A teacher reads a story to students at UCLA Community School.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
United to House L.A. (Measure ULA) was sold as a solution to the housing and homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. It was pitched as a “mansion tax” targeting only the wealthy, with supporters promising it would raise up to $1.1 billion each year. However, more than two years later, it is clear that the measure is backfiring, harming schools and communities in the process.
In its first 26 months, ULA has brought in just $725 million, or barely 60% of the minimum estimated revenue that voters were promised. That shortfall alone should raise red flags. But the damage doesn’t stop there. The tax has discouraged sales of high-value properties, resulting in a sharp decline in property tax revenue that funds schools, fire departments and other local services.
Ironically, it’s the same Democrats who once railed against Proposition 13’s limits on local revenue that now support a tax that is costing the city millions in property tax revenue.
Measure ULA imposes a 4% tax on property sales over $5 million and a 5.5% tax on those over $10 million. It doesn’t just hit mansions. It affects apartment buildings, commercial properties and land that could be used to build more housing. A UCLA study found that high-end real estate sales in Los Angeles fell by more than 50% after Measure ULA took effect. That decline alone reduced the city’s own share of property tax revenue by about $25 million per year.
But that’s just part of the picture. Property tax revenue isn’t collected by the city alone; it’s distributed across multiple local agencies, including schools, the county and special districts. A 2025 study by researchers from the Harvard Business School, UC San Diego and UC Irvine looked at the broader impact. They found that for every dollar raised by ULA, the region could lose up to $1.38 in future property tax revenue. That amounts to as much as $539 million in lost revenue in a single fiscal year, according to the California Center for Jobs and the Economy. This affects not only the city’s budget, but also schools and essential public services across Los Angeles County.
This outcome should concern anyone who values public education. Schools in California receive approximately 30% of their funding from local property taxes, with the remainder primarily coming from state taxes. When those local revenues shrink, the burden shifts to the state to make up the difference. That pushes the cost onto taxpayers across the state, pressures the Legislature to reduce discretionary school funding outside of Proposition 98, and increases demands on a state budget that is already running a $10 billion to $20 billion annual structural deficit, while leaving local students shortchanged.
The tax also slows the creation of housing. Developers need to purchase property to build, and the ULA tax makes those purchases more expensive, thus making them less common. By taxing the sale of newly built properties, ULA discourages future construction. Measure ULA even hits most affordable housing developers, who build the majority of subsidized units but don’t qualify for its exemptions.
Despite ULA’s failures, San Diego is considering a similar tax, and other cities may follow. Voters should take a hard look at what’s happened in Los Angeles before repeating the mistake.
•••
Gloria Romero is the former Democratic majority leader of the California Senate.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
