The Brief

The Los Angeles City Council approved a ballot measure Tuesday that will ask voters to increase the city’s hotel tax by 2% before millions of tourists visit for the 2028 Olympic Games.

The move would boost Los Angeles’ transient-occupancy tax from 14% to 16% through 2028 and then set it permanently at 15% in 2029.

If approved by voters, the tax increase would bring in an additional $44 million annually before the Olympics and $22 million afterward, according to city estimates.

“I do think that there is a logic that we can explain to the electorate, and to ourselves, that the Olympics create an opportunity to add some jet fuel to our visitor-serving community,” said Councilmember Tim McOsker, who voted in favor of the increase.

The council voted 13-2 in favor of putting the measure on the June ballot. Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and John Lee voted no.

Lee told LAist he thinks it’s the wrong time to make it harder for hotels to do business in Los Angeles.

“The hospitality sector is already navigating significant pressures, and increasing the tax would only make it more difficult,” he said.

Rodriguez said she worried about any city policy that might discourage tourists from staying in hotels and instead choose short-term rental properties in private homes.

“To be able to have access to that residential housing stock, we need to create some disincentive for the expansion of short-term rentals,” Rodriguez said.

The council considered a larger hotel tax increase —  a temporary 4% and permanent 2% bump — but voted it down.

On Tuesday, several representatives from hotel industry and pro-business groups spoke against raising the transient-occupancy tax.

“While these events will be temporary, any tax increase would be permanent, further undermining the city's ability to compete for budget, budget-conscious conventions and family travelers,” Jackie Filla, president and CEO of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles said.

Nearby cities have varying hotel tax rates. Burbank’s transient-occupancy tax is at 10%, Glendale and Pasadena’s 12% and Long Beach’s 13%. Santa Monica and West Hollywood’s hotel tax rates are more than 15%.

James Finney-Conlon with the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce said L.A. could lose out.

“We are concerned these taxes will fall onto potential tourists who are looking to come to our great city and discourage them from visiting the city of L.A. and contributing to our economy,” he said.

Councilmembers also approved a separate ballot measure to close what they say is a tax loophole exploited by online travel agencies and platforms.

If voters approve that measure, those companies would be responsible for collecting the transient occupancy tax on the full amount they charge customers, including booking and service fees, not just the discounted rate they pay hotels.

The L.A. City Administrative Officer estimates that change would generate an additional $5 million annually.

Both measures are expected to appear on L.A. city ballots in primary elections June 2.

The deadline to adopt final ballot language is Feb. 11.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has rejected a proposal that would have let tenants across the county fall behind by about three months' worth of rent and still have local protections from eviction.

Supporters said the rules would have helped immigrants stay housed after losing income because of federal immigration raids.

Only one of the county’s five supervisors supported the expanded eviction protections. With none of the other four willing to second the motion in Tuesday’s meeting, the proposal died before it ever came to a vote.

The proposal failed after an hour of impassioned public comment from both renters and landlords. Onlookers chanted “cowards” as the board cleared the room for closed session.

Would the rules have been challenged in court?

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who put forward the proposal, said earlier in the meeting that expanding eviction protections would have been an appropriate way to help the county’s nearly one million undocumented immigrants.

Anticipating potential lawsuits to strike down the proposed ordinance, Horvath said, “I understand there is legal risk. There is in everything we do. Just like the risk undocumented Angelenos take by going outside their homes every day.”

Landlords spoke forcefully against the proposed rules. They said limiting evictions would saddle property owners with the cost of supporting targeted immigrant households.

“This proposed ordinance is legalized theft and will cause financial devastation to small housing providers,” said Julie Markarian with the Apartment Owners Association of California.

Horvath’s proposal would have built on an existing protection for renters in unincorporated parts of L.A. County, such as East L.A., Altadena and City Terrace. Under the current rules, renters can fall behind by up to one month’s worth of “fair market rent” (an amount determined by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department) and still be legally protected from eviction.

Protections won’t go countywide

Last week, county leaders voted to explore increasing that threshold to two months. But Horvath wanted to go further by increasing the limit to three months and making it apply countywide, not just in unincorporated areas.

Tenant advocates said family breadwinners have been detained during federal immigration raids, and other immigrants are afraid to go to their workplaces, causing families to scramble to keep up with the region’s high rents.

“Immigrant tenants are experiencing a profound financial crisis,” said Rose Lenehan, an organizer with the L.A. Tenants Union. “This protection is the bare minimum that we need to keep people housed and keep people from having to choose whether to stay in this county with their families and with their communities or self deport or face homelessness.”

A report published this week by the L.A. Economic Development Corporation found that 82% of surveyed small business owners said they’d been negatively affected by federal immigration actions. About a quarter of those surveyed said they had temporarily closed their businesses because of community concerns.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday placed on the June ballot a proposed temporary half-cent sales tax increase to fund the county’s struggling health care system, which has been hit hard by federal funding cuts.

If passed by voters, the increase would bring the county’s tax rate to 10.25%. It is projected to raise one billion dollars annually over five years.

The tax would expire in five years.

The background

County health officials said Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” will cut $2.4 billion from county health programs over three years, threatening closure of some of the county’s 24 clinics and an array of public health programs.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who co-authored the proposal, said the county faced a “federally imposed crisis” that in the absence of state action, could only be addressed by raising taxes on county residents.

“This motion gives the voters a choice, given the stark realities that our county is facing,” Mitchell said.

The vote was 4-1, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger the lone dissenter. Barger is the board’s sole Republican. She worried shoppers would go to Orange County, where the sales tax is 7.75%. She also said the state should take the lead on addressing federal funding cuts to county health care systems.

Public reaction

More than 700 people showed up Tuesday to speak out on the proposal. Health care providers pleaded with the board to place the measure on the ballot, saying federal funding cuts to Medi-Cal had hit them hard.

“This is a crisis,” said Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Association of L.A. County. “Medi-Cal accounts for over half of clinic funding. So these changes will lead to clinic closures, longer wait times, overcrowded E.R.’s and higher costs for the county.” 

Others opposed any plan that would increase the sales tax.

“Our city is opposed to the adding of this regressive tax to overtaxed residents and making it even more difficult for cities, especially small cities, to pay for the increasing cost of basic resident services,” said Rolling Hills Mayor Bea Dieringer. “The county needs to tighten its belt further.”

Details on the proposed plan

Under the plan, up to 47% of revenue generated will be used by the Department of Health Services to fund nonprofit health care providers to furnish no-cost or reduced-cost care to low-income residents who do not have health insurance. 

Twenty-two percent would provide financial support to the county’s Department of Health Services to safeguard its public hospital and clinic services. Ten percent would be allocated to the Department of Public Health to support core public health functions and the awarding of grants to support health equity.

The rest would be sprinkled across the health care system, including to support nonprofit safety net hospitals and for school-based health needs and programs.

A last-minute amendment by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath set aside 5% of funding for Planned Parenthood.

The spending would be monitored by a nine-member committee but ultimately would be up to the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.