Proposition TE: Property Transfer Tax Exemption for Victims of January 2025 Fire Disaster
17 sources, dated 2025-10-09 – 2026-10-02· last searched 2026-10-28
one-time Measure ULA transfer-tax exemption for Palisades Fire properties sold within five years
Overview
Synthesized 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session from 15 sources dated 2025-10-09 to 2026-10-02. Machine-written; numbers link to the sources below.
Proposition TE asks City of Los Angeles voters whether to exempt certain sales of residential property damaged or destroyed in the January 2025 Palisades Fire from the Proposition ULA ('mansion tax') documentary transfer tax 3,2. The measure would add Municipal Code Section 21.9.17. It applies only when the seller owned the property on January 7, 2025, Building and Safety verifies the damage, and the property has not used the exemption before, for sales from January 7, 2025 through January 6, 2030. Sellers who already paid ULA on qualifying sales could get refunds 9,3. According to the Chief Legislative Analyst, ULA currently taxes sales above $5.4 million at 4% and above $10.9 million at 5.5%, and the fire damaged or destroyed an estimated 5,495 residential structures 3. The City Administrative Officer estimates the measure would not affect the General Fund but would cut ULA revenue to the House LA Fund, which pays for affordable housing and homelessness prevention, by $35 million to $66 million through January 2030 3,1. The idea began with Mayor Karen Bass's October 2025 request for an administrative, three-year exemption limited to owner-occupants 16,15,14. The City Attorney later determined that an exemption needed voter approval 12. The City Council adopted the ballot resolution on July 1, 2026 and voted 13-1 on August 4, 2026 to call the election, with Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez opposed 9,6,8,5. Supporters including Mayor Bass, Councilmember Traci Park and building trades groups signed the ballot argument in favor. No argument against was filed, so the main documented criticism comes from Hernandez and from housing advocates quoted in October 2025 coverage 15,3,1. The measure needs a simple majority 11,2.
Record
October 9, 2025: Mayor Bass asked the Council for an ordinance letting the Director of Finance grant a one-time, three-year ULA exemption for Palisades residents who owned and occupied residential property at the time of the fire.16,15
November 17, 2025: the Council's Ad-Hoc Committee for L.A. Recovery voted 3-0 to advance the mayor's administrative exemption proposal.14
May 10, 2026: the Los Angeles Housing Department estimated that exempting fire-'impacted' residential sales could cut ULA revenue about 6% ($32 million a year), and exempting destroyed single-family homes about 2% ($8 million a year). It urged precise exemption language.13,8
June 17, 2026: the Council asked the City Attorney to draft a ballot measure. On June 26 the City Attorney transmitted the draft resolution and election ordinance (Report R26-0373).12,10,11
July 1, 2026: the Council adopted the ballot resolution containing the measure text.9,6
August 4, 2026: the Council voted 13-1 (Hernandez no, Price absent) and passed Ordinance No. 189009 calling the November 3, 2026 election. The ordinance took effect August 7, 2026.6,7,8,5
Stated positions
Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Palisades, says the exemption is narrow, covering original owners and first transactions for five years, residential only, and calls taxing these sellers 'unspeakably cruel' (July 1, 2026).6,8,1
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez says she supports relief for fire survivors, but any exemption should go only to homeowners whose primary residence was destroyed, not LLCs, investors or people with portfolios of properties (July 1, 2026).6,7,8,1
Mayor Karen Bass said in 2025 that fire victims should not have to pay the transfer tax and argued an exemption would speed sales and rebuilding.16,15
The City Attorney's report says the exemption applies whether or not the property is owner-occupied, and that 'residential property' was left undefined on purpose so the City can interpret it broadly.11
Arguments for
Measure ULA was meant to address homelessness and housing, not to penalize disaster survivors who have little choice but to sell. The measure keeps ULA in place while offering a limited, one-time exemption. — Traci Park, Karen Bass, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Monica Rodriguez, LA/OC Building & Construction Trades Council, Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, Pacific Palisades Community Council3,1
Insurance shortfalls, rising rebuilding costs, bureaucracy and personal circumstances leave some owners no choice but to sell. This is 'the least we can do' for a recovering community. — Traci Park6,7,8
Buyers discount Palisades offers to cover the ULA cost, which leaves lots vacant. An exemption would speed sales and rebuilding, and later resales of rebuilt homes would still pay ULA. — Karen Bass16,15
