Los Angeles Council Districts
LA City Council District 2 - Adrin Nazarian
Candidate Profile:
Adrin Nazarian is an experienced public servant who served for a decade in the California State Assembly representing the 46th District. Nazarian is known for his deep understanding of housing, transportation, and economic development issues. Throughout his career, he has advocated for affordable housing solutions, championed transit-oriented development, and prioritized public safety to ensure that neighborhoods remain secure while addressing issues like homelessness. His strong leadership in securing millions in state funding for various community projects highlights his ability to deliver results that directly benefit his constituents.
Why We Endorse Adrin Nazarian:
Adrin Nazarian is the pragmatic, results-oriented leader that District 2 needs to navigate the complexities of Los Angeles’ housing, transportation, and public safety issues. With over a decade of experience in the California State Assembly, Nazarian has a deep understanding of the challenges facing our city and the practical solutions required to address them. His ability to work across party lines, secure significant state funding, and deliver tangible results sets him apart as the right choice for Los Angeles City Council District 2.
-
Proven Track Record in Housing and Economic Development: Nazarian has consistently advocated for smart, balanced policies that address the city’s housing crisis without stifling growth. He champions transit-oriented development that provides affordable housing options while enhancing transportation infrastructure. His approach balances the need for new housing with the preservation of community character, ensuring that development is sustainable and beneficial for all residents. By securing millions in state funding for housing projects, Nazarian has already demonstrated his ability to deliver on these priorities.
-
Commitment to Public Safety: Nazarian understands that safe communities are the foundation of a thriving city. His focus on public safety is rooted in collaboration with law enforcement to create comprehensive, community-based strategies that address crime and its underlying causes. He advocates for a balanced approach that includes adequate police funding while supporting mental health and homelessness interventions that can reduce the burden on law enforcement. This pragmatic stance ensures that District 2 remains secure without compromising on necessary reforms.
-
Pragmatic Leadership for Economic Growth: Nazarian’s commitment to streamlining city bureaucracy is essential for fostering a business-friendly environment in Los Angeles. His focus on reducing red tape and accelerating permitting processes helps local businesses thrive, creating jobs and stimulating economic growth. By championing policies that support both small businesses and large-scale development projects, Nazarian ensures that District 2 will continue to attract investment and innovation.
-
Collaboration and Problem Solving: What sets Nazarian apart is his ability to work collaboratively with stakeholders across the political spectrum. His pragmatic leadership style ensures that he can build consensus and find solutions that work for both businesses and residents. Los Angeles needs leaders who can bring people together to solve problems, not push divisive agendas. Nazarian’s focus on results over ideology makes him the ideal candidate to move Los Angeles City Council District 2 forward.
Conclusion:
Adrin Nazarian’s balanced, collaborative approach to governance makes him the best choice for District 2. His deep policy knowledge, proven track record, and commitment to solving the city’s most pressing issues ensure that he will be a strong, effective leader for the district. We need leaders like Nazarian who understand that progress comes from building consensus and working toward solutions that benefit all Angelenos.
LA City Council District 10 - Grace Yoo
Candidate Profile:
Grace Yoo is a seasoned civil rights attorney and community advocate with a strong record of fighting for transparency, ethics, and accountability in government. Yoo has been an outspoken advocate for cleaning up Los Angeles politics, particularly after the corruption scandals that have plagued the City Council in recent years. Yoo’s platform focuses on protecting small businesses, improving public safety, and ensuring that communities have a voice in their future development.
Why We Endorse Grace Yoo:
Grace Yoo is just the leader we need at a time when public trust in city government has been shaken by corruption scandals, Yoo’s commitment to ethical leadership and her focus on creating a business-friendly environment are exactly what District 10 needs to move forward.
-
Champion for Transparency and Accountability: Yoo has been an outspoken advocate for cleaning up Los Angeles politics, particularly in the wake of the corruption scandals that have plagued the City Council. Her focus on government accountability, ethics reform, and transparency aligns with the public’s demand for leaders who prioritize integrity over self-interest. Yoo’s commitment to restoring trust in local government is critical for rebuilding faith in the political process and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.
-
Pro-Growth Agenda: Yoo’s dedication to creating a business-friendly environment in District 10 is a cornerstone of her platform. She understands that reducing burdensome regulations and fostering economic growth are essential for revitalizing the district’s economy. Yoo advocates for cutting unnecessary red tape and streamlining the permitting process, making it easier for small businesses to thrive and for entrepreneurs to invest in the community. Her focus on attracting investment and supporting local businesses will help drive job creation and economic recovery.
-
Pragmatic Approach to Public Safety: While Yoo supports law enforcement, she also recognizes the need for meaningful reform. Her focus on increasing transparency within the police department and promoting community policing initiatives strikes the right balance between public safety and police accountability. Yoo understands that safe neighborhoods are critical for both residents and businesses, and she is committed to policies that protect the community while ensuring fair and just policing.
-
A Leader Who Can Bring People Together: One of Yoo’s greatest strengths is her ability to unite diverse groups around common goals. Whether it’s business owners, community advocates, or law enforcement, Yoo has shown a capacity for building coalitions and finding pragmatic solutions to complex problems. In a time of increasing polarization, her ability to foster collaboration and compromise will be essential for moving District 10 forward.
Conclusion:
Grace Yoo’s dedication to transparency, her pro-business policies, and her ability to bring people together make her the ideal candidate for District 10. Her leadership will restore trust in local government, foster economic growth, and ensure that public safety is balanced with accountability. Yoo’s pragmatic approach to governance ensures that District 10 will be a place where both businesses and residents can thrive.
LA City Council District 14 - NO on Ysabel Jurado
LA City Council District 14 - NO on Ysabel Jurado
Why We Strongly Oppose Ysabel Jurado:
Ysabel Jurado’s candidacy represents a dangerous shift toward ineffective, ideologically extreme policies that would harm District 14’s economic stability and public safety. More concerning, she demonstrates a refusal to compromise or work with others to address the real challenges facing our city. At a time when Los Angeles needs pragmatic problem solvers, Jurado’s rigid approach would only deepen the divisions in our city and stall progress.
-
Ill-Advised Policies that Worsen the Housing Crisis: Jurado’s platform is built around expanding rent control—an idea that sounds appealing on the surface but has proven ineffective in cities across the country. In places like New York and San Francisco, rent control has led to decreased housing supply, poor maintenance of rental units, and deteriorating living conditions. Her approach, which includes rent control on new developments and single-family homes, would stifle construction and investment in District 14, making the housing crisis even worse. Instead of incentivizing the creation of affordable housing, her policies would disincentivize developers from building, ultimately driving rents higher for everyone else.
-
Harmful Economic Policies that Punish Businesses: Jurado’s hostility toward business is evident in her support for overregulation and punitive measures like a citywide vacancy tax. Such policies would only further burden small businesses and property owners who are already struggling in a difficult economic environment. By championing excessive regulation and higher taxes, she would make it harder for entrepreneurs to create jobs and contribute to the economic recovery of the district. Her failure to understand the importance of a thriving business community shows just how out of touch her platform is with the real needs of her constituents.
