The Brief

Measure ULA was pitched to Los Angeles voters two years ago under a much more catchy moniker — the "mansion tax." More than a year since it took effect, most of the money raised so far is not coming from pricey single-family homes.

The measure voters passed in 2022 funds housing and homelessness efforts in the city through a new tax on real estate selling for more than $5 million.

From the start, despite being widely described as a “mansion tax,” the measure has applied to most real estate transactions that meet the $5 million threshold. That includes apartment buildings, offices and retail centers. Recent data show most of the measure’s revenue so far is coming from buildings that are not mansions.

A report last month from the L.A. Office of Finance estimated that since the tax took effect in April 2023, about 46% of revenue has come from the sale of pricey single-family homes. About 54% has come from the sale of other types of real estate, such as offices, retail and apartment buildings.

Is “mansion tax” a misnomer?

Critics say the tax has broad effects beyond real estate deals involving millionaires and billionaires buying and selling lavish estates in the Hollywood Hills.

“Calling it a mansion tax is a misnomer, given the true economics involved,” said Eric Sussman, an adjunct professor in accounting and real estate at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management.

Some have argued the measure could be deterring the development of new apartment buildings, which are also subject to the tax.

“When you already have a sort of slowdown in the economy and in real estate transactions, layering on taxes is just probably the last thing that you want to do,” Sussman said. “It's going to further exacerbate the slowdown and result in fewer transactions.”

Proponents say the tax is doing what it promised

Proponents defend the “mansion tax” moniker, arguing a large chunk of revenue does come from mansions, and it’s a pithy way to underscore the goal of requiring wealthy households to pay more to address the region’s housing and homelessness crisis.

“Mansion sales far and away are the single largest portion of the revenues that Measure ULA directs towards making housing affordable and protecting Angelenos from eviction,” said Joe Donlin, director of United to House L.A., the coalition that backed the measure.

Commercial and multi-family properties are the second and third largest money-raisers.

“The nickname captures the importance of putting the overheated market for the wealthiest Angelenos in service of those who are experiencing homelessness or living on its edge,” Donlin said.

Where’s the money going?

City finance officials say the tax has now raised more than $375 million. That’s far lower than the original revenue projections of up to $1.1 billion annually.

The money is being allocated to new rent relief efforts to compensate landlords with tenants behind on payments, an expansion of eviction defense programs, stronger enforcement of the city’s anti-harassment rules and the production of new affordable housing.

California’s High Speed Rail Authority paid nearly $600,000 in unallowable travel expenses to “questionable locations that appear unrelated to state business,” including trips to gyms, a nightclub, an escape room, a tiki bar and a cigar lounge over a two-year period, according to an investigation released Tuesday by the inspector general that oversees the agency.

The report found that the agency routinely reimbursed consultants for trips that were unauthorized or poorly justified. Some consultants flew first-class and were reimbursed without questioning, in violation of contracts and state policies. One consultant flew his private plane from Washington, D.C. to California and was reimbursed for a premium fare.

“Paying for travel when it is not necessary or when it exceeds what is allowed by state regulations or the contract terms is waste of public funds and is behavior inconsistent with the Authority’s role as the steward of public resources,” the Office of the Inspector General report reads.

Matt Rocco, spokesperson for the high-speed rail authority, said in a written statement that the agency “takes these findings seriously” and will work with the inspector general’s office to fix the issues.

“In response, the Authority will strengthen internal controls around consultant travel, implement more rigorous documentation and approval requirements, and recover any improper costs identified,” he said.

Voters in 2008 approved a plan to build a high-speed rail line stretching from San Francisco to Los Angeles by 2020 at a projected cost of $33 billion. Since then, its route has been significantly scaled back, and the cost has ballooned to at least $126 billion. No tracks have been laid.

