Policy area 1 · Read the policy area
Housing and homelessness 1.1 When the City offers someone a place off the street, where should that place be?In July 2026 the council authorized The Palm Motel as City-controlled stabilization housing for people with local ties, beds at the Salvation Army's Bell Shelter for others, and a search for new sites with private rooms instead of shared dorms. SaMoShel stays open until those site proposals return, and no replacement site, opening date or capacity is known yet. Who decides: City Council, by majority vote, for City contracts and sites. The County funds and runs much of the regional shelter and housing system.
Keep local rooms for people with local ties, contract beds for others Current policy Continue the July 2026 approach: City-controlled stabilization housing such as The Palm Motel for people with local ties, contracted beds such as the Bell Shelter for others, and new private-room sites still to be found. Tradeoff: People without qualifying local ties are more likely to be placed away from work, family or treatment here, and the new sites, their cost and their opening dates are not yet known. Build more shelter and housing capacity inside Santa Monica Site and fund more interim and permanent places in the city so people can stay near work, family, school and treatment, whatever their local-ties status. Tradeoff: Land and private rooms cost more here, siting takes years and meets neighborhood opposition, and the nearest neighbors live with the effects of each site. Buy lower-cost beds wherever they are, in or outside the city Secure enough beds to offer everyone a place quickly, mainly in lower-cost locations in the region, and use the savings to serve more people. Tradeoff: People may lose jobs, family ties and treatment connections; transport and repeat crises add costs; and capacity depends on communities that may not want to receive them. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.2 For someone leaving the street, what should come first: a permanent home, a stabilization stay, or treatment?The City is rebuilding the path from the street to a lasting home, but local permanent housing capacity is not reported and no one has published how many people are still housed 6 and 12 months later. Each order of steps places the risk somewhere different. Who decides: City Council, by majority vote, for City-funded programs and contracts. The County provides most treatment, and housing subsidies come largely from County, state and federal programs.
Move people straight into permanent homes, with services voluntary Place people in permanent housing as soon as a unit is available, without requiring sobriety or treatment first, and keep offering services. This is often called Housing First. Tradeoff: Depends on units and subsidies the City does not control, and people who decline treatment may keep struggling in ways their neighbors notice. Stabilize people in interim housing first, then move them on Use interim supportive housing to stabilize people, with services, before moving them to longer-term, lower-cost homes. Tradeoff: Without enough exits, stays lengthen and beds stop opening for others; people ready for a home take an extra step; and interim beds cost money every night. Make continued housing conditional on engaging in treatment Pair City-funded housing with required participation in mental health, addiction or other services as a condition of keeping it. Tradeoff: People who disengage can lose their housing and return to the street, and the approach needs enough treatment slots, which the County largely provides. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.3 When someone living outside declines help, how far should the City go to require a change?Compulsory treatment requires specific legal grounds: California's CARE Court, a civil court process for some serious mental illnesses, can order a care plan but not forced medication, and being unhoused does not by itself show someone cannot make decisions. Candidates' positions on enforcement and court-ordered care vary widely, so these options group them into three broad directions. Who decides: Courts decide court-ordered treatment under state law, and the County provides most treatment. The City Council, by majority vote, sets local conduct rules and directs City police, outreach and prosecution priorities.
Enforce conduct rules strictly and use court-ordered care more often Strictly enforce rules on sidewalk obstruction, encampments and public drug use, and use CARE Court and conservatorship under state law to bring people who refuse care into treatment and housing. Tradeoff: Needs beds, treatment and court capacity the City does not fully control, risks a citation cycle that moves people without lasting change, and limits the choices of people who are compelled. Act on conduct that harms others; court-ordered care as a last resort Enforce rules against conduct that endangers or blocks others, and seek court-ordered care only for people who appear to meet its legal criteria, while outreach continues for everyone else. Tradeoff: Some encampments and some people who decline help stay in place longer, and neighbors may see their sidewalks and parks improve more slowly. Rely on outreach and better offers, not enforcement or compulsion Put the effort into trusted outreach and offers that fit, such as private rooms or space for partners, and keep enforcement and compulsion for immediate danger. Tradeoff: Results depend on having suitable places to offer, harmful situations can go unresolved for longer, and residents who feel unsafe may see less visible change. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.4 How much new housing should Santa Monica plan for, and where?State progress data show the city far behind its 2021 to 2029 target for very-low and low-income homes and further along on homes for higher incomes. Approvals run ahead of finished homes, and the City controls zoning and fees but not financing or construction costs. Who decides: City Council sets zoning, fees and approval rules by majority vote. The state sets the housing target and some approval rules, and the Coastal Commission reviews projects in the coastal zone.
