A recent email from the California Self Storage Association relayed this joint statement made by Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable; Rob Gutierrez, president and CEO of the California Taxpayers Association; and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association, in response to the passage of ACA 22:
“As co-chairs of the Local Taxpayer Protection Act committee, we strongly support the compromise negotiated between the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, legislative leaders, and the Governor's Office to directly address California's cost-of-living crisis by restoring critical taxpayer protections that voters originally enacted through Propositions 13 and 218 but that have been eroded by court decisions in recent years. This measure reaffirms the principle that taxpayers should have a meaningful voice before local governments impose future new or higher taxes or fees, while providing greater certainty, transparency, and accountability for taxpayers and public agencies.
"California families and employers continue to face some of the highest housing, energy, and everyday living costs in the nation. Strengthening these taxpayer protections is an important step toward improving affordability and restoring public confidence in government.
"At the same time, we welcome the opportunity to work with Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nythia Raman, affordable housing leaders, and the Los Angeles business community to address the ongoing problems with Measure ULA and help unfreeze the real estate market, especially for affordable housing and commercial investment."
Although CA 22 does not directly regulate self-storage operators, it could have a meaningful financial and development impact on California's self-storage industry because it changes how local governments can approve certain taxes.
ACA 22, which will appear on California's November 2026 ballot as Proposition 43, would restore the requirement that all new or increased local special taxes, including those proposed by voter initiative, must receive two-thirds voter approval. The measure is intended to reverse California Supreme Court decisions that allowed citizen initiatives imposing special taxes to pass with only a simple majority. If approved, the changes would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
The potential impacts on self-storage businesses include:
1. Fewer local tax increases affecting operating costs - Self-storage owners could face fewer new local taxes because cities and counties would have a higher hurdle before adopting special taxes. Examples include taxes used to fund infrastructure, homelessness programs, public safety, climate initiatives, and transportation improvements. Many of these taxes ultimately affect commercial property owners through higher business costs or assessments. ACA 22 would make those taxes harder to enact.
2. More certainty for investors and developers - Institutional investors generally favor predictable tax environments. For self-storage developers, greater certainty regarding future local tax measures can improve underwriting, long-term operating projections, capitalization rates, and financing assumptions. While ACA 22 doesn't reduce existing taxes, it may reduce uncertainty about future local tax increases.
3. Development costs could become more predictable - Many California self-storage projects already contend with lengthy entitlement processes, impact fees, construction costs, and insurance expenses. If fewer special tax measures are approved, future operating expenses associated with local taxation may become somewhat more predictable.
For self-storage operators, ACA 22 does not:
Those areas remain governed by existing state and local laws.
For self-storage owners, REITs, and developers, ACA 22 is generally viewed as a pro-business measure because it makes future local special tax increases more difficult to approve, provides greater tax certainty for investment decisions, may improve underwriting for new development and acquisitions, and could help moderate future increases in local operating costs.
However, it is not expected to materially change day-to-day operations of existing facilities. Its primary impact would be on the long-term tax and investment environment for commercial real estate in California.