-
Defunding Public Safety at the Worst Possible Time: Perhaps most alarming is Jurado’s support for defunding the police—a policy that would directly endanger the safety of District 14 residents. With crime rates rising in Los Angeles, reducing police funding is a reckless and irresponsible proposal. Jurado’s extreme stance, which includes slashing law enforcement budgets in favor of unproven social programs, would leave our neighborhoods vulnerable to increased violence and property crime. Instead of working with law enforcement to implement balanced reforms, Jurado wants to dismantle the very systems that keep our communities safe.
-
Ideological Rigidity vs. Practical Solutions: What’s clear from Jurado’s platform is that she is more focused on pushing a narrow ideological agenda than on solving the actual problems facing District 14. Her unwillingness to compromise or engage with stakeholders who disagree with her is a recipe for gridlock and failure. Los Angeles is a diverse city with complex issues that require thoughtful, nuanced solutions—not hardline positions that alienate potential partners. Her refusal to collaborate with business leaders, law enforcement, and community groups means she would be ineffective at bringing people together to create meaningful change.
-
Leadership That Moves LA Forward: At this critical juncture, we need leaders on the City Council who can work across political divides to find real, lasting solutions. Los Angeles is grappling with urgent issues—housing affordability, economic recovery, and public safety—that require cooperation, innovation, and compromise. Jurado’s track record of ideological extremism and her inability to adapt to the realities of governance make her the wrong choice for this moment. We need leaders who understand that progress comes from bringing people together, not from digging in and refusing to compromise.
-
Policies That Divide, Not Solve: Jurado’s approach to governance is one of division and conflict. Her focus on rent control, punitive business regulations, and defunding the police reflects an unwillingness to consider the broader implications of her actions. Instead of fostering collaboration, her policies would create friction between the public and private sectors, stalling much-needed development and leaving residents without the safety and services they deserve. Jurado’s proposals are not only ineffective but also counterproductive, pushing the city further into crisis rather than moving us toward a solution.
Why Collaboration and Pragmatism Matter:
Los Angeles is a city built on diversity—of people, perspectives, and ideas. The only way forward is through collaborative leadership that brings together all stakeholders to solve our most pressing problems. Jurado’s brand of inflexible, divisive politics would only exacerbate the challenges we face. Instead, we need leaders who are willing to listen, adapt, and negotiate to create balanced, effective solutions that benefit everyone in District 14.
Electing leaders who can work together, build consensus, and compromise when necessary is the key to moving our city forward. We must reject the extreme, ineffective policies of candidates like Ysabel Jurado and instead choose leaders who will prioritize results over ideology, cooperation over conflict, and progress over stagnation.
Statewide Ballot Propositions
Proposition 2 - Public Education Facilities Bond Measure
VOTE NO
Summary:
Proposition 2 seeks to authorize the sale of $10 billion in general obligation bonds to fund the renovation and construction of K-12 public schools and community college facilities across California. Of the total, $8.5 billion would be allocated to public schools, with a focus on new construction, renovation, career technical education facilities, and charter schools. The remaining $1.5 billion would be used for community colleges, allowing them to fund a mix of projects including new buildings, renovations, and equipment purchases. The state would cover 50-65% of project costs, with additional funding set aside for small and under-resourced school districts to ensure they can access the resources needed for critical improvements.
Why We Do Not Support Proposition 2:
While improving education infrastructure is important, Proposition 2 raises several concerns. The measure would add $500 million annually to California’s debt for the next 35 years, increasing the state’s financial obligations without guaranteeing that funds will be distributed equitably. Historically, wealthier districts have been able to access more state funds than under-resourced districts, and Proposition 2 does not go far enough to change this disparity. Thrive LA PAC believes in fiscally responsible governance, and adding more long-term debt for infrastructure projects—especially when there are still inefficiencies in how funds are allocated—poses a risk to the state’s financial stability. Moreover, the state has other urgent needs that may require future funding, and tying up resources in this bond could limit flexibility for addressing those issues.
Proposition 3 - Right to Marry, Repeal Proposition 8
VOTE YES
Summary:
Proposition 3 seeks to amend the California Constitution by removing the language established by Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This proposition would enshrine the right to marry for all individuals, regardless of sex or race, into California’s Constitution. Though same-sex marriage has been legal in California since 2013 due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Proposition 3 ensures that California’s state constitution reflects this fundamental right. The proposition is seen as a safeguard following the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federal abortion rights, which raised concerns about the stability of other civil rights, such as same-sex marriage.
Why We Support Proposition 3:
Thrive LA PAC supports Proposition 3 as a reaffirmation of civil liberties and personal freedom, aligning with our commitment to individual rights and equality under the law. The legal protections of marriage for all individuals should not be subject to the shifting interpretations of courts but should be enshrined in California’s governing documents. By supporting Proposition 3, we aim to safeguard marriage rights from future legal challenges and reinforce California’s leadership in upholding civil rights.
Proposition 4 - Public Infrastructure and Environmental Bonds
VOTE NO
Summary:
Proposition 4 proposes issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund a variety of climate-related and environmental projects, including wildfire prevention, water infrastructure improvements, forest management, and coastal protection. Significant portions of the funds are earmarked for drinking water improvements ($3.8 billion), wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation ($1.95 billion), and land conservation efforts ($1.2 billion). The measure prioritizes low-income and climate-vulnerable communities, requiring that at least 40% of the bond revenue benefit these areas. However, the repayment of the bond would cost California approximately $400 million annually over the next 40 years, adding to the state’s existing debt.
Why We Do Not Support Proposition 4:
Thrive LA PAC opposes Proposition 4 due to concerns about increased long-term debt and the potential for inefficient use of bond funds. While addressing climate change and environmental issues is important, issuing $10 billion in bonds—without specific, clearly outlined projects—raises significant fiscal risks. Past environmental bonds have often failed to deliver tangible results, with large sums spent on studies rather than actionable projects. Adding another long-term financial obligation will cost California taxpayers for decades, diverting resources from other critical needs. Thrive LA PAC advocates for more immediate and targeted solutions to these challenges that do not burden the state’s future generations with unnecessary debt.
Proposition 5 - Lowering Supermajority for Local Bonds
VOTE NO
Summary:
Proposition 5 aims to lower the voter threshold required to pass local bonds for funding affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. Currently, a two-thirds majority (66.67%) is needed for such bonds to be approved by voters. Proposition 5 would lower this requirement to 55%, making it easier for local governments to raise funds. Proponents argue that this measure would empower communities to tackle housing and infrastructure issues more effectively. Critics, however, raise concerns about increased local debt and the potential for higher property taxes.
Why We Do Not Support Proposition 5:
Thrive LA PAC opposes Proposition 5 because it weakens taxpayer protections established under Proposition 13, which was designed to limit property tax increases. Lowering the threshold for bond approval would make it easier for local governments to take on debt, ultimately increasing property taxes for homeowners and businesses. This could place an undue financial burden on the community, particularly in a state where residents already face high housing costs. While addressing housing and infrastructure issues is important, Thrive LA PAC believes in fiscally responsible solutions that do not erode protections for property owners or increase long-term debt obligations for future generations.
