impact

Voters in the city of Los Angeles will consider eight ballot measures covering everything from taxes and fire resources to governance of airports and the port and the quality of parks.

L.A. City Measure FD

The basics

Measure FD would increase sales taxes by 0.5% to provide additional funding for the city Fire Department. The measure would raise an estimated $345 million annually. Under the plan, the city’s retail sales tax would increase from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent.

Impact

The ballot initiative was spearheaded by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, which has long argued that the department is underfunded. It claims decades of neglect have left the department understaffed and under-resourced.

Critics point out that this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, following L.A. County hikes for homelessness (Measure A in 2024) and healthcare (Measure ER in the June 2 primary). The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. estimates that Measure FD will cost an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.

Read more:

Proposition TE

The basics

Proposition TE would carve out a five-year exemption from L.A.’s “mansion tax” for Pacific Palisades homes damaged or destroyed in the 2025 wildfire, sparing sellers six-figure transfer bills on high-end properties. The mansion tax levies a 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million. At the current level, if a Pacific Palisades resident who lost their home in the fire sold the vacant lot for, say, $6 million, they would owe $240,000 in transfer taxes.

The impact

Supporters say fire survivors shouldn’t owe hefty taxes when selling burned-out lots, arguing the break offers basic fairness for families facing insurance shortfalls and steep rebuilding costs. Opponents warn the exemption covers wealthy landlords and investors as well as homeowners, creating a “loophole for the ultrawealthy” and stripping millions annually from the mansion tax’s homeless and affordable housing programs.

Charter Amendment LA

The basics:

Charter Amendment LA would change the way public works are administered in Los Angeles, allow the city to lease its underused land to tenants and open the door to greater city involvement in business enterprises. It also would ease some competitive bidding rules.

The impact

The proposed changes to the Los Angeles City Charter are intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services and speed repairs to deteriorating infrastructure such as streets in need of repaving, unsafe sidewalks and broken streetlights.

Charter Amendment PL

The basics

Charter Amendment PL would tweak L.A.’s Planning Department, promising faster decisions, clearer rules and more consistent oversight of development citywide. Seven volunteer Area Planning Commissions would be replaced by a single Neighborhood Appeals Board, cutting costs and standardizing rulings on liquor licenses, hillside homes and small-business projects.

The measure would let the City Council raise building height limits, set strict timelines on planning votes and automatically approve some amendments, opening the door to taller towers and speedier permitting.

The impact

Homeowners, developers and businesses have complained that navigating the Planning Department can be complicated and confusing. These changes aim to streamline how permits and projects move through the department.

Charter Amendment EE

The basics

Charter Amendment EE would cut the number of required L.A. City Council meetings from three to one weekly while reshaping ethics rules, watchdog powers and referendum signature thresholds.

The impact

Supporters call three weekly meetings inefficient and costly, arguing fewer full sessions would free council members to work in their districts and steer more detailed public debate into committee hearings. Opponents warn EE would shrink public access, rush deliberations and effectively neuter referendums, casting the ethics and oversight tweaks as modest cover for a deeper retreat from transparency.

Charter Amendment PRK

The basics

Charter Amendment PRK would double the minimum budget allocation set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks, which oversees the upkeep of green spaces, playing fields and senior centers. It is not a new tax or bond.

The impact

Supporters say that the change will allow the city to give Angelenos the park and recreation services they deserve. Critics contend it will tie the hands of the city’s elected officials, forcing them to cut other services to make room for additional park funding.

Charter Amendment PRT

The basics

Charter Amendment PRT would change the composition of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, which oversees Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports. It would require that two of the seven board members live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX — a footprint that the amendment does not define. As for the Port of Los Angeles, the amendment would require the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners to annually allocate a portion of the harbor’s operating income to investments in waterfront public access projects. It also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce by adding employment reporting requirements for any leaseholder extending a lease or any lease applicant.

The impact

The measure was developed through a reform effort started after a series of scandals. Backers say it will boost public accountability. There was initial pushback among some terminal leaseholders at the Port of Los Angeles.

Charter Amendment SC

The basics

Charter Amendment SC aims to clarify campaign finance rules for candidates running for a seat on the L.A. Unified Board of Education, which overseas the school district and around 350,000 students.

The impact

Repetitive language in the Los Angeles City Charter would be deleted and the charter would make clear that the same campaign finance rules apply to both mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances, the measure says. Among those requirements are rules governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.

