Government can be brilliant. Two local public agencies figured out how to turn sewage, stormwater and farm runoff into drinking water, which now supplies a third of the Monterey Peninsula’s supply. That’s government being creative and effective.
Government can also fail us badly. In 2023, the Pajaro River levee broke and some 1,700 residents of Pajaro were forced from their homes, nearly three decades after the same levee failed in 1995. Officials at every level knew the risk. That’s government failing to serve people effectively.
Either way, it’s our government. Yes, taxes often feel too high. It can be hard to get a straight answer from an elected official on the issues that matter most. And if you’ve ever sat through a school board, city council or planning commission meeting, you know how cumbersome and, in an odd way, how remarkable, the process is. Marina residents are fed up with council meetings that drag past midnight. In Seaside and Salinas, residents complain that their mayors can be heavy-handed, cutting off fellow councilmembers and even members of the public from speaking.
But government is only as good as how we vote. That’s why elections matter.
And this one is a humdinger with 18 local ballot measures, 14 state propositions and a long roster of candidates. (Our candidate picks will run in next week’s edition on Oct. 8.)
Our news team continues reporting on these elections. Our editorial board relies on that reporting as well as additional interviews in making our endorsements. In doing that work, our editorial board kept running into the same glaring problem, one that leaves our local governments perpetually in need of more money.
Monterey County, home to about 440,000 people, is served by 12 cities. Each has its own city manager, many of its own departments for parks, public works and more. The cost of all that duplication is becoming unworkable.
This Nov. 3, voters in Carmel, Marina and Pacific Grove are being asked to raise their taxes; Carmel alone has two measures. Monterey, King City and Salinas are asking voters to extend existing taxes they can’t afford to lose.
The needs are real. Marina faces a nearly $58 million gap to replace its police station, fire station and City Hall. Monterey needs roughly $12 million a year just to keep fixing its streets, sidewalks and storm drains. Pacific Grove is staring down aging infrastructure and rising costs. In many cases we recommend a yes vote, because these cities can’t wait for a better system to arrive.
But the bigger question is unavoidable. A county served by one or two city halls instead of 12 could save many, many millions, year after year. In 2026, it’s clear we can no longer afford to keep all these small governments running without raising more taxes.
How to get there is the billion-dollar question. But we’ve already seen it work in pieces. Monterey’s fire department also serves Carmel, P.G., Sand City, the Navy installation in Monterey and the Monterey Regional Airport (Del Rey Oaks provides the airport’s policing). Seaside’s firefighters cover Del Rey Oaks. Funding 12 city managers and their pensions costs nearly $4 million.
Call us dreamers. We’d rather dream a little than keep paying for 12 of everything, of having seven of 12 local cities (plus the County of Monterey) asking voters for tax increases. Our communities have more in common than our city lines suggest, and we’d all be better served by working together.
Get informed, and vote. Democracy depends on you. We all win with good choices.
The Weekly’s editorial board comprises Founder & CEO Bradley Zeve, Publisher Erik Cushman and Editor Sara Rubin. These determinations are made independently of the news reporting team.
Local Measures
Measure E | Monterey County hotel tax | Yes
This measure would raise the County of Monterey’s transient-occupancy tax (TOT) from 10.5 percent to 12.5 percent, projected to bring in about $7.6 million a year for the County’s general fund. It would apply to lodging in unincorporated areas of Monterey County (e.g. Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley, and Big Sur) where some of our largest, priciest and most renowned properties are located. (City governments set and collect their own TOTs.)
For comparison, Napa County’s TOT is 13 percent and San Francisco’s is 14 percent. Despite what some opponents claim, Measure E won’t make our community’s hospitality rates uncompetitive.
Measure G | Salinas sales tax | Yes
In 2014, Salinas voters approved a 1-cent sales tax, set to sunset in March 2030. Given how essential this revenue has become to city operations, providing some 14 percent of the city operating funds, the council is now asking voters to renew it, this time with no future sunset date.