Proposition 6 - Removing Involuntary Servitude from the California Constitution
VOTE YES
Summary:
Proposition 6 aims to amend the California Constitution by removing the current provision that allows involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Currently, inmates in California’s state prisons and county jails can be forced to work as part of their punishment. If passed, Proposition 6 would prohibit state prisons from disciplining inmates who refuse to work, although it would allow voluntary work programs where inmates could earn time credits to reduce their sentences. The fiscal impact of this measure is uncertain but is expected to be minimal, with any potential increase or decrease in costs unlikely to exceed tens of millions of dollars annually.
Why We Support Proposition 6:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Proposition 6 because it aligns with our principles of human dignity and personal agency. Ending forced labor in California’s prisons reflects a commitment to human rights and a fairer justice system. Forced labor does not contribute meaningfully to rehabilitation, and by transitioning to voluntary work programs, the state can better focus on equipping incarcerated individuals with skills and experiences that will help them reintegrate into society. Furthermore, supporting voluntary programs incentivizes rehabilitation without resorting to punitive measures that may perpetuate cycles of criminal behavior. This is a step toward a more just and rehabilitation-focused correctional system.
Proposition 32 - $18 Minimum Wage Initiative
VOTE NO
Summary:
Proposition 32 seeks to raise California’s minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026. For employers with 26 or more employees, the wage would increase to $17 per hour in 2024 and $18 per hour by 2025. Smaller employers would have until 2026 to reach the $18 threshold. This proposition also pauses the inflation adjustments to the minimum wage until 2027, after which annual increases will resume. The current minimum wage in California is $16 per hour, and without Proposition 32, it would rise to around $17 per hour by 2026 due to inflation adjustments.
Why We Do Not Support Proposition 32:
Thrive LA PAC opposes Proposition 32 due to concerns over its potential negative impact on small businesses and the broader economy. Raising the minimum wage to $18 per hour could place excessive financial strain on small businesses, many of which are still recovering from the effects of the pandemic. These businesses may struggle to absorb the higher labor costs, leading to potential layoffs, price increases for consumers, or even closures. Furthermore, the proposition could increase the cost of living across the state, as businesses pass on their higher operating costs to customers. Thrive LA PAC advocates for economic policies that foster business growth and employment opportunities, and while wage increases can be beneficial, we believe this measure could have unintended consequences that hurt job creation and economic stability.
Proposition 33 - Prohibiting State Limitations on Local Rent Control
VOTE NO
Summary:
Proposition 33 seeks to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently restricts local governments in California from enacting rent control on single-family homes, condos, and housing built after 1995. If passed, Proposition 33 would grant cities and counties broader authority to control rent for all types of housing, including new constructions and single-family homes. The goal is to curb skyrocketing rents in California’s housing market by expanding local rent control policies. However, opponents argue that it could worsen the housing shortage by discouraging developers from building new rental units.
Why We Strongly Oppose Proposition 33
Proposition 33 proposes repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, allowing local governments to implement rent control policies on virtually all housing types, including newer buildings and single-family homes. While the intention is to make housing more affordable, evidence from other cities and states suggests that broad rent control policies will lead to counterproductive outcomes, ultimately worsening the housing crisis they aim to solve.
Historical Failures of Rent Control:
Rent control has been implemented in various cities across the United States, including New York City, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. In many of these places, rent control has led to significant distortions in the housing market:
-
Decreased Housing Supply: By capping rental prices, rent control reduces the incentive for property owners to maintain or invest in rental properties. More importantly, it discourages new construction, as developers find it less profitable to build new housing under rent control policies. This leads to a long-term decrease in the availability of rental units, further tightening the housing market.
-
Poor Maintenance and Quality: Property owners subjected to rent control often struggle to cover maintenance and renovation costs. As a result, tenants in rent-controlled units may face deteriorating living conditions over time, with landlords having less financial ability to make necessary improvements.
-
Displacement of Non-Rent-Controlled Units: Rent control policies encourage owners of non-controlled units to charge higher rents to make up for potential losses. This contributes to making housing more expensive for new tenants or renters who do not qualify for rent-controlled units. Over time, fewer rental units are available, and the few that remain command sky-high prices, exacerbating the housing crisis.
Economic Impact and Job Loss:
Repealing Costa-Hawkins and allowing widespread rent control could cause significant economic damage:
-
Property Values Decline: The value of rental properties typically falls when rent control is implemented, as the revenue potential decreases. Lower property values mean reduced property tax revenues, which hurts funding for local public services such as schools and infrastructure.
-
Job Losses: With fewer housing units being built and landlords forced to operate on slimmer margins, there is less demand for construction and maintenance services. Economic studies show that rent control reduces investment in housing and can increase unemployment in industries tied to real estate.
Repeating Past Mistakes:
California voters have already rejected similar rent control measures twice in recent years: Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 21 in 2020. Both measures sought to expand rent control, and both were soundly defeated because voters recognized the negative effects these policies would have on the housing market. Repealing Costa-Hawkins, as Proposition 33 proposes, risks repeating the same mistakes, further tightening the housing supply and making California’s affordability crisis even worse.
In conclusion, voting no on Proposition 33 protects California from the proven failures of rent control policies. While the goal of addressing housing affordability is essential, Proposition 33 is the wrong approach. Instead, Thrive LA PAC believes in fostering market-driven solutions that encourage more housing development, ensuring that supply meets demand and that prices stabilize naturally. Rent control is a short-term fix with long-term negative consequences, and we must resist the urge to enact policies that harm more than they help.
Proposition 34 - Medi-Cal Rx Patient Care Spending Initiative
VOTE YES
Summary:
Proposition 34 would require certain healthcare providers participating in the federal 340B drug discount program to spend at least 98% of their net revenue from the program on direct patient care. This proposition primarily targets entities that have significant non-patient-related expenditures—particularly those spending over $100 million in non-care activities over a 10-year period.
Why We Strongly Support Proposition 34:
Proposition 34 addresses the misuse of taxpayer-funded resources in healthcare by requiring certain healthcare providers to spend at least 98% of their net revenue from the 340B drug discount program on direct patient care. This initiative primarily impacts large healthcare organizations that receive substantial funds but have been accused of diverting them away from patient care and toward unrelated political lobbying and real estate investments. A prominent example is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), which has been involved in controversial housing policies and political campaigns instead of focusing solely on its healthcare mission.
Why This Matters:
The 340B program was established to provide affordable prescription drugs to low-income and at-risk patients, not to fund political lobbying or real estate ventures. Under Proposition 34, organizations that abuse these funds would face penalties, including the potential loss of their tax-exempt status and professional healthcare licenses. By enforcing stricter spending requirements, the proposition ensures that healthcare resources are being used to improve patient care, rather than financing unrelated projects like rent control campaigns or housing developments.
Proposition 34 also seeks to hold large organizations accountable for health and safety violations in housing projects they manage. AHF, for example, has been criticized for poor maintenance and unsafe living conditions in properties it owns, despite receiving significant funding through healthcare channels. Requiring these organizations to focus their resources on patient care rather than unrelated business ventures aligns with Thrive LA PAC’s mission of promoting accountability and efficient use of public funds.
By voting yes on Proposition 34, we ensure that taxpayer-funded healthcare dollars are used for their intended purpose: providing affordable and high-quality care to those who need it most, while preventing the diversion of funds toward self-serving political agendas and unrelated business operations.
