Protect Laguna Beach's Future

Keep Laguna Laguna. 
We are a small town run by passionate, engaged locals with one of the highest voter turnout rates in the county. We don't need a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem we don't have.

What's the Problem?  
Only 2 people have ever been elected to more than 3 consecutive terms in Laguna Beach.  We've voted out incumbents after a single term for good reasons. Three members of the current council are in their first terms.

Who benefits from term limits? A landmark study drawing on data from all 50 states, found that when experienced lawmakers are forced out, power shifts to overpaid lobbyists and unelected staff.﻿
Who is behind Measure E?  
It's the same disgruntled people who brought us Measure Q in 2022, which was defeated by a two-to-one margin and a former council member who was voted out after one term. That is a bad reason to change a rule that is not broken.

Experience is critital.Wildfire risk, coastal erosion, and emergency planning take years to understand — term limits force out leaders just as they've mastered these issues. (Better examples needed)

	Voters lose the ability to protect what's working. 
If a council member is effectively safeguarding the community's well-being, term limits take away the voters' right to keep them.
A revolving council weakens accountability on critical issues. 
Inexperienced members lean more on staff, shifting decisions on safety and infrastructure away from the people voters actually elected.  
Lame-duck leaders have less reason to stay invested. Once a term limit is looming, council members have less incentive to fully commit to the city's long-term future.
	Laguna Beach doesn't have a turnover problem to fix. Voters already replace underperforming leaders — 3 of 5 current members are first-termers — so forcing out effective ones only risks losing hard-won expertise on safety and environmental issues.
	No substitute exists for accountable leadership. Boards and commissions can advise, but only the council can hold staff accountable for how safety, environmental, and infrastructure decisions are carried out.
	Term limits don't protect the city from bad actors. Neighboring cities with term limits still saw corruption — meaning the real safeguard is voter vigilance, not artificial turnover.
Voters already choose experience when it matters. Top vote-getter Bob Whalen's continued support shows residents trust proven leadership on the issues that shape the city's future — infrastructure, safety, and long-term planning.
	Even well-funded incumbents can lose. In 2024, voters replaced an outspent incumbent anyway — proof the city doesn't need term limits to remove leaders who aren't serving its best interests.

Keep Laguna Laguna. We are a small town run by passionate, engaged locals with one of the highest voter turnout rates in the county. We don't need a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem we don't have.

What's the Problem? Only 2 people have ever been elected to more than 3 consecutive terms in Laguna Beach. We've voted out incumbents after a single term for good reasons. Three members of the current council are in their first terms.

Who benefits from term limits?

A landmark study drawing on data from all 50 states, found that when experienced lawmakers are forced out, power shifts to overpaid lobbyists and unelected staff.

﻿

Who is behind Measure E? It's the same disgruntled people who brought us Measure Q in 2022, which was defeated by a two-to-one margin and a former council member who was voted out after one term. That is a bad reason to change a rule that is not broken.

Experience is critital.

A revolving council weakens accountability on critical issues. Inexperienced members lean more on staff, shifting decisions on safety and infrastructure away from the people voters actually elected.

Lame-duck leaders have less reason to stay invested.

Once a term limit is looming, council members have less incentive to fully commit to the city's long-term future.

Laguna Beach doesn't have a turnover problem to fix.

Voters already replace underperforming leaders — 3 of 5 current members are first-termers — so forcing out effective ones only risks losing hard-won expertise on safety and environmental issues.

No substitute exists for accountable leadership.

Boards and commissions can advise, but only the council can hold staff accountable for how safety, environmental, and infrastructure decisions are carried out.

Term limits don't protect the city from bad actors.

Neighboring cities with term limits still saw corruption — meaning the real safeguard is voter vigilance, not artificial turnover.

Voters already choose experience when it matters.

Top vote-getter Bob Whalen's continued support shows residents trust proven leadership on the issues that shape the city's future — infrastructure, safety, and long-term planning.

Even well-funded incumbents can lose.

In 2024, voters replaced an outspent incumbent anyway — proof the city doesn't need term limits to remove leaders who aren't serving its best interests.