The tax generates more than $30 million annually ($34.5 million last year), with funding that goes toward a range of city services – police, emergency response, homelessness reduction, street and sidewalk repairs, parks, and youth and senior programs. Roughly 16 percent of the city’s workforce would be in jeopardy if the tax lapses.
There are legitimate, strong arguments that the city government could run leaner. Those are worth pressing separately. But gutting the city’s revenue isn’t the way to force that reckoning, especially as federal cutbacks under the Trump administration continue to target California initiatives. The local community needs to keep the torch burning, while electing a council that mandates further savings from City Hall.
Measure H | Salinas rent stabilization | Yes
Measure H is not a vote on whether to build more housing, and both sides agree (and so do we): Salinas needs more housing. The city issued 544 permits from 2023 to 2026, all for moderate-income housing or above, toward a state-mandated target of 6,674 units by 2031. None of that changes on Nov. 3.
What changes is who bears the burden of the housing shortage while the city waits for supply to catch up.
A yes vote repeals four ordinances: a rental registry, enacted in 2022, followed by three renter-protection ordinances passed in 2024 – a tenant anti-harassment policy, restrictions on evictions and rent stabilization cap of annual increases no greater than 2.75 percent of rent, or 75 percent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower, on multi-family units constructed before Feb. 1, 1995.
A yes vote would send Salinas renters back under state law: Assembly Bill 1482’s 5-percent-plus-CPI cap, with a sunset date of Jan. 1, 2030. A no vote keeps the local protections in place indefinitely, enforced through a city-run program (though a future council could still amend or repeal them).
Neither outcome accelerates construction or resolves the underlying crisis. Any new housing in Salinas will be built, or not, based on perceived economic opportunity by developers, infrastructure, water and political will – forces that have nothing to do with whether a pre-1995 apartment can raise its rent by 2.75 percent or 5 percent.
According to the state, the city needs roughly 1,520 units at extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels. The city has produced essentially zero of those units in recent years. The families the rent stabilization ordinance protects have nowhere else in the pipeline to go.
The evidence we reviewed suggests Salinas’s moderate, CPI-linked design produces smaller negative market effects than the Yes on H side claims, while delivering real and consistent benefits to the families it covers. But the benefits are narrower than the No on H side acknowledges – and the costs are real.
Research from comparable communities shows that tenants in rent-stabilized units tend to stay put, sometimes for decades. That stability, while genuinely valuable to incumbent families, reduces turnover and shrinks the pool of available units for everyone else trying to get a foothold in Salinas. Those in protected units benefit; everyone else does not.
There is also a maintenance problem. Owners of rent-stabilized properties, facing capped returns, tend to reduce investment and meet only the minimum standards. Over time, that means the oldest, most affordable housing stock in Salinas – the pre-1995 buildings – slowly degrades. The tenants that the ordinance was designed to help end up in deteriorating units with nowhere else to go.
Rent stabilization as currently written will deliver meaningful protection to roughly 1 in 5 rental units in the city, while newer buildings and incoming renters absorb higher market rents. That is not a solution to Salinas’ housing crisis. It is a tradeoff that asks some renters to subsidize stability for others.
It’s an uncomfortable decision, either way. This issue has become deeply polarizing for Salinas. It’s the result of an impassioned referendum effort led by tenants and volunteers who collected more than 10,000 signatures to get this on the ballot, a sign of how much this matters to voters. In many ways it matters as much as a proxy for housing woes as it does in terms of policy that stands to materially improve the housing market. We hear the impassioned plea of renters, but we are unpersuaded this suite of ordinances is the right solution.
Measure I | Carmel Unified School District bond | Yes
Carmel Unified School District has the highest per-pupil spending of any Monterey County school district, at $34,438 per student. And yet, walk around Carmel High, for example, and you’ll quickly see the campus is desperate for an upgrade. Measure I is a $250 million bond, requiring 55-percent approval, and the money would go to replace aging roofs, HVAC, plumbing, electrical and sewer systems, and replacing old buildings and portables with permanent classrooms.
