measures

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.

California voters are souring on a Nov. 3 ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal that has triggered one of the most expensive political battles in state history.

Half of likely voters plan to vote against Proposition 40, the proposed wealth tax on billionaires’ assets, while 42% support it, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. The findings mark a significant decline in support of the measure, which was crafted by an influential California healthcare union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by President Trump and congressional Republicans.

The survey also found that a solid majority of likely voters opposed Proposition 39, which would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens. The findings come as the Trump administration continues to attack California as a haven for voter fraud, including unfounded allegations of rampant illegal voting by undocumented immigrants.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said previous surveys showed support for Proposition 40 has been fragile, and the most recent shows its prospects have dimmed as election day approaches.

The increase in opposition to Proposition 40 is “broad-based and spans virtually all major segments of the electorate,” DiCamillio said. The ballot measure was leading in a Berkeley poll conducted just six weeks ago, albeit by a slim margin, so its reversal of fortune is significant, he said.

The declining support comes after an onslaught of money spent opposing Proposition 40, including a torrent of television and social media ads airing everywhere from NFL games to “Everybody Loves Raymond” reruns. Nearly $368 million has been contributed to efforts opposing the billionaire tax, while $36 million has been donated to support the proposed levy.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions. Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

While Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose Proposition 40, nearly two-thirds of Democrats support it and more than a quarter opposing it. There is also a generational divide, with 6 out of 10 voters 65 years old or older opposing the measure, while more than two-thirds of those under 30 supporting it, according to the poll.

The findings are similar to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Tuesday, which found 52% of likely voters would vote against Proposition 40, while 46% supported it.

The campaign against the wealth tax, funded by some of California’s richest tech moguls, is centered on three intertwined ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of changes to state tax laws and spending restrictions.

Proposition 41 would cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits of new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that are exempt from a state spending limit. Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other personal savings. Both Propositions 41 and 42 would nullify the billionaire tax if it passes, provided either measure receives more votes.

A plurality of voters oppose Propositions 41 and 42, a reversal from just six week ago, according to the poll.

In mid-September, voters were closely divided about Proposition 41 — 37% in favor and 33% opposed — with a large number of undecided. In the current poll, 38% of likely voters favor the measure and 47% oppose it. Proposition 42 led by 9 percentage points in the Berkeley/L.A. Times poll in September — 43% in favor and 34% opposed. Now, 43% of likely voters support it and 45% oppose it.

DiCamillo said backers of a ballot measure also should be concerned any time support registers below 50%, since voters who are undecided or unsure tend to vote no.

“It’s below 50%, and it’s trending down. Both of those are ominous signs,” DiCamillo said. Proposition 42 is “still very close. I’m not saying it’s definitely going down, but it’s moving in the wrong direction late in the campaign, and usually movement in a late poll is even more significant than the actual numbers themselves,”

He added that while many voters were unaware the two proposed ballot measures were designed as poison pills to kill the billionaire tax, among those who knew, the opposition was significantly greater.

If all three measures fail, that still would be a victory for the billionaires who spent aggressively to tank the wealth tax.

Another notable finding was voters’ support of Proposition 3, which would make permanent a higher income tax rate on the wealthy that funds education. A majority of voters — 54% — support continuing the levy, while 37% oppose it, according to the poll. DiCamillo says the disparity in support of the proposed billionaire tax and the extension of the existing wealth tax has been consistent in IGS’s polls, and is likely because of the differing foundations of the levies.

“Proposition 3 is already in place, and if you read the fiscal impact, if this were to pass, it maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual funding,” he said, “It’s a big revenue generator, and I think that is something that’s already in place.”

“Voters kind of understand the progressive nature of California’s tax system, and they kind of support that, but they don’t support nearly as much the idea of some new kind of tax, the wealth tax, which is taxing assets rather than income,” he said. “So that’s the distinction.”

These ballot measures are among 14 that voters will decide on Nov. 3, as well as statewide, congressional, local and judicial elections.

Among the other controversial measures is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.

The measure also would require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.

Nearly 6 in 10 likely voters oppose the effort, while more than a third support it, split largely along party lines. More than half of voters who are registered as “no party preference” or with a smaller political party oppose the proposal, which DiCamillo said was an indication of trouble for the proposition given the state’s Democratic majority electorate and the proximity of the election.