The inspector general reviewed $1.15 million out of more than $2 million in travel reimbursements to four outside consulting firms between 2024 and 2026. The OIG said the firms are KPMG LLP, a global financial consulting firm; Nossaman LLP, a national law firm; AECOM-Fluor Joint Venture, which manages and coordinates the authority’s projects, and SYSTRA/TYPSA Joint Venture, which provides tracks and systems design.

None of the firms immediately responded to CalMatters’ requests for comment.

The report found the high-speed rail authority greenlighted at least $685,000 — roughly 60% — in payments without first approving the travel. In some cases, agency staff didn’t even know about the trips until they received invoices.

Even for approved trips, the report found the agency failed to sufficiently vet the requests and lacked records to justify the need for the travel.

The authority frequently approved expenses with vague justifications, such as “typical M-F week” trips, and approved travel at the request of executives without asking why. One consultant flew to California from Denver 20 times during the two-year period to “meet with the executive team” or attend executive meetings, without explaining why the meetings couldn’t have been remote, the report says.

One legal consultant was paid $40,800 in travel reimbursements and an additional $86,500 in “travel time” for 30 trips between Denver and Sacramento in a year. The same consultant “frequently booked flights on the same day the traveling occurred,” the report said.

When questioned about whether he needed to attend the meetings in person, the consultant said the authority’s chief executive, Ian Choudri, had requested his presence so he did not need to justify it and that it would not be appropriate for him to question Choudri’s direction, “as other consultants in other Authority offices are learning the hard way.”

Nearly $600,000 of the $1 million in travel expenses violated state travel policies or the contracts, the report found.

The questionable expenses included:

• Premium Uber and Lyft rides to and from a restaurant, bar, and nightclub between 9:40 p.m. and 2:30 a.m. that “clearly appear to be for personal enjoyment rather than for the benefit of the state;”
• Numerous meals in Folsom, where CEO Choudri has a home; 
• Repeated reimbursed ride-hailing trips to Planet Fitness gyms in and around Sacramento, even after a supervisor wrote that "the state does not cover ride share[s] to gyms";
• $118,000 in international travel despite the contracts explicitly barring international travel;
• A nearly $40 Uber Black luxury car charge for a trip of less than one mile in downtown Sacramento.

Financial adviser KPMG was the consulting firm that billed the authority for trips to the nightclub, the tiki bar and the cigar lounge, Deputy Inspector General Amanda Millen told CalMatters.

“It is important to remember that the critical issue here is not why the consultants visited these locations, but why (High-Speed Rail Authority) consultants included rideshare costs to these locations in their travel claims and why HSRA paid the cost of rideshares to these locations without questioning the business need for these costs,” Millen said in an email.

The report sparked instant outrage from Assembly GOP Leader Alexandra Macedo of Visalia, who called the spending “wasteful and unallowable.” She has been a vocal critic of the project even though Visalia sits along the planned route of the high-speed rail tracks.

Construction on the high-speed rail project over a ramp above Highway 99 in south Fresno on March 3, 2023

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

The investigation is the latest wrinkle in the high-speed rail authority’s already troublesome history. The office of inspector general warned in a scathing July report that the agency could run out of cash by December 2027, raising doubts about its ability to finish its planned segment connecting Merced to Bakersfield.

Lawmakers this year approved Assembly Bill 1608, which would strengthen the inspector general’s oversight of the agency. Gov. Gavin Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it.

In the new investigation report, the inspector general’s office made several recommendations to help the authority better enforce its travel policies. The authority should require travel expenses to be cost-effective, capped at state employee reimbursement rates and only for state business, the office says. The agency should also send a memo from the chief executive reiterating that all travel be approved in advance, even when the executive requests it, and that the agency review the expenses for the four contractors and seek reimbursement for unjustified travel.

In response, authority officials agreed to adopt some recommendations and partially adopt others by March 2027, including that it would send a memo from the chief executive clarifying travel expectations by February 2027 but it would be issued “‘at the appropriate executive level’ indicating that it may not come from the CEO.”

But the authority insisted it didn’t need to justify each consultant’s trip, prompting the inspector general to reply: “We explained to the Authority that this interpretation is fundamentally incorrect.”

