The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to create a temporary committee to review and potentially reshape Measure ULA, the voter-approved real estate transfer tax that funds housing and homelessness programs, as city leaders revisit the policy amid growing debate over its impact on housing development and real estate transactions.
The motion, introduced by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, creates a three-member ad hoc committee tasked with reviewing all pending city matters related to Measure ULA and recommending next steps.
The review could inform whether the council ultimately asks voters to consider changes to the measure in the November 2026 election, according to the motion. The committee is expected to report back to the council by April 30 unless its work is extended.
The committee follows an earlier proposal in January by Councilmember Nithya Raman, seconded by Harris-Dawson, to place amendments to the tax before voters on the June ballot. That effort drew strong opposition from housing advocates and tenant rights groups who championed the measure’s passage in 2022, and was ultimately referred to council committees rather than advancing.
Harris-Dawson said during Wednesday’s meeting the review is intended to examine whether the policy has produced unintended consequences since it took effect.
“I want to be clear that it’s the full intention to stay in keeping with the spirit of the voters,” he said.
Still, Harris-Dawson said, some aspects of the tax may not reflect what the voters intended.
“There are things in ULA that I frankly think are not in the spirit of the voters, like taxing the building of affordable housing, as one example,” he said. The review, he added, could help determine whether the city should consider “giving the voters a second chance to improve on what they did in the past.”
Measure ULA, often called the city’s “mansion tax” — imposes a 4% transfer tax on property sales between $5 million and $10 million, and a 5.5% transfer tax on the sales of properties above $10 million. The revenues fund affordable housing, tenant protections and homelessness prevention programs.
Supporters say the measure has generated more than $1 billion for those efforts since taking effect in 2023, while critics argue it has slowed large property transactions and could discourage housing investment.
Those tensions were reflected in comments from council members during Wednesday’s meeting.
“Angelenos led that conversation at the ballot box, and I know that the people expect to throw down for Measure ULA,” said Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez. “That is why any changes proposed by this ad hoc committee must unequivocally reflect and sustain the will of those voters.”
She warned against what she described as pressure from special interest groups seeking to weaken the policy.
“I, along with community partners, welcome an honest, open-book conversation about ULA, but that conversation must be rooted in accurate data,” Hernandez said.
Councilmember Nithya Raman said in a statement after the meeting that she continues to support the measure but believes the review could help address potential unintended consequences.
“I remain in very strong support of ULA, its goals, and the role it plays in LA right now. The revenues that have come from it are an absolutely essential resource for a city that has very few reliable sources for rent relief and affordable housing construction,” Raman said. “With the creation of this Ad Hoc Committee, I hope that we are able to have a real conversation about keeping these revenues intact while also removing unintended barriers to new housing production.”
Joe Donlin, director of the United to House L.A. coalition that helped write and campaign for the measure, said in an interview after the meeting that the group is open to reviewing the policy but wants the process to be grounded in evidence.
“Done right, this Ad Hoc Committee could be an opportunity to consider the value of our landmark affordable housing and homelessness prevention fund, take the time necessary to carefully examine the data and research questions before us, and lay this discussion to rest once and for all,” he said.
However, Donlin questioned whether the committee’s timeline would allow for the kind of thorough evaluation the policy warrants.
“It’s unclear whether the time constraints placed on the committee would allow for the thorough, data-driven evaluation that such a major policy warrants,” he said.
Measure ULA was approved by nearly 60% of voters in 2022, but it has drawn criticism from some economists and real estate groups who say it has reduced sales of high-value properties and could discourage housing development.
Shane Phillips, housing initiative manager at UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, previously told this publication that multiple research teams have found that Measure ULA sharply reduced sales of properties valued above $5 million in Los Angeles compared to neighboring cities without elevated transfer taxes, particularly for sites suitable for apartment development.
Supporters of the measure dispute those conclusions, pointing to a separate report by researchers affiliated with UCLA, USC and other institutions that argued the earlier analysis relied on flawed data and did not adequately account for broader market trends or the benefits of the housing programs funded by the tax.
Those concerns helped spur an earlier proposal by Raman and Harris-Dawson that would have exempted newly constructed multifamily, commercial and mixed-use buildings from the tax for 15 years, created temporary hardship exemptions for properties affected by natural disasters and made technical adjustments aimed at easing financing constraints and streamlining affordable housing development.
The review also comes as Measure ULA faces pressure beyond City Hall. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is gathering signatures for a proposed statewide ballot initiative that could limit local governments’ ability to impose transfer taxes like ULA.