Back in 2019 CUSD’s facilities assessment put the district’s need at nearly $280 million – Measure I asks for less than that, even years later. At $36 per $100,000 of assessed value for households within CUSD – with no money allowed for salaries and independent citizen oversight built in – it’s a reasonable ask for kids sitting in aging classrooms.
The measure doesn’t specify exactly where the work will happen. Not every project on every campus will be funded, and some of this bond’s success will be determined by how much matching money from the state is obtained. This measure gives the board great latitude not only for basic repairs, but also for things like athletic fields, pools and bleachers.
Measure J | South Monterey County Joint Union High School District consolidation | Yes
There are 24 school districts in Monterey County serving some 78,000 students. Each district is governed by a board and each has its own administration. And with an aging population, enrollment is declining, prompting many districts to look at budget cuts.
Measure J would replace three existing school districts with two, a rare step toward the kind of consolidation that we think is smart and efficient governance. If passed by a majority of voters, SMCJUHSD, Greenfield Union and King City Union districts would be dissolved. The three would be replaced by two new districts: Greenfield Unified and King City Joint Unified, taking effect for the 2028-29 school year.
The boards of the existing South County and Greenfield districts support this measure, while King City board members oppose it on the basis that their schools would lose local control. But board members would still be elected by voters and could still choose to prioritize programs like KCUSD’s dual-language immersion that make it unique. This is a relatively modest consolidation of districts that might be a bellwether for more, as long as students remain the focal point of new leadership – which should be the intent of every school board everywhere.
Measure K | Pacific Grove Unified School District bond | Yes
This $85-per-parcel bond would generate an estimated $800,000 per year. Unlike many school bonds that are earmarked for facilities upgrades (like Measure I or Measure L), this is a general bond that could be used for a variety of instructional services, including instructor salaries, academic programs or after-school programs – the only explicitly banned expenditure is administrator compensation. The threshold for passing such a bond is higher (two-thirds, instead of 55 percent).
Last year, faced with a $2 million budget deficit, the PGUSD board eliminated four teacher positions and one librarian position. This general bond would help offset cuts like those.
Measure L | North Monterey County Unified School District bond | Yes
North Monterey County Unified School District’s schools are aging, with some classrooms 60-plus years old. The district serves 4,200 K-12 students, and those students deserve decent, safe buildings.
Measure L would not go toward education directly, but instead to the least glamorous (but necessary) physical bones of classrooms – replacing lead pipes, repairing repairs, installing new HVAC systems and fixing bathrooms. Children need these basics in order to learn, and teachers need them in order to teach.
The $40 million bond would generate just one-fifth of the $200 million NMCUSD officials estimated is needed to upgrade all facilities, but it’s a start.
Measure M | Carmel hotel tax | Yes
Measure M would raise Carmel’s existing 10-percent transient-occupancy tax (TOT) to 12 percent, bringing in an estimated $1.9 million in new annual revenue. This would raise Carmel’s total TOT collections to roughly $11.7 million – paid by hotel guests, not residents.
The Carmel Innkeepers Association pushed back against the increase, warning it could suppress bookings and discourage hoteliers from renovating aging properties. The council moved it forward anyway, voting 4-1 (with Mayor Dale Byrne dissenting) to put it on the ballot. Councilmember Bob Delves noted the city’s “product hasn’t kept up” with what visitors are paying for and needs the investment.
Paired with Carmel’s Measure N sales tax increase, it’s a two-pronged way to raise money from both locals and visitors to support the city’s infrastructure needs. If approved, this TOT would still be slightly lower than 12.5 percent in Cambria, one of Carmel’s direct competitors for hotel guests to the south.
Measure N | Carmel sales tax | Yes
In June, the Carmel City Council adopted a $42 million budget for fiscal year 2026-2027, including capital expenditures. There’s plenty of concern that rising costs are outpacing projected revenues in this charming city by the sea, even though the city has built up $16 million in reserves.
Measure N would bring in an estimated $1.8 million in new annual revenue with a 0.375-percent sales tax increase on top of the existing 9.25-percent sales tax. Of that, only 1.5 percent currently stays local; this would take that amount to 1.875 percent, the maximum allowed. It comes with no sunset clause. Unlike industry response to Carmel’s Measure M, there is no official opposition filed to Measure N.