The office will conduct another evaluation after March 2027.

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

Santa Ana employees are prohibited from obtaining outside employment that involves federal immigration enforcement activities. The City Council unanimously adopted the policy on Tuesday night.

What does this mean?

It means an employee’s outside employment can’t involve immigration enforcement duties, such as investigating, arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting people for federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement or private contractors assisting federal enforcement. The policy does not prohibit employees from getting outside jobs with the U.S. Armed Forces or with the Department of Homeland Security, according to city records.

Why it matters

Santa Ana is home to the largest concentration of Latino residents in Orange County. It's also the county's only self-proclaimed sanctuary city, a designation that limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Last summer, ICE raids rattled the city and sparked growing protests.

It’s not immediately clear how many city employees this policy will affect. The effort mirrors a similar law currently being considered at the state level that prohibits California peace officers from moonlighting as ICE agents. The city of Los Angeles adopted a similar policy in March.

What does the policy say?

The ordinance states that outside employment that involves immigration enforcement duties “creates an actual and perceived conflict of interest, exposes the City employee to divided loyalties between their city duties and outside compensation, and undermines community trust in city government generally and in the Santa Ana Police Department in particular.”

What’s next?

A second vote on the policy is required at the next City Council meeting on Oct. 6.

A slim majority of likely California voters are backing a proposed tax on billionaires, according to a new poll, but voters are also lining up behind two competing November ballot measures that could nullify the billionaire tax.

Voters will weigh in Nov. 3 on Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time, 5% wealth tax on billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, 2026. The tax is estimated to raise up to $100 billion and would be used to offset deep federal healthcare cuts imposed last year by Congress.

According to the poll released late Tuesday by the Public Policy Institute of California, 52% of likely voters said they would vote yes on the tax, while 46% said they would vote no.

“Supporters of Proposition 40, the so-called billionaires tax initiative, have a lot of work to do,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s statewide survey director, noting the challenge of keeping support above 50% with what is only a “slim” lead.

A T-shirt with a campaign message is seen before the start of a rally led by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, during the campaign kickoff for the California Billionaire Tax Act at The Wiltern in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026.

(

Patrick T. Fallon

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

But opponents of the tax, led by several billionaires, are also asking voters to weigh in on Propositions 41 and 42, which have provisions that could nullify the billionaire tax if they pass with more votes.

Proposition 41, which would make any new taxes subject to the state’s existing spending limit, is leading in the Public Policy Institute of California poll 51% to 44%.

Proposition 42 would prohibit taxes on financial assets such as stocks and other personal property other than real estate. It’s leading in the poll 54% to 43%.

If all three pass, but Proposition 41 or 42 gets more votes than Proposition 40 gets, the state will be prohibited from enforcing the billionaire tax.

“So the supporters [of Proposition 40] have the work to do of both keeping their support, which is now just above 50%, in the majority range, and also raising questions about Propositions 41 and 42 that may reduce support below what Proposition 40 is getting,” Baldassare said.

That task will likely be made even harder by the large amount of money being spent by billionaires against the proposed wealth tax: Opponents of the billionaire tax have already raised nearly $120 million to fight Proposition 40 and support Propositions 41 and 42.

The poll from the Public Policy Institute surveyed 1,103 likely voters from Sept. 4–10 and found an electorate that is pessimistic about the trajectory of both the state and the nation. Majorities of adults and likely voters told pollsters that price increases have caused financial hardship for their households, and just 27% of likely voters approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance.

The survey also found Democrat Xavier Becerra leading Republican Steve Hilton 60%-38% in the race for California governor.

“Affordability continues to be top of mind for Californians,” Baldassare said, “when considering their choice for governor: 65% of likely voters say that a candidate’s plans to address cost-of-living issues are very important to their vote.”

The poll also asked voters about the other 11 ballot measures on the November ballot.

