Community speakers urge Los Angeles City Council to protect Measure ULA as proposed changes surface

Dozens of speakers at a Los Angeles City Council meeting urged elected officials to protect Measure ULA, the voter-approved housing funding initiative, and to resist proposed modifications they said would benefit real estate interests.

Tenant organizer Cynthia González told the council she represented east Los Angeles tenants affected by detentions and evictions and asked members to "support Measure ULA" to protect constituents. Emily Ramrez of a housing nonprofit said the measure "has generated more than $1 billion" and urged the council not to "pass any motion that would weaken how funds are used," adding the city should invest in "viviendas permanentes y no viviendas enteninas" (permanent housing, not temporary encampments).

Why it matters: Speakers and union representatives said Measure ULA provides a dedicated local revenue stream to prevent evictions and build affordable housing. Several commenters said early projects have yielded measurable results and warned that exemptions, delays or renaming of the fund would divert revenue away from the voters' stated purpose.

Public testimony included labor and tenant organizers. Rob Nottov of a labor federation said opponents are "trying to avoid paying their share" and urged the council to protect the law as written. Multiple speakers also accused outside real-estate interests of mounting a campaign against the measure.

Council response and next steps: After public comment the council received an announcement from Councilmember Rodrguez that an arrest had been made in an alleged fraud case involving homelessness funds and that about $23,000,000 had been cited as used illegally; Rodrguez asked that the matter be scheduled for committee review to investigate spending and increase transparency. Councilmember Brahman moved to place a discussion on committee agenda; Councilmember Bloomenfield seconded or joined related conversation on contracting county services for homelessness response. No ordinance or amendment to Measure ULA was adopted at the meeting.

The meeting closed with members saying they intended to continue the conversation in committee rather than change Measure ULA at the dais. The public comment period lasted roughly one hour, with many speakers explicitly saying they want the council to "protect" the voter-approved funding stream.