Measures M and N. Closely related. So closely related, in fact, that it's extremely easy to mix them up. So, in great part to serve my own comprehension of them, a summary.
Measure M: This repeals a utility tax (good thing) imposed on residents of the city. Personally I think I deserve any money I may earn, not the city. However, as opponents pointed out, this will mean cuts in various services the city provides, possibly reducing the number of firemen and police and that sort of thing. Oh, and yes means no, incidentally--yes means repeal this tax, no means oh yes please, take my money. Now I really can't imagine that reducing the budget of several agencies would really mean the city would descend into shrieking chaos... in fact, it might just mean that they'd fire redundant secretaries and the other useless sorts who seem to prefer government jobs. I doubt they'd really cancel city-sponsored sports programs, but they might make kids pay for the tee shirts--that sort of thing. I don't see that it will necessarily entail firing police officers, firemen, and other useful people in the city. So, I'm going with yes (which means no).
Measure N: This one says that the city-owned electric utility must be self-supporting: that it cannot be bailed out, in times of trouble, by the city's general fund. Uh, duh. I don't choose to buy electricity from the city, and therefore I don't think I should have to pay for city-supplied electricity anyway. Because... if it's not a viable business, it doesn't really deserve to exist. Let it exist if it can, by all means, but don't make me pay for electricity that doesn't power my stuff. That's just ridiculous. If the electric utility starts to fail, it should get better. If when it starts to fail it just gets bailed out by you and me, it won't. And one of the main reasons to have this utility--to provide competition for Edison--will be nullified. So, I'll be voting yes on this one (and once again, yes sorta means no, as in, no you can't take my money for that).
Granted, there are more arguments to be made about these issues than these, but I don't really feel the need to write out every possible positive and negative aspect of each measure that occurs to me. That doesn't seem like a profitable exercise, now does it? But if Moreno Valley does go to hell in a handbasket because these measures pass (which they almost certainly won't, you should see the scare-campaign flyers I've been getting in the mail lately), well, go ahead and blame me.