Los Angeles leaders once again delayed an effort to change Measure ULA, the voter-approved tax on high-value property sales that funds affordable housing, eviction defense, and homelessness prevention. The proposal to place amendments on the ballot was sent back to committee on January 27 after opposition from labor unions, tenant advocates, and housing organizations.

The delay itself is significant. But the bigger story may be what years of repeated attempts to weaken the law are doing to the housing market, and to the public’s understanding of the crisis.

For more than a year, Measure ULA has faced lawsuits, repeal threats, carve-out proposals, and ballot maneuvers. Each effort has been framed as a technical fix or economic necessity. Taken together, they form a sustained campaign that has kept the law in a constant state of uncertainty. Housing advocates say that uncertainty is not just political noise. It has real economic consequences.

In a letter to the City Council, the United to House LA coalition warned that introducing amendments risks creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” encouraging developers and large property owners to delay activity while waiting to see whether the rules will change.

Investors respond to signals. When lawsuits are filed, exemptions debated, and repeal campaigns announced, waiting can become the rational choice. That delay is then cited as evidence that the policy itself is failing, reinforcing calls to weaken it further.

The cycle feeds on itself.

This dynamic rarely appears in headlines, which often treat slowed real-estate activity as proof that ULA alone is to blame. But housing markets across the country slowed during the same period due to rising interest rates, insurance costs, and construction prices, forces far larger than any single local tax.

At the same time, several indicators suggest Los Angeles has remained active. Housing entitlements and permits have risen in recent years, and developers have filed proposals for thousands of units when zoning and financing conditions became clearer.

In other words, the evidence does not support a simple narrative.

A closer look at recent development cycles reinforces this point. Projects tend to move when rules are stable and financing conditions improve. They tend to stall when legal or political uncertainty increases. By that measure, the repeated attempts to rewrite or repeal ULA may be doing more to shape the market than the tax itself.

Local reporting and independent analyses have reached similar conclusions, noting that lawsuits, repeal campaigns, and legislative threats have played a major role in creating hesitation among investors. Those factors are rarely centered in coverage of the housing debate, even though they are plainly visible.

Another piece of the conversation that receives little scrutiny is the research frequently cited to argue that ULA is suppressing housing construction. Some of the most widely quoted findings come from studies associated with the UCLA Lewis Center. But other researchers have identified serious methodological flaws in those analyses, including limited samples and failure to control for major economic variables.

What is discussed even less is the institutional context. The Lewis Center was originally established with funding from the Lewis Group of Companies, a major real-estate developer and landlord that has owned thousands of rental properties in California and beyond. The center states that its funding base is now more diversified, but the role of industry funding in shaping housing narratives remains largely absent from public debate.

Meanwhile, the benefits of Measure ULA are tangible and growing. The measure has generated more than a billion dollars for housing and homelessness programs, funded affordable housing construction, and helped thousands of tenants remain in their homes through rental assistance and legal defense.

Those programs are not abstract. They are often the difference between stability and eviction, between remaining housed and falling into homelessness. In neighborhoods across Los Angeles, eviction filings continue at high levels, underscoring how fragile housing stability remains and how critical prevention programs have become.

That is what makes the stakes of this debate so high.

Affordable housing takes years to build. Prevention programs take time to scale. The most important results often appear quietly, maybe a family that does not lose its home, a senior who keeps an apartment, or a worker who avoids homelessness. These outcomes rarely generate headlines, but they are precisely what Measure ULA was designed to achieve.

The central question facing LA is no longer simply whether Measure ULA works. Increasingly, the evidence suggests it is doing what voters intended – it is raising revenue, funding housing, and keeping people housed. The deeper question is whether the city will allow the measure to operate long enough, and with enough stability, to realize its full impact.

Because if the rules are constantly threatened, rewritten, or weakened before they can take effect, the resulting uncertainty will shape the market in predictable ways.