The Brief

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has said it plans to appeal a federal judge's decision to have the department foot the bill for building emergency veteran housing at the West L.A. campus.

Brad Rosenberg, the department's attorney, said in court Friday that the appeal will be filed next week. Part of it will argue that the payment will cause irreparable harm to the V.A.'s funding.

But U.S. District Judge David O. Carter said that for now, the construction must continue.

"Until I get a stay from the Ninth Circuit, we go forward," he said, adding that he wants quick work to bring veterans indoors before the rainy season.

On Sept. 6, Carter ruled on a lawsuit on behalf of veterans with disabilities, issuing two emergency orders to speed up the creation of temporary “modular” housing on the campus — essentially, tiny homes that are built ahead of time in factories.

Carter continued to pressure officials on speeding up the timeline for the temporary housing. Kelly Farrell from the architectural firm Gensler, which is working on the housing plans, said they're still narrowing down specifics for utilities to meet housing standards.

Carter pushed back.

"We can truck in showers. We can truck in toilets. We can get sewage overland, you don’t have to trench," he said. "You’ve already got lighting in the stadium for goodness sakes. I don’t want perfect — I want good."

Background on the case

Carter has ordered the creation of 2,550 additional housing units for unhoused veterans — including 750 temporary homes with supportive services within 18 months at the sprawling West L.A. Veterans Affairs campus, and construction of additional 1,500 permanent homes with services at the campus within the next six years.

The judge also ruled against a series of private leases on the West L.A. campus, writing that VA officials “are prohibited from executing and maintaining any land use agreement, including those identified by this Order, that does not principally benefit veterans and their families pursuant.”

He also banned the VA from entering into new leases with the private Brentwood School (whose athletic facilities are on the campus), Safety Park (which operates two parking lots on the campus), Bridgeland Resources (which has an oil drill on the campus), and UCLA (whose baseball stadium is on the land).

The lawsuit was filed in November 2022. It came after the VA got years behind schedule in following through on a previous settlement deal from 2015 to build more housing at the campus.

What judge Carter had to say

VA officials bowed to wealthy neighbors: Noting that VA officials had entered into lucrative land deals for portions of the property, Carter wrote that instead of serving veterans, "the West LA VA has served its wealthy and powerful neighbors, bowing to private interests backed by lobbyists and engaging in back-room deals and fraud.”

A contrast with funding for war: Carter, a Marine Corps veteran who was so injured in a Vietnam War battle that he was put in a body bag, said the federal government has failed those who served: “Veterans have seen the government swiftly deploy its resources to send them into conflict, then claim an inability to overcome funding shortfalls and administrative hurdles when they need shelter and housing back at home.”

Judge cites corruption: “Over the past five decades, the West LA VA has been infected by bribery, corruption, and the influence of the powerful and their lobbyists, and enabled by a major educational institution in excluding veterans’ input about their own lands,” the judge wrote.

Among other things, he pointed to a scandal in which a private parking lot operator pleaded guilty to bribing a VA official and stealing $13 million in connection with a lease at the campus.

Failed promises: Carter faulted the current and previous two presidential administrations for not following through on promises to end veteran homelessness. He wrote: “In the years since 2011, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and the Biden administration have each promised that they would act swiftly to eradicate veteran homelessness in America. Yet, today, approximately 3,000 homeless veterans live in the Los Angeles area alone.”

What the parties had to say

Plaintiffs' response: Mark Rosenbaum, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told LAist the ruling is “an enormous victory” for unhoused veterans. He said the judge, through his ruling, is saying “no veteran who served this country should be on the streets of Los Angeles or, frankly, the streets of this nation.”

“It’s the end of veteran homelessness,” Rosenbaum added.

VA response: In a statement from Damian McGee, director Los Angeles Regional Office of Public Affairs, the VA said "there is nothing more important to VA than ending Veteran homelessness, and our efforts have led directly to a 23% reduction in Veteran homelessness in Los Angeles in 2024 and a 55% reduction in Veteran homelessness nationwide since 2010."

"The court exceeded its legal authority, and its orders would prevent VA from fulfilling our mission to end Veteran homelessness by diverting critical resources from efforts that are proven to get Veterans off the streets and save lives — including VA health care, permanent housing support, legal assistance, job training, and much more," the statement added. "This would negatively impact Veterans and their families, both in LA and across America, and VA is beginning the appeal process to prevent that from happening."