The exemption does not create a loophole for investors or speculators, because it is limited to owners at the time of the fire and to one use per property. — Signers of the ballot argument in favor3
Arguments against
The exemption is not limited to primary residences, so LLCs, investors and owners of multiple properties can use it. The Council could have written protections in and did not. — Eunisses Hernandez6,7,8,1
It cuts funding for affordable housing, homelessness prevention and tenant protections, while the Council rejected post-fire eviction protections for working-class tenants. — Eunisses Hernandez8,1
ULA is a tax on high-value assets, not hardship. Carving out exceptions to a voter-approved measure risks more exceptions and adds uncertainty that delays housing. — Unnamed housing advocates quoted by Mar Vista Voice / Knock LA (October 2025, about the mayor's earlier proposal)15
Where sources disagree
Revenue impact estimates differ. LAHD modeled about $32 million a year for a broad 'fire-impacted' residential exemption, or $8 million a year for destroyed single-family homes. The CAO's statement on the final measure estimates $35 million to $66 million in total through January 2030. The two use different scenarios and time frames.13,8,3
Descriptions of eligibility differ across sources. The mayor's 2025 proposal covered owner-occupants for three years. The final text has no owner-occupancy limit and a five-year window, and the City Attorney says it applies whether or not owner-occupied. Supporters call it narrowly tailored, and Hernandez says it lacks primary-residence protections.16,11,8,3
The City Attorney's June 2026 report refers to a new Section 21.9.18, while the adopted measure text adds Section 21.9.17.11,9
What we could not find
No formal ballot argument against the measure was filed, and no organized opposition campaign appears in the sources. The opposing views come from one councilmember and from anonymous advocates quoted about an earlier proposal.
No campaign finance information on committees for or against the measure was found.
No data on how many qualifying sales have occurred, or on how much the exempted sellers have in property value or ownership type (individual, trust, LLC).
No independent academic or nonpartisan policy analysis specific to Proposition TE was found. The LAHD report models council-motion scenarios, not the final text.
No statements were found from tenant or housing-advocacy organizations about the final ballot measure.
Questions to consider
Does 'residential property' in the measure include multifamily buildings, mixed-use buildings and vacant lots, and how will the City decide?
How much of the estimated $35 million to $66 million revenue reduction would go to individual homeowners, and how much to investors or entities?
Can heirs or owners who moved title into a trust or LLC after the fire qualify as the January 7, 2025 owner?
How would the reduced ULA revenue affect specific housing and tenant-assistance programs over 2025-2030?
Should the same kind of exemption apply after future disasters, and does this measure set a precedent for amending ULA?
Text analysis
Written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session from 3 primary texts2,3,9. An evaluative machine reading: check each point against its quoted evidence.
Coverage: Full text of the proposed ballot measure: Section 1 (new LAMC Sec. 21.9.17, subsections (a)-(d)) and Section 2 (severability), read in the Council's adopted ballot resolution attachment (S3) and checked against the identical text in the City Clerk's voter pamphlet proof (S2). S1 is the countywide list of ballot labels only. The measure relies on Municipal Code provisions it does not reproduce (Secs. 21.9.2, 21.9.10 and 16.03), which were not in the documents reviewed. Underline formatting is lost in the stored text, but the measure adds an entirely new section, so no deleted wording is mixed in.
Drafting: Adequate
The measure is short and structurally clear: one new code section with six cumulative eligibility conditions, a fixed operative window, and a refund mechanism that reuses the existing ULA refund procedure and tolls its time limits. Its limits are concrete: the seller must have owned the property on January 7, 2025, damage must be verified by Building and Safety, and each property can use the exemption once. The main weaknesses are definitional. 'Residential property' is not defined, 'Damaged' is defined only by reference to another code section with unusual wording ('the same application'), and the text gives no verification procedure or standard for Building and Safety. The ownership-continuity condition leaves cases like heirs and post-fire trust transfers unaddressed. There is one minor cross-reference slip ('Section (a)(1)' for 'Subsection (a)(1)'). The severability clause is standard boilerplate.
