In my spare time, I get to teach and do research in the USC Dollinger Master of Real Estate Development program. Just published a paper with my colleague Mike Manville at the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies on the unintended consequences of the Measure ULA Transfer tax. Here's a summary: In November 2022, Los Angeles voters passed Measure ULA—a new 4%–5.5% tax on real estate sales over $5 million—to benefit low-income renters. Despite being nicknamed the “mansion tax,” Measure ULA applies to all property types—apartment buildings, offices, retail centers, soundstages, studios, warehouses, manufacturing sites, and more. And while non-single-family properties generate a minority share of ULA’s revenue, they’ve borne the majority of the economic fallout. It’s one of the steepest transfer taxes in the country—and unusually, it’s not marginal. A single extra dollar over the threshold can trigger a tax bill of more than $200,000. That’s a design flaw with serious consequences. Since the tax passed, sales of properties over $5 million have collapsed—falling 30–50% more in the City of LA than in the rest of the County during the same period. This sharp decline is a leading indicator of slowed development. Housing projects have stalled. Commercial and industrial reinvestment has declined. Redevelopment was already hard in LA—now it's even harder. And despite its promise, ULA revenue is far below projections. The City expected $600 million to $1.1 billion per year. The average so far? Just $288 million. There's also a longer-term issue: slowed property tax growth. Transactions over $5 million have historically driven more than 40% of LA’s property tax growth. When those sales decline, tax base growth stalls—not just for the City, but for schools, community colleges, the County, and the State. The effect compounds over time. By year 10 or 12, the annual property tax revenue lost due to ULA may exceed the revenue the tax generates. Yes—but it’s complicated. The ballot measure severely limits the City Council’s ability to amend it. The most promising path lies with the State. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks has introduced AB 698, which would require deeper analysis before future transfer taxes can be approved. That’s a good start. But more is needed. LA’s housing and jobs future—and the stability of its real estate market and public finances—will depend on whether we can reform Measure ULA.
Do you mind posting the direct link here? 🙏
Just came here to find you after reading the LAT piece. Kudos and congrats, Mott!
"Raising Revenue vs Changing Behavior" is LA's legacy approach especially with growing DSA influenced City Council. I always say Los Angeles shines when it's subject to a Federal Consent Decree. Until then, Election 2026 is upon us.
What a con job. ULA Mansion Tax ripped off taxpayers by not delivering homeless housing, reducing investment & new housing. Now they divert funds to hassle landlords. "Non-Profit Administrator For The ULA Protections For Tenant Harassment Legal Services Fund RFP" was posted on 4/7/2025 RAMP ID: 216686 Title: Non-Profit Administrator For The ULA Protections For Tenant Harassment Legal Services Fund RFP Department: LA Housing Department Bid Due: 5/19/2025 Link: https://www.rampla.org/s/opportunity-details?id=006Ql00000D3Qcq
This is a fantastic and insightful analysis of Measure ULA’s unintended consequences. Your research highlights the critical balance between policy intentions and economic realities. The sharp decline in property transactions and its cascading effects on development, investment, and tax revenue are eye-opening. It’s clear that while the tax aimed to support low-income renters, its rigid design may be hindering broader economic growth. Thoughtful reforms, like those proposed in AB 698, are essential to ensure sustainability. Thank you for shedding light on this important issue—your work is a valuable contribution to the conversation on housing and urban development in LA!
I love this Mott. Thanks. Great info.
This is fantastic, Mott. Great information and insight.
Wow Mott! I hope that data and research can inform policymaking!
Mott this is very informative. Well done. And the same applies to Santa Monica's Measure GS, which applies a 5.6% transfer tax for sales over $8M. And again it was sold as a "mansion tax." but it impacts more that mansions.
4K followers
12moHuge thanks to Sara Soudani at Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ® for facilitating the data gathering that made this study possible.