November 8, 2016 General Election

This guide was developed to help LA County voters make informed decisions
about local and state ballot measures proposed in the upcoming general
election, through the perspective of the food system. We do not make
specific endorsements, but instead encourage you to include this information in
your discussions with friends, family and colleagues about the important
choices we must make for our communities in November.
We analyzed ballot measures specifically through the lens of how they
could impact our local food system. Questions we asked about each
ballot measure include:
1. How will this measure affect the Los Angeles regional food system as
a whole?
2. How will it affect public health?
3. What impact will it have on communities that do not have reliable
access to healthy, affordable food and safe drinking water?
4. Does this measure help promote environmental and economic sustainability and fair labor practices throughout the food chain?
5. Does this measure help support a vibrant local food economy?
Voter information and registration

Election Day is Tuesday, November 8, 2016, from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.

For voter information, voter registration, and polling places, please visit
the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorders website at www.lavote.net.
To become a poll watcher, please visit https://www.lavote.net/
Documents/a-guide-for-poll-watchers.pdf.
To report problems at a polling place in Los Angeles County, contact the
Registrar of Voters Public Information at 562-466-1310 or 1323. You
can also call the Secretary of State's Fraud Hotline at 800-345-VOTE
(800-345-8683).

Summary: Communities throughout LA County rely on voter-approved funding

to maintain neighborhood parks, open space and water resources. Current
funding will expire in 2019. The Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks & Beaches
Measure of 2016 would replace this funding stream by adding a parcel tax of
one-and-a-half cent per square foot of developed property. The owner of a
typical 1,500 sq. ft. home would pay approximately $22.50 a year. The
measure would raise $94 million annually, and funds would go directly to cities
and local communities to protect, enhance and maintain parks, open space,
trails, beaches, rivers, and natural habitats. Funds will be prioritized based on
the LA Countywide Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment,
which was conducted with extensive community input. 13% of funds will be
directed to high-need and very high-need areas.
Pros for the food system:

Improving park access, promoting healthy living and exercise, and

creating healthy communities are some of the main objectives for
Measure A. Funds will be used for park improvements and maintenance,
which will help ensure that all Angelenos have access to safe parks,
recreation space and exercise activities. Providing residents with more
opportunities to exercise can help combat obesity and other diseases.

Investments in public parks could lead to improved access to healthy

food, especially in low income communities. Many public parks and
senior citizen centerswhich are run by city parks and recreation departmentsprovide free daily meals to students and seniors. (For example,
the City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department serves 200,000
free meals each year through the Summer Lunch Program.) More funding
for parks and recreation centers could also support the facilities and
staffing needed for public food programs. Beyond parks, Measure A may
also fund public community gardens and food health programs.

Parks and recreation spaces host farmers markets. Measure A would

help ensure that these facilities are well maintained, which could support
the feasibility and likelihood of farmers markets hosted in public parks.
Successful farmers markets give local farmers and cottage food industries
opportunities to sell their food and produce, there by supporting a Good
Food economy overall.

Provides safe drinking water and protects local water quality. Measure
A funds are scheduled to be used to ensure safe, clean drinking water at
parks and recreation facilities. It would also allocate money to improve
stormwater capture, thus improving the quality and quantity of local
groundwater supplies.

Negative impacts for the food system:

Measure A will have no apparent drawbacks for the Los Angeles regional
food system.

Summary: There are currently about 28,500 individuals in the City of Los
Angeles who are homelessand the number has increased by 11% in just
one year. In January 2016, the City of LA released a report with a longrange plan for ending homelessness, stating that it would have to spend
about $1.85 billion on housing over ten years to tackle the problem. To help
fund the plan, the City of LA has placed Measure HHHa $1.2-billion bond
measureon the ballot to finance the construction of 8,00010,000
permanent supportive housing units. An emphasis will be placed on helping
those who are chronically homeless. Locally, permanent supportive housing
has had a 90% success rate, and costs the city 43% less than it would to
leave residents to live on the streets.
The bond measure, which needs support from 67% of voters to pass, would
increase property taxes by varying amounts over 30 years, depending upon
how much construction is done in a given year. Measure HHH will cost tax

payers approximately $9.48 per $100,000 of assessed home value, which is

$44.31 per year for the average homeowner. The bond proceeds will be split,
with 80% going towards homeless housing and 20% for affordable housing.
Measure HHH is designed to only cover the cost of housing units in the City of
LA in the form of leases and loans to developers, but does not cover supportive
social services.
Positive impacts for the food system:

Addressing homelessness can help with reducing hunger and food

insecurity. In a 2015 report, the LA County Department of Public Health
found that housing costs often compete with food costs in limited household
budgets. Reducing homelessness helps mitigate the impacts of poverty, thus
making it more likely that LA City residents will be able to afford the food
that they need.

Addressing homelessness can have a positive impact on health outcomes. The stability of adequate housing increases the possibility for
storing and cooking fresh food at home, thus reducing the need to buy
unhealthy fast-food meals and improving ones overall diet.