Findings
ambiguitymedium impactSec. 21.9.17(a)(1)
'Residential property' is not defined anywhere in the text. Whether it covers multifamily apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings, condominiums, or vacant lots where a home stood before the fire decides which sales qualify, and the higher-value multifamily and mixed-use sales are where most ULA revenue would be at stake. The text leaves this to whoever administers it.
“the land, tenements, or other realty sold within the City of Los Angeles is a residential property damaged or destroyed by the Palisades Fire in January 2025”9
carve outmedium impactSec. 21.9.17(a)(3)-(4)
The only limit on who can claim the exemption is ownership on the day the fire began. Nothing requires owner-occupancy or primary residence, limits the number of properties one owner can claim for, excludes business entities, or caps the sale price. As written, an investor or company that owned fire-damaged residential property on January 7, 2025 qualifies on the same terms as a displaced homeowner. Because ULA applies only above its value thresholds, the benefit goes only to sellers of properties above those thresholds.
“the grantor, assignor, or transferor described under Subsection (a)(3) was the owner or owners of the residential property described in Subsection (a)(1) on January 7, 2025”9
gapmedium impactSec. 21.9.17(a)(3)-(4)
Requiring the seller to be the same owner as on January 7, 2025 leaves common situations unaddressed: heirs selling after an owner's death, owners who moved title into a living trust or LLC after the fire, divorce transfers, and sales where only some of the original co-owners remain. Whether these sellers count as 'the owner or owners' is not stated, and the answer decides whether they get the exemption.
“the grantor, assignor, or transferor is the owner or owners of the residential property described in Section (a)(1)”9
ambiguitylow impactSec. 21.9.17(b)
'Damaged' is defined only by reference to LAMC Section 16.03, with the unusual phrase 'the same application', and the referenced text is not reproduced. A reader cannot tell from the measure itself what degree of damage qualifies (for example, whether smoke or minor damage counts). The word 'destroyed' is not defined at all.
“shall have the same application as set forth in Section 16.03 of this Code”9
gaplow impactSec. 21.9.17(a)(2)
Verification by Building and Safety is a condition of eligibility, but the text sets no process, evidence standard, deadline or appeal for that verification, and does not say whether existing post-fire inspection records are enough. The practical rules are left to the departments.
“the damage or destruction of the residential property described in Subsection (a)(1) is verified by the Department of Building and Safety”9
durationlow impactSec. 21.9.17(c)-(d)
The exemption is retroactive to January 7, 2025 and ends January 6, 2030. Sellers who already paid ULA on qualifying sales may claim refunds, and the refund deadlines restart on the measure's effective date. The sunset is a fixed date, and the one-time limit in (a)(5) prevents repeat use on the same property.
“Any time limits set by Section 21.9.10 of this Code with respect to the refunds described herein shall not start to run until the effective date of this section”9
drafting errorlow impactSec. 21.9.17(a)(3)
Subsection (a)(3) refers to 'Section (a)(1)' where the other paragraphs say 'Subsection (a)(1)'. The intended reference is clear from context, so the meaning does not change.
“residential property described in Section (a)(1)”9
Who benefits, as written
Owners of record on January 7, 2025 of residential property in the City damaged or destroyed by the Palisades Fire, who sell for amounts above the ULA thresholds by January 6, 2030: Their sale is exempt from the Homelessness and Housing Solutions Tax (ULA), once per property, with no owner-occupancy, entity or price limit in the text.
“The Homelessness and Housing Solutions Tax imposed by Subsection (b) of Section 21.9.2 of this Code shall not apply”9
Qualifying sellers who already paid ULA on a sale between January 7, 2025 and the measure's effective date: They may claim a refund through the existing ULA refund procedure, with time limits starting at the effective date.
“The Director of Finance is authorized and empowered to issue refunds on eligible claims, which are deemed to accrue”9
Open questions in the text
Does 'residential property' include multifamily rental buildings, mixed-use buildings, and vacant lots where a home was destroyed?
Can heirs, trustees of a trust created after the fire, or an LLC formed after the fire claim the exemption as 'the owner or owners'?
What standard and process will the Department of Building and Safety use to verify damage, and can an owner appeal a denial?
What degree of damage counts under LAMC Section 16.03, and does smoke or ash damage qualify?
How will the Office of Finance pay refunds of ULA tax already collected and spent, and from which fund?
If a property is sold in pieces or only a partial interest is transferred, does that use up the property's one-time exemption?
