The Brief

California lawmakers published a bill late Tuesday that seeks to put new guardrails on Measure ULA, the city of Los Angeles real estate tax that has become a topic of fierce debate among economists in recent months.

To address concerns the tax is driving developers away at a time when the city needs to boost housing production significantly, the bill would slash tax rates for some newly built apartment buildings.

Since April 2023, the voter-approved measure has levied a tax on the sale of properties worth $5 million or more. The city uses the revenue to fund various housing affordability efforts such as rent relief programs, eviction defense and construction of income-restricted apartments.

But the city’s so-called “mansion tax” isn’t limited to celebrity estates in the Hollywood Hills. It also applies to multi-family housing and other commercial properties. Developers can face large tax bills after they build and sell new apartment complexes and office buildings.

Several recent economic papers concluded the tax is causing a steep decline in housing development activity across the city. One UCLA study estimated the city would have more affordable housing units on balance if the tax did not apply to new apartment buildings.

“It's really concerning,” said Mott Smith, a co-author of one of the papers and an adjunct professor of real estate development at the USC Price School.

“The units that we need to support all the households coming into the city — or that have to move and deal with their lives — those aren't happening,” he said. “And when we squeeze the housing supply, the poor feel it the most.”

Mott Smith stands in front of the currently vacant project site for Chavez Gardens, a Boyle Heights affordable housing project that aims to build 110 units of low-income housing partially funded by the city's so-called "mansion tax."

(

David Wagner/LAist

)

With days left in this year’s legislative session, state lawmakers are now seeking to address some of those concerns. Their new bill will need to be approved by the end of Friday in order to make any changes to the city’s measure before the end of the session.

What changes could be coming for LA’s ‘mansion tax’?

Under Measure ULA, properties selling for more than $5 million have faced a 4% tax, and properties selling for more than $10 million have faced a 5.5% tax.

The new bill, co-authored by Democratic state senators Lena Gonzalez and Tina McKinnor, would keep those rates in place for high-end, single-family homes, except those rebuilt after a natural disaster in the previous five years. But the bill would lower the tax for some commercial properties built within the last 15 years to 1.5%.

This carve-out would apply to “property that was issued its first certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years.”

The bill also aims to loosen some of the strict financing rules built into the city’s measure. Under Measure ULA, financially distressed apartment buildings that received city funding could only be sold to certain buyers, such as nonprofit organizations or community land trusts. The measure also restricts changes to rents and income limits in buildings that are losing money.

Critics say other lenders, such as major banks, will be less likely to invest in ULA projects unless they receive more assurance about avoiding risks in buildings that hit financial roadblocks. The new bill would let those restrictions come up for negotiation if a building is facing default.

The potential reforms are being debated in Sacramento just as the city is starting to accept applications from developers for $387 million in ULA funds. The city’s housing department released the “notice of funding availability” last Friday.

It's the largest in the city’s history.

Why are these changes being considered now?

LAist reached out to L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, chair of the L.A. City Council’s housing committee, to ask if they supported legislative efforts to alter Measure ULA. We did not immediately receive a response.

Lawmakers are feeling pressure to alter the measure because the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a fierce opponent of tax increases, is now collecting signatures for a potential 2026 state ballot measure to kill Measure ULA and other local transfer taxes of more than 0.11%.

Howard Jarvis president Jon Coupal said this week that the measure’s goal would be to roll back “transfer taxes” like Measure ULA to levels pre-dating California’s landmark 1978 law restricting property taxes, Proposition 13. It would also set a higher bar for voter approval of new taxes similar to Measure ULA.

“This constitutional amendment will restore Prop. 13’s requirement that all local special taxes, those that dedicate the revenue to a specific purpose, must be approved by two-thirds of voters to pass,” Coupal said in a post on the association’s website. “No exceptions. No loopholes.”

Measure ULA received nearly 58% support from L.A. voters, enough to pass it as a citizen-led initiative. Under recent California Supreme Court rulings, the measure would have faced a higher, two-thirds threshold for passage if it had been placed on the ballot by city officials.

Some say critiques are overblown 

Measure ULA has so far collected about $830 million, far below supporters’ initial estimates of up to $1.1 billion per year.

