We are wrapping up our Your November Ballot, Explained series with a look at the proposed L.A. City Charter amendments and what that could mean for how City Hall operates.
.png?upscale=true&width=564&height=193&name=MEMBERSHIP%20APPLICATION%20(3).png)
At first glance, many of the proposed amendments may seem reasonable enough. But the details matter. A closer look at how some of these changes are written and how they could play out in practice can reveal implications that aren’t immediately obvious. With voters set to weigh in this November, it’s worth looking beyond the headlines. There’s a lot to unpack, so let’s break it down.
Charter Amendment LA
- Would establish a two-year budget cycle, require the City’s first Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP), allow changes to the Board of Public Works, and expand the City’s authority to take on business enterprises.
- A lot of this sounds great in theory: better infrastructure planning and more predictable budgeting. But the measure opens the door for the City to get into businesses like telecommunications, banking, or even asphalt production. At a time when City Hall is struggling to deliver basic services, it’s fair to ask: should the City be taking on new business ventures before it gets the basics right?
- CCA Position: Opposed
|
Charter Amendment PL
- Would replace all Area Planning Commissions with a single Neighborhood Appeals Commission, give City Planning more authority over project-specific applications, and allow the City Council to change floor area rules by ordinance.
- The intent may be to streamline development review, but important questions remain. How would the new commission work, how would its members be selected, and what does that City Planning authority look like in practice? Without clearer answers about implementation, it’s hard to know what these changes would mean for development in L.A.
- CCA Position: Opposed
|
Charter Amendment EE
- Would change the requirement of how often City Council must meet, increase the signature requirement for referendums, and prohibit Ethics Commissioners from running for elected office for five years after serving.
- Stronger ethics and accountability matter, but so does getting the City’s work done. Approving contracts on time is a basic responsibility of the City Council, and fewer meetings could create another bottleneck in a city where delays are already the norm. If the goal is better government, reducing meeting time shouldn’t come at the expense of timely decisions, transparency, or public participation.
- CCA Position: Opposed
|
Charter Amendment PRK
- Would gradually increase the minimum annual budget allocation to the Department of Recreation and Parks over 10 years, with exceptions in the event of a fiscal emergency.
- Additional funding could mean better-maintained parks, more programming, and improved community facilities. But should voters decide budget decisions at the ballot box rather than through the regular budget process?
- CCA Position: Support; our parks desperately need the investment.
|
Charter Amendment PRT
- Would establish a dedicated fund for waterfront public access projects, allow leases of up to 66 years for certain LADWP and LAWA projects, and increase residency requirements for the Board of Airport Commissioners.
- The waterfront fund and longer lease terms are part of this amendment, but the change to airport commissioner residency requirements deserves closer scrutiny. Why narrow the pool of eligible airport commissioners? Local perspectives matter, but so do experience and expertise. If the requirements make it harder to find qualified candidates, the City could limit its options without necessarily improving oversight.
- CCA Position: Opposed
|
Before you vote, take a closer look at what each amendment would do, what questions remain, and whether it would actually make City government work better for Angelenos.
Watch your inbox this Friday for CCA’s Voter Guide before you head to the polls!