Limits: The analysis covers only the measure's own text. The Municipal Code sections it relies on (21.9.2, 21.9.10, 16.03) were not reviewed, so the interaction with ULA's base rates, thresholds and refund rules is described only as far as the text states it. Implementing rules from the Office of Finance or Building and Safety, if any, were not available.
Ask your own AI about this
Start a conversation in an assistant you use, already loaded with this page's research. Nothing goes from this site to those services until you click; after that, their privacy terms apply.
Published: City of Los Angeles Proposition TE: voter information pamphlet pages (ballot question, impartial summary, CAO financial impact statement, full text, arguments) — Los Angeles City Clerk
Council meeting where Park and Hernandez debated the measure — LAist
Published: Council File 26-1100-S9: Draft election ordinance calling the November 3, 2026 special election (City Attorney, June 26, 2026) — Los Angeles City Attorney
Published: Mayor Bass letter to City Council and Director of Finance re Measure ULA exemption for Palisades Fire affected properties — Office of Mayor Karen Bass
Mayor Bass sent letter to City Council and Director of Finance requesting a ULA exemption ordinance — Office of Mayor Karen Bass
LAist's voter guide to Proposition TE (updated October 14, 2026), explaining what the measure does, the ballot wording, supporters' and opponents' positions, and the CAO's revenue estimate.
Prop. TE applies only to residential properties sold by the owner of record as of January 7, 2025, through January 6, 2030.
ULA currently taxes sales over $5.4 million at 4% and over $10.9 million at 5.5%.
No official argument against was submitted; Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez voted against placing it on the ballot.
The CAO estimates a $35 million to $66 million reduction in ULA revenue; ULA raised close to $548 million in the last fiscal year.
Supporters include Mayor Bass, Councilmember Park, the LA/OC Building & Construction Trades Council and the Pacific Palisades Community Council.
Facts, claims & caveats
CAO revenue estimate
$35 million to $66 million
ULA revenue last fiscal year (per LAist)
Close to $548 million
ULA voter approval in 2022
Nearly 58%
Official argument against
None submitted
Proponents argue voters approved ULA to address homelessness and housing, not to punish disaster survivors with little choice but to sell.
Councilmember Traci Park said Palisades owners are 'selling because they have already lost everything and there's nothing left.'
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said the council would 'bend over backwards' for wealthy homeowners and that the exemption should not apply to LLCs, investors or people with portfolios of properties.
Reformers argue ULA has hindered development; ULA's defenders dispute that.
Limits: A secondary guide; the campaign finance section was empty in the stored copy. It reports Hernandez's view as the only opposition voice because no formal opposing argument was filed.
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerkofficial textRecord
The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's list of all measures on the November 3, 2026 ballot. For Proposition TE it gives only the ballot question, the majority-vote threshold, and the names of supporters and opponents who signed ballot arguments; it does not contain the ordinance text or any analysis.
Lists Proposition TE under City of Los Angeles measures requiring a majority (50%+1) vote.
Ballot question: a one-time exemption from the City's special documentary transfer tax (Proposition ULA) for residential properties damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire and sold within five years of the fire.
Supporters listed: Councilmember Park; Mayor Bass; Council President Harris-Dawson; Western States Carpenters; Palisades Community Council. Opponents: none submitted.
Facts, claims & caveats
Vote required
Majority vote 50%+1
Listed supporters
Councilmember Park; Mayor Bass; Council President Harris-Dawson; Western States Carpenters; Palisades Community Council
Listed opponents
None submitted
Limits: A countywide list of ballot labels only. It is not the measure's operative text and contains no fiscal or legal analysis; the supporter and opponent names reflect who signed ballot arguments, not a full list of endorsements.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
The City Clerk's voter information pamphlet pages for Proposition TE (marked as a printer's proof and 'DRAFT'). They contain the ballot question, an impartial summary by Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon M. Tso, a financial impact statement by City Administrative Officer Matthew W. Szabo, the ballot digest, the full text of the proposed ordinance (new Municipal Code Section 21.9.17), and the argument in favor. No argument against was submitted.
The ordinance adds LAMC Section 21.9.17, exempting from the Proposition ULA tax a sale of residential property damaged or destroyed by the January 2025 Palisades Fire, if damage is verified by the Department of Building and Safety, the seller owned it on January 7, 2025, and the property has not already used the exemption.
