Measure HHH (2016)

Measure HHH (2016) was a Los Angeles ballot proposition proposing a $1.2 billion general obligation bond to fund construction of supportive housing and services for individuals experiencing homelessness. The measure surfaced amid national debates involving Affordable Care Act, Housing First, and municipal responses to visible homelessness similar to initiatives in San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and New York City. Proponents framed the measure as a local adaptation of policies endorsed by actors such as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and non‑profits like United Way and United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

Background and ballot placement

Ballot placement followed a series of high‑profile incidents and reports linking homelessness with policy discussions involving Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and advocacy groups. The measure was placed on the ballot by the Los Angeles City Council under rules similar to prior municipal bond measures such as Measure R (2008), Measure M (2016), and drew comparisons to statewide housing efforts like California Proposition 1 (2018). Debates referenced demographic and epidemiological research from institutions including University of California, Los Angeles, University of Southern California, and policy centers such as the RAND Corporation and Brookings Institution.

Provisions of the measure

The measure authorized issuance of $1.2 billion in general obligation bonds to finance construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of multiple types of housing targeted at people experiencing chronic homelessness. Funds were allocated under priorities administered by the City of Los Angeles and entities such as Los Angeles Housing Department and Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority to produce permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, and related facilities. The measure specified requirements for affordable housing developments analogous to federal programs administered by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, coordination with programs like Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing for veterans, and compliance with California laws including California Environmental Quality Act procedures. Oversight and audit provisions invoked offices like the Los Angeles City Controller and the Los Angeles City Attorney.

Arguments and campaigning

Supporters included the Mayoralty of Eric Garcetti, members of the Los Angeles City Council, housing advocacy organizations, and coalitions involving NGOs such as Skid Row Housing Trust, LA Family Housing, and business groups connected to Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Campaign messaging referenced cost‑benefit analyses from entities like Harvard Kennedy School, public health findings from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and examples from Salt Lake City and Houston to argue for permanent supportive housing and reduced emergency services use. Opponents ranged from fiscal conservatives citing bond indebtedness similar to critiques of California Proposition 13 (1978) to neighborhood activists concerned about siting, invoking entities like the California Taxpayers Association and citing case law involving Costa Hawkins‑type debates. Media coverage in outlets such as Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, and networks like KCBS-TV amplified both fiscal and social welfare arguments.

Election results and implementation

On November 8, 2016, the measure passed with a majority vote, joining other 2016 California ballot measures such as Proposition 64 (2016). Implementation required coordination among the Los Angeles Housing Department, Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and city budget offices, and proceeded in phases including project pipelines, environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act, and contracting with developers active in the region such as Related Companies and community providers like Mercy Housing. Oversight mechanisms involved audits by the California State Auditor and local monitoring by the Los Angeles City Controller and advocacy watchdogs including Coalition for Responsible Homebuilding‑type organizations.

Impact and evaluations

Evaluations cited in policy analyses compared outcomes to national research from National Alliance to End Homelessness, Urban Institute, and academic studies from University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University. Reported impacts included increases in permanent supportive housing units funded through the bond, coordination with county services overseen by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and mixed evidence on reductions in street homelessness relative to contemporaneous investments such as Measure H (2017), philanthropic contributions from entities like the Weingart Foundation, and state programs like California Homeless Emergency Aid Program. Critics pointed to timelines, per‑unit costs, and ongoing operational funding needs involving agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Health and Human Services. Continued assessments by UCLA researchers, policy centers like the Economic Roundtable, and civic auditors informed follow‑up recommendations about siting, wraparound services, and fiscal sustainability.

Category:Housing in Los Angeles