In local elections across California in June, voters will consider 80 local tax and bond measures, totaling $738.5 million in direct new taxes if approved, along with additional property taxes to repay $2.6 billion in bonds, plus interest.
This total includes San Francisco’s Measure D, which would raise taxes on businesses based on the difference between executive pay and median employee wages. It does not include tax proposals that have not yet qualified for June and are moving toward the November ballot, including two major business taxes – a similar executive pay tax in Los Angeles and a separate San Francisco measure to fund a public bank by increasing gross receipts taxes on financial institutions.
After reviewing election materials from the 58 counties and consulting local election officials, CalTax found that parcel taxes make up 29 of the 80 measures. School bond measures account for 22, while 19 propose sales or transactions and use taxes, three target businesses, and four would increase transient occupancy (hotel) taxes.
The parcel tax proposals include some at very steep annual rates, including $3,174 per parcel sought in Piedmont and $990 as the base rate in Palos Verdes Estates. The bond measures also would add to the cost of housing in California, as the new debt would be repaid, with interest, via property tax increases that would remain on the books for several decades.
Other proposals include a new tax on non-primary residences in San Diego and a $535 million general obligation bond in San Francisco.
Local government officials are allowed to write the questions that appear on the ballot, and most exhibit a strong bias toward a “yes” vote, as is traditionally the case in California’s local elections. For example, the Piedmont Unified School District’s Measure H ballot question reads: “To maintain the high quality of Piedmont schools, continue funding programs in math, science, technology, engineering, English, music and arts, attract and retain qualified teachers, update instructional materials and technology, and maintain manageable class sizes, shall Piedmont Unified School District’s measure be adopted, renewing the expiring school parcel tax at the then current rate ($3,174 per parcel) until ended by voters, with independent citizen oversight, annual inflation adjustments, and all funds (approximately $12 million annually) benefiting local students?”
Similarly, the Lafayette School District’s question for Measure H asks: “Shall the measure to continue funding for core academic programs including math, science, engineering, technology, reading, music, and arts; attract and retain highly qualified teachers; and maintain manageable class sizes in Lafayette elementary and middle schools, by replacing the expiring school parcel tax with $585 per parcel for 9 years, providing $5.1 million annually in locally controlled funding with an exemption for seniors, annual inflation adjustments, independent audits, and community oversight, be adopted?”
In Los Angeles, Measure TT, a hotel tax that would go into the general fund to be used for any purpose, has a ballot question that lists some of the most popular city services, even though there is no guarantee that any of them would receive additional funding. The question begins: “Shall an ordinance be adopted to fund general City services, such as street/sidewalk repairs, 911 emergency response, fire protection, and parks ….”
Local governments also assign names to their measures – for example, the Lomita City Council named its tax measure the “Local Control and City Services Measure,” not the “Lomita Sales Tax Increase Measure.”
San Diego’s “Empty Homes Tax” is opposed by the California Apartment Association, which noted that the measure “carries the same constitutional and statutory defects that led a California trial court to strike down a similar tax in San Francisco.” The San Francisco tax is still going through the appeals process.
The San Diego measure, placed on the ballot by the City Council, targets approximately 5,100 homes reportedly left vacant for more than 182 days a year. If the tax is approved, owners would pay $8,000 annually beginning in 2027, rising to $10,000 in subsequent years, and corporate-owned vacant properties would face additional surcharges of $4,000 in 2027 and $5,000 thereafter. Primary residences and rental properties are excluded, as are owners of small residential properties of four or fewer units who occupy one unit as their primary residence. Additional exemptions cover documented hardship, military service, disaster damage, probate, and long-term care situations.
The Apartment Association noted that the trial court in San Francisco ruled that the similar tax in that city was an unconstitutional taking and conflicted with the Ellis Act, the state law protecting property owners’ right to exit the rental housing market. The association also cautioned that penalizing property owners would discourage the rehabilitation, redevelopment, and management of San Diego’s housing supply.
The City Council wrote a ballot question that puts a much more positive spin on the measure: “EMPTY HOMES TAX. Shall a measure to preserve homes for San Diego residents, by taxing empty homes (residential properties vacant more than 182 days per year), excluding owner-occupied primary residences and long-term rentals, at $8,000 in 2027 and $10,000 in subsequent years with annual inflation adjustments, with higher rates for corporate-owned properties, generating up to $24 million annually for city services like housing and infrastructure, with annual independent audits, until ended by voters, be adopted?”
Bell Gardens, Gardena, and Commerce are asking voters to approve tax hikes in the wake of new state regulations that are expected to inflict major financial damage on the cardrooms that have been important sources of revenue for the cities. Attorney General Rob Bonta recently imposed new regulations, sought by tribal casinos, that limit the ability of cardrooms to provide their most popular and profitable games.
The Bell Gardens website includes a page about Measure BG that says: “The Parkwest Bicycle Casino is a major taxpayer in the City that generates over $17,000,000 a year in revenues for the City, or over 40 percent of the City General Fund budget of approximately $50,000,000. The General Fund provides the resources that support parks and recreation programming and the police budget. Casino Revenues provide a significant additional boost to the City’s budget, enabling the City to offer extensive programming. Unfortunately, the Attorney General for the State of California has ruled that significant operations at the Parkwest Bicycle Casino are no longer allowed. This determination could reduce Casino Revenues to the City by up to 30 percent. Such a reduction would have a drastic reduction in City revenues and create significant risks to ongoing operations.”
The table below, compiled by CalTax, will be updated with results after the June 2 election.