The exemption is operative from January 7, 2025 through January 6, 2030, and the Director of Finance may refund ULA tax already paid on qualifying sales.
The Chief Legislative Analyst's impartial summary says the Palisades Fire damaged or destroyed about 5,620 structures, an estimated 5,495 of them residential, and that the measure may reduce funding for affordable housing and tenant assistance programs.
The CAO's financial impact statement says the measure will not affect the General Fund but will reduce House LA Fund revenue by an estimated $35 million to $66 million through January 2030.
The argument in favor is signed by Councilmember Traci Park, Mayor Karen Bass, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, State Senator Ben Allen, Assemblymember Jacqui Erwin (name as printed), LAUSD board member Nick Melvoin, the LA/OC Building & Construction Trades Council, the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters and the Pacific Palisades Community Council.
Facts, claims & caveats
Code section added
Los Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 21.9.17, Exemption - Palisades Fire
Exemption window
January 7, 2025 through January 6, 2030
Current ULA thresholds (per impartial summary)
$5.4 million (4% tax) and $10.9 million (5.5% tax), adjusted annually
Structures damaged or destroyed (per LADBS data cited in impartial summary)
About 5,620, of which an estimated 5,495 residential
CAO estimated ULA revenue reduction
$35 million to $66 million through January 2030; no General Fund impact
Vote required
Majority of voters
Argument against
None submitted
The Chief Legislative Analyst states the measure 'may lead to a reduction in Proposition ULA tax revenues' and a decrease in funding for affordable housing and tenant assistance programs.
The City Administrative Officer estimates the ULA revenue reduction at $35 million to $66 million through January 2030, based on average ULA tax per eligible Palisades transaction, rebuilt homes listed for sale as of July 2026 and post-fire sales of vacant parcels; the upper figure assumes the number of transactions doubles.
The signers of the argument in favor say Measure ULA 'was never intended to penalize survivors who lost everything in a declared disaster' and that the measure is a narrowly tailored, one-time exemption that does not create a loophole for investors or speculators.
The argument in favor says the exemption covers residential properties 'including multi-family buildings'.
Limits: The pages are marked as printer's proofs and 'DRAFT'; the final printed pamphlet could differ in layout. Underline and strikeout formatting are lost in the stored text. The ballot argument is the opinion of its signers and is not checked for accuracy by any City agency. No opposing argument was filed, so the pamphlet presents only one side's argument.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
The City Council's ballot resolution for Council File 26-1100-S9, certified as adopted on July 1, 2026, which submits the Palisades Fire ULA exemption to voters on November 3, 2026 and attaches the text of the proposed ballot measure (new LAMC Section 21.9.17 plus a severability clause). The attached text matches the text printed in the voter pamphlet.
Sets the vote requirement at a majority of votes cast.
Fixes the ballot title and question, with the letter designation left blank.
Authorizes the City Clerk to make technical and formatting adjustments to the measure for ballot materials.
Attaches the full text of proposed Section 21.9.17: the exemption conditions in subsection (a)(1)-(6), the definition of 'Damaged' by reference to LAMC Section 16.03, the January 7, 2025 to January 6, 2030 operative window, and the refund authority of the Director of Finance.
Facts, claims & caveats
Council file
26-1100-S9
Adopted
Certified as adopted by a majority of all members at the meeting of 7/1/2026
Vote requirement
Majority of the votes cast
Limits: A procedural resolution plus the measure text; it contains no analysis of effects. The stored text extraction reorders some subsections, so readers should consult the original PDF or the voter pamphlet for layout.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
City Attorney Report R26-0373 to the City Council, transmitting the draft ballot resolution and election ordinance for the Palisades Fire exemption from the Proposition ULA tax. It summarizes the measure, the vote requirement, the deadline for adoption, CEQA exemption and a Council Rule 38 referral.
Says the Council requested the documents on June 17, 2026.
Says the measure needs a majority of voters and that the deadline to adopt final resolutions for the November 3, 2026 ballot is July 1, 2026.
Describes the exemption as applying to all residential properties damaged or destroyed by the Palisades Fire, 'whether or not owner-occupied', sold by the owner or owners at the time of the fire, between January 7, 2025 and January 6, 2030.
