The War on Cars: Who Pays the Price?  

Krista Olien 

March 2025 

On January 1, 2025, Santa Monica's parking facility tax increased from 10% to 18% following the approval of Measure K on the November 2024 ballot. Interestingly, this measure—previously rejected—found its way back to the ballot and was passed unanimously by the Santa Monica City Council. However, a key exemption raises eyebrows: city-owned parking facilities will remain taxed at the original 10% rate, while privately owned parking facilities will bear the brunt of the increase.  

This decision begs several important questions: Who is impacted by this tax increase? Who ultimately pays? And perhaps most critically—how will this new revenue be spent?  

Where is the Money Going?  

Council members Lana Negrete, who spearheaded the proposal, and Jesse Zwick, who recommended adopting the originally rejected proposal, worked together on the successful measure. Zwick stated that the estimated $6.7 million annual revenue increase from this tax will be used to address public safety and homelessness. The council approved, and voters passed the measure that will "enhance public safety, create safe routes to school to protect children, lower the risk of fatal traffic accidents and maintain essential city services". In addition to the official language in the measure, Negrete states, "We need to address public safety, especially our unhoused individuals, we want to do something now."   

However, conflicting reports have emerged. Some pro-' war on cars' publications claim that the funds from Measure K will be allocated to infrastructure improvements, transportation grids, and bicycle and pedestrian initiatives — all narratives they support. Yet, there is little to no evidence in the original proposal and subsequent conversations supporting these claims. The ambiguity and misinformation surrounding this measure underscores the need for transparency and accountability to the public.  

Santa Monica Mayor Phil Brock acknowledged the severity of the city's homelessness crisis, stating, "All you have to do is walk down the street to see that they are in crisis." While the problem is evident, the solution proposed—placing additional financial burdens on motorists—raises concerns. Notably, this parking tax increase comes just two years after an approved bed tax hike on hotels, motels, and home shares, which was projected to generate $4.1 million annually for public safety and homelessness initiatives. With this new parking tax, the city will collect approximately $10.8 million per year for these efforts, but is this the right approach?  

The Burden on Motorists and Visitors  

A study conducted by TPN in Miami examined the impact of a similar proposed parking tax increase and asked a fundamental question: Who will actually be affected? The study concluded that most vehicles subjected to the tax belonged to visitors, not residents who voted on the measure.  

Santa Monica's economy mirrors Miami's in many ways, particularly its heavy reliance on tourism. The city attracts millions of visitors annually, many of whom drive and rely on parking facilities, hotels, and home shares. In effect, these visitors—many of whom had no say in the vote—shoulder the tax increase. While some may argue that taxing tourists is an effective way to generate revenue without directly burdening residents, others contend that such measures create additional barriers to tourism, potentially impacting local businesses.  

A Car Parking Tax Disguised as a Solution?  

While addressing homelessness and public safety is undoubtedly important, why are motorists being targeted to fund these initiatives? If the decision-makers desire to improve the city's infrastructure for all modes of transportation, including cars, then an intuitive solution would allow motorists to pay that bill. The motorist’s tax monies would directly influence the resources they depend on and enjoy, which makes any tax increase understandable and easier to bear. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Here, politicians and lobbyists are asking car users to pay increased parking taxes to finance societal programs and solutions unrelated to transportation.  

No matter the outcome of discussions on the exact allocation of these new funds, which are scheduled for April, it remains clear that this tax will become another financial burden on those who drive in the city. It is fair for motorists to question why they are targeted to pay a significant portion of this bill.  

Alas, if this plays out the way Negrete and Zwick intend, then motorists have lost yet another battle in the war on cars.