Measure O | Greenfield sales tax | Yes
Greenfield voters have already approved an earlier version of this 0.75-percent sales tax twice, which returns to the ballot as Measure O this year with a request for another six-year extension. The current version, Measure T, expires in March 2027. This would extend it to 2033.
Measure O generates roughly $1.4 million a year – significant revenue in a total budget of $21.3 million, covering staff positions in the police and recreation departments.
“[These] are essential services to our city so we really need to get behind this and support it in order for the city to continue to do the good things we’ve been doing over the last few years,” Mayor Bob White said when he joined council in voting to place this on the ballot.
Measure P | King City sales tax | Yes
This small city of about 14,000 has struggled with its budget for decades, and now is debt-free. Part of the City Council’s plan to keep it that way is asking voters to renew a 0.5-cent sales tax that generates about $1.2 million annually to support a range of needs in King City. If approved, it will keep the total share of sales tax that stays local in King City at 1.5 percent, consistent with neighboring cities.
Measure Q | Marina utility users tax | Yes
Marina is growing, and has long been searching for a way to pay to modernize city facilities – specifically its police and fire departments, which now share a single building that doesn’t meet today’s state seismic standards, nor can it fit a modern fire truck in the garage. An estimate puts total replacement cost for the police station, fire station and city hall/council chambers at approximately $69 million, of which over $19 million is already secured through grants and impact fees, leaving a gap of roughly $50 million. Enter Measure Q.
Unlike a failed 2024 bond measure to raise money for the same facilities – which received 60-percent approval but died because bonds require two-thirds of the vote to pass – Measure Q is a utility users tax (UUT), requiring only a majority. It would establish a 7-percent levy on residents’ and businesses’ gas, electric, water, telecom and cable/video bills, including streaming. It is estimated that it would bring in about $3.8 million a year.
Marina’s measure promises firefighters, EMTs, police, emergency response, and “general city services,” but there’s nothing in the ballot language that legally binds the City Council to fund these specific line items, something opponents lean on heavily in their arguments. While that may be reason for concern, the city needs revenue if its facilities are going to match the city government’s demonstrated operational success.
According to a city calculator, the UUT would cost the average Marina household about $28.70 monthly, or $344 per year. (Low-income residents and qualifying seniors whose household income is less than 80 percent of the area median would be eligible for a 50-percent discount, paying a 3.5-percent UUT.)
Opponents dismiss the rate as unfairly high, but the plan approximates UUTs in Seaside (6 percent), Watsonville (5.5 percent) and Salinas (5 to 6 percent, depending on utility). City surveys showed a public preference for a 7-percent UUT with a low-income discount, rather than a 5-percent flat rate. City Council incorporated that input to craft a proposal that is fair and that will work; the rest is up to voters.
Measure R | Pacific Grove sales tax | Yes
Pacific Grove’s streets, storm drains, and public safety departments don’t run on P.G. charm alone – they depend on funding, and the city doesn’t have enough of it. Measure R is a 0.375-percent tax. On a $20 sandwich, that’s about 7 cents.
Like Marina and Carmel, Pacific Grove is also asking residents to help fund infrastructure and basic services. It sunsets in 10 years and it comes with mandatory independent audits, so residents can see exactly where the money is getting spent.
A well-run city requires revenue to keep it healthy, and while there’s nothing glamorous about anything proposed, Measure R will help keep P.G. humming.
Measure S | Monterey sales tax | Yes
The trend across local cities’ budgets is similar, but Monterey is looking at a particularly drastic $11.7 million structural deficit. That leaves city officials exploring two options: cutting spending and increasing revenue. Measure S is the City Council’s second attempt this year at asking voters to support the latter, with an option to extend the existing Measure S sales tax for another eight years, pushing its expiration from March 31, 2027 to March 31, 2035.
The tax generates roughly $13 million annually, with all proceeds going into a restricted fund exclusively for local infrastructure – repairing roads, potholes and sidewalks, improving ADA accessibility, and upgrading the aging storm drain system.
