The Los Angeles City Charter serves as the constitution of the city and every so often amendments are proposed to change the rules of how City Hall operates. On the November ballot are multiple amendments to the city charter. Some of them are less offensive than others, some of them have good ideas mixed with bad ideas.

In any case, most of them aren’t worth voting for.

Charter Amendment LA

This amendment is a grab bag of reforms, which is the biggest problem with it. Why should voters have to vote for a package of peripherally-related constitutional amendments? From establishing a capital infrastructure plan to a two-year budget cycle to changing city contracting rules and procedures, Charter Amendment LA tries to do too much. Some of the ideas in the amendment are fine, but we oppose it solely because of its provision allowing the city to engage in commercial enterprises. The city of Los Angeles can barely get potholes fixed and now it wants to engage in commercial activity? We don’t think so. Vote no. 

Charter Amendment EE

This amendment is also a grab bag of reforms, some of which are plausibly good. Among the better provisions are those bolstering the authority of the Police Department Inspector General and Fire Department Independent Assessor, which provide useful oversight. But on the other hand it also seeks to make it harder to qualify a referendum by raising the threshold number of signatures, eroding the power of the public to check City Hall. The most damning provision of this amendment though is its sneaky provision reducing the number of council meetings from three days per week to once per week. While Los Angeles City Hall meetings are often a mess, and are mostly rubber stamps with little substantive debate, council members are highly-paid. The least they can do is show up for work. Vote no. 

Charter Amendment PRK

This amendment is perhaps the least objectionable of those proposed, but also mostly pointless. Simply put it will increase the percentage of the city General Fund budget that goes to the parks department over a ten year period. As the impartial analysis provided by the city describes, this percentage would “gradually increase from the current 0.0325% to 0.065% of the assessed value of all property as assessed for City taxes…” The amendment contains a provision allowing the city to reduce the increased funding by up to 30% if it declares a fiscal emergency.

Of course the city should take better care of its parks, but as editorial board member Susan Shelley notes, “the parks have been robbed of their charter-mandated share of funding by the City Council, which decided during the Great Recession to start charging the parks department for utilities, sanitation and other costs. End the theft, no need for a charter amendment.” Vote no. 

Charter Amendment PRT

This measure, put forward by Councilman Tim McCosker, sounds vague enough. It changes some requirements for who serves on the city’s Airport Commission and requires “disclosure of workforce impacts for certain Harbor Department leases and agreements.” What’s that last bit about? It’s basically a move by McCosker to bolster union influence over what happens at the Port of Los Angeles. It would require more costly paperwork hurdles for those doing business at the port, clearly with the aim of delaying and deterring anything perceived by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union as a threat to union employment.

As business groups warned the City Council in April, “Governance changes that introduce uncertainty into the Port’s operations risk unintended consequences, including reduced investment, cargo diversion, and economic disruption thatwould ultimately affect workers, businesses, and families throughout the Harbor Area and the broader region.”

There’s simply no justification for further saddling the Port of Los Angeles in more paperwork and red tape, and certainly not via a charter amendment. Vote no. 

Charter Amendment PL

This amendment aims to simplify the city’s planning system. The city currently has seven Area Planning Commissions across the city with volunteer commissioners hearing certain land use cases and zoning approvals. Measure PL would consolidate these into a single Neighborhood Appeals Commission to ensure more consistent rules and processes across the city. It’s not only more efficient but also saves time and money on training up volunteers and running several meetings across the city.

The measure would also speed up reviews that go before the City Planning Commission or Neighborhood Appeals Commission by creating hard deadlines for approvals or denials, rather than allowing such matters to drag on.

And finally, it would allow the City Council to amend Floor Area Restrictions, which limit the height of developments. The charter currently caps developments at 13 times the buildable area. There’s no practical need to limit this in the city charter.

For faster and more efficient planning, Vote Yes.