A costly increase in a streetlight assessment was defeated by Los Angeles property owners using the protest vote process enacted in the 1996 HJTA initiative Proposition 218.
The vote wasn’t close. Nearly 80% of the weighted votes said “No” to the higher assessment. Under Prop. 218, the city cannot impose the increase in the assessment.
Property owners were clearly skeptical of the city’s claim that it needed to raise an additional $125 million annually for streetlights, maintenance and repair amid a continuing problem with vandalism and copper wire theft. The proposed higher assessment was not accompanied by any actions to prevent or prosecute the crimes putting the city’s infrastructure out of service.
Documents from the Bureau of Street Lighting showed that a single-family home on a roughly quarter-acre lot would be assessed an additional $147.08 for the 2026-27 fiscal year. Condominium owners would pay slightly less, while homes on half-acre lots would pay more. A multi-family building with more than 50 units would pay $1,529.68, and a retail development on a half-acre lot would pay $970.76.
These assessments would rise with inflation every year. The charge would appear on property tax bills.
Property owners had the right to say no because in 1996 the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association put forward and successfully passed The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, Proposition 218. No longer would a city council have unchallenged and unaccountable power to place any assessment, in any amount, on property. Under Prop. 218, costs must be proportionate to the benefit provided to each parcel that will be assessed a new fee. Property owners must be notified and given an opportunity to cast a protest vote. Ballots are weighted according to the amount each parcel would be assessed.
If a majority of the weighted ballots returned say “no,” the new assessment cannot be collected.
That’s exactly what happened in the city of Los Angeles. It’s a message to city officials that the taxes and charges residents already pay should be spent responsibly, and on the highest priorities, before tax increases are considered.