Entrepreneurs in Los Angeles are expressing shock over a suggested tax increase designed to fund city efforts against mosquito infestations.

This opposition might significantly hinder municipal plans to tackle the bothersome pests.

“Regrettably, this initiative will be quite costly,” stated Steve Vetrone, who serves as an assistant general manager at the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District, in a conversation with the LA Times.

He further remarked, “With our current budget, this is simply not feasible.”

Recently, there has been a noticeable surge in grievances filed with local agencies regarding the bloodsucking insects.

Southern California has been plagued by these insects following recent heavy downpours, as reported earlier by the California Post.

“We are seeing five times as many mosquitoes at this time of year compared to the five-year average,” Brian Brannon, an inspector with the Orange County Vector Control, told CBS News. “There’s a lot of mosquito breeding going on right now.”

The city’s solution is to release sterilized male mosquitoes for the third year in a row this May. Female mosquitoes that mate with those males will end up producing nonviable eggs that will not hatch.

The last two years saw an 80% drop in the female population for two treated neighborhoods. The entire process costs money, though.

Officials are seeking up to $20 a year per single family home to expand the sterilization across the entire county. That would be in addition to $18.97 that homeowners already pay for the district’s services.

Sample ballots sent out last April asked voters if they’d support that increase. Only 47% responded yes, with business owners particularly opposed.

“Data showed that single family homeowners were pretty supportive, but fewer business owners with larger parcels and potentially higher dues did not see the benefit in the additional expense,” Susanne Kluh, general manager for the district, told the Times.

Kluh and officials are reportedly trying again with another round of sample ballots next year.

Restaurant owners should be invested to help protect the outdoor dining experience, she argued, while apartment landlords could miss revenue if renters get sick.

Convincing businesses could be a tall task.

“I understand why businesses would vote against it. You don’t live in the area and why would you pay more money for something that won’t affect your business,” one user commented on social media.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters