How Many Lies Can Yes on S Fit in One Election?

Yes on S rack up more Cease & Desists

A letter from City Attorney Mike Feuer describes Yes on S’s campaign literature as “misleading, inappropriate and unlawful,” and demands that they cease and desist the use of the City Seal, which “creates a false and misleading impression that the letters are authorized by the City.”

The letter can be viewed herehttps://cl.ly/jOkp. Section 18304 of the State Elections Code expressly forbids use of a city seal in a political advertisements to suggest authorization by a public official.

A previous letter from County Counsel ordering Yes on S to stop sending eviction notices under color of authority of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department can be viewed at https://cl.ly/jCgG.

Yes on S has left the truth far behind, earning rebukes from Mayor Garcetti for the misleading use of his image on their mailers (Garcetti opposes Measure S) and from the Los Angeles Times for ripping quotes out of context to suggest the Times’s endorsement (the Times opposes Measure S).

Lying appears to be all they have left as voters come to understand that Measure S does nothing that its backers claim, and worsen most of the problems it addresses:

  • They say it ends backroom deals, but it is silent on campaign finance regulation and does not fund the enforcement of campaign finance regulations.
  • They say it stops “megadevelopments”, but Measure S is silent on size—it would have stopped 24 units of senior housing in Boyle Heights, 32 units of affordable housing in El Sereno, and 41 units of senior housing in Panorama City.
  • They say it stops luxury housing, but it is silent on price. Instead, it will drive luxury developers to raze rent-stabilized properties once they can only build where housing is permitted.
  • They say it encourages affordable housing, but its so-called “affordable housing exemption” bans 95% of the affordable housing it touches and 90% of city-owned affordable housing opportunity sites, and wipes out 33% of the current affordable housing pipeline.
  • They say it encourages updating the community plans, but the Mayor and the Council have already allocated funds and set a timeline to update the community plans. Meanwhile, the $70 million hit to public funds that Measure S would cause is equivalent to DOUBLE the salaries of the entire Planning Department.
  • They say it will stop evictions, but it will accelerate evictions. General Plan Amendments allow you to put housing on parking lots. Measure S forces developers to go looking for places where the plans allow housing – including existing rent-stabilized apartments.
  • They say it will decrease traffic, but it will increase traffic by encouraging sprawl, taking away our ability to locate housing and jobs near transit, and locking us into outdated suburban-style plans.
  • They say it will reform planning and development, but every time city officials put planning reforms on the table, Measure S walked away – because they really want a housing ban.
  • They say it will preserve our neighborhoods, but it will congest our neighborhoods. We’ll lose under-built single-family neighborhoods in Palms, Toluca Lake, Los Feliz Village, NoHo. Because developers will go where they can build.
  • They say it will only affect 5% of developments—which is only true if you count both a single-family home and a 500-unit apartment building as one development.
  • They say it’s “just a two-year time out” — but their permanent ban on General Plan Amendments of less than 15 acres would mean that the affordable housing opportunity sites would be scorched earth—banned from any kind of housing construction—for years into the future.

Beacon Economics found that Measure S would cost Los Angeles $3.8 billion in lost economic activity, eliminate 24,000 jobs, and take $140 million in public budget in its first two years alone. No wonder you need lies to sell a law like that.