Because Measure S is a special tax, with revenue restricted to a defined purpose rather than flowing into the general fund, it requires two-thirds of the vote to pass.
It’s also the more conservative of two revenue asks Monterey City Council put before voters this year: Measure D, which would have imposed a general 0.375-percent sales tax, failed in June. The council responded by scrapping other new revenue ideas and narrowing its November ballot ask to just Measure S. Given that it extends an existing tax rather than adding a new one, and is restricted to infrastructure rather than open-ended general fund spending, they are hoping it is more palatable to voters.
The tax began as Measure P, which passed with 74 percent in 2014, and was renewed as Measure S in 2018. We hope residents see the benefit and help the city address the deficit in at least one way.
Statewide Propositions
Prop. 1 | Affordable housing bond | Yes
If approved, Proposition 1 authorizes the state to borrow a record $11.25 billion for affordable housing, with $10 billion to buy, build, rehabilitate and preserve affordable homes and $1.25 billion to help veterans buy homes. In a state with a housing crisis, this would provide needed relief, one part of a bigger puzzle to solving that crisis. This proposition, like all others, requires 50 percent (plus 1) to pass.
Prop. 2 | Rainy day fund | Yes
California lawmakers maneuvered out of a tough budget year for 2026-27 thanks in part to unexpectedly high revenue from AI and tech. This request for voter approval of a constitutional amendment addressing a more wonky piece of budgeting would help solve California’s budget problem longer term. It would allow the state to deposit up to 20 percent of general fund tax revenue into its rainy day fund each year, up from 10 percent currently, and pay down its $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. It’s a clever way of getting ahead of the next challenging budget cycle.
Prop. 3 | Extend a tax on high-income earners | Yes
This would make permanent the 2012 voter-approved income tax on high earners (household income over $721,000 for couples, or $360,000 for individuals), generating billions yearly for K-12 and community college education. If Prop. 3 fails, somewhere between $5 billion and $15 billion a year for schools will likely be lost after the existing measure expires in 2031.
Prop. 4 | Public campaign financing | Yes
Public campaign financing helps curb the influence of private money in politics. Proposition 4 would give California governments authority to set up public financing systems for state and local candidates, ending a ban in place since 1988.
Prop. 5 | Recall process reform | Yes
The unsuccessful recall attempt of Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 led to this proposition. Secretary of State Shirley Weber proposed the idea for reform so that a recall election would focus on whether the elected official should be recalled, not on which potential other candidate would be better in the role. If approved, Prop. 5 would make this a two-step process – if a recall vote is successful, a candidate would be removed and the post would be vacant until a separate election or appointment process for a new person to take the seat.
Prop. 37 | Homebuyer assistance | Yes
Prop. 37 would create a meaningful new $25 billion mortgage loan program for homebuyers earning under 200 percent of area median income, offering fixed-rate second mortgages up to 17 percent of the purchase price on homes under $1.5 million. Qualifying borrowers would have to live in the newly constructed homes.
Opponents argue the measure won’t address the underlying reasons that make California housing so expensive, while forcing eligible borrowers deeper into debt. In a problem as complex as California’s housing crisis, there is no silver-bullet solution and this is not one. But it would offer a way into the housing market for qualifying buyers who otherwise may not see a pathway.
Prop. 38 | Immunology research bond | No
This would authorize $8.4 billion in bonds for biomedical research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. Worthy causes – yet one nonprofit stands to receive half the money. This is an example of ballot box budgeting, instead of a normal, public, transparent budgeting process.
Prop. 39 | Voter ID | No
This is a manifestation of President Donald Trump’s attack on voting rights here in California. It would require voters to present a government-issued ID when voting in person, or the last four digits of an ID number when voting by mail. California’s elections deserve continued scrutiny, but there are already plenty of security measures in place that work. This costly measure would impose unnecessary obstacles for the many eligible voters who don’t have driver’s licenses. It would disproportionately harm voters with disabilities, who are low-income or have recently moved. It’s a partisan power grab, and Californians should reject this measure to ensure a more inclusive voting process.
