Mott Smith
@mottsmith.bsky.social
Co-Founder of Amped Kitchens (http://ampedkitchens.com). Board Chair, Council of Infill Builders. Vice Chair, LA City Small Business Comm. Adjunct prof of Real Estate Dev, USC's Price School. Personal account. Posts are solely mine. Follow ≠ endorsement.
2) This is a more fair point. Still, Taxing Tomorrow includes a supplemental analysis showing total entitled units fell dramatically after ULA. Again, entitlements aren't as good an indicator as permits, but falling entitlements does suggest fewer permitted units.
September 8, 2025 at 4:31 AM
2) This is a more fair point. Still, Taxing Tomorrow includes a supplemental analysis showing total entitled units fell dramatically after ULA. Again, entitlements aren't as good an indicator as permits, but falling entitlements does suggest fewer permitted units.
1) If you include ED1, you credit ULA for the ED1 boost & make ULA’s harms look smaller. Ward & Phillips flagged this, explained why the bias is ambiguous, and excluded ED1 to avoid mixing policy shocks. A good-faith rebuttal would have engaged that choice, not pretended they didn’t address it.
September 8, 2025 at 4:31 AM
1) If you include ED1, you credit ULA for the ED1 boost & make ULA’s harms look smaller. Ward & Phillips flagged this, explained why the bias is ambiguous, and excluded ED1 to avoid mixing policy shocks. A good-faith rebuttal would have engaged that choice, not pretended they didn’t address it.
Super interesting. What's the source for that?
September 8, 2025 at 3:42 AM
Super interesting. What's the source for that?
In the last week of session, I am always prepared to be surprised. That way I'm never disappointed. :)
September 8, 2025 at 3:29 AM
In the last week of session, I am always prepared to be surprised. That way I'm never disappointed. :)
Before you say you agree with the critiques, please read our detailed response to them: www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the...
The Consequences of Measure ULA: Some Clarifications
This report responds to criticisms of two earlier UCLA Lewis Center reports. We show that these criticisms are misguided and also examine a claim that Measure ULA created 10,000 union construction job...
www.lewis.ucla.edu
September 8, 2025 at 3:09 AM
Before you say you agree with the critiques, please read our detailed response to them: www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the...
Asm. Buffy Wicks has been leading on this. 80% of the taxes that would be killed by the Howard Jarvis initiative are in Northern California, her home. She is trying to thread the needle between preserving revenues, restoring incentives to build and unlocking funds for new aff hsg.
September 8, 2025 at 2:59 AM
Asm. Buffy Wicks has been leading on this. 80% of the taxes that would be killed by the Howard Jarvis initiative are in Northern California, her home. She is trying to thread the needle between preserving revenues, restoring incentives to build and unlocking funds for new aff hsg.
My pleasure. I'm up for more procrastination excuses, so don't hesitate to lob more questions or thoughts. :)
September 8, 2025 at 2:08 AM
My pleasure. I'm up for more procrastination excuses, so don't hesitate to lob more questions or thoughts. :)
Again, my fingers are crossed that some efforts in Sacramento will fix this problem and all the ULA programs will be available for leverage.
September 8, 2025 at 2:06 AM
Again, my fingers are crossed that some efforts in Sacramento will fix this problem and all the ULA programs will be available for leverage.
The upcoming Notice of Funding Availability (housing.lacity.gov/ula/homes-fo...) was designed accordingly. Two of its big subcategories--"Alternative Models: Preservation" and "Alternative Models: New Construction"--allow for 80-100% ULA financing for exactly this reason.
Homes for LA NOFA – LAHD
housing.lacity.gov
September 8, 2025 at 2:06 AM
The upcoming Notice of Funding Availability (housing.lacity.gov/ula/homes-fo...) was designed accordingly. Two of its big subcategories--"Alternative Models: Preservation" and "Alternative Models: New Construction"--allow for 80-100% ULA financing for exactly this reason.
No problem! Ask away. (It's helping me procrastinate about some other stuff I should be doing, so I appreciate it.)
The average 10% TDC you're referring to is for projects that have gotten ULA *awards.* Only a couple have actually closed their financing. Most will have a hard time doing so.
The average 10% TDC you're referring to is for projects that have gotten ULA *awards.* Only a couple have actually closed their financing. Most will have a hard time doing so.
September 8, 2025 at 2:06 AM
No problem! Ask away. (It's helping me procrastinate about some other stuff I should be doing, so I appreciate it.)
The average 10% TDC you're referring to is for projects that have gotten ULA *awards.* Only a couple have actually closed their financing. Most will have a hard time doing so.
The average 10% TDC you're referring to is for projects that have gotten ULA *awards.* Only a couple have actually closed their financing. Most will have a hard time doing so.
You can say that again. :)
There is a ray of hope -- local and state leaders are working on fixes to unlock the money for its intended use and, hopefully, provide relief for new construction. If that happens, we'll be able to protect ULA as a revenue source, and it will do what voters wanted.
There is a ray of hope -- local and state leaders are working on fixes to unlock the money for its intended use and, hopefully, provide relief for new construction. If that happens, we'll be able to protect ULA as a revenue source, and it will do what voters wanted.
September 8, 2025 at 1:48 AM
You can say that again. :)
There is a ray of hope -- local and state leaders are working on fixes to unlock the money for its intended use and, hopefully, provide relief for new construction. If that happens, we'll be able to protect ULA as a revenue source, and it will do what voters wanted.
