The Brief

Los Angeles County is home to the largest homeless population in the U.S. — more than 72,000 people, according to official estimates.

In 2024, county voters approved Measure A, a half-percent sales tax increase aimed at raising $1 billion a year for homeless services and affordable housing.

Its backers promised voters more transparency, accountability and results.

As new revenue flows in, questions about how L.A. County spends homelessness dollars aren’t going away.

How Measure A came to be 

Homeless service providers and advocates wrote and campaigned for Measure A in 2024. Their goal was for it to replace a smaller, temporary county sales tax for homeless services known as Measure H, which was set to expire in 2027.

That quarter-percent sales tax, approved by voters in 2017, delivered about $500 million a year.

That new funding helped move more people into shelter beds, and the number of unhoused people in shelters in L.A. County increased from about 15,000 in 2017 to about 23,000 in 2024, according to official estimates.

But the county's overall unhoused population — which includes people staying in shelters, as well as those living on the streets —- grew by 37%, from about 55,000 in 2017 to more than 75,000 in 2024.

Measure A’s solution was to double the special sales tax for homelessness, make it permanent and use the extra revenue to help build more affordable housing in addition to homeless services.

A majority of county voters agreed. The county enacted the “Affordable Housing, Homelessness Solutions, and Prevention Now Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance” — and then started collecting the Measure A tax in April 2025.

Elise Buik, President and CEO of United Way of Greater Los Angeles presents an award to Peter Laugharn, President and CEO of Conrad N. Hilton Foundation at the United Way "Annual HomeWalk To End Homelessness" in 2017. Both organizations were major backers of Measure A, along with the California Community Foundation and others.

(

Greg Doherty

/

Getty Images

)

Measure A’s promises

Voters approved Measure A amid increasing concerns about the regional agency long tasked with managing public homelessness dollars by the county and city of L.A.

A county audit in late 2024 found that the Los Angeles Regional Homelessness Authority, or LAHSA, had regularly paid service providers late and failed to properly monitor contracts. A separate court-ordered report found L.A. city officials had made it impossible to accurately track homelessness spending, largely by outsourcing to LAHSA.

Measure A proposed a new approach to the region’s homeless services system, which many have described as “dysfunctional.” Written into the ordinance were clearer systemwide goals, increased accountability over spending and consequences for programs that fail to perform.

Unlike Measure H, which focused on getting people off the street, Measure A was written also to focus on preventing people from falling into homelessness. It directs more than 35% of its roughly $1 billion in yearly revenue to a new county affordable housing agency. Supporters estimated it could produce 18,000 new affordable units in L.A. County over 10 years.

It directs 60% of revenues toward homeless services — and dedicates a portion of that funding to be split directly among L.A. County’s 88 cities.

Measure A delegated oversight responsibilities for spending to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and two governance bodies the board had established in 2023 to coordinate regional planning on homelessness.

The first is an advisory group called the Leadership Table for Regional Homelessness Alignment. It includes nonprofit service providers and experts who meet regularly and inform policy decisions.

That group advises a more powerful one called the Executive Committee for Regional Homelessness Alignment, which sets Measure A’s goals and makes plans and funding recommendations.

Its nine members include two county supervisors (currently Kathryn Barger and Lindsey Horvath), the L.A. mayor (currently Karen Bass), an L.A. City Council member (currently Nithya Raman), a representative from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and four officials from cities across the county.

The committee’s recommendations go to the Board of Supervisors, which has the final say.

Last March, the supervisors formally adopted five-year Measure A goals with 2030 deadlines. They include: reducing unsheltered homelessness in the county by 30%, moving twice as many people annually into permanent housing and boosting affordable housing production by about 50%.

Measure A’s effects

One of the early after effects of passing Measure A has been a reorganization of who controls the growing pot of county homelessness dollars.

In April 2025, the Board of Supervisors voted to divert more than $300 million from LAHSA and create a new county department, the Department of Homeless Services and Housing, to manage homelessness funding directly.

Supporters of the move said it was necessary because Measure A voters were demanding accountability that LAHSA wasn’t delivering. The new county department formally launched in January.

The full transition of LAHSA programs to the county is planned in July. The Board of Supervisors recently directed the new department to create strict oversight procedures for all homeless service contracts.

