Measure ULA edges toward the ballot

Three votes were tucked inside Item 79

“Item 79 adopted 9–5” is technically true but incomplete. The Council first approved a request for legal analysis, then rejected one proposed amendment, then approved another. Those separate votes produced different coalitions and did different things.

The final action preserved a route toward possible ballot language. It did not guarantee that the Council would use that route, and it did not alter Measure ULA on its own.

A voter-approved tax met a deadline-driven reform effort

Los Angeles voters approved Measure ULA in 2022. It created a tax on high-value real-estate transfers and dedicated the revenue to affordable housing, homelessness prevention, tenant protections, rental assistance, and related programs. Because ULA was adopted by voters, major changes generally must return to voters rather than being made through an ordinary Council ordinance.

That procedural fact shaped the entire June 17 debate. Councilmembers who wanted to keep a local reform option alive said they had to instruct the city attorney to begin drafting before the city’s ballot deadline. Others argued that the time pressure was partly of the Council’s own making and that members were being asked to advance significant changes without enough analysis.

A second pressure came from Sacramento. Supporters of moving ahead warned that a statewide measure could reshape or threaten local transfer taxes. Their argument was strategic: Los Angeles should preserve the ability to offer its own narrower alternative rather than let a statewide campaign decide ULA’s future. The Council also asked the city attorney whether its action could be made contingent on that state proposal coming off the ballot.

A new-construction exemption and a broader use for ULA funds

Amendment 79A was the proposal that advanced 9–5. It directed the city attorney to draft language for two changes: an exemption for newly built housing sold within ten years, and authority to use ULA revenue for interim housing.

The first part was aimed at what supporters described as a financing problem. A developer who builds housing and sells the completed project could owe ULA on that transfer. Supporters argued that the added cost can make projects harder to finance or reduce the incentive to build. They described a ten-year exemption as a targeted attempt to protect production rather than a broad repeal of the tax.

During the debate, one supporter said the city housing department had estimated that a longer, fifteen-year version of the exemption would reduce revenue by less than two percent; a ten-year version, the argument went, should cost less. That figure belongs in the extended report because it is central to the case for 79A—but it should be linked to the underlying department analysis, not presented as an uncontested fact.

The second part would allow ULA money to support interim housing, the temporary shelter or housing used while people move toward permanent placements. Some members viewed that flexibility as a practical response to homelessness. Others said the city could explore administrative changes without reopening a measure whose central promise was permanent affordable housing and tenant protection.

79B was narrow, retroactive, and limited to particular uses

Amendment 79B was not a general exemption for every nonprofit. It would have asked the city attorney to draft a refund for certain nonprofits that had already paid ULA after selling property during a narrow period. To qualify under the proposal described on the Council floor, the organization would need to use the refunded money for housing with medical services, or for income support serving low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

The examples cited were Jewish Home for the Aging and the Motion Picture & Television Fund. The argument was that these organizations sold portions of their property to finance services or facilities aligned with ULA’s own goals, but the transactions were far enough along that they could not adjust the sale price when the tax took effect. In that telling, the city collected housing money from organizations that were themselves trying to build or sustain housing and care for vulnerable residents.

Supporters also said the proposal applied only to groups that had already paid during that transition window. They were still exploring whether the problem could be fixed administratively; drafting ballot language was presented as a backup. The amendment failed 6–8. Because it failed, the city attorney was not directed to include that refund in the ballot language being prepared.

Both sides said they were protecting housing

The strongest criticism: process and timing

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said members were again facing major ballot decisions immediately before recess. Her objection was not that ULA was perfect; it was that the Council had created an ad hoc committee to study the measure and was still being asked to move amendments without fully understanding the consequences. She used the phrase “measure twice and cut once.”

The strongest defense: preserve the option

Supporters responded that the June vote was not the final cut. It was the step required to get legal text back in time for another decision. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield described a genuine tension: the tax can add cost to property transactions, while its revenue pays for housing and eviction-defense programs. Advancing language, he argued, allowed negotiations to continue without closing the ballot route.

Public comment treated the drafting vote as a real threat

Nearly two hours of public comment were dominated by Measure ULA. Housing and labor advocates did not treat the vote as harmless paperwork. They argued that once ballot language exists, the political pressure to use it grows—and that each exemption could reduce money already supporting affordable housing, tenant legal help, and eviction prevention.

Speakers from United to House LA, LA CAN, and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor emphasized that voters had already approved the program. They pointed to housing and homelessness-prevention work funded by ULA and challenged the claim that the measure must return to the ballot. Several framed the question as one of democratic legitimacy: should the Council alter a voter initiative while its programs are still being implemented?

The extended report should also make room for the counterargument residents did not dominate at the microphone that day: housing producers and reform advocates contend the tax can discourage sales or make development financing harder. That case should be sourced to the underlying studies and written submissions, not reduced to a generic “developers oppose it” label.

The report should name the coalitions

Item 79’s divided votes deserve names, not just counts. The official roll calls show where the two coalitions changed.

Source: City Clerk Council Votes Verification System.

Drafting is only the first gate

1. The city attorney drafts language.

   Lawyers translate the Council’s instructions into proposed ballot text and identify legal issues.

2. The Council reviews what comes back.

   Members can accept, reject, or amend the language. The June 17 vote does not bind them to approve it.

3. A second Council vote is required.

   Only a later action can place the proposal on the ballot, subject to the city’s election deadlines.

4. Voters make the final decision.

   Because ULA was voter-approved, the contemplated changes would not take effect without voter approval.

What else mattered in the eight-hour meeting

Item 78 created a narrower Measure ULA exemption for qualifying Palisades fire victims and passed 15–0. Unlike Item 79, this action drew no divided roll call in the briefing. The Council also recessed its regular meeting and moved into a special meeting on charter reform, where members worked through proposals that could shape the November 2026 ballot.

Thirty-eight closed-session legal matters were approved as a block, including several large settlements. The compact ledger records them as a group, while the extended report should break out any settlement with an unusually large public cost or significant policy consequence.

The questions the next report should answer

What exact revenue loss does the city project from the ten-year exemption? Can interim housing be added without returning to the ballot? Will the city attorney find an administrative path for the nonprofit transactions covered by 79B? Does the statewide threat remain on the ballot? And, most importantly, does the same nine-member coalition support the legal language once it is no longer hypothetical?

Those questions turn the extended report into a continuing civic record. When the item returns, this section should update in place with the new document, the new vote, and a plain statement of what changed.