BYERS COULD BANKRUPT THE CITY…

SAVE WEHOAND SAY NOTO BYERS

WHAT HAPPENED

PROJECTEDHER CLAIMHer campaign claims credit for the mechanism behind the draft $2.2 billion, 75-year model.
SHARECOMMITTEDA negotiated share of future property-tax growth dedicated to infrastructure.
YEARSDECADESDecades of city revenue committed to Metro instead of local needs.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR WEHO

COMMITMENTS THAT COULD BANKRUPT THE CITY

WEST HOLLYWOOD TAKING ON THE COUNTY’S RESPONSIBILITY

READ THE FUNDING PLAN

TAKE BACK WEST HOLLYWOOD

0DAYS00HRS00MIN00SEC

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

View complete dossier & citations

1
WHAT HAPPENED
$2.2 BILLION OVER 75 YEARS
Byers promotes a $2.2 billion financing claim. The City consultant’s draft model projects that amount over 75 years by allocating a share of future property-tax growth—not by paying $2.2 billion today.
2
WHAT IT MEANS FOR WEHO
COMMITMENTS THAT COULD BANKRUPT THE CITY
Committing future tax growth to Metro would limit how that share can serve other local needs. If the City later took on obligations it could not pay, California law provides a conditional Chapter 9 route—not a county takeover or automatic bankruptcy.
3
WHO’S RESPONSIBLE
CHELSEA BYERS
Byers claims credit for launching the financing mechanism. The draft projection does not establish sole credit, a final adopted agreement or money already received.

THE RECEIPT

Accomplishments — K Line financing claim

Chelsea Byers for West Hollywood City Council · Reviewed October 8, 2026

OPEN THE SOURCE

5 MORE SOURCES

Phase II Funding and Project Delivery Strategy Study HR&A Advisors / City of West Hollywood · April 2024
Finish the Line — The Funding Plan City of West Hollywood · Reviewed October 8, 2026
Northern Extension funding update — earlier EIFD scenarios City of West Hollywood · April 20, 2020
Finish the Line — project background and next steps City of West Hollywood · Reviewed October 8, 2026
Local Government Bankruptcy in California: Questions and Answers California Legislative Analyst’s Office · August 7, 2012

Political opinion: we oppose the long-term revenue tradeoff. Existing tax base is preserved in the proposal; final terms are unresolved. No evidence here establishes current bankruptcy or a $2.2B payment obligation.

WHAT WE KNOW · DISPUTED · UNKNOWN

WHAT WE KNOW

ORIGINAL STATEMENT
Byers’ campaign says she launched a financing mechanism that will generate $2.2 billion for the K Line Northern Extension.
PRIMARY DOCUMENT
The proposed EIFD would allocate a share of future property-tax growth to infrastructure while preserving the existing tax base.
PRIMARY DOCUMENT
An earlier City model estimated roughly $42 million–$573 million from WeHo over the modeled period.
PRIMARY DOCUMENT
The April 2024 draft consultant presentation models $2.2 billion over 75 years under a 50% property-tax-growth contribution scenario.
PRIMARY DOCUMENT
The City’s funding plan separately identifies $2.24 billion in Metro Measure M funding.
PRIMARY DOCUMENT
If the City ever pledged this revenue and could not pay, California’s documented route is a city-declared fiscal emergency and Chapter 9.

WHAT IS DISPUTED

UNVERIFIED
The tradeoff is earlier rail access versus a long-term commitment of some future revenue growth; the campaign’s personal credit is not independently established.

WHAT WE DO NOT YET KNOW

UNVERIFIED
Final district boundaries, allocation percentage, partner agreements, financing terms and service effects need an adopted plan.