Negative impacts for the food system:

Measure HHH will have no apparent drawbacks for the LA regional food
system.

Summary: Measure M, placed on the ballot by the Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (a.k.a. Metro), proposes a half-cent
sales tax increase to fund transportation improvement and maintenance
projects laid out in the LA County Transportation Improvement Plan. Some of
the major goals for Measure M include ease traffic congestion, improve freeway traffic flow, expand rail and rapid transit system, improve and repair
neighborhood streets, enhance bike and pedestrian connections, make public
transportation more accessible, and keep the transit and highway system in
good working condition.

Measure M is expected to generate an estimated $860 million per year in

2017 dollars, and the proposed projects would be built over a 40-year period.
The tax would continue indefinitely unless voters decide to rescind it in the
future.
Positive impacts for the food system:

Measure M could make it easier for LA County residents to access

healthy food options by improving access to public transportation networks, sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle connections. Many Angelenos live
in food deserts, where access to healthy food can be extremely difficult. In
South LA, for example, residents travel on average 20 minutes more than
West LA residents to reach a full-service grocery store. Moreover, people
without cars are impacted by a lack of transit options for reaching grocery
stores with a variety of good quality products, further exacerbating food
insecurity. According to 2011 census data, about 14% of LA households
are car-free. Better public transit options and safe routes for biking and
walking give Angelenos more ways to easily buy and transport food.

The traffic improvement projects built using Measure M funds will

create an anticipated 465,690 part-time and full-time jobs over forty
years. As poverty is the number one cause of hunger, good jobs in the
economy is one way to promote food security and public health. However,
it is important to note that there is no clause requiring Measure M projects
to hire locally, or to hire from low-income communities.

Improved infrastructure for walking and biking could improve public

health by encouraging active lifestyles. Regular exercise in combination
with healthy eating has been proven to help reduce obesity, diabetes, and
heart disease. Measure M would provide over $4 billion to walking and
biking projects, safe routes to school, and complete streets improvements
across Los Angeles County.

Highway improvements proposed by the LA County Transportation Plan

may help food distributors transport goods more efficiently within LA
County.

Negative impacts for the food system:

Because Measure M does not equally distribute the burden of transportation improvements among residents of all incomes, it may disproportionately affect low income households, many of which face hunger
issues. Since Measure M is a sales tax, it is regressive. It places a greater
burden on low income households, who spend a larger proportion of their
income on taxable goods than households with higher incomes. Moreover,
LA County residents are already paying 1.5% in regressive sales taxes to
generate transportation revenue for LA Metro via Propositions A & C, and
Measure R (approved by voters in 1980, 1990, and 2008). However, it
has been estimated that Measure M will cost approximately 9 per person
per day, or less than $33 per year, so for some households the benefits of
transportation improvements may outweigh the cost burden of the tax.

There is concern that the Measure M project plan does not do enough to
prioritize transportation improvements for Southeast Los Angeles
County and the South Bay area, even though these areas are some of
the most isolated from mass transit. Especially in Southeast Los Angeles,
many households have limited access to healthy food, and so the project
plan for Measure M may have missed opportunities for connecting these
communities to better food options.

Summary: Proposition 65 would require grocery stores,

pharmacies and convenience stores to give up the revenue
from the 10 fee on reusable plastic and paper shopping
bags to a new state environmental fund called the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund (EPEF), which has
yet to be established. Store owners would no longer be
able to keep the fees, as they do now. EPEF would provide
grants to environmental conservation organizations to be
used for drought mitigation, clean drinking water supplies,
recycling, litter removal, wildlife habitat restoration, beach
cleanup, and state, regional, and local parks.

It is important to note that if both Prop 65 AND Prop 67 pass, the California Legislative
Analyst's Office has said that Prop 65 might prevent the Prop 67 ban on bags, depending on how courts interpret the propositions.

Positive impacts for the food system:

If Prop 65 passes, money from the sale of reusable shopping bags will
be put towards an Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund,
which has not yet been established. Some projects that may be funded by
this program could be used to help drought mitigation, protecting water
resources, and wildlife habitat restoration, all of which are important parts
of a healthy food system. However, it should be noted that the amount of
revenue collected from bag fees would shrink over time as shoppers
become more accustomed to bringing their own bags.

Negative impacts for the food system:

The revenue from the 10 fee for reusable plastic or paper shopping
bags is an incentive for grocers and other retailers to support bans on
single-use plastic bags, thus reducing the amount of plastic waste
generated by our food system. If, due to Prop 65, retailers cannot keep
the fees, then they may be less inclined to support single-use plastic bag
bans, such as Proposition 67. Moreover, if retailers keep the fees, this can
help pay for the cost of purchasing paper or reusable bags, the extra
labor required to implement the reusable bag program, and to can be
used to help educate customers about bringing their own reusable bags.

Analysts have expressed concern that there is not enough of a connection between the Prop 65 tax on bags and how the money will be spent
by on state-sponsored programs.