Allow more homes in more places, with lower fees and faster approvals Rezone for more homes across the city, including backyard units, small infill and family-sized homes, and cut fees and approval times so more projects get built. Tradeoff: Construction impacts and pressure to redevelop older rent-controlled buildings reach more neighborhoods, and homes for the lowest incomes still need subsidy. Focus new homes Downtown, on commercial corridors and near the E Line Add housing where jobs and transit already are, including converting commercial buildings to homes, while keeping lower-density neighborhoods largely as they are. Tradeoff: Fewer eligible sites means fewer homes and higher land costs on those sites, and growth and its impacts concentrate on a few areas and the people already living there. Limit further growth and press the state for local control Meet state requirements without going further, oppose higher state targets in future rounds, and put neighborhood scale and infrastructure ahead of new density. Tradeoff: Fewer new homes keeps competition for existing ones high, which falls hardest on renters, newcomers and growing families, and state targets and rules still apply. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.5 Which tool should the City lean on most to help people with low and moderate incomes keep or find a home they can afford?Renter Aid and a County-run prevention pilot have not yet reported results, the council has asked only for a study of a City-aligned nonprofit developer, and an off-site pilot lets some required affordable units be built elsewhere, later. Rent control and most eviction rules sit in the City Charter, and three charter measures on eviction protections are on the November 3 ballot. Who decides: City Council funds assistance and sets affordable-unit requirements by majority vote. Rent control and most eviction rules are in the City Charter, administered by the separately elected Rent Control Board and changed only by voters.
Expand renter assistance, legal help and tenant protections Grow Renter Aid and eviction defense, enforce tenant protections more strictly, and help households through short-term setbacks before they lose their homes. Tradeoff: A recurring public cost that adds no new homes, and it helps current renters more than people trying to move here. Build and hold permanently affordable homes on public land Use City land, a City-aligned nonprofit developer or new public financing to create homes with deed restrictions that keep them affordable. Tradeoff: Needs large public capital and subsidy, takes years, and reaches fewer households per dollar in the near term than direct assistance. Require more affordable homes inside private projects Make developers build required affordable units on site rather than elsewhere, closing the off-site pilot, and raise or tighten those requirements. Tradeoff: Higher requirements can make some projects stop making financial sense, so fewer homes of any kind get built, and costs pass to market-rate renters and buyers. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.6 Which approach should Santa Monica take to keep housing affordable?Tenant protections and aid help people who already have a home here, added homes create openings for people not yet housed here, and subsidy reaches incomes the market does not. State progress data show the city far behind its 2021 to 2029 target for very-low and low-income homes and further along on homes for higher incomes. Local effects of new homes on rents and displacement have not been measured. Who decides: City Council sets zoning, fees, affordable-unit requirements and renter assistance by majority vote. Rent control and most eviction rules are in the City Charter, changed only by voters and administered by the separately elected Rent Control Board. The state sets the housing target and some approval rules.
