Measure A (Los Angeles County)

Measure A (Los Angeles County)
Name	Measure A (Los Angeles County)
Title	Los Angeles County Ballot Measure A (2016)
Date	November 8, 2016
Outcome	Passed
Votes for	4,205,406
Votes against	1,576,046
Jurisdiction	Los Angeles County, California

Measure A (Los Angeles County)

Measure A was a 2016 Los Angeles County ballot initiative that enacted a quarter-cent sales tax to fund homelessness services, affordable housing, and mental health programs. The measure appeared on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot and received voter approval, creating a countywide funding mechanism administered by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. It connected county agencies, service providers, and regional planning efforts to address homelessness in urban and suburban communities across the county.

Background and Proposal

Measure A was proposed amid rising visibility of homelessness in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Skid Row (Los Angeles), and across the San Fernando Valley, following data from the United States Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. The proposal was shaped by policymakers from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, including members who had worked with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. Drafting involved consultation with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, the Annenberg Foundation, and local chapters of national organizations such as National Alliance to End Homelessness affiliates and the American Civil Liberties Union California offices. The measure sought authorization for a quarter-percent sales tax to be levied across the county, modeled in part on precedents like the San Francisco Proposition A (2018), the Alameda County Measure A (2014), and other municipal housing levies used by the City of Seattle and King County, Washington to finance supportive housing.

Campaign and Supporters

Supporters of Measure A coalesced into coalitions including nonprofit providers such as Los Angeles Mission, PATH (People Assisting The Homeless), and faith-based groups like the Archdiocese of Los Angeles outreach initiatives, as well as philanthropic entities including the Weingart Foundation and the California Community Foundation. Elected officials from the California State Assembly, the California State Senate, and members of the United States House of Representatives representing Los Angeles endorsed the measure, alongside the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors leadership. Labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union and neighborhood advocacy groups including CD11 (Los Angeles City Council district)-area coalitions campaigned for approval. Media endorsements from outlets such as the Los Angeles Times, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and editorial pages of regional newspapers amplified messaging that linked Measure A to expansions in supportive housing, mental health services, and partnerships with entities like the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System.

Opposition and Criticisms

Opposition came from taxpayer associations, business groups, and some municipal officials representing suburban cities in Los Angeles County including Santa Clarita, Palmdale, and Lancaster. Critics included chapters of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, local chambers of commerce, and fiscal watchdogs such as the L.A. County Taxpayer Protection Committee. Legal critiques referenced precedent from California Proposition 13 (1978) debates and cited concerns raised in litigation involving county ballot measures like San Diego County tax measures. Opponents argued about allocation oversight, the role of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and potential impacts on retail activity in commercial corridors such as Melrose Avenue and Rodeo Drive (Beverly Hills). Civil liberties organizations and tenant advocacy groups including some local chapters of the National Lawyers Guild and tenant unions raised questions about prioritization of services and coordination with programs funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Voting Results and Implementation

Measure A passed with a majority of votes on November 8, 2016, reflecting voter turnout patterns similar to contests for Presidential Election, 2016 ballots in California jurisdictions. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk certified results, showing approval across multiple supervisorial districts represented by officials from regions such as Malibu, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Compton. Implementation involved creating an administrative structure within county agencies, contracting with service providers like Mercy Housing and regional behavioral health networks, and coordinating with municipal offices including the City of Los Angeles Mayor's Office, the Los Angeles City Council, and the Los Angeles Police Department for outreach and diversion programs. Funding allocations prioritized evidence-based models such as the Housing First approach and collaborations with systems like Medi-Cal and the Social Security Administration for benefits access.

Legal and Fiscal Implications

Legally, Measure A established a countywide excise tax mechanism subject to California constitutional rules for local taxation, interacting with statutes administered by the California Franchise Tax Board in fiscal oversight contexts. The measure required audits by independent auditing firms and reporting to entities such as the California State Auditor and the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller. Fiscal implications included projected multi-year revenue streams to support capital development through partnerships with affordable housing financiers like Low-Income Housing Tax Credit syndicators, private equity partners including regional community development financial institutions, and grant coordination with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The measure also raised questions about interactions with bond financing precedents such as Proposition 1 (California, 2018) and legal challenges similar in character to litigation over local tax measures in the California Courts of Appeal.

Impact and Aftermath

Post-approval, Measure A revenues supported construction and preservation of supportive housing, expansion of mental health outreach by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, and scaled up homeless services administered through the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. Evaluations by academic institutions like the University of Southern California, the University of California, Los Angeles, and think tanks such as the RAND Corporation and the Brookings Institution informed assessments of outcomes including reductions in unsheltered populations in targeted neighborhoods such as Skid Row (Los Angeles) and Van Nuys. Subsequent policy debates involved coordination with statewide initiatives like No Place Like Home (California) and influenced later local measures and ordinances in municipalities across the county, shaping the intersection of philanthropic, municipal, and federal programs addressing homelessness and supportive services.

Category:Los Angeles County ballot propositions