L.A. voters turning down measure to raise hotel bed tax ahead of Olympics 42%

By Sandra McDonald0%

6/4/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 19% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 801 faulty-reasoning hits from 574 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.8% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,890 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.90% of the article peer group.

Los Angeles voters were giving thumbs down to a measure that would raise the city’s hotel bed tax ahead of the 2028 Olympics, while also extending the tax to short-term rentals booked through companies like Airbnb and Expedia. 
Votes were still being counted Wednesday, but preliminary results from Tuesday’s primary had Measure TT falling short of the majority needed for passage. 
If approved, Measure TT would raise the tax rate for hotel rooms from 14% to 16% until the end of 2028, staying at 15% thereafter. 
With a flood of visitors expected for the 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Summer Olympics, city officials have projected that passage of TC would generate $44 million annually through 2028 and $22 million annually after that. 
“The Olympics are an opportunity to add some jet fuel to our visitor-serving community,” Councilmember Tim McOsker said earlier this year, when the council voted to place the measure on the ballot. 
Business groups said the tax increase would negatively impact the hotel industry, which is already reeling from a lack of demand and the threat of incoming increased minimum wages. 
Central City Assn. president and chief executive Nella McOsker, the council member’s daughter, opposed the measure on behalf of the L.A. advocacy organization. 
“At a time when you’re seeing these declines in demand and losing on tax revenue year over year to the magnitude of $20 million, it just seems like a wrong time to impose more burdens on that shrinking base,” she told The Times in May. 
On a related issue, voters appeared poised to approve a separate ballot measure that would require online travel companies and other intermediaries to pay the city’s hotel tax based on the markup price they charge to customers, and not the discount price they paid for the room. 
There were significantly more “yes” votes than “no” votes for Measure TC in preliminary returns. 
If approved, the measure could raise $5 million per year for sidewalk and street repairs, parks and other necessary services, according to city estimates. 
City officials have sought to characterize the measure as closing a loophole that gave travel companies like Hotels.com and Trivago a discounted bed tax rate. 
Voters were also favoring Measure CB by a wide margin in preliminary returns. 
It would require cannabis businesses operating without a business license to pay the same tax on gross receipts that legal businesses pay, including 10% on cannabis sales, 5% on medical cannabis sales and 2% on manufacturing, cultivation or other commercialization. 
In order to operate legally, cannabis businesses must be licensed with the state and city and follow a list of regulations depending on whether they sell, cultivate, manufacture, test or deliver cannabis. 
City officials said they were less interested in actually collecting the taxes from unlicensed businesses, which would be difficult, and more in using it as a tool to go after them in court. 
Supporters at City Hall, including Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, had called the ballot measure a “loophole” fix that would allow the city to take delinquent businesses to court for taxes and shut them down. 
Operators of legally sanctioned cannabis retailers have long said that their tax burden is too high, allowing illegal businesses to outpace them by selling product for less. 
Some opposed the measure, though, arguing it legitimized illegal businesses and could give the city a reason to keep them around. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Sandra McDonald: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect19.0%This article: 7.8%Sandra McDonald: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion7.8%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Sandra McDonald: 3.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Sandra McDonald: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 4.7%Sandra McDonald: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Sandra McDonald: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.7%Sandra McDonald: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.9%Sandra McDonald: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon4.9%This article: 11.3%Sandra McDonald: 3.8%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion11.3%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.5%Sandra McDonald: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.5%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.8%Sandra McDonald: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 5.6%Sandra McDonald: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 14.6%Sandra McDonald: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice14.6%This article: 3.7%Sandra McDonald: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination3.7%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sandra McDonald: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Sandra McDonald: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.7%

574 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers28%attributed speech412writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageTim McOsker • 32 words • 100.0% coveragebusiness groups • 29 words • 0.0% coverageNella McOsker • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNella McOsker • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageKaty Yaroslavsky • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Katy Yaroslavsky

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words20% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+87.6 ptsWriter: 12.4%Katy Yaroslavsky: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Katy Yaroslavsky: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Katy Yaroslavsky: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.