Measure HHH (Los Angeles)

Measure HHH (Los Angeles)
Name	Measure HHH
Title	Homelessness Bond Measure (Los Angeles)
Type	Ballot measure
Year	2016
Results	Passed
Amount	$1.2 billion
Jurisdiction	City of Los Angeles

Measure HHH (Los Angeles) was a 2016 local ballot measure in Los Angeles proposing a $1.2 billion general obligation bond to finance construction of permanent supportive housing for persons experiencing homelessness. The measure appeared alongside contests involving the mayoral electorate and intersected with debates involving the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the California Legislature, and federal housing programs administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Advocacy and opposition involved coalitions linked to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, the ACLU, and business groups such as the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Background and ballot placement

The measure emerged amid a growing homelessness crisis visible in neighborhoods like Skid Row, Venice, and Hollywood, and coincided with national attention from outlets like the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Proponents cited studies from institutions such as the RAND Corporation, the University of Southern California, and the California Policy Lab to argue for capital investment in permanent supportive housing models informed by work from National Alliance to End Homelessness, California Coalition for Homelessness, and Corporation for Supportive Housing. Opponents included groups aligned with California Republican Party activists and some tenant organizations worried about displacement and gentrification near transit corridors like the Los Angeles Metro B Line and Los Angeles Metro A Line. The ballot placement followed signature gathering and municipal procedures involving the City Clerk of Los Angeles and was certified in an election cycle that also featured races for Mayor of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Provisions of the measure

Measure HHH authorized the issuance of $1.2 billion in general obligation bonds to finance construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of supportive housing units, modeled on frameworks used by San Francisco and Seattle. It specified eligible borrowers including the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles and permitted funds to be used for capital costs but not for operating subsidies, which implicated agencies like the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness for service funding. The measure included provisions for independent audits, oversight panels similar to those in measures by San Diego and Oakland, and reporting requirements paralleling standards from the Government Accountability Office. It referenced collaboration with nonprofit developers such as Mercy Housing, Skid Row Housing Trust, and PATH.

Funding mechanisms and allocation

Repayment of the bonds would come from property tax levies on Los Angeles property owners, raising debates involving fiscal entities like the Los Angeles City Controller and the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Projected debt service estimates referenced municipal finance practices used by New York City and Chicago for general obligation bonds, and bond ratings considerations echoed analyses from Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings. Allocation plans prioritized units for chronically homeless individuals and veterans, connecting to programs run by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and referrals coordinated through the Los Angeles Continuum of Care and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Coordinated Entry System. The measure anticipated leveraging state resources from programs like Proposition 41 (2002)-style bonds and federal tax credit programs administered by the Internal Revenue Service.

Implementation and administration

Implementation involved coordination among municipal departments such as the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, the Department of City Planning (Los Angeles), and the Department of Building and Safety (Los Angeles), as well as nonprofit developers and philanthropic partners including the Weingart Foundation and the Annenberg Foundation. Oversight mechanisms used independent audits and annual reports comparable to those required for bond-funded projects in San Jose and San Diego. Project delivery engaged design and construction firms familiar with California seismic standards and accessibility rules tied to the California Building Standards Commission and compliance with laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. Service provision agreements were structured with social service providers such as The Salvation Army and Los Angeles LGBT Center for behavioral health and case management.

Controversy and legal challenges

Measure HHH prompted legal disputes and public debate involving attorneys from the ACLU of Southern California, law firms representing neighborhood councils, and complaints filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Contentious issues included whether bonds could fund services, the sufficiency of transparency and oversight, and the interaction of the measure with state laws like the Davis–Stirling Common Interest Development Act and federal constitutional claims litigated under precedents from the Supreme Court of the United States. Critics pointed to construction delays tied to permitting processes at the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and rising construction costs influenced by policies in California State Assembly and California State Senate legislative actions. Lawsuits raised by tenants' groups referenced case law from the California Court of Appeal and regulatory interpretations from the California Attorney General.

Impact and outcomes

After passage, Measure HHH funded multiple projects yielding thousands of housing units developed by partnerships among the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Skid Row Housing Trust, Mercy Housing, and municipal agencies, while ongoing operational funding continued to derive from sources like Measure H and state programs including No Place Like Home. Evaluations by academic partners at University of California, Los Angeles and University of Southern California tracked outcomes for populations served, measuring housing retention and service utilization paralleling studies from Harvard University and Columbia University. Implementation faced challenges common to large capital programs, including timeline slippage, litigation, and coordination with countywide initiatives overseen by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. Measure HHH remains a reference point in debates among city officials, advocates, and researchers from institutions such as Stanford University and California State University, Los Angeles about scalable responses to urban homelessness.

Category:Homelessness in Los Angeles