Proposition 35 - Managed Care Organization (MCO) Tax
VOTE YES
Summary:
Proposition 35 proposes making the existing Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax permanent. The MCO tax is currently applied to managed health care plans to generate funds for the Medi-Cal program, which provides healthcare to low-income Californians. This proposition would direct the funds generated from this tax to increase payments to doctors, hospitals, and healthcare providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. The MCO tax allows California to access federal matching funds, significantly amplifying the resources available to improve healthcare services in the state. Proposition 35 also introduces new oversight and accountability measures to ensure that the funds are used appropriately and for their intended purposes.
Why We Support Proposition 35:
Thrive LA PAC strongly supports Proposition 35 because it secures a reliable funding stream for the Medi-Cal program, ensuring that healthcare providers who serve the most vulnerable populations receive adequate compensation. By making the MCO tax permanent, California can lock in billions of dollars in federal matching funds, which are essential for maintaining and expanding healthcare services to low-income individuals, seniors, and people with disabilities. This helps reduce the financial strain on state resources, as the federal government effectively doubles the state’s investment.
Additionally, Proposition 35 includes important accountability measures—requiring independent audits and advisory committees to ensure that the funds are used responsibly. By increasing payments to healthcare providers, the measure will help attract more doctors to the Medi-Cal system, improving access to healthcare and ensuring that patients receive timely and quality care.
Opponents have raised concerns about potential risks with federal approval, but California has successfully leveraged the MCO tax for years, and the benefits far outweigh any speculative challenges. Supporting this proposition means protecting healthcare for millions of Californians while ensuring financial stability for the state.
Proposition 36 - Drug and Theft Crime Penalties Reform
VOTE YES
Summary:
Proposition 36 proposes harsher penalties for repeat offenders of theft and drug-related crimes, including reclassifying misdemeanors—such as theft under $950—as felonies for individuals with prior convictions. It also increases penalties for fentanyl trafficking and establishes longer sentences for organized theft (e.g., smash-and-grab crimes). Additionally, Proposition 36 introduces a treatment-focused felony classification for repeat drug offenders, offering them rehabilitation opportunities. Courts would also be required to warn drug dealers that if their actions lead to someone’s death, they could face murder charges.
Why We Strongly Support Proposition 36:
Proposition 36 seeks to correct the failures of Proposition 47, a law spearheaded by leaders like George Gascón, which drastically weakened penalties for low-level theft and drug crimes. Under Proposition 47, theft under $950 was downgraded to a misdemeanor, resulting in an explosion of retail theft that hit small businesses the hardest. Many small business owners, who already operate on tight margins, could not absorb the costs of repeated thefts, leading to store closures, job losses, and increased prices for consumers. Retailers were left vulnerable, unable to prosecute habitual offenders who took advantage of the system.
Proposition 36 addresses these gaps by restoring accountability. By allowing prosecutors to reclassify theft as a felony for repeat offenders and introducing harsher punishments for organized crime, it creates a deterrent against the kinds of “smash-and-grab” operations that have become rampant. Furthermore, with fentanyl trafficking emerging as one of the most dangerous criminal enterprises in California, Proposition 36 ensures that those trafficking in these lethal drugs will face severe consequences, including potential murder charges if their actions result in fatalities.
This measure is not just about punishing criminals but also offers a balanced approach by providing a path to rehabilitation for drug offenders. By requiring mandatory treatment for certain drug crimes, Proposition 36 seeks to address the root causes of drug addiction while maintaining public safety. It offers a critical correction to the destructive effects of Proposition 47, which allowed criminals to repeatedly exploit lenient penalties, devastating businesses and communities.
Proposition 36 is a necessary step toward protecting small businesses, restoring order, and making California’s communities safer.
Amendment DD
VOTE YES
Amendment DD establishes an independent redistricting commission for Los Angeles, removing the power to draw city council district boundaries from politicians and giving it to a nonpartisan group of community members.
Why we support Amendment DD:
We support Amendment DD because it prevents gerrymandering, where politicians manipulate district lines for personal or party gain. By transferring this power to an independent body, it ensures that boundaries are drawn fairly, reflecting the true makeup of neighborhoods and communities. The amendment mandates public hearings, transparency, and a focus on keeping communities together, which promotes a democratic process driven by public interest rather than political survival.
This reform strengthens public trust by removing the ability of incumbents to “pick their voters” and reduces the risk of favoritism in district creation. The focus on including diverse voices, including marginalized communities, ensures that all Angelenos are fairly represented. Additionally, rules prohibiting lobbying by politicians and their affiliates reinforce impartiality, making the system more responsive to community needs.
In other jurisdictions across California, similar independent commissions have led to fairer, more transparent elections and representation. Adopting this measure would align Los Angeles with successful examples across the state, ensuring that its growing and diverse population has a stronger voice in city governance.
Amendment LL
VOTE YES
Amendment LL proposes an independent redistricting commission for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), removing the power to redraw school district boundaries from politicians and giving it to the community.
Why We support Amendment LL:
We support Amendment LL because it ensures that school district boundaries are drawn with fairness and transparency, free from political self-interest. Currently, politicians can manipulate district lines to favor themselves or their allies, which undermines equitable representation. An independent redistricting commission composed of community members, free from political influence, ensures that district boundaries reflect the true needs of the communities they serve. This reform also encourages more direct public involvement, ensuring that the voices of families, educators, and underserved communities are part of the decision-making process.
By focusing on keeping communities together and ensuring all groups are heard, the amendment promotes fairer representation for students and families across LAUSD. This will help create more equitable educational opportunities, as school board members will represent districts drawn based on community needs rather than political convenience. The emphasis on public input and transparency also strengthens accountability, making the redistricting process more open and understandable to the public.
Amendment HH
VOTE YES
Amendment HH focuses on updating the City Charter to expand the City Attorney’s subpoena powers, clarify the Controller’s auditing authority, and require financial disclosures for commission appointees.
Why We Support Amendment HH:
We support Amendment HH because it brings essential updates to Los Angeles’ governance, strengthening accountability and ethical standards. Expanding the City Attorney’s subpoena powers is crucial for effective enforcement. This power allows the Attorney to thoroughly investigate potential violations, ensuring city departments and contractors adhere to the highest legal standards. By enhancing the Controller’s auditing authority, the city can ensure that funds are properly allocated and managed, improving efficiency and reducing waste.
The requirement for commission appointees to provide financial disclosures before confirmation is a critical step toward transparency. It helps prevent conflicts of interest by ensuring that those entrusted with public responsibilities are acting in the city’s best interest. The amendment ultimately strengthens governance by equipping key city officers with the tools they need to conduct thorough investigations and audits, while holding public officials accountable.
Amendment II
VOTE YES
Amendment II makes important clarifications to public property management, adds gender identity to non-discrimination policies, and supports city departments’ ability to sell merchandise to fund operations.
Why We Support Amendment II:
We support Amendment II because it strengthens Los Angeles’ commitment to equity, inclusivity, and sound management of public resources. Including gender identity in the city’s non-discrimination policies ensures that all residents are treated fairly in employment and public services, making Los Angeles a more inclusive city. This amendment modernizes the city’s charter to reflect evolving social values and protections.
