Proposition A (Los Angeles County)

Proposition A (Los Angeles County)
Name	Proposition A (Los Angeles County)
Title	Los Angeles County Charter Amendment—Affordable Housing and Homelessness Prevention
Election	November 3, 2020
Result	Passed
Votes for	3442192
Votes against	2054376
Electorate	4930000
Outcome	Enacted

Proposition A (Los Angeles County) was a 2020 county ballot measure that amended the Los Angeles County Charter to authorize a parcel tax and allocate funding for homelessness services, affordable housing, and emergency response. The measure appeared on the November 3, 2020, ballot during a general election that also featured federal, state, and county contests. Proposition A built on ongoing policy debates in Los Angeles County involving homelessness, housing policy, and public health.

Background and ballot placement

In the lead-up to the November 2020 election distinct actors including the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Mayor of Los Angeles, California State Assembly, California State Senate, and advocacy groups debated fiscal responses to the homelessness crisis. High-visibility events such as coverage by the Los Angeles Times, reporting from the Associated Press, investigations by the City of Long Beach and incidents in neighborhoods near Venice, Los Angeles increased public attention. After drafts circulated among offices of officials like Kathryn Barger, Hilda Solis, Janice Hahn, and Sheila Kuehl, the Board placed the measure on the ballot under county charter amendment procedures, following precedent from earlier local measures such as Measure H (Los Angeles County), Measure HHH (Los Angeles), and statewide initiatives like Proposition 47 (2014). The placement occurred in the context of legal, fiscal, and administrative frameworks traced to the California Constitution, county ordinances, and programs administered by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.

Provisions and intended effects

Proposition A authorized a parcel tax levying up to a specified amount per parcel to raise funds for specific programs administered by county agencies including the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. The text earmarked revenues for affordable housing development, rental assistance, interim housing, services for people experiencing homelessness, enhanced outreach by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, and emergency shelters responsive to priorities similar to those in Measure HHH and federal programs under agencies like the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Drafters cited models such as municipal revenue bonds used by the City of San Francisco and tax measures passed in counties like King County, Washington to target homelessness. The measure included accountability mechanisms involving audits, reporting to the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller, and oversight by boards and commissions patterned after oversight in jurisdictions like San Diego County.

Campaign and endorsements

Endorsements for and against the measure came from a range of public officials, nonprofits, and private entities. Proponents included members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, elected officials such as Eric Garcetti and Karen Bass, nonprofit organizations like the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, service providers affiliated with the Skid Row Housing Trust, and labor groups including the UNITE HERE and local chapters of the Service Employees International Union. Media endorsements included the Los Angeles Daily News and editorial positions aligned with the LAist network. Opponents comprised some municipal officials in cities like Pasadena and advocacy groups critical of parcel taxes such as Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, fiscal watchdogs, and commentators in outlets like The Daily Caller and conservative factions associated with the Libertarian Party (United States). Legal organizations including public interest law firms monitored the campaign for compliance with county ballot measure rules and campaign finance laws overseen by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Supporters' arguments and funding

Supporters argued Proposition A would generate stable local revenue to expand permanent supportive housing, mental health services, and substance use treatment, drawing comparisons to revenue initiatives in Seattle and New York City that financed housing and homelessness interventions. Major donors included philanthropic entities, real estate developers, healthcare foundations, and individual philanthropists with ties to institutions such as the Weingart Foundation and the California Community Foundation. Coalitions coordinating outreach featured nonprofit networks like the Housing Works model and service providers linked to the Coalition for Responsible Community Development. Supporters emphasized projected impacts on public safety, hospitals like Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center, and jails including the Men's Central Jail by reducing utilization through housing-first strategies championed by researchers at UCLA and policy analysts at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Opponents' arguments and funding

Opponents contended the parcel tax structure was regressive, could burden homeowners and small businesses in cities such as Long Beach and Glendale, and might not ensure efficient use of funds given past critiques of spending in county programs like Measure H. Funding for opposition campaigns came from taxpayer associations such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, trade groups representing small businesses, and some real estate interests wary of tax increases, with legal advisories from law firms experienced in municipal litigation. Critics invoked fiscal scrutiny from auditors like the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller and referenced analyses by think tanks including the Reason Foundation and the Hoover Institution to argue for alternative policy mixes emphasizing zoning reform advocated by scholars at Stanford University and UC Berkeley.

Election results and implementation

On November 3, 2020, voters approved Proposition A with a majority similar to other county measures; certified totals reported passage and subsequent allocation plans. Implementation proceeded through contracting and programmatic phases managed by the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office in coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for related services and with nonprofit partners like PATH (People Assisting the Homeless). Funds were disbursed for projects ranging from interim housing development to supportive services informed by models from the National Alliance to End Homelessness and evaluations by research centers such as the RAND Corporation. The county published regular reports to boards and commissions and audits by the California State Auditor and county auditor offices tracked compliance.

Legal challenges and subsequent developments

Following enactment, opponents and oversight groups filed challenges and public records requests invoking county charter provisions and state law, with litigation strategies similar to prior cases involving the California Supreme Court and trial courts in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Lawsuits questioned ballot language, tax administration, and compliance with reporting requirements; some claims were dismissed while others prompted settlement agreements and adjustments to implementation. Subsequent developments included coordination with state programs under the California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, revised ordinances in municipalities like Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, and continued engagement from federal agencies including HUD and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on program design and funding alignment. The measure's passage influenced later ballot initiatives and policy proposals in the region and across California.

Category:2020 California ballot propositions Category:Los Angeles County, California