A City Council committee voted Friday to shelve a proposed ballot measure aimed at cutting L.A.'s “mansion tax” nearly in half.

The ad hoc committee on Measure ULA voted 2-1 to set aside a proposal by Councilmembers John Lee and Marqueece Harris-Dawson that would have asked voters in November to reduce the ULA transfer tax rate for multifamily and mixed-use properties to somewhere between 2% and 3.5%, down from the current rate of up to 5.5%.

However, the ballot measure proposal was also referred to the City Council’s rules, elections, and intergovernmental relations committee, which could still choose to move it forward.

Instead, the ad hoc committee advanced a narrower pilot program that would reduce the property transfer tax only for newly built affordable housing projects.

The pilot program won't need voter approval in the form of a ballot measure. Committee Chair Ysabel Jurado, who introduced the substitute language, said she believes the city should avoid a ULA ballot measure because it’s still too early to evaluate the measure’s long-term effects.

“ I'm against going to the ballot, but I'm for making fixes that make this better,” Jurado said.

Voters will see a separate proposal on their ballots by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to effectively repeal Measure ULA.

If the L.A. City Council does not approve reforming the measure, the only decision on the ballot in November may be whether to keep the mansion tax in its current form or end it.

About the mansion tax

L.A. voters approved Measure ULA in 2022 to fund affordable housing and homelessness prevention. The measure taxes real estate sales over about $5 million. Since taking effect in April 2023, ULA has raised just over $1.1 billion from 1,633 real estate transactions, according to the city’s housing department.

The city projects it will generate about $500 million in the coming fiscal year — about half of what proponents initially promised. It has funded about 800 new affordable units and helped stabilize thousands of renters facing eviction, according to the housing department.

But critics say the tax has suppressed housing development. Several studies link the tax to a slowdown in apartment construction in Los Angeles, but ULA supporters say high interest rates and broader economic conditions are to blame.

The City Council's ad hoc committee on Measure ULA was formed earlier this year to study how the measure is working and develop potential reforms. That work took on more urgency inside L.A. city hall after the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association qualified a statewide ballot measure for November that would effectively repeal Measure ULA entirely.

Joe Donlin, director of the United to House LA coalition, which campaigned for the original measure, said the City Council committee made the right call by rejecting broader exemptions.

“By not taking up the extreme calls for broad, 15-year waivers that could cost the program about a third of its revenue, the committee acknowledged that ULA is working,” Donlin said in a statement.

A separate group of housing developers, union workers and advocacy groups calling itself the “Mend It, Don’t End It” coalition has been urging city hall to make changes to ULA. On Friday, the group said it supports the measure, but believes targeted reforms are still needed.

“Independent research shows that Measure ULA has slowed housing production in Los Angeles at a time when we need more housing, not less,” said Melanie Mendoza, a coalition spokesperson.

What the data show

The debate over ULA's impact played out in the committee room Friday morning. The city's chief legislative analyst reviewed seven independent studies on ULA’s impact. Three of those studies concluded ULA had suppressed housing production and reduced property tax revenues, while four found no meaningful negative impact.

Before ULA took effect, Los Angeles collected about $22 million a month in transfer tax. After that, it dropped to about $13 million. But city legislative analyst Henry Flatt told the committee a similar decline happened in cities without the tax, including Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena and Santa Clarita.

“We are not currently convinced that Measure ULA has had an extremely negative impact on general fund revenues,” Flatt told the committee.

The county assessor's office read the same period differently. Scott Thornberry, an assistant assessor with L.A. County, told the committee that commercial and industrial property sales are falling in the city but not elsewhere in the county.

“We are seeing, we believe, a trend line of impact to property tax revenue growth in the city of L.A. specifically," Thornberry said.

What the committee did

Instead of the ballot measure, the committee voted to develop a five-year pilot program cutting the ULA tax to 1.5% for newly constructed affordable housing projects that meet specific requirements.

Lee, whose ballot measure was replaced with language advancing the pilot program, said he hadn't seen the substitute prior to Friday’s meeting and voted against it.

“This was just placed in front of me,” he said. Lee objected to a provision in the substitute recommendations calling for $30 million in new spending on homelessness support.