Additionally, clarifying the status of public properties, such as parks, helps ensure that these spaces are protected for public use and enjoyment. Allowing departments to sell merchandise provides a pragmatic way to generate revenue without increasing taxes, ensuring departments have the resources to function effectively and maintain public services. This amendment not only promotes inclusivity but also strengthens the city’s ability to manage and preserve its public assets responsibly.
Amendment ER
VOTE YES
Amendment ER enhances the powers of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, giving it more authority to enforce ethics rules and improve transparency in city government.
Why We Support Amendment ER:
We support Amendment ER because it addresses the pressing need for stronger ethics oversight in Los Angeles. Corruption scandals and unethical behavior have plagued city governance, eroding public trust. By enhancing the Ethics Commission’s powers, this amendment ensures that violations are investigated thoroughly and that accountability measures are enforced. Strengthening the commission’s ability to investigate and penalize ethical violations acts as a deterrent against corruption and misconduct.
The amendment also promotes greater transparency in city government, making it easier for the public to trust that their elected officials are acting in their best interests. Increasing the authority and resources available to the Ethics Commission empowers it to carry out its mission effectively, providing a much-needed safeguard against unethical practices. This reform is essential for rebuilding public confidence in city governance and promoting a cleaner, more transparent government.
Amendment FF
VOTE YES
Amendment FF provides pension equity for certain peace officers, including those working at LAX and park rangers, allowing them to transfer their pension benefits to a system that better meets their needs.
Why We Support Amendment FF:
We support Amendment FF because it promotes fairness for public safety officers who are crucial to maintaining safety in Los Angeles, including LAX police and park rangers. These officers take on significant risks in their roles, yet they currently face discrepancies in pension benefits compared to other public safety employees. Allowing these officers to transfer their pensions provides them with equitable access to the same retirement benefits as their counterparts in other public safety roles.
This amendment helps retain and attract top talent in critical public safety positions by ensuring that these officers are treated fairly in terms of retirement benefits. Ensuring that peace officers have access to equitable pensions acknowledges the risks and responsibilities they assume in their jobs, reinforcing the city’s commitment to supporting those who protect its residents and infrastructure. It also fosters a more motivated workforce, which is essential for maintaining public safety.
Los Angeles Unified School District
LAUSD District 1: Sherlett Hendy Newbill
Candidate Bio: Sherlett Hendy Newbill, a seasoned educator and policy advisor, has been serving the LAUSD community for over 25 years. She has held positions as a teacher, coach, and administrator at Dorsey High School and is currently an advisor to the outgoing LAUSD District 1 representative, George McKenna. Endorsed by Mayor Karen Bass and other key figures, she is a trusted advocate for educational equity.
Why We Support: Hendy Newbill’s extensive experience within LAUSD equips her to address the unique challenges in District 1, which has the highest concentration of Black students in the district. She is a strong advocate for ensuring resources are directed toward underserved communities, with a focus on safety, mental health support, and academic improvements. She opposes the defunding of school police, believing in a balanced approach that ensures student safety while advocating for restorative justice programs. Her deep community ties and focus on student achievement make her the ideal candidate to continue McKenna’s legacy of educational advocacy.
LAUSD District 3: Dan Chang
Candidate Bio: Dan Chang is an experienced teacher and education policy advocate with a strong background in public school reform. Chang has worked closely with both school administrators and community stakeholders to develop innovative solutions to the pressing challenges facing LAUSD.
Why We Support: Chang’s focus on improving academic performance through targeted interventions and innovative educational models makes him a standout candidate. His commitment to expanding vocational training and career-readiness programs aligns with the needs of today’s students, ensuring they are equipped for both college and careers. Chang also prioritizes fiscal transparency and accountability, advocating for efficient use of LAUSD’s resources to benefit students and teachers alike. His forward-thinking approach and commitment to school safety are vital for navigating the challenges of a rapidly evolving educational landscape.
LAUSD District 5: Graciela Ortiz
Candidate Bio: Graciela Ortiz is a dedicated public servant with extensive experience as both a teacher and a city councilmember in Huntington Park. Her diverse background in education and government uniquely positions her to understand the needs of both students and educators.
Why We Support: Ortiz’s commitment to expanding educational resources, especially for underserved communities, makes her an ideal choice for District 5. She advocates for increased funding for arts and enrichment programs, and is deeply invested in addressing the socio-economic barriers that affect student achievement. Ortiz’s experience in local government also gives her the skills needed to navigate bureaucratic challenges and secure funding for critical school initiatives. Her dedication to student success and teacher support will bring strong leadership to District 5.
Measure US: NO
Summary: Measure US proposes a bond measure to fund LAUSD school facilities improvements. However, we strongly oppose this measure.
Why We Don’t Support: While we recognize the need for infrastructure improvements in LAUSD schools, Measure US is deeply flawed due to its lack of clear financial oversight and accountability. Previous bond measures have resulted in poor financial management, leading to concerns that additional funds will not be effectively used to benefit students. The measure places an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers without providing adequate transparency regarding how the funds will be allocated. Without clearer safeguards and detailed plans, we cannot support Measure US, as it risks perpetuating the cycle of mismanagement and debt without delivering meaningful improvements to the district’s infrastructure.
This opposition is not based on rejecting the need for better school facilities but on ensuring that taxpayer money is spent responsibly and that the focus remains on creating environments that genuinely enhance student learning outcomes.
Los Angeles Community College Board District 1 - Andra Hoffman
Candidate Profile:
Andra Hoffman has been a dedicated member of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) Board of Trustees since 2015 and currently serves as the Chair of the Budget & Finance Committee, overseeing a $5.8 billion budget that serves over 250,000 students across nine community colleges. Hoffman’s career spans over 20 years, during which she has worked tirelessly at Glendale Community College, where she has helped students through the Career and Transfer Centers to obtain degrees and secure employment opportunities. She is also a passionate advocate for education equity, supporting undocumented students and actively promoting initiatives that increase access to higher education for all. Additionally, Hoffman has been a strong proponent of affordable student housing, understanding that many students face significant challenges with the high cost of living in Los Angeles.
Why We Strongly Endorse Andra Hoffman:
Thrive LA PAC strongly endorses Andra Hoffman for her pragmatic leadership and commitment to fiscal responsibility, ensuring that LACCD’s vast budget is used efficiently to support students. Hoffman’s work in helping students find career opportunities is directly aligned with our pro-small business values, as her efforts contribute to a more skilled and employable workforce. Additionally, Hoffman’s focus on creating affordable student housing and improving access to education through initiatives like the College Promise Program, which allows students to attend community college tuition-free for two years, reflects her practical approach to solving real-world problems faced by students. Her leadership has also prioritized job readiness and career pathways, making her the ideal candidate for re-election.
Los Angeles County Measures
Los Angeles County Measure A
VOTE NO
Summary:
Measure A proposes a half-cent sales tax on all goods sold in Los Angeles County, intended to fund homelessness services and affordable housing. If passed, it would replace the existing Measure H (which expires in 2027) and would generate approximately $1.1 billion annually. The funds would be used to support mental health and addiction treatment, affordable housing construction, and homelessness prevention programs. Unlike Measure H, Measure A would remain in place indefinitely without any sunset clause.