“It’s hard for Republicans to push something over the finish line by themselves,” he said.

Other prominent ballot measures:

• Proposition 43, which would prohibit local governments from imposing certain new special taxes unless two-thirds of voters approve the proposal. Such proposals need a simple majority vote to be approved. While 46% of likely voters oppose the proposal, 36% support it, challenging numbers this close to election day, DiCamillo said. “It needs to get to 50,” he said. “We’ll see how you do that this late in the campaign.”

• Proposition 4, which would repeal a prohibition of public financing of campaigns, allowing state and local governments to support candidates if they abide by several rules. Likely voters are evenly split about the proposal, with 41% supporting it and opposing it, and 18% undecided. “It’s close, but it’s still below 50%. Most voters tend to vote no in the late going if they’re not convinced,” DiCamillo said, adding that he viewed the lack of support among voters who do not affiliate with a political party as a signal of potential failure.

The poll of 2,787 registered California voters was conducted online in English and Spanish Oct. 19-25 and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points in either direction.

SACRAMENTO — You haven’t voted yet because the state propositions are too bewildering? I’m with you. There are too many for normal human consumption. But I’ve figured them all out at last.

I’ve concocted my own personal voter information guide that I’ll share here. Heads up: I’m negative on most measures, including some expected to pass.

Anyway, here’s my thinking:

Proposition 1: Affordable housing bond

The state would borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs, mainly to provide below-market rentals for poor people. Students and farmworkers also would benefit minimally. So would military veterans through the CalVet program. The proposal is packed with goodies aimed at drawing broad political support. Which it has.

But it’s an expensive item — costing the state at least $500 million annually for 25 years. Taxpayers already are paying about $6 billion annually to retire $80 billion in bond debt.

This measure is too costly given our fragile, chaotic state budget. There should have been more prioritizing. I’m a “no” vote.

Proposition 2: Doubles the state’s ‘rainy day’ fund

It requires the Legislature to pour money into the state savings account until it reaches 20% of general fund tax revenue, rather than the current 10%. The fund can be tapped when the economy sours and revenue falls.

Sure, save away if you can. Yes.

Proposition 3: Makes high tax rates permanent

This would cement the nation’s highest state income tax rates into the California Constitution — up to 12.3%, affecting the top 2% of earners with incomes above $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. (Million-dollar earners pay an added 1%.) The money helps fund schools, healthcare and other state programs.

The high rates were sold to voters as temporary in 2012. Later, voters extended them until 2031.

My hesitancy: Tax rates should not be embedded in the constitution where they can only be altered by voters. The governor and legislators should do their jobs and update our volatile state tax system. Moreover, “temporary” shouldn’t be translated into “permanent.” And there’s no rush. The rates don’t expire for five years. No.

Proposition 4: Repeals ban on public financing of election campaigns

This would allow the state and local governments to create partial public financing systems for political candidates. “Charter” cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco already can.

Look, either wealthy donors and special interests buy the politicians or the public does. Anyway, if a few major cities are permitted to enact public financing, all cities should be. Yes.

Proposition 5: Changes recall elections

Currently, voters decide two questions in a state recall election: 1. Should the official be recalled? 2. Who should be the replacement? Under this proposal, only the first question would be asked. Any replacement would be determined by the normal non-recall process. Depending on the office, that usually ends up in a special election.

This makes lots of sense. Too many shabby games have been played with the present bifurcated system. Yes

Proposition 37: Down payment loans for home buyers

Middle-income buyers could take out a second mortgage to cover most of their 20% down payment on a newly constructed home. They’d need to dig up only 3% in cash. The program would be financed by a $25-billion state revenue bond, repaid by home buyers. Lending institutions would qualify the borrowers and take the risk, costing the state zilch.

This makes sense. Easy yes.

Proposition 38: Medical research bond

The state would borrow $8.4 billion to fund research into cures for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other ailments. The state cost: at least $500 million annually for 20 years.

My hang-up is that the measure was crafted to assure that half the money goes to one institute, whose billionaire founder is the proposition’s chief backer. State money should be available to all potential bidders. No.

Proposition 39: Voter ID

This would force everyone to show a government ID before being allowed to vote. Those casting mail ballots would need to write a four-digit PIN on the back of the return envelope.