States that 'Residential property' is left undefined in the ballot text to let the City apply a broad interpretation and avoid inadvertently excluding eligible transfers.
Says the exemption would apply retroactively to taxes paid before the effective date, with refund claims arising under normal rules for taxes paid after it.
Refers to the new section as Section 21.9.18, while the measure text adds Section 21.9.17.
Facts, claims & caveats
Report number
R26-0373
Council file
26-1100-S9
Council request date
June 17, 2026
Adoption deadline cited
July 1, 2026
CEQA
City Attorney recommends exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5) and 15061(b)(3)
The City Attorney's Office says 'Residential property' was deliberately left undefined to afford the City the ability to apply a broad interpretation.
The City Attorney's Office says the exemption applies to residential properties whether or not owner-occupied.
Limits: A legal transmittal, not a fiscal analysis; it gives no revenue estimate. Its reference to Section 21.9.18 differs from the section number (21.9.17) in the ballot text, so it may reflect an earlier draft.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Los Angeles Housing Departmentofficial analysisNeutral
Los Angeles Housing Department report (C.F. 26-0088-S1) analyzing ULA revenues and outcomes and the potential effects of four proposed ULA exemptions, two of them disaster-related. It predates and does not analyze Proposition TE's final text, but models a Palisades exemption.
Exempting residential transactions 'impacted' by the Palisades Fire (modeled as residential sales in ZIP codes 90272 and 90402) could reduce ULA revenue by 6%, about $32 million a year while in place.
Exempting single-family properties 'destroyed' by the Palisades Fire could reduce revenue by 2%, about $8 million a year.
Uses a $502 million baseline year from the draft FY 2026-27 ULA Expenditure Plan.
Lists implementation questions the motion language raised, including whether a fire exemption is limited to residential uses and how 'fire-impacted areas' would be defined, and recommends precise language.
Warns that disaster exemptions could cause abrupt revenue drops that make it hard to maintain staffing and contracted providers.
Facts, claims & caveats
Report date
May 10, 2026
Council file
C.F. 26-0088-S1
Scenario 3 (fire-impacted residential)
6% / about $32 million per year
Scenario 4 (destroyed single-family)
2% / about $8 million per year
Baseline annual ULA revenue
$502 million
ULA revenue April 1, 2023 to April 30, 2026
Nearly $1.2 billion from 1,633 transactions
LAHD says the difference between scenarios 'illustrates the importance of precise language' and recommends Council work with the department to refine exemption language.
LAHD says actual losses may be higher than modeled because of lost interest and program revenue.
Limits: Analyzes exemption language from council motions, not Proposition TE; its scenario definitions (ZIP codes; any DINS-listed parcel; three-year period) differ from the measure. Its estimates are annual, while the CAO's figure for Proposition TE covers the period through January 2030.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Knock LA (republished from Mar Vista Voice)third party analysisOpposes
A Knock LA article (originally published by Mar Vista Voice on October 16, 2025) about Mayor Karen Bass's October 2025 proposal for an administrative ULA exemption for Palisades properties. It reports the proposal and is critical of it, quoting unnamed housing advocates. It concerns an earlier proposal, not the final Proposition TE text.
Bass's October 9, 2025 letter proposed a three-year exemption, to be created by ordinance delegating rulemaking to the Director of Finance plus a mayoral directive.
Bass's office said the exemption would apply only to owner-occupied residential properties in the Palisades at the time of the fire.
Reports that the proposal followed a meeting between Bass and developer Rick Caruso, who praised it.
Quotes unnamed housing advocates who say sellers of $5 million-plus homes are not in financial distress and that exceptions undermine ULA.
Facts, claims & caveats
Mayor's letter date
October 9, 2025
Proposed term in mayor's letter
Three years
ULA revenue cited
More than $830 million since 2023 (as of the article)
Mayor Bass said at a September 17 webinar that 'anyone who lost their home or was affected by the fires shouldn't have to pay the transfer tax.'
An unnamed housing organizer said: 'This is a tax on high-value assets, not hardship.'
Housing advocates warned that once the city starts making exceptions to a voter-approved measure, more will follow.
Bass argues the exemption could strengthen ULA by accelerating rebuilding and future taxable sales.