Why We Oppose Measure A:
Thrive LA PAC strongly opposes Measure A for several reasons. While homelessness is undeniably a critical issue in Los Angeles, we believe that simply raising taxes to continue funding programs that have failed to deliver enduring and measurable results is not a sustainable solution. Despite Measure H raising hundreds of millions annually since 2017, homelessness has increased by 37% during that period, proving that the existing approaches are ineffective. Moreover, increasing the sales tax would disproportionately impact working-class families and small businesses, who are already struggling to cope with rising inflation. This additional permanent “forever tax” would place an unnecessary permanent burden on consumers without guaranteeing a reduction in homelessness. We need to explore more innovative and efficient solutions that do not rely on continually raising taxes on the public. Instead of creating more bureaucracy, we advocate for more targeted, accountable measures that address the root causes of homelessness.
Measure E - Emergency Response and Infrastructure Parcel Tax
VOTE NO
Summary:
Measure E proposes a parcel tax of six cents per square foot on properties within the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District, which includes 58 of the county’s 88 cities and all unincorporated areas. The measure aims to raise approximately $152 million annually to address critical infrastructure needs for the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The funds would be used to hire more paramedics and firefighters, replace outdated fire engines and helicopters, upgrade rescue tools, and modernize the 911 communications system. It also includes an exemption for low-income seniors and establishes independent citizen oversight to ensure proper use of the funds.
Why We Oppose Measure E:
While public safety is a top priority for Thrive LA PAC, we oppose Measure E due to its impact on property owners, particularly small businesses. The additional tax burden would disproportionately affect property owners at a time when many are already struggling with rising operational costs. Increasing the financial load on businesses could discourage investment, reduce economic growth, and potentially result in higher costs passed on to consumers.
Moreover, while the Fire Department’s needs are important, we believe there are more efficient ways to allocate existing resources for public safety without resorting to additional taxes. Los Angeles County should explore alternatives such as better fiscal management or reallocation of current funds to meet these needs, rather than adding yet another tax that could stifle the local economy.
Los Angeles County Measure G
VOTE NO on Measure G
Summary:
Measure G proposes expanding the LA County Board of Supervisors from five to nine seats, each representing a smaller portion of the county’s population. It also seeks to create an elected County Executive Officer, who is currently appointed by the Board, and establish an independent Ethics Commission and a nonpartisan Legislative Analyst to review policies. The goal is to enhance representation, accountability, and transparency.
Why We Oppose Measure G:
Thrive LA PAC opposes Measure G because it feels rushed and lacks the necessary research to fully understand its impacts. Expanding the Board of Supervisors may lead to fragmented decision-making and inefficiency, without resolving the underlying governance challenges. Additionally, creating an elected County Executive could shift focus to political maneuvering rather than practical problem-solving.
Instead of expanding bureaucracy, we support streamlining current processes and improving resource allocation to achieve accountability and transparency without adding more layers of government. We encourage voters to demand data-driven solutions before making such significant changes.
Los Angeles County District Attorney
Los Angeles County District Attorney - Nathan Hochman
Candidate Profile:
Nathan Hochman is a highly respected legal professional with over three decades of experience. He has served as a U.S. Assistant Attorney General, where he worked on high-profile cases involving organized crime, public corruption, and environmental crimes. He has also served as a federal prosecutor, bringing to justice criminals engaged in drug trafficking and fraud. His platform is centered on restoring law and order in Los Angeles, ensuring that the legal system prioritizes both public safety and justice for victims. Hochman is committed to creating a balanced, efficient justice system that combines strong prosecution with necessary reforms to reduce racial disparities without undermining law enforcement efforts.
Hochman’s experience extends to private practice, where he has represented individuals in complex white-collar cases, giving him a well-rounded perspective on the criminal justice system from both the prosecution and defense sides. He strongly believes in victims’ rights and is critical of policies that overlook their needs. Throughout his career, he has worked to ensure that justice is served, while also advocating for reforms that prevent overreach within the legal system.
Why We Endorse Nathan Hochman:
Thrive LA PAC strongly supports Nathan Hochman because he stands for a balanced, pragmatic approach to criminal justice that is sorely needed after the failures of George Gascón’s administration. Under Gascón, Los Angeles has seen a surge in crime, particularly in property crimes like retail theft and organized shoplifting, which have directly harmed small businesses. These crimes have skyrocketed due to Gascón’s policies that decriminalized or drastically reduced penalties for offenses that were once prosecuted with greater severity.
Gascón’s refusal to prosecute certain crimes and his elimination of sentence enhancements for violent offenders have created an environment where criminals feel emboldened, knowing they won’t face serious consequences. Homicide rates, although they have fluctuated, remain a concern, and property crimes have risen by 20% since Gascón took office. These policies have been pro-criminal and anti-victim, leading to a breakdown in public safety across Los Angeles.
Hochman has made it clear that he will restore accountability by reversing Gascón’s blanket policies that have resulted in lax law enforcement. Unlike Gascón, who eliminated cash bail and chose not to pursue serious charges against repeat offenders, Hochman supports prosecuting violent crimes fully, including using appropriate sentencing enhancements to ensure that serious criminals face consequences that fit their crimes. He also emphasizes proactive law enforcement and victim advocacy, ensuring that those affected by crime have their voices heard and their rights protected.
A key part of Hochman’s platform is victims’ rights. He is determined to shift the focus back to those who have been hurt by crime, particularly in minority communities, where many victims of violence and theft reside. Hochman understands that Gascón’s policies, while intended to reduce incarceration, have actually made these communities less safe by ignoring the needs of victims and undermining public safety. Hochman’s approach involves both holding criminals accountable and ensuring that disparities in sentencing are addressed through targeted reforms, rather than blanket policies that leave neighborhoods vulnerable.
In contrast to Gascón’s controversial tenure, which has been marked by growing dissatisfaction from both law enforcement and the general public, Hochman offers a platform rooted in common-sense reform. He believes in protecting communities, holding criminals accountable, and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools they need to combat rising crime effectively. For these reasons, Thrive LA PAC believes Nathan Hochman is the right choice to bring stability, safety, and justice back to Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Office 39 - Steve Napolitano
Candidate Profile:
Steve Napolitano is a seasoned public servant and attorney, with over 30 years of experience serving the people of Los Angeles County. He is a five-term Mayor and City Councilmember of Manhattan Beach, where he worked tirelessly to improve public safety, environmental quality, and local governance. In addition to his public service, Napolitano has served as a state-appointed parole attorney, representing inmates before the Board of Parole Hearings, advocating for second chances where deserved while ensuring public safety is a priority. He has also been an Administrative Hearing Officer for multiple cities and counties across California, handling cases that involve significant penalties and civil disputes, which gives him a broad understanding of the legal system from various perspectives.
Napolitano’s platform is built on his pragmatic decision-making skills, emphasizing fairness, respect, and justice for all parties involved. He believes that a judge should apply both consequences and compassion where necessary, ensuring that justice is served but also that people are given a chance to turn their lives around when appropriate. Napolitano’s diverse background in local government, law, and decision-making equips him with the unique ability to handle the complexities of cases that come before the Superior Court.