Summary: California uses between 13 and 20 billion of single-use plastic

bags every year, and less than 5 percent are recycled. California became
the first state in the nation in 2014 to enact plastic bag ban legislation
through SB-270, which prohibits grocery stores, convenience stores, and
pharmacies from distributing single-use plastic bags, and requires stores to
charge a minimum of 10 for paper bags. Customers who use government
food benefit programs are exempt from paying the 10 fee.

A yes vote for Prop 67 continues the statewide ban on plastic bags. A no
vote rescinds the statewide plastic bag ban. It is important to note that local
plastic bag bans in individual cities (EX: City of LA, Santa Monica, Manhattan
Beach, Culver City, etc.) would still continue, even if the statewide measure is
defeated. To date, over 150 California cities and counties are also covered by
local bag bansencompassing about 40% of the states population.
Positive impacts for the food system:

Prop 67 would help reduce the amount of packaging waste generated

by our food system by upholding the current statewide plastic bag ban
(SB-270).

Reducing the number of plastic bags used in our food system helps to
keep plastic bags and their accompanying chemical contaminants out of
our waterways, agricultural fields, and natural landscapes. Designed
for minutes of use, plastic bags do not break down in the environment, and
pose a large threat to aquatic life. These lightweight plastic bags also
blight our communities and are costly to clean-up. California spends up to
$107 million each year managing plastic bag litter.

Prop 67 will also help reduce plastic bag pollution which can contaminate and endanger seafood and fish stocks. When fish ingest plastic
debris, chemical additives in the plastic and chemicals accumulated on the
surface of the plastic (PCBs, PAHs, flame retardants) are transferred to fish
tissue and can bioaccumulate up the food chain. Moreover, many fish die
from ingesting plastic debris. Over 663 species of marine life have been
impacted by ingestion of or entanglement in plastic pollution.

Negative impacts for the food system:

Switching from single-use plastic bags to reusable or compostable bags

may require an adjustment and learning period for store owners and
their customers if Prop 67 passes.

Proposition 67
Carryout Bag Ban

Proposition 67
Carryout Bag Ban

Statewide carryout
bag ban goes into
effect.
Proposition 65
Enviro Fee for Bags

If Prop 67 has more

yes votes, then bag
fees may be kept by
stores.
If Prop 65 has more
yes votes, then bag
fees go to state environmental fund.**

Proposition 65
Enviro Fee for Bags

Statewide carryout
bag ban goes into
effect.
Revenue from the
sale of carryout bags
may be kept by
stores.

No statewide carryout
bag ban.
No revenue goes to
environmental programs.

No statewide carryout
bag ban.
No revenue goes to
environmental programs.

** If Prop 65 is approved, it is possible that one of its provisions could

be interpreted by the courts as preventing Senate Bill SB-270 (a.k.a. the
statewide plastic bag ban) from going into effect at all.
Source: California Legislative Analysts Office

A healthy, sustainable and equitable regional food system is a complex set

of activities and relationships related to every aspect of the food cycle
including production, processing, distribution, retail, preparation, consumption,
and disposal. A Good Food system:

Prioritizes the health and well being of its residents.

Makes healthy, high quality food affordable.
Contributes to a thriving economy where all participants in the
food supply chain receive fair compensation and fair treatment.
Protects and strengthens our biodiversity and natural resources
throughout the region.
Ensures that good food is accessible to all.

The creation of the Good Food Review of the Ballot was a collaborative effort. We are
grateful for help from the following people and organizations: Andrew McDowell, With Love
Market; Dana Roeber Murray, Heal the Bay; Daniel Tellalian, Avivar Capital; Elsa Mei Tung, Los
Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust; Eric Ares, LA Community Action Network; Frank Tamborello,
Hunger Action LA; Goetz Wolff, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs; Joann Lo, Food Chain
Workers Alliance; John Guevarra, Investing in Place; Kelli Jackson, Hank's Mini Market; Mary
Lee, PolicyLink; Matt Sharp Public Affairs Consulting; Meredith McCarthy, Heal the Bay; and the
members of the Los Angeles Food Policy Council Leadership Board.
Production Team
Haan-Fawn Chau
Researcher and principal writer
Clare Fox
Editor
Camille de la Vega
Design
Daniel Rizik-Baer, Iesha Siler
Review
Photo credits: Haan-Fawn Chau, Frank Tamborello/Hunger Action LA,
Camille de la Vega, Heal the Bay, Clipart Kid, TooHotToHandle at en.wikipedia

About the Los Angeles Food Policy Council

The Los Angeles Food Policy Council (LAFPC) is a collective impact initiative, working to
make Southern California a Good Food region for everyonewhere food is healthy,
affordable, fair and sustainable.
Through policy creation and cooperative relationships, our goals are to reduce hunger,
improve public health, increase equity in our communities, create good jobs, stimulate
local economic activity, and foster environmental stewardship. In particular, LAFPC
aims to connect environmental sustainability and local agriculture with efforts to
expand access to healthy food in historically disenfranchised communities.

www.goodfoodla.org
Los Angeles Food Policy Council, 305 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012