Last March, L.A. County approved its first annual budget that included projected allocations from Measure A, totaling about $1 billion. The county had twice as much funding at its disposal but still cut tens of millions of dollars in programs and services for unhoused people, citing a strategic shift.

Now, the county is finalizing the budget for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1. It again includes $1 billion for homeless services and affordable housing because of Measure A, but the homelessness spending plan includes nearly $200 million in program reductions.

County officials said those reductions were necessary to cover rising shelter costs and the loss of pandemic-era state and federal funding.

Measure A has allocated about $100 million annually, or roughly 9% of all Measure A revenues, directly to the 88 cities within L.A. County to address homelessness in what’s known as the Local Solutions Fund. The county publishes a regional plan showing how that money is used.

The funding is awarded based primarily on a city’s recent unhoused population numbers, using estimates from the official annual homeless count.

Some city leaders complain their residents are paying way more into the Measure A tax than they are getting out of it.

Torrance mayor George Chen says his city will generate about $26 million annually for the county through the Measure A sales tax, and it will receive about $559,000 in local funding through the measure.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath supported the Measure A sales tax, and also championed the effort to break from LAHSA and form a new county homelessness department.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

Affordable housing focus 

The major structural difference between Measure A and its predecessor is that it earmarks roughly 36% of its proceeds — about $363 million a year — for affordable housing development. Those funds flow through a new independent regional agency called the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, or LACAHSA.

The agency’s mandate is to create new affordable homes, preserve lower-rent housing and prevent displacement. It is still in its early stages.

As of March, the agency had received $275 million from Measure A and distributed $25 million to recipients, according to its Measure A Funds Tracker. Most of what had been awarded was emergency rental assistance.

On April 15, the agency’s board conditionally approved its first major round of housing production funding, approximately $102 million for 10 projects that will add 566 units of affordable housing, according to a recent report.

Projects are required to break ground within one year of receiving awards. A second round of awards is scheduled for the board's May 13 meeting.

Demand for funding far outpaced what was available: LACAHSA received 242 applications for 127 projects totaling $1.56 billion and representing 11,484 units.

What’s next?

The goals Measure A set are ambitious, and the deadline is 2030. A county dashboard tracking progress shows the region gaining ground reducing unsheltered homelessness while falling behind on other targets.

The county hasn’t made any progress decreasing the number of people falling into homelessness or decreasing homelessness among people with mental health or substance-use disorders. The dashboard does not yet include affordable housing production metrics.

The transition from the regional Homeless Services Authority to the new county Department of Homeless Services and Housing is still underway, with a full handoff of staff and programs targeted for this July.

LAHSA recently announced it will lay off 284 employees at the end of June.

Federal cuts and changes to funding from Medicaid and the U.S. Housing and Urban Development — flagged as “threats to recent progress” in the county's recent budget documents — loom over the entire system.

With President Donald Trump dragging them down in the polls, California Republicans are repackaging one of his core crusades into an idea they hope will be more palatable to voters.

They are framing their successful push to get a voter ID law on the November ballot as a “common sense” measure.

“We’ve structured this initiative based on what voters across the political spectrum would want,” Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego said in a March interview, adding that showing an ID at the polls shouldn’t be any different than using one to buy alcohol or pass airport security.

DeMaio and other backers point to polling that shows 56% of California voters support requiring ID at the ballot box and that most states require or recommend an ID to vote.

But even in their pursuit to appeal to moderates, GOP lawmakers haven’t given up pushing Trump’s debunked claims of widespread voter fraud.

Last month, GOP legislators held a “stop the fraud” press conference, where they alleged without proof rampant corruption across state government, from elections to homelessness programs, and urged Newsom to call a special election to “audit” the alleged fraud.

The polling they point to also shows, however, that support for requiring identification at the polls drops to 39% when voters are told it is backed by DeMaio and could suppress turnout.

Voting rights groups say the measure would create needless barriers and would stifle turnout among low-income and disabled voters.

Current law already requires counties to routinely review voter registration databases to remove anyone who is ineligible to vote in case of a move, incarceration or death.