Despite the lower-than-projected revenues, proponents say the money already is helping to keep thousands of Angelenos housed and off the streets. More than $30 million in a ULA-funded rent relief program has helped clear rent debt for about 4,300 tenant households.

The funding also is paying for free legal defense to low-income tenants facing eviction, and money has been set aside for enforcement of the city’s law barring landlords from harassing tenants.

Not all researchers agree that Measure ULA is negatively impacting the city. Last week, a team of researchers from Occidental College, UCLA, and USC published a report disputing claims that the tax is stifling investment in new housing.

Joan Ling, a retired UCLA lecturer who co-authored the report, argued it’s premature to conclude that the tax is driving down development because there isn’t enough data on building permits after the tax was enacted.

“Research and analysis are important and they contribute to the policy dialogue,” Ling said. “But not when this analysis is short on time, fuzzy on the conditions and variables considered, and has a weak linkage between the very specific policy recommendation with their analysis.”

Ling also argued the other studies had not proven the tax was to blame for driving down development, rather than other variables such as high interest rates, increasing building material costs and the timing of L.A.’s overhauled housing plan, which may have caused developers to wait for new incentives before submitting projects to the city.

“Timing is everything,” Ling said.

Researchers who say ULA is harming development published a rebuttal to critiques of their work. They say other researchers also found strong statistical signals, including a team associated with UC Irvine, UC San Diego and the Harvard Business School.

How many new apartments and construction jobs?

Perhaps the strongest point of disagreement between the competing research teams has centered on how many apartments, and how many corresponding construction jobs, have been created so far by Measure ULA.

In April, supporters of Measure ULA claimed that in the past two years, the tax had “built 800 new affordable homes” and “created 10,000 union construction jobs.” Those claims were published on the website for the measure’s Citizens Oversight Committee, but on Wednesday, a representative told LAist the post was updated “to clarify that the numbers cited on the blog come from the United to House L.A. Coalition, which is distinct from the COC.”

The city’s most recent budget report shows that only about $1.5 million had been spent so far on creating multifamily affordable housing as of May.

Smith, a co-author on one of the papers critiquing Measure ULA, said it’s impossible for that relatively small amount of money to have already created so many new homes and jobs.

“Anybody can do the math,” Smith said. “If you spent every bit of it on salary, that's enough to hire maybe 10 quality union jobs. The idea of 10,000 jobs being created by this seems completely absurd.”

So far, nine apartment projects with a total of 795 planned units have been awarded partial funding from Measure ULA. However, many remain unbuilt.

Smith told an LAist reporter at Chavez Gardens – a project in Boyle Heights that is still an empty dirt lot – it’s too soon to celebrate the creation of apartments and jobs that don’t exist yet.

“Looking at this, you can see that absolutely nothing's happened on this site, except for maybe some weed abatement,” Smith said. “It raises eyebrows. People say that these are units built and jobs created.”

The project site in Boyle Heights for Chavez Gardens, where 110 units of city-funded affordable apartments are planned, but not yet built.

(

David Wagner/LAist

)

Joe Donlin, director of the United to House L.A. coalition, which led the campaign for passage of the tax, said supporters now describe ULA funding as “accelerating” the creation of those jobs and apartments.

Addressing the communication around those figures, Donlin said, “I don't know that there was something wrong that needed to change, but I do think that there was clarification given.”

Drilling down on job creation estimates

Smith and his colleagues say even if the number refers to future construction jobs, the estimate is still likely too high. In a recent paper they calculated that alternative estimates of jobs created through affordable housing investments would connect existing ULA projects with, at most, about 2,000 eventual construction jobs, not 10,000.

The research team from Occidental, UCLA and USC cited the 10,000 jobs figure in its recent report, including a footnote that said the estimate came from “standard accounting practice used by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Contract Administration.”

United To House L.A. coalition representatives told LAist the bureau estimated that every $1 million spent on total development costs in previous city-funded housing projects produced about 34 construction jobs, a number that ULA supporters rounded down to arrive at the 10,000 jobs figure.

LAist reached out to the bureau for further clarification about the origin of those statistics but has not received a response.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.