The billionaires targeted by the wealth tax on the November ballot include owners of some of California’s top sports teams and, among them, there will be winners and losers if voters approve the measure.

Which owners would be ensnared by the proposed tax on billionaires’ assets remains unclear, since it’s largely dependent on whether they are declared official California residents, at least for state tax purposes. And that’s before lawyers and accountants get involved, an almost certain bet if the ballot measure is approved by California voters.

So it’s possible that the majority owner of the Los Angeles Chargers, Dean Spanos, would have to pay the the wealth tax while the owner of the Los Angeles Rams, San Kroenke, would not — even though both their teams are playing on the same home field at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. It all depends on whether the state considers Spanos or Kroenke official California residents and how their assets are tallied.

Other wealthy team owners or co-owners who have residences in California and could be subject to the tax include the Golden State Warriors’ Joe Lacob and Peter Guber, the San Diego Padres’ José E. Feliciano and Kwanza Jones, the San Jose Sharks’ Hasso Plattner and the Anaheim Ducks’ Henry Samueli.

Among those who appear to live out of state, according to news reports, and may not be impacted: the San Francisco 49ers’ Denise DeBartolo York and John York, the Los Angeles Clippers’ Steve Ballmer, the San Francisco Giants’ Charles Johnson, the L.A. Kings’ and the L.A. Galaxy’s Philip Anschutz.

In August, embattled billionaire Mark Walter agreed to sell the L.A. Lakers to former Disney chief executive Bob Iger and venture capitalist Joshua Kushner. The proposed billionaire tax would apply to Iger, who lives in California, but not Kushner, who lives in New York. A spokesperson for Iger declined comment. Walter, who also owns the Dodgers and has been under federal investigation, told the California Post on Wednesday that he has no plans to sell the team.

There is uncertainty and disagreement about how the tax would be levied on sports team owners, and how their ownership stakes would be evaluated by the state when assessing their assets.

Representatives of the Warriors and Chargers, declined comment. Spokespeople for the Kings, Padres, Sharks and Ducks did not respond to requests for comment, nor did representatives of Kroenke or Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla, who lives in California and whose $9.6-billion purchase of the Seattle Seahawks was finalized in September.

Legendary sports agent Leigh Steinberg warned that the proposed tax would have unintended consequences. “It creates an uneven playing field,” he said. “Out-of-state owners get an advantage over in-state residents.”

Steinberg, who has represented more than 300 professional athletes including Troy Aikman, Drew Bledsoe, Michael Vick and Oscar De La Hoya, said the increased tax could be passed on to fans if voters approve Proposition 40 on Nov. 3.

“Ticket prices are high enough anyway, and somewhat prohibitive to a working person or young person attending a game live,” Steinberg said. “The last thing in the world positive for the growth of sports is passing on that surcharge.”

Dodgers fans buy food at Dodgers Stadium.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on many of the assets of billionaires, including their holdings in companies. It was crafted by a healthcare union to compensate for federal healthcare cuts signed by President Trump last year that will cost California an estimated $100 billion, impacting the state’s most vulnerable residents.

David Gamage, a tax law and policy professor at the University of Missouri’s law school, countered that consumers would be far more hurt by the impacts of the impending federal healthcare funding cuts than by potentially higher prices at sporting events.

“The billionaire wealth tax would address the healthcare crisis caused by the Trump administration slashing Medicaid and other healthcare funding. Passing the billionaire wealth tax would be expected to reduce healthcare costs and thereby keep the prices of hot dogs and other consumer goods lower,” Gamage said. “Trying to fool voters by implying otherwise is shameful.”

More than 200 billionaires live in California, some of whom moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposed tax. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of social media giant Meta, told company leaders that he planned to leave the state to avoid his control over the company being substantially diluted by being forced to sell enough stock to pay the proposed levy. Last week, the company announced the creation of a new nonvoting type of stock that would allow Zuckerberg to sell enough shares to pay the proposed tax while retaining his voting power in exchange for him agreeing to remain in the state for eight years.

Protesters in New York demonstrate against Elon Musk following the launch of the SpaceX initial public offering.

(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

Proposition 40 supporters say that billionaire sports team owners have benefited from Trump’s tax cuts — dividends they didn’t share with the fans who spend hard-earned money to bring their families to games — and that they need to pay their fair share.

Opponents argue that professional sports are among myriad California economic engines that will suffer if voters approve the proposition, in part because owners based in the state would be subject to the tax while those who reside in other parts of the country would be exempt.