“Those checks and that maintenance of that list is already happening,” League of Women Voters executive director Jenny Farrell said. “We don’t need to erect new barriers.”

Voter suppression concerns tank voter ID support

If passed, as many as 1 million eligible voters could be kept from voting. Another 500,000 aren’t registered and don’t have the necessary documents it would require, according to UCLA Voting Rights Project director Matt Barreto.

“There’s been a very consistent finding in almost any state, in any environment, that lower-income and working-class voters are less likely to have an updated, valid ID,” he said.

Labor groups who bankrolled Democrats’ campaign for last year’s redistricting proposal, Proposition 50, are funding a similar opposition campaign focused on Trump’s push for a proof-of-citizenship bill in Congress.

Meanwhile, Democrats want to increase penalties for violating election laws after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a candidate for governor, seized hundreds of thousands of ballots earlier this year over baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2025 election.

Bianco, who seized the ballots in response to unproven claims from a right-wing activist group, supports voter ID.

Critics say he’s stoking fear among voters and that there are already adequate safeguards.

“We have a two-person rule where no ballots are ever in an area that’s not with at least two people observing what’s happening,” said Gail Pellerin, Democratic chair of the Assembly elections committee, at a UCLA elections panel last month.

Ramping up the base?

Experts agree voter fraud is rare.

However, fears about election integrity have risen among Republicans since Trump falsely claimed the 2020 election was stolen, spurring GOP lawmakers across the country to introduce bills seeking to tighten voter restrictions.

This is DeMaio’s third attempt at a voter ID ballot initiative. It qualified for the ballot last month.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio announces that supporters of the CA Voter ID Initiative will submit more than 1.3 million signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2026 ballot during a press conference at the west steps of the state Capitol in Sacramento on March 3, 2026.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Strategists say there’s little evidence that ballot initiatives actually turn out voters, but this measure is something intended to activate voters in what will likely be a difficult election year for Republicans.

“Issues like this, that are kind of red meat issues for Republicans when the governor’s race is fairly lackluster, it helps,” Stutzman said. “It’s all upside. It’s not going to hurt Republicans to have this on the ballot.”

Following bruising losses after Prop. 50 and in other states, GOP leaders are hoping to hold onto three statehouse seats they flipped in 2024 and gain others. But Trump — and his push for national voter restrictions — threatens Republicans’ success at the ballot box.

“It’s a loop that Republicans keep hammering on, either fraud or ineptitude, or waste in dollars,” Stutzman said. “It’s kind of traditional Republican messaging.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The Pasadena City Council voted this week to clear the way for new apartments for low-income fire survivors. But some council members noted their hesitancy to approve the project, saying their hands were tied by state law.

The council denied an appeal from a homeowners group who opposed the project, which plans to bring 133 units of low-income housing to East Pasadena. The nearby residents said it was too tall, too dense and had too little parking.

Mayor Victor Gordo expressed reluctance about denying the appeal. He blamed state lawmakers for pitting local elected leaders against the interests of existing residents.

“We're going to see more and more of these frustrating hearings, where the local elected body essentially has little to no discretion, little to no say, and that's wrong,” Gordo said during the Monday night meeting.

The developer’s plans for the project include adapting a former office building into 50 units of permanent supportive housing for tenants, including formerly unhoused people. A new five-story building will include another 81 units of income-restricted housing. Two units will be for property managers.

Neighbors fought to block the project

Members of the Lower Hastings Ranch Association appealed an approval of the project by the city’s Design Commission. They argued the development wasn’t suitable for the neighborhood.

Ronnie Po, the association’s president, said nearby homeowners felt “blindsided” by the plans. Their appeal wasn’t really about the project’s aesthetics, he said. They were mainly opposed to the development’s height, density and reduced parking.

“I wouldn't call this a design issue,” Po said. “This project will literally rise up to the backyards of some of our neighbors up there. So this is literally in someone's backyard.”

The development team countered those complaints in a presentation to the City Council, saying the project complied with all relevant laws and did not impinge on single-family homes.

“The building is no closer than 25 feet to the nearest property line, and no closer than 110 feet away to the nearest home,” said Dana Sayles, who is with the land use firm three6ixty.

Who is the project designed to house?

