Should Los Alamitos voters approve Measure G? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Los Alamitos voters should pass Measure G.

It would add four points to the tax on short hotel and home stays.

What supporters say

• The tax would mostly come from short-term guests, not from people who live here.
• The city could gain about $300,000 each year for safety, roads, parks, or other needs.

What critics say

• The law would not force the city to spend the money on safety, roads, parks, or any named need.
• Higher room prices may cause fewer people to stay, which could hurt local hotels.
• Money from stays may fall when travel drops during a bad tourist season.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; the strength of the facts matters more.

Measure G would raise Los Alamitos’ transient occupancy tax by four percentage points on hotel, motel and short-term-rental stays of 30 days or less. The proposal would bring in more city revenue, largely from visitors, but its final financial benefit and effect on local lodging businesses remain uncertain.

The case for

The measure would create a new, flexible stream of city money. Official estimates put the additional revenue at about $300,000 a year after implementation.1 Because the money would go into the General Fund, the City Council could use it for public safety, infrastructure, parks, facilities or other legal municipal needs as priorities change.

That flexibility could be useful. But the available budget information does not show that the money is essential to prevent a deficit or protect a specific service. The estimate also depends on how many taxable lodging stays occur, whether businesses comply and how visitors respond to higher prices.

The tax would fall primarily on people staying in local lodging rather than on residents who do not use hotels or short-term rentals. State and local explanations describe such taxes as charges generally collected from visitors through lodging providers.2 That may make the proposal more acceptable than a broad tax increase on residents.

Still, visitors may not bear all of the cost. Hotels and other lodging businesses could pass the tax on through higher room prices, and some travelers could change their plans as the total price rises.

The case against

The strongest concern is that higher lodging taxes could reduce demand or weaken hotel performance. Peer-reviewed studies of U.S. hotels and destinations indicate that lodging taxes can affect occupancy and other measures of performance, rather than simply transferring money from visitors to city government.3 One study of more than 7,000 observations across more than 100 urban submarkets found particularly negative effects for group bookings, compared with transient travelers.

Those studies do not show that Measure G would necessarily hurt Los Alamitos hotels. They do show that the city’s projected revenue should not be treated as guaranteed. Some of the expected gain could be offset if lodging activity declines. The available research cannot determine the size of that effect locally, and there is no Los Alamitos-specific comparison of room prices, occupancy, visitor patterns or neighboring tax rates.

Another concern is accountability. Measure G is a general tax, not a special tax legally dedicated to particular services.4 Although supporters may point to emergency response, police, parks, youth and senior programs or streets, the measure would not require the money to be spent on any of them. The City Council could direct the proceeds to any lawful General Fund purpose.

That gives the city flexibility, but it also means voters would not receive a binding spending plan or specific performance measures showing what the money must accomplish. The lodging tax base could also be vulnerable to tourism or economic downturns, although that concern rests mainly on an industry report and general inference rather than a Los Alamitos forecast.5