Measure ULA – once sold as a housing solution – is now being scrutinized as a housing constraint.

When Measure ULA was first advanced, opponents warned it could negatively impact the real estate industry, development and housing supply. Those concerns were largely dismissed. Today, many of those same “unintended consequences” are now being evaluated by state and local government.

Approved by Los Angeles voters in November 2022 and implemented in April 2023, ULA imposes a significant real estate transfer tax on higher-value residential, commercial and mixed-use property sales. The tax has generated over $1 billion in revenue. But at what cost?

State and local officials have been weighing responses to mounting ULA concerns, though proposed fixes appear to have stalled. Last year, Mayor Bass advocated for a one-time exemption for the Palisades fire-impacted homeowners. At the state level in 2025, SB 423 was introduced to modify ULA’s transfer tax structure but was pulled amid backlash. In January, the City Attorney evaluated the Council’s authority to enact two proposed tax exemptions, cautioned that the proposed exemptions would likely exceed the Council’s amendment authority and advised pursuing a ballot measure.

Meanwhile, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association continues gathering signatures for a statewide initiative that would cap charter city real property transfer taxes at 0.11%, require a two-thirds vote for certain special local taxes, and phase out existing local transfer taxes that exceed the cap, including ULA, within two years of enactment.

Against this backdrop, another twist emerged in the Measure ULA story, LA City Councilmember Nithya Raman unexpectedly introduced and attempted to push through a motion to place reforms on the June 2, 2026 ballot. Her proposal would establish a fifteen-year exemption for newly constructed multifamily, commercial and mixed-use properties, a temporary exemption for disaster-impacted properties, and technical amendments affecting affordable housing provisions.

Raman’s comments during the City Council meeting were telling. She acknowledged that ULA’s current structure is disincentivizing multifamily housing production and shifting capital to other jurisdictions building at faster rates. She compared it to trying to solve hunger with a program that increases food shortages. Simultaneously, she framed her proposed reform efforts as the best way to preserve ULA, arguing that local action is necessary to prevent broader rollbacks.

The proposal was referred back to committee, suggesting a lack of consensus. The following day, another motion was introduced stating that “any proposed changes to Measure ULA warrant careful and comprehensive evaluation.” Both motions are pending in committee.

In a surprise move, Raman announced her candidacy for Los Angeles mayor, potentially elevating the ULA debate from a policy discussion to a defining campaign issue.

The lesson of Measure ULA is that housing production remains the foundation of affordability. ULA highlights how housing policies that discount this fundamental factor inevitably constrain the very production they aim to support.

The coming months will determine the fate of Measure ULA. While it is early to predict the outcome, one thing is clear: the discussion is far from over.

By Danielle Leidner-Peretz, Founder of DLP Government Relations LLC

Danielle M. Leidner-Peretz is the Founder of DLP Government Relations LLC, specializing in expert advocacy and ethical insight. She offers strategic counsel across a range of policy issues, delivering tailored, results-driven solutions for navigating complex government and regulatory challenges. She previously served as the Director of Government Relations for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. For more information, go to www.dlpgovernmentrelations.com.