The project at 600 N. Rosemead Blvd. will be reserved for renters who earn no more than 80% of the area’s median income. By current standards, that would include individuals earning up to $84,850 per year and families of four earning up to $121,150.

Many units will be set aside for renters with even lower incomes. And under state funding agreements, preference will be given to tenants displaced by the Eaton Fire.

“More than half of the units are two and three bedrooms, so this project is very much focused on families,” said Stephanie DeWolfe, a consultant on the project. “Getting family-sized units has been a challenge for the city in the past, and especially now with all the people displaced from the fires."

State law overrides local limits

Because of the state’s density bonus law — which allows larger projects when units are kept affordable — the developer is allowed to build taller than would normally be allowed under Pasadena codes. The project is within a half-mile of the Sierra Madre Villa stop on Metro’s A Line, qualifying it as near a “major transit stop” under California law.

Because it’s near a transit line, the project also qualifies for a state law that removes parking mandates. The developer is voluntarily planning to build 55 parking spaces. Many public commenters — and some council members — said more parking was needed.

“What's the assumption of where people will park their cars?” asked Councilmember Tyron Hampton.

“We live in California, by the way,” he said, drawing applause from audience members opposed to the project.

People at the meeting who expressed support for the project said many tenants, including those exiting homelessness, likely would not be in a financial position to own cars.

“I support this building since it would be perfect for people like me, who would qualify based on income limits and do not need to have parking,” said Koji Sakano. “Those who apply, like me, would tend to be those that do not wish for car parking in the first place.”

Local housing vs. new state laws

Jesse Zwick, the Southern California director of the Housing Action Coalition, said the Pasadena project’s path to approval shows city officials and residents slowly catching up to changes in state law, which in many cases override local opposition.

“The state has awarded priority to building affordable housing in places like this — that typically have resisted it,” Zwick said. “What you're seeing now is some of that resistance being up against where state law has evolved on this issue.”

Cities that have resisted state housing laws aimed at increasing development have found themselves in California’s legal crosshairs. Beverly Hills had to approve massive “builder’s remedy” projects after it failed to comply with a state requirement for cities to plan for more housing. Huntington Beach recently faced a court order to pay $50,000 for every month it continues to flout state housing laws.

Despite those risks, some Pasadena residents urged city leaders to fight back on the state’s efforts to encourage taller, denser affordable housing projects.

“The state of California has come up with these crazy laws,” said Scott Shimamoto. “We would love for the City Council and mayor to tell the state of California: Pause this.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in Pasadena Tuesday over whether the federal government has the right to access sensitive data about California’s 23 million voters. The court also heard a nearly identical case involving Oregon.

California is among 30 states and the District of Columbia sued by the Trump administration in an effort to get access to unredacted state voter registration rolls. The administration says it wants to make sure only citizens are voting and that states are otherwise properly maintaining their rolls, for example, by removing people who have died.

Why won’t California hand over the data?

California has offered access to its publicly available voter file, which does not include information like driver’s license and social security numbers. State election and privacy laws prohibit state officials from sharing that more sensitive data, and lawyers for California argue that federal laws do not allow the U.S. Department of Justice unfettered access to the state’s voter files.

Why does the federal government want voter rolls?

Trump administration officials have given different reasons for requesting the data over the past year. But earlier this month, a memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wants to run voter rolls through the federal government’s SAVE system to check the immigration status of voters. NPR and other news outlets have reported on major flaws in the system, including improperly flagging eligible voters as non-citizens.

What happens to flagged names?

It differs in each state. Some states give flagged voters time to prove their eligibility; others suspend or cancel registration immediately. Voting rights groups worry that a large number of voters may be disenfranchised right before the midterm election.

The political backdrop

The debate has largely split along party lines, although not entirely — some Republican-led states are resisting the federal government’s demands for sensitive voter data. At least 15 states have agreed to provide their full registration lists, most of them Republican-led, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which is tracking the issue.

What’s next

There's no specific timeline for a ruling from the Ninth Circuit. A separate appeals court is considering the Trump administration’s demand for Michigan voter data. Depending on the outcome of that and the California and Oregon cases, observers say the issue could be headed to the Supreme Court.