Protect people already here, with little new housing Strengthen tenant protections, Renter Aid and legal help so current renters can stay, and hold new housing close to state minimums so neighborhoods keep their present scale. Tradeoff: Few homes are added, so competition for existing ones stays high, which falls hardest on newcomers, grown children and growing families, and aid is a recurring public cost. Build many more homes, led by supply with few added requirements Allow more homes across the city with lower fees, faster approvals and few added conditions on builders, relying on added supply to ease competition for existing homes. Tradeoff: Benefits arrive over years, new homes skew to higher incomes without subsidy, and current tenants face construction and redevelopment pressure with no added protection. More homes plus protections, with subsidy for the lowest incomes Allow more homes, keep or strengthen protections for current tenants, and use public money, public land or required affordable units to house the lowest incomes. Tradeoff: The costliest path: it needs subsidy the City does not fully have, and added requirements and protections can make some projects stop making financial sense, so fewer homes get built. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.7 How would you vote on Measure GG, the charter amendment that affirms local just-cause eviction law and changes Rent Control Board rules?The Rent Control Board recommended this measure and the City Council placed it on the November 3, 2026 ballot on July 14 by 6-0, with one member recused. It bundles several changes into one yes-or-no vote. The wording here follows the County Registrar's list of ballot measures and the council minutes. Who decides: Santa Monica voters decide by simple majority on November 3, 2026. If it passes, the separately elected Rent Control Board administers the rent control parts (Article XVIII), the City Council implements the parts for units outside rent control (Article XXIII), and only voters can change the Charter text later.
Support Amend the Charter to affirm the City's just-cause eviction laws, let Rent Control Board commissioners serve up to three terms counting appointed service, raise the cap on rent-controlled unit registration fees each year, clarify the Board's authority to set deadlines for deciding rent adjustment petitions, and allow eviction from affordable housing units of tenants who are not eligible or do not establish eligibility. Tradeoff: Owners face a registration fee cap that rises every year without a further vote, longer service reduces turnover on an elected board, and tenants who cannot show they qualify for an affordable unit could lose their home. Oppose Keep the current Charter text, so commissioner term limits, the registration fee procedure and the listed grounds for eviction stay as they are. Tradeoff: The added eviction ground for affordable units does not take effect, so units meant for eligible low-income households are harder to recover from tenants who do not qualify, and the other changes in the bundle are lost with it. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.8 How would you vote on Measure RR, the charter amendment that bars evictions for small amounts of unpaid rent?The Rent Control Board recommended this measure and the City Council placed it on the November 3, 2026 ballot on July 14 by 6-0, with one member recused. The threshold is tied to federal fair market rents, so it changes every year. The wording here follows the County Registrar's list of ballot measures and the council minutes. Who decides: Santa Monica voters decide by simple majority on November 3, 2026. If it passes, the separately elected Rent Control Board administers the rent control parts (Article XVIII), the City Council implements the parts for units outside rent control (Article XXIII), and only voters can change the Charter text later.
Support Amend the Charter so a landlord cannot evict for non-payment when the tenant owes less than one month of the average fair market rent for Santa Monica ZIP codes, as set each year by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Tradeoff: Owners must carry small debts longer or collect them by other means, and a tenant can fall further behind before an eviction for non-payment can start. Oppose Keep current rules, which set no minimum amount owed before unpaid rent can be grounds for eviction. Tradeoff: Tenants who fall a little behind can still face eviction, with its costs and lasting record, over less than one month's rent. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
1.9 How would you vote on Measure VV, the charter amendment that extends eviction protections to tenants of single-unit homes and condominiums?On July 14 the council placed a broader measure on the ballot by 4-2 that also covered tenants adding household members and occupants staying after a tenant leaves. After landlords raised concerns, the Rent Control Board recommended narrowing it, and on July 28 the council replaced it with this measure by 5-1, with one member recused. The July 28 minutes were not yet approved when we checked, so the wording here follows the July 28 staff report and the County Registrar's list of ballot measures, which match. Who decides: Santa Monica voters decide by simple majority on November 3, 2026. It amends only Article XXIII, which covers rentals outside rent control and which the City Council implements by ordinance. The separately elected Rent Control Board recommended it, and only voters can change the Charter text later.
