As a longtime Santa Monica resident and homeowner, I urge you to vote NO on Measure ES on the November 3 ballot.
The story behind Measure ES is plain and simple. The City Council and City Manager Oliver Chi are desperate for revenue. They found $12 million in the City budget, the City’s longstanding contribution to our public schools, and decided to shift it permanently onto local property owners.
In his October 5, 2026 opinion piece in the Santa Monica Daily Press, City Councilmember, Barry Snell, wrote that “Measure ES is the only way to ensure our public schools continue to receive a reliable and essential funding stream - funding in the amount of $12 million a year that has kept our schools among the best in California as state and federal funding have diminished”.
But Measure ES is not the only way. The City already pays that $12 million out of its existing budget. Measure ES does not create any new money for our schools. It just moves the bill from the City to property owners.
Snell is right that “for two decades, the City has allocated significant funding to our school district,” and we can all acknowledge that “the City is in the midst of a serious financial crisis”. But the $12 million is still in the City budget. The real questions are whether the City should walk away from the funding, and whether the school district even needs the money.
Consider SMMUSD’s own numbers. The district just released the unaudited financial report for 2025-26. In June, SMMUSD projected it would finish the fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2026, roughly $3.7 million in the red. Instead, it ran a $6 million surplus. Its unrestricted general fund balance came in about $9.85 million higher than expected, at a record $68.6 million. The district took in about $6.1 million more revenue than projected, including about $1.3 million more than expected from the Measure R parcel tax.
Meanwhile, SMMUSD’s staffing has held steady at 1,280 employees, even though enrollment, now 8,520 as of October 2025, has fallen roughly 19% over the past decade. The City’s population has also declined since 2020. The district’s total spending budget for 2026-27 is $237.9 million, so the City’s $12 million is roughly 5% of the district’s budget. I find it odd the district’s budget and any future revenue needs to potentially be funded by the City were not fleshed out at City Council meetings.
Santa Monica residents and property owners already carry most of the load. About 59% of SMMUSD’s revenue comes from local property taxes. And look at what we already pay:
Property owners pay Measure R, a parcel tax passed in 2008 that costs $496 per parcel a year, and, since 2023, has no expiration date.
Property owners, condominium owners included, also pay for Measure QS, approved in 2024, which lets SMMUSD issue $450 million in bonds repaid at 3 cents per $100 of assessed value. For my family, that’s more than $1,000 a year. Add Measure R and we’re over $1,500.
Residents and visitors also pay for our schools through the half-cent sales tax voters approved in 2016, half of which was earmarked for education. And Measure GS, the transfer tax on high-value property sales that took effect March 1, 2023, sends a share of its revenue to SMMUSD as well.
Now add Measure ES at $495 per parcel, and my family will be paying more than $2,000 a year to SMMUSD. How much will the City contribute from its general fund going forward? Nothing.
Parcel taxes like Measure R and the proposed Measure ES are also regressive. A condominium owner pays the same flat amount as a large business park, which puts a disproportionate burden on lower-income residents. Together, Measure R ($14.5 million) and Measure ES ($12 million) would collect about $26.5 million a year for SMMUSD from Santa Monica property owners. Roughly 70% of that would come from individual owners.
The City has the $12 million in its budget today. If it must truly cut, it should reduce its contribution gradually over several years while it shores up its finances. Instead, the City has chosen not to honor its decades-long commitment to the schools and to send the bill to property owners in perpetuity.
Snell calls Measure ES as “an inexpensive way for residents to secure our children’s future.” It isn’t. It’s an expensive, permanent and unfair burden on Santa Monica residents and property owners. Vote no on Measure ES.
Jeff Peak