IAC Ballot Guide
Voter guide season is here! đłď¸đĽł
The general election is less than two weeks away and Inclusive Action is tracking four major county and city measures that will impact our clients and surrounding communities. So grab a pumpkin spice latte, read the guide below, do some more investigating, tell your friends, families, neighbors and baristas all about it. For more information on how to vote in Los Angeles visit: lavote.gov (did you know Metro is offering free rides on voting day?)
Los Angeles County MEASURE A: Our recommendation: YES â
In a nutshell: Measure A would add an amendment to the LA County charter allowing the Board of Supervisors to remove an elected Sheriff for a cause, by at least four out of five votes. A cause can consist of things like a violation of law related to a Sheriff's duties, flagrant or repeated neglect of duties, misappropriation of funds, willful falsification of documents, or obstructing an investigationâyou know, things that can get most people fired from their jobs.
Why is this important?
Well, the Sheriff has a VERY powerful position. They are elected every four years to serve as the chief law enforcement agency for the County. They oversee the largest Sheriff's Department in the US with an annual budget of $3.6B, provide policing services to 42 cities in the county, and run seven jails. Unlike other appointed policing officials, the Sheriff does not have oversight from other elected officials.
Itâs no secret that the current Sheriff Villanueva has been embroiled in conflict with various public officials, and has used questionable tactics against his opponents. In a July 2022 motion Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Hilda Solis argued that the Board needs additional authority and oversight to hold a sheriff accountable for their actions. This charter amendment proposal is an additional way to have more oversight of the Sheriffâs position.
đ°Los Angeles County MEASURE C: Our recommendation: NO đŤ
In a nutshell: Measure C would allow LA County to tax commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas of LA County. The tax includes up to $10 per square foot for cultivation, 6% tax on gross retail receipts, 2% tax on testing facilities' gross receipts, 3% tax on gross distribution receipts; and 4% tax on the gross receipts of manufacturing and other cannabis business facilities. If passed, the tax would go into effect in July 2023, and according to LA County, is expected to generate about $10 million annually for the general fund and will be reinvested into other countywide programs.
Why is this important?
While the 2016 legalization of cannabis promised a regulated legal market that would benefit small growers, the reality is that larger corporations have smoked smaller competitors and dominated the market (pun intended). This continues raising the issue of equitable access to this industry by small-scale cannabis business owners, specifically those who are people of color.
Cannabis businesses are currently still prohibited in unincorporated areas of the County; that is until the rollout of the permit program in late 2023. And the County only plans on permitting a handful (25 storefronts to be exact) initially while prioritizing âEquity and Equity-building applicantsâ. Since we havenât seen the design of the permitting program, we believe that by levying the tax before designing how and who will be permitted, the county is putting the cart before the horse. Thatâs why we are puff puff passing on this measure.
đď¸Los Angeles City Initiative Ordinance ULA: Our recommendation: YES â
In a nutshell: Initiative Ordinance ULA proposes a tax on the sale or transfer of real property valued at over $5 million to fund affordable housing (70%) and tenant protection programs (30%). If passed, the Initiative Ordinance could generate $1.1B PER YEAR. Thatâs $300M for tenant protection programs and $800M for adorable housingâor 1,500 affordable housing units ($500k/unit according to smart people at Berkeley)!
Why is this important?
Skeptical about the money being directed to benefit special interests? Donât fret, the tax revenue will be overseen by an independent Citizen Oversight Committee that will be filled with experts that have Angelenosâ best interest at heart (donât take our word for it, check out page 39 in the official initiative doc to see who gets to be on the committee). The committee also wonât have any elected officials currently in the office so we can avoid situations like this.
But Inclusive Action you talk about small businesses a lot; so how would this impact small businesses? Well, probably not much directly since not a lot of small businesses are buying and selling properties over $5M. How about the taxâs impact on rent? Smart folks at UCLA found that the ULA tax would not impact rent as the tax is levied on the sellers in most cases and other studies have supported that rents are determined by the market, not taxes and fees. And in the longer term, Initiative Ordinance ULA might even help small businesses and their owners! Getting housing prices under control will free up more discretionary incomes which means more money to spend on our beloved small local businesses!
So given the sustained funding Initiative Ordinance ULA will generate to help address the housing crisis without negatively impacting small businesses, we are saying yes to ULA!
đď¸Los Angeles City Proposition LH: Our recommendation: YES â
In a nutshell: Proposition LH authorizes the City of Los Angeles to permit the increase in the production of publicly funded affordable housing units, up to 5,000 units in each of the 15 council districtsâor up to 75,000 units for the city! If you are wondering, âwhy canât the city just build them without asking usâ, itâs because we have the 1950 segregation-era discriminatory state public housing law, Article 34, to thank. Article 34 requires local governments to ask for voters' approval for more affordable housing. (Mark your calendar, in 2024, a measure to repeal Article 34 will show up on your ballot! Anyway, we digress; back to Proposition LH)
Why is this important?
Voters in Los Angeles last approved the authorization of 3,500 publicly funded affordable housing units per council district in 2008 but several council districts are close to reaching their 3,500 limit. We all are reminded constantly that since 2008, homelessness and the need for affordable housing have only gotten worse. Without our approval of Proposition LH, the City of LA and the State can no longer approve publicly funded housing development in neighborhoods such as Hollywood, South LA, DTLA, and more that are nearing their current 3,500 caps.
Worried about any âgotchasâ or hidden costs to the residents? We can assure you that Proposition LH will not have a direct impact on your taxes or finances. Proposition LH doesnât allocate or direct any funding towards low-income affordable housing development. It's still up to the developer to identify available funding sources to support the City of Los Angeles's affordable housing development goal.
According to the Cityâs 2021 - 2029 Housing Element Plan, we are in need of 185,000 affordable housing units to meet the housing demand in a city where 55% of households are considered low-income. We simply canât afford to not pass Proposition LH; we canât continue tolerating Angelenos, one after another, losing the roof over their head.
Need to triangulate, fact-check, and arm yourself with all the knowledge at the ballot box? Check out these great voter guides and additional information that include other ballot measures we didnât cover.
LA Forward Action Progressive Voter Guide - LA County & LA City November 2022 Election
LAist FAQ on the Nov. 8 Ballot
League of Women VotersÂŽ of California Education Fund - Easy Voter Guide
The Knock LA Los Angeles Progressive Voter Guide for the November 2022 Midterm Election