Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure Ula topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Angelenos urge preservation of Measure ULA as council advances technical changes
Summary
After hours of public comment defending Measure ULA, the Los Angeles City Council voted to note and file a package of ULA reforms and approved two related amendments, while labor and tenant advocates urged the council not to send the measure back to the ballot.
The Los Angeles City Council on July 1 advanced several technical changes related to Measure ULA and voted to note and file ongoing reform work after an extended public-comment period dominated by pleas to preserve the voter-approved transfer-tax program.
Supporters of ULA packed the council chamber and telephonic queue, telling members that the fund is already producing housing and preventing evictions. "Measure ULA is one of the city's most effective tools to keep people housed," said Angela Birdsong, a housing organizer with Los Angeles Community Action Network, during in-person public comment. Labor and tenant groups repeated figures the fund has generated and the number of tenants reached: "Since taking effect, ULA has raised more than $1,000,000,000," one speaker said, and union representatives told the council the policy has created jobs and built permanent housing.
At the dais, council members wrestled with calls from housing developers for narrower taxes that treat new multifamily construction differently than high-value single-property transfers. "We came closer than many people want to admit to losing ULA outright and severely limiting our ability to levy new local transfer taxes," said Council member Yaroslavsky, urging the council to both protect the fund's core benefits and address practical production concerns. "If we want ULA to survive, colleagues, we have to be honest about what is not working in the program," she added.
After debate, the council took a procedural action to note and file a reform package and directed continued work on specific fixes. The clerk recorded the final vote on that motion as 13 ayes, 1 no (Council member Park recorded a no). On related items the council also approved amendments and substitute motions: items identified in committee as technical amendments were taken up and passed in roll-call votes (item 81 and item 82 were each recorded as passing with 13 ayes and 1 no where noted). The council president and other members emphasized the urgency of producing workable changes that protect permanent affordable housing funding while addressing builders’ concerns about the tax’s effects on production.
Community advocates urged elected officials not to send the matter back to the ballot. "The people have already spoken," said Yvonne Wheeler, representing labor, referring to the original ULA vote and urging members to honor voter intent. Opponents of returning the measure to voters argued that a new ballot fight would drain resources away from housing production.
Council members said they will continue negotiating technical fixes during the summer recess. The council's final procedural action on the ULA reform package did not itself change the ordinance; it requested further staff work and preserved the existing ULA funding streams while the office prepares options for the council's next meeting.
