The Breakfast Club at the Jonathan Club: Measure ULA & Los Angeles Housing
One of the things I value most about serving as an Officer of the Breakfast Club at the Jonathan Club is the opportunity to help bring thoughtful speakers and relevant conversations into a club that has been part of Los Angeles for more than a century. As a Los Angeles real estate advisor with The Agency, I’m especially interested in conversations where real estate intersects with housing, development, business and the future of the city.
Recently, I had the privilege of introducing Mott Smith, a Los Angeles real estate developer and urban planner, for a Breakfast Club conversation about Measure ULA, commonly known as the Los Angeles “Mansion Tax.” Mott was previously my professor in the USC Ross Program in Real Estate, where I first heard him speak about ULA, making the opportunity to welcome him to the Jonathan Club particularly meaningful.
For me, Breakfast Club is another extension of how I approach real estate. Understanding Los Angeles requires more than following home prices and transactions. Housing policy, development economics, architecture, investment and the decisions shaping individual neighborhoods all influence the market. Our conversation with Mott gave us an opportunity to look beyond the headline of the “Mansion Tax” and dig into multifamily development, affordable housing and whether Measure ULA is working as intended.
Welcoming Mott Smith to Breakfast Club
Mott brings an interesting perspective to the conversation as both an urban planner and a real estate developer. Rather than approaching Measure ULA solely as a tax issue, his work examines how policy can influence transactions, development decisions and ultimately the production of housing in Los Angeles.
That became the foundation for our Breakfast Club discussion: What was Measure ULA intended to accomplish, what has happened since it took effect, and what can we learn from the results?
My Takeaway From the Conversation
I shared more about the morning and my history with Mott in this LinkedIn post:
What I Shared on LinkedIn
Afterward, I shared this about the morning:
The conversation also raised a larger question worth exploring because the term “Mansion Tax” doesn't fully explain what Measure ULA actually does.
What Is Measure ULA, the Los Angeles “Mansion Tax”?
Measure ULA was approved by Los Angeles voters in 2022 and went into effect in April 2023. It created an additional real estate transfer tax on qualifying property transactions within the City of Los Angeles, with the revenue dedicated to affordable housing and homelessness-prevention programs.
Despite its nickname, Measure ULA is not literally a tax on mansions.
The tax is based on the value of a qualifying real estate transfer, not whether the property is a luxury residence—or even a residence at all.
That means Measure ULA can apply to a luxury home, but it can also apply to an apartment building, multifamily property, commercial building, industrial property or development site.
That distinction is important when considering the broader effects of the policy on Los Angeles real estate and housing production.
What Are the Measure ULA Tax Rates in 2026?
The Measure ULA thresholds are adjusted for inflation.
For transactions closing after June 30, 2026, the City of Los Angeles imposes an additional 4% ULA tax on transfers over $5.4 million but below $10.9 million and an additional 5.5% tax on transfers of $10.9 million or more.
Those rates are in addition to the City's existing 0.45% real property transfer tax.
For perspective, on a $6 million transaction, the ULA portion alone would be approximately $240,000, before the City's existing transfer tax and other transaction costs.
That helps explain why Measure ULA can become an important consideration in the economics of a sale—particularly when the property involved is an apartment building or development opportunity rather than simply an expensive single-family home.
Measure ULA, Multifamily Development and Affordable Housing
This is where our Breakfast Club conversation became particularly interesting.
Measure ULA was created to help address a very real problem: Los Angeles needs more affordable housing and resources to prevent homelessness.
ULA revenue is dedicated to programs that include affordable housing production and preservation, tenant protections, rental assistance and homelessness prevention.
The measure has generated hundreds of millions of dollars for those purposes.
But Los Angeles also needs more housing production overall.
And multifamily development is a major part of how the city creates it.
That creates an important policy question:
What happens if a tax designed to fund affordable housing also makes some multifamily development more difficult?
The Effect on Multifamily Real Estate
This is an area Mott has studied directly.
Research co-authored by Mott and published through the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies examined transaction activity following the implementation of Measure ULA.
The researchers found evidence that the tax significantly reduced higher-value property transactions in Los Angeles, with particularly notable effects on commercial, industrial and multifamily properties.
Why does that matter for housing?
Because a property changing hands can be the beginning of something else.
An apartment building or development site may be purchased because a new owner intends to renovate it, reposition it, add housing or pursue an entirely new development.
If fewer of those properties change hands, some potential projects may never reach the starting line.
Could Measure ULA Affect Housing Production?
Researchers have also examined the relationship between Measure ULA and new multifamily development.
An updated analysis from the UCLA Lewis Center estimated that Measure ULA was associated with an approximately 31% reduction in permitting for multifamily projects of 20 or more units, equivalent to roughly 1,900 fewer units annually.
Those figures are research estimates of the policy's effect—not City housing-production statistics—and they are part of an ongoing debate over Measure ULA.
But they raise an important question for Los Angeles.
New multifamily projects don't necessarily create only market-rate housing.
Many Los Angeles developments include deed-restricted affordable units through density-bonus and other affordable-housing programs. When those projects aren't built, the city can potentially lose both market-rate housing and affordable housing.
That is where the policy becomes much more complicated than the phrase “Mansion Tax” suggests.
The Affordable Housing Question
The intent behind Measure ULA matters.
Revenue from the tax is being used for affordable housing and homelessness-prevention programs. The Los Angeles Housing Department tracks ULA revenue, expenditures and programs, including investments in affordable housing production and preservation.
Those are meaningful resources in a city facing a serious housing-affordability problem.
At the same time, research examining the multifamily effects of ULA raises a different question: Could Los Angeles preserve much of the funding generated by Measure ULA while reducing its impact on the production of new housing?
That doesn't require treating Measure ULA as simply good or bad.
It means looking at the results.
Los Angeles needs resources to subsidize affordable housing.
It also needs private investment to produce more housing.
And increasingly, the Measure ULA conversation is about whether those two objectives can be better aligned.
That discussion also connects to the broader housing challenges facing Los Angeles. I recently explored many of those issues following the USC Lusk State of Los Angeles County Housing and Neighborhoods report, including affordability, household income and the changing profile of buyers and renters across the region.
Bringing the Conversation Back to Breakfast Club
That's what I appreciated most about welcoming Mott Smith to the Breakfast Club at the Jonathan Club.
Breakfast Club gives us an opportunity to bring people into the room who can take a complicated subject and get beyond the easy version of the story.
Measure ULA sounds relatively straightforward when reduced to a headline: tax expensive real estate and use the money to support affordable housing.
But when you start looking at multifamily development, affordable units, investment, transaction activity and the economics required to actually build housing in Los Angeles, the conversation becomes considerably more nuanced.
For me, that's exactly the kind of conversation worth having.
Real estate doesn't operate independently from the city around it. Housing policy, development, architecture, economics and neighborhood change all eventually influence the decisions buyers, sellers, investors and property owners make.
Having the opportunity to introduce Mott and bring that discussion to Breakfast Club made the morning particularly meaningful.
And my takeaway remains the same:
Los Angeles needs more housing, and we should be honest about whether the policies designed to address that problem are actually helping—or creating new barriers along the way.
Jason Bergman is a real estate advisor with The Agency representing buyers and sellers throughout Los Angeles. He is an Officer of the Breakfast Club at the Jonathan Club and completed the USC Ross Program in Real Estate.
Related Reading
What the 2026 SOLACHAN Report Tells Us About Housing in Los Angeles
Jason Bergman Attends USC Lusk Annual Retreat with USC Ross Program Alumni
