Loading...
15 (01) Susana Barrios From:Nicholas Johnson <nicholasjohnson@lyft.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:32 AM To:Public Comment Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] Lyft Opposition Letter - Tourism Mobility Tax Attachments:Lyft Opposition Letter - Tourism Mobility Tax.pdf You don't often get email from nicholasjohnson@lyft.com. Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Hello - Please see the attached opposition letter regarding Item 15 in today's City Council Agenda: the proposed Tourism Mobility Tax. Thanks, -- Nick Johnson Sr. Director of Public Policy, State & Local (650) 339-6267 | nicholasjohnson@lyft.com The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 1 July 28, 2026 Anaheim City Council 200 South Anaheim Boulevard 7th Floor Anaheim, CA 93805 Dear Honorable Members of the Anaheim City Council, I am writing on behalf of Lyft, Inc. to respectfully urge the City Council to reject the proposed Tourism Mobility Tax ordinance and decline to place this measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot. As proposed, the measure would impose a 10% tax on rideshare and autonomous vehicle trips originating from or ending in nonresidential areas of The Anaheim Resort and portions of the Platinum Triangle. While we understand the City's interest in identifying new general fund revenue, we believe this measure is the wrong mechanism and will have unintended consequences. We ask the Council to work with us on a more balanced approach before advancing it further. Beyond being major visitor hubs, the targeted zones serve as critical workplaces for thousands of Anaheim residents employed in hospitality, retail, and event services. A significant portion of these workers depend on rideshare services to commute to their shifts, particularly during business hours and periods when public transit lacks operational coverage. The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle are the economic engine of the city's tourism economy, and reliable, affordable transportation is what allows visitors to move efficiently between hotels, Disneyland Resort, the Convention Center, and Angels Stadium throughout their stay. Introducing a per-trip tax on top of current fares threatens to drive up commuting costs specifically for the local workforce essential to the district's daily operations, and the tourists for whom the tax was designed. Furthermore, this tax hike risks driving up the cost of rides and lowering overall trip numbers in a high-demand district. A recent study by Boarnet & Shao (2024), Monetary cost, time cost, and mode choice: Transit and ridehailing in California, found that a 10% increase in ridehailing costs reduces ridehailing trips by 7%. However, 50% of lost riders switch to private cars—not transit—potentially worsening congestion and environmental outcomes. Since drivers heavily rely on event-based travel and visitors to the Platinum Triangle, a drop in rides within these zones could potentially decrease their earnings. Finally, while the staff report cites San Francisco and Berkeley as precedent, both differ materially from this proposal. Anaheim's proposed tax is three times higher than San Francisco's, which initially included carve-outs for EVs and reduced rates for shared rides. Berkeley utilizes an entirely different model, applying a flat per-trip charge citywide. In contrast, Anaheim's proposal targets specific tourism and event districts. The effects of this narrower, novel approach on visitor spending, event attendance, and driver availability are unknown because no analysis has been conducted on how a 10% tax would impact trip demand, visitor behavior, or driver earnings in these districts. Additionally, San Francisco and Berkeley only tax trips originating in the jurisdiction while Anaheim’s proposal would tax a visitor on every leg of their journey to and from the Platinum Triangle. Before asking voters to adopt this tax, we request that the Council direct staff to allow industry stakeholders to review and respond to the methodology and assumptions underlying the $3.6 million revenue projection. While we appreciate the City's objective to secure funding for services impacted by large volumes of visitors, we remain committed to collaborating with the Council. We would welcome the chance to examine the specific dynamics of rideshare demand in this critical district and share how our teams partner with local resorts and stadiums to deliver an operationally efficient, cost-effective experience. We respectfully request the opportunity to meet with Council members and staff before this item is finalized for the ballot. We appreciate the Council's consideration and look forward to continuing to serve Anaheim residents, workers, and visitors. Sincerely, Nick Johnson Sr. Director Public Policy Lyft, Inc.