There is a ray of hope -- local and state leaders are working on fixes to unlock the money for its intended use and, hopefully, provide relief for new construction. If that happens, we'll be able to protect ULA as a revenue source, and it will do what voters wanted.
Sadly, no. Measure ULA was supposed to be be a "soft money" gap source. But because its authors flubbed the design--and made it unchangeable without state legislation or another initiative--for the most part, ULA money will have to ~100% of the financing in anything it touches.
September 8, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Sadly, no. Measure ULA was supposed to be be a "soft money" gap source. But because its authors flubbed the design--and made it unchangeable without state legislation or another initiative--for the most part, ULA money will have to ~100% of the financing in anything it touches.
1. Unlike most "soft money," ULA requires its affordability covenants to be senior to the 1st mortgage. This isn't unheard of, but it's unusual.
2. ULA projects can only be sold to nonprofits (a big problem for banks)
3. The AMIs are strict and can't "float up" in the event of foreclosure
2. ULA projects can only be sold to nonprofits (a big problem for banks)
3. The AMIs are strict and can't "float up" in the event of foreclosure
September 8, 2025 at 1:35 AM
1. Unlike most "soft money," ULA requires its affordability covenants to be senior to the 1st mortgage. This isn't unheard of, but it's unusual.
2. ULA projects can only be sold to nonprofits (a big problem for banks)
3. The AMIs are strict and can't "float up" in the event of foreclosure
2. ULA projects can only be sold to nonprofits (a big problem for banks)
3. The AMIs are strict and can't "float up" in the event of foreclosure
In the meantime, let's keep the good faith, evidence-based conversation going. To that end, check out our detailed response to the advocate/authors' critiques in this recently published paper.
www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the...
/end
www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the...
/end
The Consequences of Measure ULA: Some Clarifications
This report responds to criticisms of two earlier UCLA Lewis Center reports. We show that these criticisms are misguided and also examine a claim that Measure ULA created 10,000 union construction job...
www.lewis.ucla.edu
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
In the meantime, let's keep the good faith, evidence-based conversation going. To that end, check out our detailed response to the advocate/authors' critiques in this recently published paper.
www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the...
/end
www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/the...
/end
If ULA’s supporters won’t acknowledge its flaws and work toward solutions, they may hand HJTA the very case it wants to make.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
If ULA’s supporters won’t acknowledge its flaws and work toward solutions, they may hand HJTA the very case it wants to make.
Because this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is already advancing “TPA 2.0,” a measure that would wipe out most local transfer taxes in the state, among other revenue sources.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
Because this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is already advancing “TPA 2.0,” a measure that would wipe out most local transfer taxes in the state, among other revenue sources.
That doesn’t mean ULA is doomed. The flaws are fixable. But when defenders deny the problems and resist reform, they don’t protect ULA--they put 42 local taxes in California at risk.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
That doesn’t mean ULA is doomed. The flaws are fixable. But when defenders deny the problems and resist reform, they don’t protect ULA--they put 42 local taxes in California at risk.
The uncomfortable truth is that ULA is raising less money than promised, hobbling the real estate market, slowing property tax growth, and producing almost no affordable housing.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
The uncomfortable truth is that ULA is raising less money than promised, hobbling the real estate market, slowing property tax growth, and producing almost no affordable housing.
When you see someone respond with ad hominem attacks, recycled talking points, and double standards, it suggests the evidence isn’t on their side.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
When you see someone respond with ad hominem attacks, recycled talking points, and double standards, it suggests the evidence isn’t on their side.
It’s also notable that these same advocate/authors dismiss Ward & Phillips’ paper -- which is based on two years of post-ULA data -- as “premature.” Yet they were fine declaring ULA “already a success” a year earlier, before it had funded a single unit. A clear double standard.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
It’s also notable that these same advocate/authors dismiss Ward & Phillips’ paper -- which is based on two years of post-ULA data -- as “premature.” Yet they were fine declaring ULA “already a success” a year earlier, before it had funded a single unit. A clear double standard.
With few exceptions, the new Oxy paper doesn’t raise serious questions about Ward & Phillips’ research. Instead, it leans on insinuations -- like that UCLA’s work is suspect because the Lewis family funds the Center. But the same authors were happy to publish there in 2022.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
With few exceptions, the new Oxy paper doesn’t raise serious questions about Ward & Phillips’ research. Instead, it leans on insinuations -- like that UCLA’s work is suspect because the Lewis family funds the Center. But the same authors were happy to publish there in 2022.
Same here: when advocate/authors make wild, clearly false claims like “10,000 jobs,” it’s a signal. If we can’t trust them on straightforward things like jobs or housing results, how can we trust their subtle critiques of research design? It should give one pause.
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
Same here: when advocate/authors make wild, clearly false claims like “10,000 jobs,” it’s a signal. If we can’t trust them on straightforward things like jobs or housing results, how can we trust their subtle critiques of research design? It should give one pause.
All of this is context for how seriously one should take the advocate/authors’ supposed critiques of Ward & Phillips. Think of Van Halen’s “brown M&Ms” rule: if promoters didn't pay attention to the band's candy preferences, how could they be trusted with dangerous pyrotechnics?
September 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
All of this is context for how seriously one should take the advocate/authors’ supposed critiques of Ward & Phillips. Think of Van Halen’s “brown M&Ms” rule: if promoters didn't pay attention to the band's candy preferences, how could they be trusted with dangerous pyrotechnics?