Why We Endorse Steve Napolitano:
Thrive LA PAC supports Steve Napolitano because he brings a fresh, practical perspective to the role of judge. His extensive experience in both public service and the legal system makes him uniquely qualified to handle the challenges of a Superior Court Judge. As a former Mayor and Councilmember, he understands the issues that matter most to our communities, from public safety to housing and infrastructure, and how they intersect with the law. His time as an Administrative Hearing Officer and a parole attorney has given him the experience to weigh complex cases, assess evidence, and make fair, informed decisions that balance accountability with opportunity for rehabilitation.
Napolitano’s commitment to public safety aligns closely with Thrive LA PAC’s values. He has consistently worked to ensure that communities are safe, and he understands the importance of holding offenders accountable while also providing pathways for reform when appropriate. His platform focuses on fairness and integrity, and he is committed to making the law work for everyone—whether it’s protecting victims or giving individuals a second chance when warranted. Napolitano’s pragmatic approach, combined with his deep understanding of the law and its impact on everyday life, makes him an ideal candidate for Los Angeles Superior Court.
In short, Napolitano will bring balanced leadership to the bench, rooted in his experience as a decision-maker in both legal and civic roles. We believe his track record of integrity, fairness, and respect will contribute greatly to the administration of justice in Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Office 48 - Renee Rose
Candidate Profile:
Renee Rose has spent over 30 years as a prosecutor, with extensive experience in some of the most critical areas of criminal law, including the Hardcore Gang Unit, Major Narcotics Division, and the Arson and Explosives Unit. Currently, she leads the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Unit at the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, where she oversees the prosecution of crimes against senior citizens and vulnerable adults. Rose is known for her dedication to victims’ rights, particularly in her work protecting the elderly from abuse, fraud, and exploitation.
In addition to her courtroom work, Rose has been active in the community, training law enforcement officers, attorneys, and elder-advocacy groups on how to handle crimes involving vulnerable populations. She has also given numerous presentations to help seniors avoid becoming victims of financial scams. Rose’s commitment to justice extends beyond the courtroom—she is deeply involved in community service and advocacy, mentoring students and working to raise awareness about elder abuse.
Why We Endorse Renee Rose:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Renee Rose because she brings real-world experience and victim-centered advocacy to the bench, qualities we highly value in a judicial candidate. Her leadership in prosecuting crimes against some of the most vulnerable populations in society demonstrates her commitment to public safety and justice. Rose’s experience in handling complex cases across various divisions of the District Attorney’s Office, including her current focus on elder abuse, shows that she is prepared to make fair, informed decisions as a judge.
Her platform is rooted in the principles of fairness, accountability, and protecting victims’ rights, making her an ideal candidate for the Superior Court. Rose’s hands-on approach to addressing the needs of vulnerable individuals and her community involvement align closely with our values of pragmatic leadership and public safety. As a judge, she will ensure that justice is served while also maintaining compassion and fairness, which is critical in a balanced judiciary. Her decades of prosecutorial experience, particularly in safeguarding seniors and those with disabilities, will be instrumental in ensuring that justice is upheld for all.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Office 97 - Sharon Ransom
Candidate Profile:
Sharon Ransom has built a reputation for being a fair-minded and thoughtful legal professional with significant experience as a prosecutor and trial attorney. Throughout her career, Ransom has specialized in handling cases that involve public safety, focusing on prosecuting violent crimes, drug trafficking, and organized crime. Ransom is committed to ensuring that both victims and defendants are treated fairly within the legal system. Her dedication to law enforcement and justice for victims of serious crimes has earned her respect from colleagues and the community alike.
Why We Endorse Sharon Ransom:
We support Sharon Ransom because of her balanced approach to the law. Her experience prosecuting complex cases involving violent offenders ensures that she understands the need for strong consequences for those who endanger public safety, while also advocating for fair and just trials. Ransom’s background in addressing organized crime and serious offenses makes her the ideal candidate to handle the challenging cases that will come before the Superior Court. Her no-nonsense approach to public safety aligns with our belief in holding offenders accountable while ensuring that justice is served in a manner that benefits the entire community.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Office 135 - Steven Yee Mac
Candidate Profile:
Steven Yee Mac is a respected attorney with a strong background in criminal justice, known for his ability to navigate the complexities of the law while maintaining a firm commitment to public safety. Mac has built a career focusing on the prosecution of drug-related offenses, organized crime, and cases involving serious criminal activity. His understanding of the nuances involved in criminal law makes him a dedicated advocate for victims while ensuring that the rights of the accused are upheld.
Why We Endorse Steven Yee Mac:
Thrive LA PAC supports Steven Yee Mac because his commitment to law and order is critical for maintaining a safe and secure community. His work in prosecuting serious criminal activity, particularly organized crime, demonstrates his ability to make tough decisions that protect the public while maintaining the integrity of the justice system. Mac’s experience dealing with high-stakes cases makes him an invaluable addition to the bench, ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and effectively.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Office 137 - Tracey Blount
Candidate Profile:
Tracey Blount is a legal professional with a proven track record in the criminal justice system. With years of experience as both a prosecutor and a trial attorney, Blount has dedicated her career to protecting public safety and advocating for victims’ rights. Her deep understanding of criminal law and her commitment to holding offenders accountable makes her an ideal candidate for Superior Court Judge.
Why We Endorse Tracey Blount:
We endorse Tracey Blount because of her no-nonsense approach to crime and her dedication to victims’ advocacy. Blount’s commitment to public safety and her experience in prosecuting serious offenses align with our values of maintaining a strong judicial system that prioritizes accountability and fairness. Her ability to balance the needs of the community with the rights of the accused makes her an excellent choice for this judicial position.
These judicial candidates bring a wealth of experience and dedication to public safety and justice, and we believe they will uphold the law with integrity and fairness, making them ideal choices for the Superior Court of Los Angeles.
City of Santa Monica – Phil Brock, Oscar de la Torre, Vivian Roknian, John Putnam
Phil Brock:
Candidate Profile:
Phil Brock, the current Mayor of Santa Monica, has served as a longtime advocate for public safety, local businesses, and resident well-being. Brock has been a staunch supporter of increasing police resources in response to rising crime, while also prioritizing efforts to tackle the city’s homeless crisis with dignity and effectiveness. His focus on public safety and accountability has earned him endorsements from law enforcement unions. With decades of experience in civic leadership, he emphasizes a balanced approach to growth and public services, ensuring that Santa Monica remains both a safe and vibrant community.
Why We Endorse Phil Brock:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Phil Brock for his decisive leadership and dedication to public safety. Under his leadership, the city has taken tangible steps to address the growing crime rates and implement community-based solutions for homelessness. Brock’s clear commitment to increasing police presence and reducing crime aligns with our values, making him a key player in restoring a sense of safety and security in Santa Monica. Brock’s pragmatic approach to governance, combined with his long-standing ties to the local business community, ensures that he will continue to foster an environment where businesses can thrive while keeping residents safe.