Prop. 40 | Billionaire tax | Yes
It’s easy to feel disgusted with the growing economic disparity between the rich and the poor, and the hard truth is that a Salinas farmworker pays a higher share of their income in taxes than a Silicon Valley CEO, thanks to the way each is paid and how their money accumulates. The 200-some billionaires living in California pay a mere 0.2 percent of their wealth in state income tax. California can have both the nation’s highest top income tax rate and a billionaire class paying a minuscule share of its appreciating wealth.
Relief won’t be coming from the halls of Washington, D.C., nor Sacramento. In last year’s Trump-led “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the federal estate and gift tax exemption increased to $15 million per individual, $30 million for married couples. Any changes coming to the tax system are favoring the rich.
Proposition 40 seeks to address this disparity with a 5-percent tax on California’s billionaires, but it’s complicated, largely because the 200-or-so billionaires in our state largely don’t have much taxable income. They hold appreciating assets and borrow against them. Case in point: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth grew by roughly $6 billion over the past year, while his salary is $1.
The idea of taxing the very rich may be right in concept, but we have concerns about how it will work in reality. If it passes and then survives inevitable court challenges, it will generate a huge short-term infusion of cash, mostly funneled to support Medi-Cal. Its ultimate impact remains debatable.
The biggest problem with Prop. 40 is the methodology of how to count a billionaire’s wealth. It’s easy when all your assets are publicly reported (as an owner of stock, say), and harder when it’s a private company nobody has put a price on. Prop. 40 leaves the valuing to the billionaires themselves and whoever they hire to do it.
Prop. 40 makes a giant splash but doesn’t solve the bigger problem of funding health care in this state.
So let’s be plain about what we’re recommending. This measure is messy, and it’s arbitrary – why stop at a billion? Prop. 40 reaches about 200 people and leaves thousands more untouched. The clear winners will be the lawyers.
We suggest you vote for it despite its flaws – because nothing to reform our tax system to make it more fair is coming from Washington or Sacramento, and because a tax system this lopsided will not fix itself.
Prop. 40 is not the repair. It’s the message that a repair is overdue, and that a country ought to be built on fairness, not on the rich getting richer.
Prop. 41 | Tax audits | No
This initiative, promoted by Google executive Sergey Brin, was placed on the ballot to effectively cancel the billionaire tax (Prop. 40). It would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters, and require state audits of programs funded by new taxes and apply new-tax revenue to the state spending cap.
If both propositions 40 and 41 pass, the one with more votes prevails.
Prop. 42 | Personal property tax ban | No
This is another initiative aimed at undercutting the billionaire tax (Prop. 40), this would prevent new taxes on personal property. The same higher-count rule applies – only Prop. 42 or 40 can prevail at the polls.
Prop. 43 | Local special tax threshold | No
If you’ve read this far, you can see a lot of local jurisdictions are asking voters for a lot of taxes this election. Voters already get to weigh in, and Prop. 43 would make it harder to get taxes approved, raising the threshold for citizen-initiated special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds. It would limit voters’ ability to decide how much and what to fund.
Prop. 44 | Clinic funding formula | No
This would require federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue directly on patient care, with fines for noncompliance. The measure is unnecessary because community clinics are already heavily regulated by the state and federal governments. In practice, it would mean cuts in necessary expenditures on things like medical equipment or IT systems that serve patients.
Prop. 45 | CEQA reform | No
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is the state law designed to ensure any building projects take environmental consequences of development into consideration. And it is the opposite of perfect. It is often abused, misused and helps promote NIMBYism, slowing down or stopping worthy projects.
Last year, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which exempted most qualifying urban infill housing from environmental review, marking the biggest CEQA reform in 55 years.
Prop. 45 would go further. Its deadlines would streamline freeway expansions, dams, data centers and subdivisions that pave over farmland. It hands developers a new right to sue cities that impose environmental safeguards. And the Legislative Analyst’s Office pegs implementation costs at up to $100 million a year.
Worse, it’s an overshoot written into initiative statute, meaning lawmakers can’t fix it later (voters would have to pass another referendum).