Support Extend existing just-cause eviction protections to tenants renting single-unit homes and condominiums, and require owners who evict from non-rent-controlled units to move in within 60 days and live there at least 2 years, as rent-controlled units already require. Tradeoff: Owners of a rented house or condominium could end a tenancy only for the Charter's listed reasons, which limits their control of their property and may lead some to sell or stop renting. Support, and return later with the occupant protections that were cut Pass this measure, and bring back to voters the protections removed on July 28 for tenants who add household members and for occupants who stay after the tenant leaves. Tradeoff: Those protections were cut over concerns that they could force owners into new tenancies and block rent resets allowed by state law, and they would need more study before another ballot. Oppose Keep current rules: single-unit homes and condominiums stay outside the City's just-cause protections, and owner move-in evictions from non-rent-controlled units keep the 30-day and one-year terms. Tradeoff: Tenants of houses and condominiums keep only state-law protections, which exempt many of these homes, and owner move-in rules stay looser outside rent control than inside it. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
Policy area 2 · Read the policy area
Public safety and emergency response 2.1 With the police department reporting full sworn staffing, should the next safety dollar go to more officers?The City reported full sworn staffing in March 2026, though new officers take 12 to 18 months to train, and the Realignment Plan's police additions started partly on one-time reserves. Crime, response-time and resident-survey results since the December 2025 deployment had not appeared in council documents through September 2026. Who decides: City Council, through the budget: adopted by majority vote, with 5 of 7 votes needed to change it mid-year. Pay rates are set by labor contracts.
Keep current police staffing and fund it with recurring money Current policy Hold the department at its current authorized level, finish training new officers, and replace the one-time reserve money with recurring revenue. Tradeoff: Commits recurring money that could fund other services or responders, while the results of the current deployment are still unpublished. Add more officers, dispatchers and proactive patrols Increase the police budget beyond current levels for more sworn officers, Public Safety Officers, dispatchers and patrols, treating policing as an investment in the city's recovery. Tradeoff: A large recurring cost with little room in the General Fund, so other services or new revenue must cover it, and new officers take 12 to 18 months to train. Hold sworn levels and put new money into other responders Keep the number of officers where it is and direct new safety money to non-sworn officers, medical and crisis responders, diversion or emergency management. Tradeoff: Calls that need a sworn officer may wait longer if demand grows, and the alternatives have no published local outcome data yet. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
2.2 Who should respond to a mental health crisis or a call about someone in distress when no one is threatening violence?The Fire Department's Advanced Provider Unit gives medical care in the field and Public Safety Officers provide a uniformed presence, but the City has published no outcome data showing which responder fits which call. Denver's civilian crisis teams were followed by fewer reports of the minor offenses they targeted, a reason to examine the idea here, not proof of the right local mix. Who decides: City Council funds and directs City responders by majority vote. The County runs most mental health services and treatment beds.
Keep police as first responders, with crisis training and clinicians Police continue to answer these calls, with more crisis training and clinicians who join them on scene or follow up afterward. Tradeoff: Uses officer time on calls that may not need arrest powers, and some people in crisis respond poorly to a police presence. Create a civilian crisis team for suitable calls Send a clinician and a paramedic, without police, to suitable crisis and welfare calls, with police as backup if a call turns dangerous. Tradeoff: A new recurring program that needs dispatch rules, clinical partners and County treatment capacity, and some calls that seem safe can turn dangerous. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
2.3 For repeated low-level offenses, where should the City put more effort: prosecution, diversion to services, or repairing harm?The City Attorney now files on a higher share of cases than before, though the old and new rates use different bases, and a filing is not a conviction or less harm. The council has only authorized a study of more capacity at SaMo Bridge, where police can offer services instead of prosecution, and no outcomes from it have been reported. Who decides: City Council, by majority vote, funds the City Attorney's office, police and diversion programs. The City Attorney prosecutes misdemeanors, the County District Attorney decides felony charges, and courts decide outcomes.
Sustain high filing rates and prosecute repeat offenders Keep the City Attorney filing on most chargeable cases, press the County to prosecute repeat offenders, and track follow-through publicly. Tradeoff: Prosecution and court time cost money, felony decisions belong to the County, and charging alone may not change behavior or meet the needs of the people involved. Expand SaMo Bridge diversion with longer follow-up Fund more capacity at SaMo Bridge, with more referral pathways, longer follow-up and published outcomes. Tradeoff: Depends on County services and treatment beds, has no published local results yet, and people who were harmed may see less formal accountability. Bring together the person harmed and the person who caused harm Start a restorative approach in which the person harmed, the person responsible, neighbors and services meet to repair the harm and address unmet needs. Tradeoff: Needs willing participants, trained facilitators and cooperation from prosecutors and courts, is untested here, and does not suit every offense. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
2.4 How should the City pay for the improvements recommended after the Palisades Fire?An independent review of the City's Palisades Fire response found real strengths and real gaps, including the equivalent of 1.5 emergency managers when fully staffed, and made 36 recommendations with leads and timelines. Staff asked the council on September 22, 2026 to direct the work with no funding attached, and that decision is not yet confirmed. Who decides: City Council, through the budget by majority vote. Some items, such as evacuation planning and alerts, also depend on the County and neighboring agencies.
