureau says only ballots received are counted, and ballots not returned are not included in the tabulation. It goes further: If no ballots are returned, the proposed assessments will be levied. It also says ballots must be received before the close of the public hearing on June 2, 2026. A late postmark does not save a late ballot.

The quiet detail that changes the math

There is another fact that isn’t making the headlines. In its March 2026 report, the Bureau said it will cast ballots in favor of the assessments for all council-controlled public properties in the district, consistent with Council policy. That does not settle the outcome on its own, but it does tell owners something important about the process. This is not a neutral field where only private owners express a preference. Public parcels that receive the claimed special benefit are part of the weighted total.

That matters even more because the City is treating this as a citywide proceeding at scale. The committee report authorized funds tied to mailing 600,000 assessment ballots. If you own multiple parcels or own larger assets, you should be thinking in terms of aggregate exposure and aggregate voting weight, not just whether one building gets a bigger bill.

So, for me, what is the cost. According to my last property tax bill, my assessment for “CITY LT MAINT” was $95.52. The proposed max new assessment is $147.08. The difference is $51.56. Am I willing to pay an extra $51.56 to have better and maintained street lighting? Lighting that makes the streets safer and reduces crime? It seems like noise to me: That’s about one dinner out for two, with tip, these days.

Lastly, I’ll note that a whole bunch of questions are answered in the Prop 218 FAQ on the LA Street Lighting website.

⚫ Yes

Having read through all this analysis, I think the YES argument can be summarized as: Streetlight costs have gone up dramatically. The assessment, however, has not. Streetlights demonstrably make a neighborhood safer. When considered against the overall property tax (unless you are a lucky-so-and-so with an abnormally low tax due to Prop 13), the increase is miniscule. For example, my total property tax is $13,585.12 (we bought in 2006). An increase of $51.56 is under 4/10s of 1% (to be precise 00.3795329%). That, my friends, is the definition of noise for a lot of benefit.

◯ No

The primary argument from the “no” folks is that they don’t want ANY new taxes, for ANY reason. They think government is mismanaging funds, or want some other structural solution. But in any case, they don’t want a nickel of new taxes now (I was going to say a penny, but those aren’t minted anymore).

📋 Conclusion

I hear the concerns of those hating taxes, but ultimately this boils down to: We need better street lighting now. Waiting for structural solutions won’t get it now. Trying to root out financial mismanagement that isn’t there won’t get it now (what folks think is mismanagement is really layers of bureaucracy put in place to protect misuse of tax dollars, and that costs a percentage). This is the only solution that will get the lighting fixed sooner rather than later, and for a low incremental cost that isn’t tied to the assessed valuation. I think the answer is  ⚫ Yes.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as 🗳️ June 2026 Primary Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Measures (nee Propositions) by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.