Burbank does not need City Council districts. It needs five council members who answer to the entire community—and voters who retain the authority to decide how those council members are elected.
That is why I urge a no vote on both Measure CC and Measure CD.
These measures address different questions, but together they could fundamentally change the relationship between Burbank residents and their elected representatives. Neither change is one I believe our city needs.
Today, every Burbank voter can help choose every member of the City Council over the course of its staggered elections. We vote for three seats in one election and two in the next. Every council member faces the same citywide electorate.
Under the district system proposed by Measure CD, your vote would be limited to the single council seat assigned to your geographic district. You would vote for that representative once every four years. You would have no vote in choosing the other four council members, even though their decisions would still affect your neighborhood, your city services and Burbank’s future.
That is a substantial loss of electoral influence.
Supporters of districts may argue that a neighborhood gains a representative of its own. My concern is what residents give up in exchange: the ability to hold all five council members accountable at the ballot box.
A district boundary would not prevent you from contacting another council member. But contacting someone and having a vote in whether that person keeps their job are two very different things.
I want every council member to have a reason to listen to every Burbank resident.
The Risk of Dividing a Small City
Burbank is a small city with shared concerns. Traffic, public safety, development, infrastructure and city finances do not stop at district lines.
Dividing the electorate into five pieces could encourage council members to focus on securing something for their own districts instead of considering what serves Burbank as a whole.
My concern is that projects could become bargaining chips: support mine, and I will support yours. Cooperation is necessary in government, but the public deserves decisions based on a project’s merits, with the reasoning explained openly.
District elections do not automatically produce backroom deals or corruption. But they do not protect us from those problems, either. We should question whether creating smaller political territories would make our council more accountable—or simply change how influence is exercised.
The same concern applies to campaign money. A developer or other outside interest could concentrate resources on a race involving only a portion of Burbank’s voters while seeking decisions that affect the entire city.
Outside influence is a concern under any election system. I do not see how reducing the number of voters a candidate must answer to solves it.
What Problem Are We Solving?
The City Attorney’s analysis states that these measures arose from a settlement of litigation under the California Voting Rights Act.
That explains why the question is on the ballot. It does not, by itself, persuade me that districts would improve Burbank’s government.
Our community has elected council members of different genders and ethnic backgrounds through citywide elections. That alone does not settle every question about representation, but it should be part of an honest discussion about whether our system needs to be replaced.
Before surrendering the ability to vote for all five council seats, residents should demand a clear explanation of how having a vote for only one would better serve them.
Consider the school board’s move to district elections. Do you know which school board district you live in? Do you know when you can next vote for its representative? Do you feel more connected to the board because of that boundary?
Those are practical questions about whether districts deliver the engagement and accountability their supporters promise.
Measure CC Deserves Just as Much Attention
Voting against Measure CD is only half the decision.
Measure CC would remove the City Charter’s requirement that council members be elected at large. According to City Attorney Joseph McDougall’s impartial analysis, the election method could then be established by an ordinance adopted by the council or the voters.
The analysis specifically explains that, even if Measure CD fails, approval of CC would allow the council or voters to adopt a different district election ordinance and map.
Think about that: voters could reject the district proposal on this ballot while giving the council authority to adopt another one.
CC would not give the council unlimited power to rewrite the Charter, and changing election methods by ordinance would not mean public input disappears. But it would remove the existing requirement that voters approve a Charter amendment to change the at-large system.
To me, that distinction is decisive. Public comment is valuable. The public’s final say is more valuable.
Supporters call CC flexibility. I believe the method we use to elect our representatives is important enough to keep under direct voter control.
If both measures pass, district elections under Map 130 would begin with Districts 2 and 4 in 2028, followed by Districts 1, 3 and 5 in 2030. If both fail, our current at-large system remains.
Burbank’s government is not beyond criticism. But dividing the city into districts is no guarantee of better representation, better judgment or greater fiscal responsibility.
Every resident should have a vote in choosing the entire council. And voters should retain the power to approve any departure from that system.
Keep Burbank’s elections at large. Vote no on Measure CC and Measure CD.
Vote Yes on Measure C—Visitors Should Help Support Burbank
Measure C should be a no-brainer for Burbank voters.
When visitors put their heads on pillows in our hotels and motels, they get more than a room. They benefit from our fire department, police department, emergency response and the city services that make Burbank a desirable place to stay.
People get more when they stay here. Asking them to contribute a little more toward those services is reasonable.
Measure C would increase Burbank’s hotel tax from 10% to 12%, generating an estimated $3 million annually in locally controlled funding. That money could help maintain public safety, parks, recreation programs and other essential services.
For someone booking a $200 room, the increase amounts to $4 per night. That is a modest contribution toward maintaining the community surrounding their hotel.
This would be Burbank’s first hotel tax adjustment since 1983. The cost of providing city services certainly has not stood still for more than four decades. Our revenue policies should reflect that reality.
According to the city, the proposed rate would also bring Burbank in line with nearby Glendale and Pasadena.
The tax is paid by hotel and motel guests, including residents who book local stays. Residents would not pay it simply because they live in Burbank.
Visitors use our roads, public spaces and emergency services. They should help support them alongside the residents and businesses already investing in this community.
City Hall must still spend responsibly and explain how this additional revenue benefits Burbank. Supporting Measure C does not mean giving officials a pass on accountability.
It means recognizing that maintaining a quality city costs money, and visitors share in the benefits.
Burbank offers real value to those who stay here. A modest increase in the hotel tax is a fair way to help preserve it.
Vote yes on Measure C.
Craig Sherwood, Executive Editor, President of myBurbank.com Inc.