Oscar de la Torre:
Candidate Profile:
Oscar de la Torre is an incumbent Santa Monica City Council member with a background in social work and education. De la Torre has been a vocal advocate for affordable housing, homelessness solutions, and community empowerment. His work focuses on building a more inclusive city, providing support services to vulnerable populations, and addressing mental health and substance abuse issues related to homelessness. De la Torre is also committed to public safety, supporting efforts to bolster police resources while working on preventative measures to reduce crime.
Why We Endorse Oscar de la Torre:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Oscar de la Torre for his holistic approach to community safety and affordable housing. While de la Torre’s focus on social services and homelessness prevention is crucial, he also recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong police force to tackle rising crime. His leadership has been instrumental in pushing for both preventative measures and law enforcement support, making him a well-rounded candidate who can effectively balance public safety with compassionate policies.
Vivian Roknian:
Candidate Profile:
Vivian Roknian is a small business owner and long-time Santa Monica resident who is running for City Council with a focus on public safety, small business advocacy, and community well-being. As a first-time candidate, Roknian brings a fresh perspective to the council, with a commitment to reducing crime, particularly focusing on addressing issues like shoplifting that affect local businesses. She also supports increasing the number of sworn police officers in the city, emphasizing the importance of a well-staffed police force to maintain public safety.
Why We Endorse Vivian Roknian:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Vivian Roknian because of her dedication to public safety and her firsthand experience as a small business owner. Roknian’s commitment to hiring more police officers and addressing the specific concerns of local businesses, such as rising shoplifting, aligns with Thrive LA PAC’s pro-small business stance. Her platform promises to address Santa Monica’s crime wave with practical solutions, making her an excellent addition to the City Council.
John Putnam:
Candidate Profile:
John Putnam is a 30-year Santa Monica resident and business owner who is running for City Council with a focus on restoring public safety and improving the city’s handling of the homelessness crisis. Putnam supports policies that balance the need for supportive housing with public safety, advocating for housing solutions that are appropriately located away from schools and parks. He also emphasizes the importance of revitalizing local businesses by ensuring that Santa Monica’s streets are safe and welcoming for residents and tourists alike.
Why We Endorse John Putnam:
Thrive LA PAC supports John Putnam for his pro-small business, pro-safety platform. Putnam understands the delicate balance between supporting homeless services and ensuring public safety in public spaces. His dedication to common-sense safety policies and supporting local businesses aligns perfectly with our vision for a more prosperous and secure Santa Monica. Putnam’s leadership will be crucial in addressing the city’s pressing safety concerns while fostering a thriving business environment.
Together, these candidates make up the “Safer Santa Monica” slate, with a shared commitment to addressing the crime surge, enhancing public safety, and revitalizing the city’s economy through strong law enforcement and business-friendly policies.
City of Culver City – Albert Vera, Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin, Denice Renteria
Albert Vera:
Candidate Profile:
Albert Vera is a current Culver City Councilmember and former Mayor with a deep commitment to public service and the community. He is a small business owner with roots in Culver City, having operated local businesses like Sorrento Italian Market. Vera has been an advocate for fiscal responsibility, supporting policies that balance the city’s budget while maintaining and enhancing public services. He is a strong supporter of public safety, believing that well-resourced law enforcement is crucial to ensuring the city remains a safe and prosperous place for residents and businesses alike.
Why We Endorse Albert Vera:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Albert Vera for his pro-small business stance and his commitment to public safety. Vera has consistently demonstrated his dedication to creating an environment where businesses can thrive while keeping the community safe. His policies focus on ensuring that the police department is well-funded and equipped, which is crucial given the rising concerns about crime and public safety. Vera’s understanding of local businesses and fiscal responsibility aligns with Thrive LA PAC’s values, making him an ideal candidate to continue leading Culver City in a direction that supports both economic growth and public safety.
Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin:
Candidate Profile:
Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin is an incumbent Culver City Councilmember with a background in education advocacy and community engagement. She has served as a champion for sustainable development, focusing on policies that protect the environment while encouraging smart growth. Wisnosky Stehlin has a strong commitment to public safety, and during her time on the Council, she has supported increasing police resources and creating a balance between supporting social services and law enforcement.
Why We Endorse Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin:
Thrive LA PAC supports Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin for her balanced approach to governance. She brings a pragmatic perspective that aligns well with Thrive LA PAC’s pro-small business, pro-public safety platform. Wisnosky Stehlin understands the need to foster an environment where businesses can grow, but not at the expense of public safety or community well-being. Her track record of supporting smart growth policies and her commitment to ensuring Culver City remains safe and vibrant makes her an ideal candidate for re-election.
Denice Renteria:
Candidate Profile:
Denice Renteria serves on the Equity and Human Relations Advisory Committee in Culver City and has been an advocate for increasing resources for vulnerable populations while ensuring that public safety remains a priority. Renteria has focused on bridging the gap between community services and law enforcement, aiming to create a safer city for all residents. Her background in community advocacy has helped her develop a nuanced understanding of the needs of different groups within Culver City, making her a strong voice for inclusive, yet pragmatic policies.
Why We Endorse Denice Renteria:
Thrive LA PAC endorses Denice Renteria because of her commitment to public safety and her practical approach to addressing the city’s challenges. Renteria recognizes the importance of maintaining a well-resourced police department while also addressing underlying social issues through community support services. Her balanced stance aligns with Thrive LA PAC’s vision of a city that is both safe and supportive, where businesses and residents can prosper together. Renteria’s focus on ensuring equity without sacrificing safety makes her an ideal candidate for the Culver City Council.
These candidates, Vera, Wisnosky Stehlin, and Renteria, share Thrive LA PAC’s vision of pragmatic leadership, a commitment to public safety, and pro-small business policies that ensure Culver City remains a place where both businesses and communities can thrive. Their focus on fiscal responsibility and smart governance makes them the right team to lead Culver City forward.
City of West Hollywood - George Nickle
Candidate Profile:
George Nickle has been a resident of West Hollywood for 19 years and currently serves on the city’s Public Safety Commission. He is a longtime advocate for public safety, having established a Neighborhood Watch Group in 2018, which has since become a model for local community policing efforts. Nickle’s platform is built around common-sense governance, focusing on making West Hollywood a safer and more livable city. His priorities include a fully funded and staffed Sheriff’s Station, addressing issues like homelessness and public safety, and ensuring that the city balances development with the needs of its current residents. He is endorsed by key law enforcement figures, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert G. Luna, underscoring his commitment to public safety.
Why We Endorse George Nickle:
Thrive LA PAC endorses George Nickle because of his unwavering dedication to public safety and his practical approach to tackling the challenges that West Hollywood faces today. His leadership in establishing community-driven initiatives like the Neighborhood Watch reflects his commitment to creating a city where residents feel safe and supported. Nickle’s focus on fully funding the Sheriff’s Station is crucial as the city deals with rising concerns about crime and safety.
Nickle also stands out for his approach to homelessness. He has advocated for data-driven solutions to issues like homelessness and urban growth. His pragmatic leadership ensures that growth is balanced with the need to maintain livable neighborhoods, making him an ideal candidate for West Hollywood’s City Council. His approach aligns with Thrive LA PAC’s values of pro-housing, pro-public safety, and common-sense governance, ensuring that residents and businesses can thrive.
LA City Council District 2 - Adrin Nazarian
LA City Council District 14 - NO on Ysabel Jurado