“Without knowing where this money's coming from, I'm going to have to vote no,” he said.

Lee told LAist he supports stronger oversight and technical improvements to Measure ULA, but believes a ballot measure is the right approach.

“Voters deserve the opportunity to consider targeted changes that would preserve the intent of the measure while addressing its unintended impacts on housing production and real estate activity in Los Angeles,” the councilmember said, in a statement.

Friday's meeting was the committee's final scheduled hearing. The committee, which is set to dissolve June 1, also voted to advance a narrower nonprofit tax refund limited to organizations that can prove all sale proceeds went directly to affordable housing.

The committee continued a separate motion on fire exemptions for Palisades fire victims, which will be heard by another council committee. A motion to loosen eligibility rules for the ULA Citizens Oversight Committee was noted and filed.

Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who introduced several of the committee's motions, said the process had been guided by a commitment to protect the measure.

"My goal has always been to listen carefully, bring people into the conversation, and protect ULA while honoring the voters' intent," she said at Friday’s meeting.

In her closing remarks, Jurado reflected on the three-member committee’s past work.

“We released $14 million in rental assistance to the most vulnerable Angelenos and $300 million for affordable housing,” she said. “We did in six or seven meetings what others couldn't do in five years.”

The ad hoc committee's recommendations now move to the full City Council.

Harris-Dawson and Lee’s ballot measure motion will be considered by the City Council’s rules committee at a later date, officials said.

Monsterpalooza, the annual movie-monster bash for horror fans, returns to the Pasadena Convention Center this weekend, starting Friday night (May 29) and lasting through Sunday.

What to expect

Now in its 18th year, devotees can rub elbows with legendary beastie creators, browse hundreds of vendors who traffic in the weird and unsettling, and marvel at practical effects that’ll make your flesh creep.

Dozens of panels and presentations are scheduled, including a deep-dive into the 95th anniversary of the Dracula and Frankenstein movies by writer Julian David Stone.

Writer Julian David Stone gives a presentation at a past Monsterpalooza event.

(

Perry Shields

/

Courtesy Julian David Stone

)

Stone said that the two classic movies have left a lasting impact.

“Dracula is a movie about supernatural horror..... and Frankenstein is about technological or man-made horror," he said. "You can just trace those two themes all the way forward to this past year with Sinners and Megan 2.0."

Richard Redlefsen's Armageddon Rat at the PPI Booth at a past Monsterpalooza.

(

Steve Jennings Photography

/

Courtesy Visit Pasadena

)

Stone first attended the convention in 2008, returning over the years as a fan, spectator and presenter.

“It’s just a terrific convention that celebrates all things horror,” Stone said. “There’s a lot of celebrities you can meet who were in these horror films and you can get pictures with them." He added that he’ll never forget when he met Carla Laemmle in 2010 — the last living cast member of the original 1931 Dracula.

Mike Mekash and Chris Nelson re-created Twisty the Clown on Dan Gilbert at the PPI Booth at a past Monsterpalooza.

(

Steve Jennings

/

Courtesy Visit Pasadena

)

Who's attending

If you’re jonesing to be photographed with high-profile entertainers (expect a fee for many), this year's event has a line-up that includes musician Alice Cooper, actress Lin Shaye from the Insidious movie franchise and David Howard Thornton, who plays Art the Clown in the popular Terrifier movie series.

Cosplay and crazy costumes are encouraged, although a T-shirt celebrating a classic horror movie will also do. Just come ready to adore all things that gnaw and gash.

California’s primary election is Tuesday — and one race poses a challenging question to voters: Should a judge who’s accused of ethics violations by the state watchdog of judges get re-elected?

That’s the situation for Judge Robert Draper, who’s running to keep his seat in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. With about 15 years on the bench, Draper, 84, told LAist he hasn’t had disciplinary issues until now.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance, the state body that oversees judicial complaints, conducted an investigation into complaints and charged Draper with misconduct in office. The commission’s members, who are also the final decision-makers here, won’t make a determination on whether to discipline him until after the primary.

Here’s what you should know about what’s at stake and what could happen next.

A quick primer

Draper was appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012. Superior Court judges have to run for reelection after they’ve been appointed. Draper is running for a third full term and is on the ballot for all L.A. County voters under Office No. 2, facing a challenge from Tal Valbuena, a deputy district attorney.