Fund the recommendations now, including more emergency managers Add recurring emergency management staff and dedicated money in the next budget for evacuation planning, alerts and exercises. Tradeoff: A recurring cost in a tight General Fund that must come from other services or new revenue, for rare events whose benefits are hard to price. Do the work within existing budgets and fund items one at a time Assign the recommendations to departments as staff proposed, use current staff and grants, and seek new money only for items that cannot proceed without it. Tradeoff: Readiness work competes with daily operations for the same staff, so some improvements may take longer than the review's timelines. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
2.5 Should part of the airport site keep an emergency or firefighting role after aircraft operations end?City budget documents plan closure of the airport to all aircraft operations after December 31, 2028. We found no city analysis of the airport's role in firefighting or disaster response, and the Palisades Fire review does not mention it. Who decides: City Council decides the site's future use by majority vote. Legal limits and the agencies that fly emergency aircraft shape what is possible.
Keep part of the site open for firefighting and emergency aircraft Preserve a runway or helicopter operations for fire and disaster response while converting the rest of the site. Tradeoff: Takes land from parks, housing or other uses, keeps some aviation operations and their costs, and depends on agencies agreeing to use it. Close to all aircraft as planned and plan for emergencies elsewhere Current policy End aircraft operations after 2028 as planned, and meet emergency staging needs with regional airports and ground sites. Tradeoff: Gives up a possible local base for air operations in a major fire or earthquake, without a city analysis of what that role is worth. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
Policy area 3 · Read the policy area
City finances and accountability 3.1 As one-time reserves run out, how should the City keep the General Fund balanced?After a September 2025 resolution identifying fiscal distress, the council used a $60 million one-time reserve bridge while new revenue from parking, ambulance billing, fees and digital signs ramped up, and several of those revenues are still projections. By our estimate most operating spending is committed to pay, school agreements and debt before a new member takes office. Proposals to cut taxes are grouped here with spending cuts, since both rely on reducing spending. Each option names the main tool, not the only one: the current plan already mixes new revenue with savings, cutting spending can sit alongside new fees, and new taxes can sit alongside cuts. Candidates can describe their own mix in the follow-ups. Who decides: City Council adopts the budget by majority vote and needs 5 of 7 votes to change it mid-year. Voters must approve any new or increased tax.
Follow the current plan: new non-tax revenue plus targeted savings Current policy Continue the Realignment approach of new parking, ambulance billing, fee and digital-sign revenue plus targeted savings, ending reserve use as that revenue arrives. Tradeoff: Rests on projections, some already revised down; if revenue falls short, reserves keep draining or cuts come later. Cut spending, with no new taxes and tax relief where possible Close the gap mainly by reducing spending, rule out new permanent taxes, and lower taxes on residents where the budget allows. Tradeoff: With most spending committed, cuts land on a small share of the budget, likely staffing and services, and each saving must be named. Ask voters for new recurring revenue to protect services Close the gap mainly with new or higher taxes approved by voters, so restored services are not cut again. Tradeoff: Residents and businesses pay more, and a measure may not pass: a City parcel tax was dropped in 2026 after polling short of the votes it needed. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
3.2 Who, if anyone, should pay less for City parking and services?The City is counting on new parking and fee revenue to stop drawing on reserves. One proposal would charge visitors full rates and give residents a discount, checked with a resident card. Another approach bases discounts on income rather than address. Who decides: City Council sets City fees and parking rates by majority vote.
