Measure X: Not a Mystery

Frances Talbott-White

Measure 'X' will appear on the April 10 ballot in Culver City. Its name makes it sound a bit mysterious, but in fact it is called 'X' simply because it follows Measure 'W' (Utility User Tax Modernization) which appeared on our ballots in the municipal election of 2008. Measure 'EE' (CCUSD's successful parcel tax measure) seemingly went out of sequence in November 2009.* But enough of this trivia! You want to know more about Measure X than how it got its name.

Measure X asks voters whether they want to increase Culver City's Hotel Tax from 12% to 14%, thus raising city revenues by an estimated $510,000 per year. This money would go into the City's General Fund, which means that it would not be earmarked for any particular purpose. Currently 3.8% or $3.08 million of our General Fund revenues come from the 12% Hotel Tax.

The official Argument in Favor of Measure X was signed by all five of our City Councilmembers in November 2011. In a nutshell, it states that a 14% Hotel Tax rate will:

• keep us competitive with neighboring cities vying for hotel and visitor business


• help defray the cost of city services used by visitors to Culver City


• maintain Culver City's quality of life by supporting our "police, fire, paramedics, parks and recreation, environmental protection and after-school programs" and


• provide revenue that cannot be taken away by the State of California.

No official Argument Against Measure X has been submitted. However, if I were writing an official League of Women Voters Pros and Cons document, I would be required to extrapolate a Con argument to counter each of the Pro arguments above. This is not an official document, but I feel that it is incumbent on every voter to consider both sides. Thus I imagine oponents saying:

• our proximity to the airport already gives our hospitality industry a leg up on those of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica


• there is no way to predict the net cost of city services used by visitors (think of a head-on collision between hotel guests at the corner of Centinela and Sepulveda, and then think of a hotel guest speaking gratis at a civic function)


• $510,000 is a drop in the bucket when it comes to maintaining our quality of life, especially if funds are skimmed off the top to pay for services to visitors and


• given California's fiscal history, do we really trust the State to keep its hands off municipal budgets?

Official League Pros and Cons would also include a short list of individuals and groups who support Measure X, and those who oppose Measure X. If this were an official LWV publication, I would fill in the list of opponents by going to the Libertarian Party and/or the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Perhaps more thoughts on Measure X will emerge as comments on this blog post. I hope so.

- - - - - -
*CCUSD elections (held in November of odd-numbered years) are administered by the L.A. County Registrar of Voters' office, which has different rules for the naming of ballot measures.

Frances Talbott-White is a Culver City resident since 1975 and the Southern California Liaison for the League of Women Voters' SmartVoter project (smartvoter.org). As such, she is personally not at liberty to support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure. Her writing for Culver City Progress, or any other on-line or print publication, does not imply endorsement of that publication's policies or positions.