The commission has charged him with seven counts of violating judicial ethics. (The proceedings against him aren’t civil or criminal, but the commission uses similar terminology.) The commission is an 11-member group of judges, lawyers and others who are appointed by the governor, the Legislature and the California Supreme Court.

Draper is currently assigned to “chambers work only.” He and his attorney told LAist Draper's court-issued email account is restricted and his room does not have a computer or staff. He hasn’t heard a case since he returned in June 2023 from an involuntary leave that, according to commission records, was tied to the alleged ethics violations.

Among the allegations Draper is facing:

• Sending nude photos from a confidential child abuse case to colleagues via a court email address, according to commission records.
• Making irrelevant comments about race, including using the term “coal black,” during a case, and calling women in the courthouse “attractive” and “cute,” according to commission records.

A panel of independent “special masters” oversaw a six-day hearing earlier this month on the charges. The special masters are expected to issue a report on their findings within the next several weeks — but a decision on possible disciplinary action still rests with the commission.

According to the commission’s charge document, the allegations against Draper center on willful misconduct in office, failure to perform his duties and actions that affect the judicial office’s reputation. Draper has denied some of the claims and, in an interview with LAist, gave reasons for others.

The commission initially claimed that his behavior was evidence of an unnamed disability that interferes with his duties (which could get judges removed from the bench, if proven), but LAist confirmed that claim has been withdrawn.

Draper told LAist he is navigating health issues. Over the last few years, he’s been prescribed medication that made his Parkinson’s disease worse, he said, and had a detached retina and a rotator cuff injury. He added that he’s also coping with grief — his son died this year shortly before the hearing.

The seven counts Draper faces from the judicial ethics commission cover accusations dated 2022 and 2023. We’ll explore the main ones.

Comments on race

According to records from the judicial performance commission, Draper admitted to making statements that have been called “irrelevant” and “inappropriate” by other judges who reviewed his decisions on a 2023 case.

In February that year, the defense in a sexual harassment case Draper presided over was seeking a new trial. A jury had reached a verdict earlier, putting them on the hook for $10 million.

During a hearing, Draper brought up his personal views on interracial mixing and Black history, according to excerpts of the court transcripts. Draper told LAist these comments were intended to convince the two sides to “make a reasonable settlement.”

According to the transcripts, Draper used the terms “coal black” and “light brown” to describe Black skin tones. Draper defended his statements, telling LAist he viewed the comments as “almost like describing what color dress you’re wearing today.”

“Now, why did I say it? Race was not involved in the case, except that almost everybody was Black,” he said.

The commission said the comments at issue reflected “bias, prejudice, or harassment.” Draper’s written response to the charges said the dialogue had been taken “wholly out of context.” He told LAist he “ wasn’t talking about a bias for or against” and added he “probably won’t use the word ‘black’ ever” again if re-elected.

“Do I imagine I’ll continue to make comments about appearance? No,” he said. “I probably won’t.”

Women in the workplace

The same day of the 2023 hearing, Draper brought the all-women legal team into his chambers, according to records, where he made other comments that the commission alleges violated judicial ethics.

During the conversation, he told them a story about how male attorneys used to tell female secretaries “you better be able to f*** better than you can type.” Draper told LAist his comments have been misconstrued to sound like he was bragging about behavior at his last law firm. In fact, he said, he was referring to how other firms had “that attitude towards secretaries” when he started practicing law.

“I was so proud of the country [because] now it wouldn’t happen at all,” he said.

His comments and other issues ultimately led to the California Court of Appeal to overturn the verdict and order a new trial. Draper is also alleged to have touched a lawyer’s hair during proceedings in that case without reason, which he testified before the special masters hearing did not happen.

Other allegations cited by the commission involve multiple comments Draper has admitted to making about women in the courthouse in 2022 and 2023, according to records and LAist’s interview with him. The commission said these statements violated judicial ethics, which Draper disputes.

In one instance, Draper told his presiding judge she “looked cute” when she was mad, according to records. Another time he called a woman involved in a case before him “quite attractive” in a “global way.”

Draper told LAist the language he used was “not a come-on” and that he was “trying to make them feel good about themselves.”

“ I’m not going to walk around with my handkerchief in my mouth. I can just say, ‘Hey, you’re looking cute today,’ and people understand that,” he said. “But I’m not going to be walking around the court picking out the cute ones and telling them they’re cute.”