The measure “will also drive up the cost of operating a sports team in California, increasing the price of tickets, concessions and merchandise,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. “This is just one of many ways Proposition 40 will cost Californians.”

A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies released Thursdayshowed public sentiment had turned against the billionaire tax, with half of likely voters opposing it and 42% supporting it.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer addresses the crowd.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

More than $404 million has been donated to efforts supporting and opposing the wealth tax, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office. Proponents of the ballot measure had raised $36.5 million as of Thursday, while opponents received nearly $368 million.

The residency of billionaires is often difficult to ascertain, given that many have multiple properties across the nation and around the world. It is not solely based on where the person is registered to vote.

Among the “facts and circumstances” the California Franchise Tax Board considers are the person’s employer, their spouse’s and childrens’ locations, where mail is delivered, and the location of doctors, accountants, lawyers, country club memberships and houses of worship. The number of days spent in California also is factored into the board’s assessment of residency.

Lakers part-owner Patrick Soon-Shiong at a game.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire, owns 4% of the Lakers and recently became a co-owner of a new women’s professional volleyball team in Los Angeles expected to start competing next year.

Soon-Shiong noted that it’s not only wealthy Californians who oppose the tax. Teachers, firefighters and other groups oppose Proposition 40 because of concerns about long-term impacts on the state. And, as a businessman with stakes in sports teams, he predicted bad effects on pro sports.

“It’s really, really expensive to bring a family to watch a professional game, whatever that game may be,” he said during an interview in September. “All those costs will go up, and for sure, it’ll be passed down to the cost of the ticket.”

Times Library Director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

Your ballot is overflowing with decisions you need to make. Some you’ve probably heard about — Karen Bass vs. Nithya Raman for L.A. mayor, Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton for California governor, the controversial billionaire tax.

But there are also some more obscure races on the L.A. County ballot that are important as well. Here are seven to keep an eye out for.

Los Angeles County sheriff

This is a rematch between rivals for the job of running the Sheriff’s Department, which also oversees county jails.

• Robert Luna is the sitting sheriff. The former Long Beach police chief, Luna came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2022, arguing that incumbent Alex Villanueva had taken the department in the wrong direction. Luna points out that violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%.
• Alex Villanueva was elected sheriff in 2018 in an upset victory. His tenure was marked by controversy and scandal, and he became a fixture on Fox News, where he appeared repeatedly to vilify “woke” culture and criticize Democrats. He faults Luna, claiming the department has issues with recruitment and retention. He also says the department does not have the resources it needs.

L.A. County Charter Amendment A

This measure deals with labor negotiations for key public safety personnel in L.A. County.

Basics

Measure A is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration between county government and negotiators representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety workers if contract talks reach an impasse and no compromise can be reached. It would alter the current last step, in which county supervisors can impose a final offer that these employees must accept — by law, public safety personnel cannot strike.

Impact

The initial phase of contract talks still would have union and county representatives seeking to hammer out a mutually beneficial deal, with a presumption that both sides would negotiate in good faith. But if a gap remains and an impasse ultimately is declared, the supervisors no longer would dictate the final offer. Instead, a three-member arbitration panel would be formed. The county and union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as chair. If they can’t agree on the final panelist, a state entity could provide a list of qualified arbitrators to choose from. The arbitrators would focus on key employment elements such as wages and hours and would hold hearings and receive evidence from the parties. At the end of the process, a binding result would be issued and made public.

Read more:

L.A. County Charter Amendment E

This is a highly complicated measure that involves jail financing and seeks to clean up some bureaucratic muddles.

Basics

Jails: In 2020, 57% of county voters approved Measure J. This mandated that at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue be allocated to incarceration alternatives. The problem? Voters later approved the county reform effort Measure G, which had the unintended effect of repealing Measure J. Measure E would ensure that Measure J remains in effect.

Governance: Measure G also created, among other things, a county ethics commission and an ethics compliance office. Officials determined that for true independence, the commission and the compliance office must be permanently enshrined in the county charter.

Impact

Backers say Measure E would clean up those messy governmental issues.

L.A. County Superior Court judges

Voters will decide runoffs for four open judge seats:

• Maria Ghobadi and Rhonda Haymon are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 64 seat.
• Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 65 seat.
• Anthony “A.J.” Bayne and David DeJute are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 87 seat.
• Donna Tryfman and David Ross are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 131 seat.