The opposition surfaced in correspondence submitted before Monday night’s City Council meeting, where Councilmembers voted to place the special tax on the Nov. 3 ballot.
The measure would generate an estimated $30 million annually to fund fire station upgrades, wildfire preparedness and other Pasadena Fire Department capital and operational needs. Because the revenue would be dedicated to fire services, the measure requires approval from two-thirds of voters.
In a letter to the council, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles said the proposal shifts the cost of services used by the entire community onto property owners alone.
“We are strongly opposed to the parcel tax resolution as it unfairly places a financial burden for fire services enjoyed by the entire community, including renters (residential and commercial), workers (including non-residents), tourists, sports enthusiasts, dignitaries, business and social visitors, solely onto property owners,” Janet M. Gagnon, the association’s senior vice president of government affairs and external relations, wrote in the letter.
Instead, the association urged the city to pursue a sales tax, arguing it would spread the cost among everyone who benefits from fire protection and emergency medical services. Gagnon noted the city’s Finance Committee report indicated a sales tax would face no organized opposition.
“If the need for additional funding is urgent, then the tax with the least objections should be utilized to secure passage, which is a sales tax and NOT a parcel tax,” she wrote.
The association argued the city’s own reports show emergency medical service calls now account for the majority of Fire Department responses. Because anyone living, working or visiting Pasadena may require emergency medical care, the organization said there is no justification for financing those services exclusively through a tax on property owners. It also said the city has not produced data showing property owners account for most EMS calls.
The letter also raised concerns about the impact on owners of rent-stabilized apartment buildings. Because Pasadena’s rent stabilization ordinance limits annual rent increases, many landlords would be unable to recover the added cost of the tax, the association said. It warned the additional expense could force small “mom-and-pop” owners to sell their properties, reducing the city’s supply of naturally occurring affordable housing and urged the council to exempt multifamily properties if the measure moves forward. The association said more than 80% of its members own 20 units or fewer.
Beyond criticizing the structure of the proposed tax, the association questioned the city’s budgeting process. The letter argues the council has not undertaken a comprehensive review of existing expenditures or identified potential savings before asking voters to approve a permanent tax increase. It recommends considering a temporary sales tax or bond measure while the city reassesses spending priorities.
The Apartment Association was not alone in opposing the proposal.
Steve Haussler, who said he lost two homes in the Eaton Fire, questioned why the city could not identify approximately $30 million for fire improvements within its existing $1.4 billion budget.
“Out of a $1.4 Billion budget I cannot believe $30 or so million cannot be found on an annual basis to fund the needed upgrades for the Fire Department,” Haussler wrote. “Adding this tax measure is yelling ‘FIRE!’ on a too-crowded ballot and uses fear to avoid the Council doing their proper job of balancing our budget.”
In separate correspondence, Pasadena resident Lisa Haussler said she supports maintaining strong fire protection and emergency response services but questioned whether city officials had exhausted other funding alternatives before asking voters to approve another permanent parcel tax.
“I strongly support maintaining excellent fire protection and emergency response services,” she wrote. “However, I am concerned about placing another permanent parcel tax on Pasadena property owners without first demonstrating that existing revenues have been fully evaluated and that all reasonable alternatives have been explored.” She urged councilmembers to consider the cumulative financial impact on homeowners and local businesses before moving the proposal forward.
One local realtor said she had serious concerns about what another permanent tax means for the city.
Giselle Nora expressed concerns about cumulative cost pressures between rising property taxes, skyrocketing home insurance premiums and utility costs, housing affordability and fiscal responsibility.
“Before we place another forever-tax on property owners, we should be asking whether the city has fully explored other existing budget solutions and funding options first,” said Giselle Nora.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