Leave, email and other issues

Draper has also been charged with allegedly not following his courthouse leadership’s directives.

When he was placed on involuntary leave in March 2023, according to the commission, Draper continued to do administrative work on cases despite receiving verbal and written directives to not access the courthouse and its resources.

Draper told LAist his supervisors were aware that his work was continuing because he was emailing them about it.

“They understood what I was doing, and they approved it by not speaking up,” he said.

Draper also testified that he wasn’t immediately told not to work while on leave. The commission said Draper wasn’t “candid” when he testified to that.

Judge Robert Draper on the first day of his hearing at the California Court of Appeal building in downtown Los Angeles on April 27.

(

Cato Hernández

/

LAist

)

The commission also cited problematic emails Draper admitted to sending from his court email address, according to records and his testimony. This included allegations that Draper sent files including nude photos from a confidential court case to people not authorized to receive them under state code.

In June 2023, Draper sent an email to commission staff and other Superior Court judges with various materials, according to records. The attachments included details from a July 2017 confidential child abuse case.

The case involved child sexual abuse allegations with a public figure. Draper emailed nude photos from the case files of children bathing, according to records and his testimony.

One of the recipients of the email with nude photo attachments was retired Judge Lance Ito — best known for presiding over the O.J Simpson murder case in 1995. Ito testified to not being personally acquainted with Draper at the time and called the email “unusual.” Draper testified that the email blast was intended to show his legal contributions and that he is authorized under statute to consult with other judges. He said he copied Ito on the thread because of his leadership role in teaching judges.

Draper also emailed photos of himself “from behind without clothes” to the commission and other judges, according to records. He testified that this was to show his colleagues proof of an injury.

In another charge, the commission said Draper has not cooperated with its ethics inquiry that started in 2022 — such as repeatedly missing deadlines — and has been disrespectful to commission staff. Draper told LAist the commission’s investigation was more like an inquisition because they didn’t interview him before the hearing.

“ That is a big problem with the way the CJP operates,” he said. “They’re not there to help judges. They’re kinda trying to catch judges.”

An endorser speaks out

Kimberly Repecka is one of four judges who have endorsed Draper for re-election. She’s a prior public defender who’s known Draper for about 10 years and testified in his hearing last month.

She told LAist people have latched on to ageist narratives and that his character is being misrepresented. According to Repecka, it’s common for older judges to share “war stories.”

Repecka defended Draper’s reasoning for bringing up race in the sexual harassment case.

“I think most of us most of the time view it exactly how Judge Draper said he intended it: an attempt to connect on a more human level and remind ourselves that there’s a world bigger than the courtroom and case we’re in,” she said.

Repecka told LAist she wouldn’t use the same words he used to talk about skin color in the courtroom. She would be concerned it could cause discomfort.

“ As a white person, I would be pretty careful about how I address that if it seems relevant to the case itself,” she said.

Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School well-versed in judicial ethics, described it as a “real stretch” to view Draper’s comments on race and appearance as appropriate under any circumstances. Levenson said she can’t imagine other judges talking like this.

“There’s a lot of training for judges that has happened in the last decade about how you don’t talk about race unless it is a relevant issue,” she said, “and you especially don’t use some of the terms that Judge Draper was using in these hearings.”

Judges need to watch what they say in a courtroom because they need to not only be fair, but appear to be fair, Levenson said.

“He has the ethical obligation to be impartial and how he demonstrates that he’s being impartial is going to be evaluated by how he acts and what he says in the courtroom,” she said. “If you take his words at face value, there certainly would be reason to question how he’s treating people in that courtroom.”

Levenson has reviewed the hearing’s rough transcripts, the charges and Draper’s filed answer to them. She said it appears the commission “bent over backwards” to  give him a fair chance during their “robust” process.

What comes next 

The next step is for the special masters to put together a report of their conclusions for the commission members, which Draper will have a chance to respond to. The special masters won’t make recommendations about discipline.

That choice rests with the commission members. Remember, they brought these charges against Draper and will decide the outcome, likely in a couple of months. Among the options: The commission members could clear him, admonish or censure him, or remove him from office.

Loyola Marymount University is an underwriting sponsor of LAist. Like other funders, it has no influence on coverage.