Charge residents less than visitors, using a resident card Create a verified resident card so residents pay less for parking and City services while visitors pay full rates. Tradeoff: Lost revenue must be replaced, the card costs money to run, and people who work here but live elsewhere, often lower-paid workers, pay more. Charge everyone the same price Keep one price for residents and visitors and use the revenue for services everyone uses. Tradeoff: Residents pay as much as visitors for the places they use most, which some see as unfair to people whose taxes already support those places. Discount by need, not residence Offer lower prices for parking and City services to people with low incomes, wherever they live, checked through an income test rather than a resident card. Tradeoff: Lost revenue must still be replaced, income checks add paperwork and cost, some people who qualify will not enroll, and residents above the income limit pay full price. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
3.3 How should the City look for savings: targeted reviews, or a zero-based audit of all discretionary spending?The City's savings approach is targeted: managing vacancies, fixing programs that lose money and assessing specific operations. A zero-based audit would instead screen every program by its outcomes, and in September 2026 staff proposed hiring a consultant to build a citywide performance framework, a vote not yet verified. Who decides: City Council, by majority vote, directs reviews and adopts the budget; the City Manager carries them out.
Keep targeted reviews of specific programs Current policy Continue managing vacancies, fixing programs that lose money and assessing chosen operations, naming each saving and its amount. Tradeoff: Programs not chosen for review keep running without being tested against results. Run a zero-based audit of discretionary spending Review every discretionary program from the ground up and keep funding only those that show measurable outcomes. Tradeoff: Takes significant staff or consultant time and money, may take more than a year, and many programs lack the outcome data to judge them by. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
3.4 Should Santa Monica set ethics and meeting rules stricter than state law?Councilmembers recuse themselves today under state conflict-of-interest law, and the council placed Measure TT on the ballot at a meeting that convened after midnight. Proposals range from broader recusal and disclosure rules to limits on when major votes can happen. Who decides: City Council can adopt meeting rules and some ethics rules by majority vote; changes to the City Charter need voters. The state enforces its own conflict-of-interest law.
Require recusal for any tie to a matter, beyond state law Require members to recuse from any vote touching a business, professional or organizational tie, resolve conflicting dual roles, and disclose fully before votes. Tradeoff: Members with deep community ties may sit out many votes, leaving fewer to decide, and broad rules can be hard to define and enforce. Keep state ethics law, but tighten meeting rules Rely on state conflict rules and adopt local rules for advance notice, plain-language agendas, public comment before decisions and no major votes late at night. Tradeoff: More notice and more meetings can delay decisions, and fixed rules can be hard to keep in emergencies. Keep current rules under state law Current policy Continue recusal under state conflict-of-interest law and the council's current meeting practices. Tradeoff: Leaves the gaps critics see in disclosure and late-night votes, so trust depends on how members use their discretion. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.
3.5 Should the City keep water and utility rates stable, or invest faster in local water supply?Water self-sufficiency, once dated 2020 and then 2023, has not been reached, and the City still counts on imported water in a dry year. The proposed SMART water reuse project is estimated at $93 million, with the City paying at least 75% from the Water Fund, which is paid for by rates and fees. Who decides: City Council sets water, wastewater and refuse rates and approves water projects by majority vote, subject to the state's notice-and-protest process for rate increases.
Hold rates steady and pace projects to fit End automatic yearly increases for City-controlled water and refuse charges, and pace new projects to what stable rates can pay for. Tradeoff: Local supply arrives later, so the city relies longer on imported water in dry years, and deferred work can cost more later. Invest in local supply now, accepting higher rates Build projects such as SMART on the current path toward more local water, raising rates as needed to pay for them. Tradeoff: Higher bills for every household, felt most by lower-income ones, for a benefit that arrives over years. Not sure None of these: my own approach Skip this question Shown as no answer, not as opposition.
Your approach Why this choice (optional) What problem does it solve, and for whom? What do you know about that problem in Santa Monica today? How it gets done (optional) Who has to act, and how would it be paid for? What is the first step? What else it changes (optional) Beyond the goal, what else would this change, for whom, and over what time? Think a step or two out: who might pay more, move, or change what they do? How we would know (optional) What result would show it worked, and when and how would residents see it reported? What would change your mind (optional) What evidence would make you adjust or drop this approach? Save this answer
How candidates answered No candidate answers yet. Every campaign has been invited; answers appear here in their own words, with dates.