There’s simply no evidence of widespread voter cheating anywhere. This measure is unneeded and would just hassle voters and slow the vote count. Flat no.

Proposition 40: The billionaire tax

It would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ worth, probably raising tens of billions of dollars. Ninety percent would go to healthcare to replace federal funding cutbacks.

This is nutty. There’s no such thing as a temporary tax. Proposition 3 is an example. We shouldn’t have a one-time tax anyway. It’s like a sugar high that quickly wears off. Then what? Who’s next to have their wealth taxed? Want a wealth tax? Make it national to keep billionaires from fleeing California with their riches for more friendly states. No way.

Proposition 41 and Proposition 42: Twin poison pills

Ignore their superficial intents, the sole purpose of both measures is to invalidate the billionaires tax.

I don’t like Proposition 40, but I also detest deceptive games-playing with ballot initiatives. They should be discouraged. No.

Proposition 43: Raises vote requirement for local tax hikes

Currently, special tax increases placed on a local ballot by citizen signature-collecting require only a simple majority vote. This measure would increase the threshold to two-thirds, the same as if proposed by a city council or county supervisors board.

It’s ridiculously confusing. But I don’t like two-thirds requirements for taxes because a minority of voters can overrule the majority. That’s undemocratic. No.

The low-profile measure would require local nonprofit clinics caring for poor people to spend 90% of their funds on health services.

This smacks of a failed negotiating tactic by the union sponsor of the billionaires tax. Many clinics say they’d need to close shop. No.

Proposition 45: Regulatory streamlining for building projects

This would substantially overhaul the environmental protection act that has kept California less polluted from development projects. The act also has been sorely abused and used as a tool to stop projects, particularly housing. This measure would make it easier to build, not just housing but many things, such as water facilities, clean energy, giant warehouses and freeway expansions.

It goes too far, enabling sprawl and leaving citizens with fewer weapons to fight projects. The Legislature has been trimming home building regulations and should continue. No on 45.

Happy voting. I’m glad I didn’t vote early so there’d be time to bone up on this hodgepodge.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal”: Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth-tax supporters
Against the wind: Hope and despair simmer among California Republicans ahead of election day
CA vs. Trump: ‘This is not normal’: Feds demand California counties set aside ‘likely’ noncitizen ballots

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Italy has approved the deployment of troops and tougher legal penalties in a bid to quell cost-of-living protests in the north of the country that occasionally turned violent over the weekend.

The Italian cabinet on Tuesday approved sending 500 troops to Milan, a new legal offence covering violent participation in a demonstration, tougher penalties for rioters and financial liability for parents whose children take part in vandalism and looting.

Italy’s Ministry of Defence said the military will help reinforce security at key sites, step up surveillance of sensitive locations and enhance monitoring.

Unrest swept northern Italian cities at the weekend, including the financial capital Milan, where groups of mainly young people looted shops, smashed windows and clashed with the police. The demonstrations were driven by anger over soaring fuel and energy prices, high rents, low wages and the state of public services.

Public safety

As part of the new legal measures, which take effect immediately, anyone who takes part in a group of at least five people and endangers public safety during protests faces up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of €20,000 ($22,460).

Penalties increase if faces are concealed or people are injured.

Authorities can order prompt compensation for any damage inflicted and, in the case of minors, hold their parents liable.

Police will be allowed to detain youths aged between 14 and 17, even if they have not committed a crime, provided there is evidence they pose a danger, extending powers that previously applied only to adults.

But the cabinet did not approve giving soldiers policing powers, as expected, after opposition from President Sergio Mattarella, Italian media reported.

“Destroying and stealing is not protest, it is crime, and the state’s response must be firm,” Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said in a social media post after the cabinet meeting.

Echoing protests

The disturbances in northern Italy echoed riots in neighbouring France, where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets on Saturday in some of the country’s most violent turmoil in years.

Meloni’s government is also facing mounting pressure from a separate wave of protests in southern Italy, where truck drivers angered by soaring diesel prices and the rising cost of living have staged roadblocks that are disrupting supply chains.

Protesters in both the north and the south say rising prices are pushing families into poverty, a concern for Meloni ahead of the 2027 national elections.