Atop the Los Angeles County ballot next month is a measure that tests at least two assumptions: that county voters are prepared to spend more to relieve the problem of homelessness, and that those same voters trust government to spend that money well.
Neither assumption is proven.
The results of Measure A, a sales tax hike and extension to pay for housing and homeless services, will say a great deal about what this region thinks of the progress that’s been made and the elected leaders at the forefront.
Since her election two years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has made homelessness her top priority. Her first official act was to declare a state of emergency, directing all city agencies “to take necessary steps for the protection of life, health and safety in the City of Los Angeles.” She then launched “Inside Safe,” the most prominent of several programs intended to move people from the streets to temporary and, ultimately, permanent housing.
All of that has elevated homelessness into the defining issue of Bass’s term. Every major undertaking of her administration — from hosting the 2028 Olympics to the selection of a new police chief — is examined in part based on what it means for LA’s unhoused population. In practical terms, Bass’s focus has meant expending resources and political capital with the primary goal of bringing people out of encampments and finding them places to live.
Public attention has never been higher. Homelessness ranks at or near the top of every poll of Angelenos’ top concerns (sometimes just behind the cost of living), and the city council has followed her lead in approving measures to respond. Bass also has been modestly successful: More than 60 tent cities have come down since she became mayor, and some 3,000 people have moved into transitional housing.
But that still leaves tens of thousands of people scraping by at the margins of this city and county, along with a public eager to see progress.
Bass and her many supporters have always known that the effort to substantially reduce homelessness is, in one sense, a race against impatience. The work is painstaking and expensive. At some point, public support will fade for a program built on spending and coaxing unless she and others can demonstrate noticeable results.
Whether that point has been reached is the threshold question posed by Measure A. If passed, the measure would replace the county’s existing quarter-cent sales tax — set to expire in 2027 — with a half-cent tax that would continue indefinitely until its revoked.
The county estimates the higher tax would raise more than $1 billion a year to reduce and prevent homelessness by creating affordable housing and providing rental assistance, among other things. The money would also go toward providing services for mental health, addiction and domestic violence.
Those are popular programs, and the polling shows significant support for the measure, though not enough to declare it a lock. A Los Angeles Times poll last month had it leading, 49% to 33%, with 17% of surveyed voters undecided. One private poll had it running a bit better than that a few months ago, which could indicate some softening as Election Day approaches. A third poll, this one of Latinos, showed strong support in that community, the county’s largest.
But those are not exactly comfortable numbers, and the measure’s supporters are mindful that it could be close.
Hovering over the Measure A debate is the question of whether the government can be trusted to make the best use of the money it would generate. And that’s at the heart of the homelessness conversation generally: Bass and the county supervisors are working together as never before, and their efforts are better coordinated and more visible than at any time on this issue in decades, or perhaps ever.
But even the ballot itself sends mixed signals on the question of trusting the government. At the same time that voters are considering whether to entrust the county with more money for housing and homeless services, they are considering whether to revamp that same government, enlarging the board of supervisors and creating a new, countywide, elected chief executive.
Presumably, giving the government more tax money suggests confidence in government, while restructuring that government taps dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Beyond that is the larger question of whether this region is on the right track with respect to homelessness. Again, there are indicators pointing in different directions.
On one hand, the most recent annual count of unhoused people suggested some room for encouragement. On the other, it underscored how incremental that progress has been and how very far the region has to go.
The report, which estimated the number of unhoused people in Los Angeles city and county as of late January, concluded that the number had fallen by less than 1% since a year earlier. The numbers at the city, where Bass has concentrated her efforts, were a bit better, with a 2.2% decline.
Progress, yes, but a long way from declaring victory.
“This may be the last shot.”
Zev Yaroslavsky, Former City Council member and County Supervisor
As of January, some 75,000 people were unhoused in Los Angeles County — more than 45,000 of them within city limits. There is no way to feel good about that.
Bass received those numbers cautiously, happy at the turn but guarded about making too much of it. For her and her staff, the most encouraging finding might be that there was a 10% decline in the number of people living on city streets, a testament to the city’s work at reducing encampments. Again, that suggests the beginning of something promising, but it hardly proves that the work so far has generated results that justify the effort and expense.
That’s where Measure A represents a test. Voters who believe the investments of time and energy over the past two years are fundamentally correct and will, eventually, bring down the scope of the problem may support the measure, but they can’t know for sure whether these investments will pay off.
It is, UCLA professor and housing expert Michael Lens said this week, “a bit of a leap of faith.”
By contrast, voting against Measure A would send a nervous message to City Hall, the County Hall of Administration and to the many civic leaders across California and beyond who are watching LA’s efforts to tackle this most troubling issue. If voters here have reached the limits of their patience, voters elsewhere may feel the same.
Former City Councilmember and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said Tuesday that he feels good about Measure A’s chances, but he warned that it will serve as a referendum on the progress so far. Taxpayers will have every right to demand results if they agree to raise their taxes, again, to pay for solutions.
“This,” he said, “may be the last shot.”