Limits: An opinionated piece about an earlier administrative proposal (three years, owner-occupied only) that differs from Proposition TE (five years, not limited to owner-occupied). Critics are quoted anonymously.
Ordinance No. 189009, the adopted election ordinance calling the November 3, 2026 special election on the Prop ULA exemption for properties damaged or destroyed in the 2025 fire. It is procedural and points to the ballot resolution for the measure text.
Passed August 4, 2026; approved August 4, 2026; posted and effective August 7, 2026.
Consolidates the special election with the City's General Municipal Election and the State General Election.
Majority of votes cast required for passage.
Facts, claims & caveats
Ordinance number
189009
Council file
26-1100-S9
Passed
August 4, 2026
Effective
August 7, 2026
Limits: Procedural only; it does not record the council vote count and does not include the measure's operative text.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
The City Attorney's draft election ordinance (approved as to form June 26, 2026) calling a special election on November 3, 2026 for the Prop ULA exemption for properties damaged or destroyed in the 2025 fire. It is procedural and refers to the accompanying ballot resolution for the measure text.
Calls a special election consolidated with the City's General Municipal Election and the State General Election on November 3, 2026.
States that the measure needs a majority of the votes cast.
Sets the ballot title and question and directs the City Clerk to administer the voter information pamphlet.
Facts, claims & caveats
Approved as to form
June 26, 2026, by Chief Assistant City Attorney Michael J. Dundas
Vote requirement
Majority of the votes cast
Limits: Draft procedural ordinance only; it does not contain the exemption's text, which is in the ballot resolution attachment. The adopted version is Ordinance No. 189009.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
City News Service report (via NBC Los Angeles) on the City Council's 13-1 vote to place the Palisades Fire exemption from Measure ULA on the November ballot, with quotes from Councilmember Traci Park in favor and Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez against.
Council voted 13-1 on August 4, 2026, with Hernandez opposed and Curren Price absent; there was no discussion.
Park said fire victims are running out of time, options and money and some have no choice but to sell.
Hernandez said any exemption should only be for homeowners whose primary residence was destroyed and that she did not support 'another loophole for the ultra-wealthy'.
Reports Measure ULA raised nearly $1.2 billion from 1,633 transactions through April 30, 2026, per the city Housing Department.
Facts, claims & caveats
Council vote to place on ballot
13-1 (Hernandez no; Price absent)
ULA revenue to April 30, 2026
Nearly $1.2 billion from 1,633 transactions (LA Housing Department)
Councilmember Traci Park said the exemption 'would apply in very narrow circumstances to original owners and first transactions for nearly five years only for residential properties.'
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez raised concerns that the exemption could be used by private companies, investors or people with a portfolio of properties.
Limits: Short wire report focused on the council vote; it does not analyze the measure's text or fiscal estimate.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Westside Current report (with City News Service material) on the Council's 13-1 vote to place the Measure ULA exemption for Palisades Fire victims on the November ballot, summarizing supporter and critic positions.
Supporters say it provides targeted relief for fire survivors; critics say it could benefit wealthy property owners and investors.
Repeats Park's and Hernandez's July 1 statements.
Describes ULA as a 4% tax above $5.3 million and 5.5% above $10.6 million, applying to mansions, apartment buildings, commercial and multifamily property.
Facts, claims & caveats
Council vote
13-1; Hernandez opposed, Price absent
ULA revenue to April 30, 2026
Nearly $1.2 billion from 1,633 transactions (LA Housing Department)
Councilmember Traci Park said some owners 'have no choice but to sell' because of insurance shortfalls, bureaucracy, and personal circumstances.
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez warned the exemption could also benefit companies, investors or people who own multiple properties.
Limits: Largely duplicates the City News Service report; no independent analysis of the text or fiscal effects.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
LAist report on the City Council's 13-1 vote to put the Palisades Fire 'mansion tax' exemption on the November ballot, citing a May 2026 Housing Department estimate of the revenue effect and quoting Councilmembers Hernandez and Park.
Cites a May 2026 LA Housing Department report that an exemption could reduce ULA revenue by up to 6%, or $32 million a year.
Notes a statewide initiative to repeal ULA was pulled earlier in 2026 in exchange for a legislative deal.
Hernandez said protections limiting the exemption to primary residences could have been written into the ordinance and were not.
Park called taxing these sellers 'unspeakably cruel' and said the exemption is narrow.
