This November, Angelenos will see a total of six charter amendment proposals on the ballot. The amendment proposals come from the Charter Reform Commission, which was established in 2024 following scandals in the city council, including a leaked tape in 2022 that caught councilmembers making racist statements and discussing gerrymanders of the city’s districts.
Some of the amendments are geared towards good governance, but the defining characteristic of this batch of proposals is the high degree of uncertainty attached to each. As I’ll explain, residents are being asked to vote for measures that lack clarity about their implications. Here’s a rundown of the proposals that voters will get to choose from.
Charter Amendment LA
Charter Amendment LA is one of the more expansive of the lot and would establish a two-year budget cycle as opposed to the current one-year cycle. It would compel the city to create a capital infrastructure plan, relax competitive bidding requirements in certain critical domains, and expand the authority of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
Most controversially, as the city’s chief legislative analyst put explained, Charter Amendment LA will lift “restrictions to allow the City to utilize City-owned assets and engage in commercial or industrial businesses.”
Here is precisely where the ambiguity begins. Starting with the commercial business component, it’s unclear what officials intend to do with this new power but they have given us hints with their recurring interest in public banking.
Back in March, the Charter Reform Commission laid some of the groundwork for the city to establish a municipal bank by “clarifying” that the LA charter is consistent with the state’s California Public Banking Act. According to Public Bank Los Angeles, a group who advocated for the move, a municipal bank in LA would “finance affordable housing, clean energy, and economic justice.”
No city in the US currently operates a public bank, and the plan’s advocates see it as a way to finance their political and social justice agendas. Banks should lend money according to prudent lending practices, and a municipally operated bank would inevitably involve social justice considerations overriding fiscal responsibility.
Amendment LA promises to compound the city’s challenges – voters should enthusiastically reject it.
Charter Amendment PL
Charter Amendment PL would replace the seven Area Planning Commissions with a single Neighborhood Appeals Commission. The NAC would handle local land use decisions and project appeals with increased oversight by the city council.
PL would also remove floor area restrictions found in the charter and allow the city council to increase the current ratio limit of 13:1 (floor area to buildable area). PL would principally allow city council to circumvent the charter’s floor area limits to upzone parcels of land.
Here again, voters are left scratching their heads about what any of this will end up entailing. Will the NAC represent a cohesive and streamlined planning and zoning process or will it be more of the same burden for developers? Will the city council use their powers to nullify the floor area restrictions to approve high-density construction projects, or will they only do so selectively, when it advances their political interests?
These are all open questions for which we have no answers and for which we must rely on face-value assessments. Amendment PL does appear to set the stage for the city to implement predictable, universal rules for the planning appeals process and it allows the city flexibility on decisions related to dense construction.
Charter Amendment EE
Charter Amendment EE increases the authority and independence of the LAPD Inspector General and the Fire Department Independent Assessor by taking the power from the Board of Police Commissioners and the Board of Fire Commissioners to direct the investigatory and auditing activities of the inspector general or independent assessor.
It also increases campaign finance violation fines to $15,000 per violation or three-times the amount involved, whichever is greater. So far, these are straightforwardly desirable reforms.
Unfortunately, the Charter Reform Commission also snuck in a provision that allows the city council to meet only once a week as opposed to the current minimum of three days. This will allow for fewer opportunities for the public to engage with the council and provide much needed feedback and transparency.
When the Charter Reform Commission bundles unrelated provisions like these, it forces the public to vote against their best interest in one dimension for the sake of popular reform in another. On balance, Amendment EE may do more good than harm but not without leaving a bad taste in the city’s mouth.
Charter Amendment PRK
Amendment PRK would double the Department of Recreation and Parks budget over ten years. Since the proposal does not raise new revenues, the mayor and city council will have to decide where that money will come from, meaning that other departments or services will be subject to cuts.
There is nothing in the proposal that indicates what city functions or services will be sacrificed, which naturally raises fears that the city will divert funds away from essential services that are already underfunded. As Councilmember Bob Blumenfield argued, “It forces a long term decision on the voters without any context or understanding of what essential services will need to be cut.”
I have previously lamented the state of parks in our city – our green spaces are chronically underfunded, leading to filthy parks that are infested with crime, depriving families of safe places to frolic. A needs assessment for the city indicates that local parks are in need of billions for upgrades and just to catch up on maintenance – the conditions within any given park restroom testifies as much.
As important as parks are to a child’s development and joy for life, I find it difficult to recommend against PRK despite the budgetary concerns. Ideally, the city being forced to fund basic services like parks and recreation would leave them with less discretion to fund expensive and imprudent programs. Suboptimally, the city may instead continue to fund their pet projects and divert even more funds away from basic street lamp and road maintenance.
It’s a shame that we cannot trust city officials to take the ideal approach, but for what it’s worth, the amendment does allow the city to withhold up to 30% of the mandated funds during a fiscal emergency.
Charter Amendment PRT
Charter Amendment PRT would allow the city council to approve 66-year leases for the Airports Department and the Department of Water and Power and it changes the local residency requirements for the Board of Airport Commissioners.
The proposal would also require the Harbor Department to dedicate a portion of their funds to waterfront public access projects. How much of the department’s income would be allocated to such ends? Apparently no one knows – the amendment would leave it up to the Board of Harbor Commissioners to determine whether to invest a dollar or millions. Here again, the public is left to wonder what they buy with their vote.
PRT would also require workforce impact statements from applicants seeking leases and lease extensions from the Harbor Department, or developments that require Coastal Development Permits. According to the language of the proposal, the impact statements will include, “the potential impact on employment associated with the premises and the estimated economic impact on the greater Los Angeles region.”
According to a representative of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the impact statements would, “add cost, delay, and uncertainty to port leasing and investment decisions”. Such burdens would make it more difficult for our city’s ports to remain competitive in the shipping industry.
This is also a transparent ploy by the city council to discourage port automation. Port operators who are looking to automate and looking to expand or renew their leases will have to submit workforce impact statements that can be used as ammunition by longshoremen’s unions against automation and that the Board of Harbor Commissioners will then use when making decisions.
Councilmember Tim McOsker, who represents the Harbor area, has made his intentions clear. In March of this year he proposed “worker-centered” reforms at the harbor, stating, “The reform package builds on the City’s ongoing Charter reform efforts and represents a major step toward ensuring that Port approvals are evaluated not only on financial and operational factors but also on their direct and long-term impacts on workers.”
Port automation is coming and it will bring with it economic benefits for residents of LA. Voters should reject PRT.
Charter Amendment SC
Amendment SC would make it so that Board of Education elections follow the same campaign finance rules as other city officials, with certain exceptions. It turns out those exceptions are quite important. According to the proposal, Board of Education members and candidates would be exempt from the requirements listed in Sections 470(c)(11), 470(c)(12), and 471 of the LA charter.
These exemptions would mean that board members and candidates would not be prohibited from receiving contributions from lobbyists or individuals being considered for city contracts. Campaigns for the Board of Education would also not be eligible to receive public matching funds from the city.
Board of Education elections were previously not subject to these restrictions, but if the charter reform commission wanted to nurture trust in our officials, they would have not included these exemptions. A vote for Amendment SC means that Board of Education members and candidates can continue to receive direct donations from those who have business before them.
The Charter Reform Commission would have us believe that this amendment would simply eliminate repetitive language but in reality, it would codify these undesirable exemptions within our charter.
So there we have it. The Charter Reform Commission was established with the promise of creating greater transparency, accountability, and prudent governance. Instead, voters will be greeted by a hodgepodge of head scratchers, unknowns, and just plain bad ideas.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group