It found strong support for Proposition 3, which would make existing higher tax rates permanent for individuals earning more than $371,000 a year, and for Proposition 37, which would create a new loan program for middle-income home buyers in the state.

Proposition 45, which is aimed at speeding up construction by expediting some environmental reviews, is narrowly leading 48% to 46%.

Likely voters are also backing Proposition 1, which would authorize $11 billion in state bonds for affordable housing, and Proposition 2, which would increase the state’s rainy-day fund.

But a voter ID measure, authored by Republicans in the state Legislature, is trailing in the poll, with 43% of likely voters backing Proposition 39 and 55% opposed.

A voter is given a sticker after dropping his ballot at City Hall in San Francisco on Oct. 30, 2025, ahead of the statewide special election.

(

Beth LaBerge

/

KQED

)

The survey also shows several other measures trailing among likely voters, including Proposition 4, which would repeal a prohibition against public funding of candidate campaigns; Proposition 5, which would change the process for replacing a state elected official who is recalled by voters; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for voters to approve local tax increases.

In all, California voters will weigh in on 14 ballot measures this fall, and the Public Policy Institute found voters “exhausted” by the responsibility: Nearly 80% of respondents said they are frustrated with the size of the ballot.

Baldassare said it’s the rare question that unites Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

“Every time we’ve asked this question of Californians, they tell us that, you know, there’s too many ballot measures that they have to deal with,” he said. “This is something that everybody agrees on.”

Updated September 16, 2026 at 15:32 PM ET

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time in more than three years Wednesday, in a show of its determination to attack stubborn inflation.

The central bank raised its benchmark interest rate by a quarter percentage point to a range between 3.75% and 4%. That makes it more costly to borrow money to buy a car, grow a business or carry a balance on a credit card.

"Inflation remains elevated," Fed policymakers said in a statement. "Today's policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee's 2% goal."

The U.S. war with Iran has rekindled inflation, pushing oil and gasoline prices higher and driving the price of diesel fuel into record territory. Higher interest rates won't automatically bring lower prices at the pump, but they do signal the central bank's commitment to restoring price stability.

Financial markets had widely expected the rate hike after hawkish comments from Fed chairman Kevin Warsh last month.

"The responsibility for 65 months of sustained, elevated inflation sits squarely with the central bank," Warsh told an audience in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. "We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do."

Still, some economists questioned whether the rate hike would have much effect on price pressures.

"Today's decision reinforces the Fed's commitment to price stability and addresses credibility concerns," said Selma Hepp, chief economist at the real estate data firm Cotality. "The bigger question is whether the Fed risks fighting the wrong inflation battle. A rate hike is unlikely to lower gasoline prices, reduce tariff-related costs, or accelerate homebuilding, but it will further dampen housing demand and delay a broader market recovery."

Gas prices are a big driver of inflation

Annual inflation was clocked at 3.4% in August, according to the cost-of-living index released by the Labor Department last week. Prices rose a sharp four-tenths of a percent between July and August, with a surge in gasoline prices accounting for more than a third of the total monthly increase.

The price of diesel fuel has reached an all-time high, averaging $6.31 a gallon on Wednesday, according to AAA. That has the potential to raise the cost of many other goods that have to be transported by truck or train.

Since April, prices have been climbing faster than average wages, so the typical worker's paycheck doesn't stretch as far as it used to.

Forecasts released at the conclusion of Wednesday's meeting show Fed policymakers expect an average of one additional quarter-point rate increase this year and no rate hikes in 2027.

Warsh, who took over as Fed chairman in May, did not offer a forecast. He has generally discouraged such forward guidance, fearing it could tie the Fed's hands and leave policymakers with less maneuvering room.

The bond market is already pushing long-term borrowing costs higher. The yield on 10-year Treasurys topped 5% this week. Bondholders are demanding higher returns in response to inflation and the strong demand for capital from both the federal government and private borrowers.

The yield on 10-year Treasurys helps set the rate for many types of borrowing, including mortgages and car loans.
Copyright 2026 NPR