Facts, claims & caveats
Council vote
13-1; Hernandez no, Price absent
LAHD estimate cited
Up to 6%, or $32 million per year
Vote needed
Simple majority
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said the exemption should not go to 'LLCs, investors or people with a portfolio of properties' and that 'We had the opportunity to write those protections into this ordinance, and we didn't.'
Councilmember Traci Park said: 'It's an exemption that applies in very narrow circumstances to original owners and first transactions for five years, only for residential properties.'
LAist reports that economic studies found ULA was slowing housing development.
Limits: Written by a summer intern on the day of the vote; the $32 million LAHD figure modeled a broader 'fire-impacted' scenario, not the final measure text, and differs from the CAO's later estimate.
Palisades News report on the City Council's unanimous vote to begin the process of placing a Measure ULA exemption for Palisades Fire victims on the November 2026 ballot, by directing the City Attorney to draft ballot language.
The proposal was introduced by Councilmember Traci Park and co-presented by Councilmember Imelda Padilla.
Describes a one-time, five-year exemption, retroactive to transactions beginning January 7, 2025.
Reports that the City Attorney determined in January that the Council cannot create an exemption without voter approval because ULA was enacted by ballot measure.
Facts, claims & caveats
Council action
Unanimous vote directing City Attorney to draft ballot language
Sponsors
Councilmember Traci Park; co-presented by Councilmember Imelda Padilla
Park said: 'Families who lost everything in the Palisades Fire should not face additional financial hurdles as they try to rebuild their lives.'
According to the article, the City Attorney determined the City Council lacks authority to create an exemption without voter approval.
Limits: Brief local report written before final ballot language existed; it gives no vote count or date beyond 'Wednesday' and does not cover critics.
Date from the page. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
LAist report on the City Council's Ad-Hoc Committee for L.A. Recovery voting 3-0 to advance Mayor Bass's request for an ordinance letting the Director of Finance exempt Palisades homeowners from Measure ULA. It describes an earlier, administrative route that preceded Proposition TE.
Committee vote was 3-0 on November 17, 2025.
Bass's October letter asked for authority for a three-year exemption for residents who 'owned and occupied' residential property at the time of the fire.
Bass's office said the letter followed a meeting with Rick Caruso.
Notes an earlier state bill that would have carved out fire-zone sales, tied to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's repeal effort, which Bass asked lawmakers to shelve.
Facts, claims & caveats
Committee vote
3-0, Ad-Hoc Committee for L.A. Recovery
Proposed duration in mayor's request
Three years
Councilmember Traci Park said: 'For some, recovery is going to mean leaving the Palisades... where a sale is by no means voluntary — I don't think we should impede that objective.'
Park said she has heard from hundreds of homeowners who say the tax affects their recovery plans.
Limits: Covers an administrative approach that the City Attorney later concluded required voter approval (per other coverage); the details (three years, owner-occupied) differ from Proposition TE.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Mayor Karen Bass's October 9, 2025 letter asking the City Council to adopt an ordinance giving the Director of Finance authority to grant a limited, one-time, three-year exemption from Measure ULA for Palisades Fire-affected residential properties. It is the mayor's own statement of the case for an exemption, before Proposition TE was drafted.
Bass says ULA 'as written is silent' on how to exempt natural disaster survivors.
She says buyers are factoring ULA into lower-than-market offers, leaving lots vacant and homes unsold.
She proposes a one-time exemption over three years for owners who owned and occupied residential property in the Palisades at the time of the fire, to be implemented by executive directive after a Council ordinance.
She argues later resales of rebuilt properties would remain subject to ULA and generate higher revenue.
Facts, claims & caveats
Date
October 9, 2025
Proposed duration
Three years
Rebuilding plans approved (per letter)
More than 850 plans for more than 450 addresses; at least 230 homes started construction
Mayor Bass says potential buyers 'are factoring the cost of Measure ULA to make lower than market value offers.'
Mayor Bass says the exemption 'will speed up sales of these properties and spur rebuilding and rehabilitation of the Palisades' and generate higher ULA revenue on later sales.
Limits: An advocacy letter for an earlier administrative proposal (three years, owner-occupied) that differs from Proposition TE (five years, voter-approved, not limited to owner-occupants). It gives no revenue estimate.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-28 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.