GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE AND
WELCOME TO THE SEMI LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE HEARING.
JULY. 12 2023. I WOULD LIKE TO
REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT FOR THIS
AND FUTURE HEARINGS, TESTIMONY
WILL BE IN PERSON. AS WE ARE NO
LONGER USED ANY MODERATED
TELEPHONE SERVICE. WE ALSO
ACCEPT TESTIMONY TO THE POSITION
LETTER PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO GO
OVER OUR GROUND RULES FOR
APPROPRIATE CONDUCT. THE
ASSEMBLY HAS EXPERIENCED A
NUMBER OF DISRUPTIONS TO
COMMITTEE AND FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS DISTURBS OR
OTHERWISE IN PEACE. THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING IS
PROHIBITED. SUCH CONDUCT MAY
INCLUDE TALKING OR MAKING LOVE
NOISES FROM THE AUDIENCE.
ORDERING LOUD THREATENING OR
ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. SPEAKING
LONGER THAN THE TIME ALLOTTED.
EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF MODEST
NOT RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF
THE HEARING OR BILL. AND ANY
OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS. TO
ADDRESS ANY DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT.
I WILL TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS.
IF AN INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR
HEARING PROCESS, I WILL DIRECT
THEM TO STOP. AND WARDEN THAT
CONTINUED DISRUPTION MET RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. I WILL ALSO DOCUMENT
ON THE RECORD. THAT INDIVIDUAL
INVOLVED IN THE NATURE OF THE
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I MAY
TEMPORARILY RECESS THE HEARING.
EITHER CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP. I
WILL REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF
THE SERGEANTS IN ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. WE DO HAVE ONE ITEM ON
THE AGENDA TODAY A B 16 79 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SANTIAGO. WE
WILL TAKE UP THE TWO PROMINENT
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. THIS
WITNESSES WILL HAVE THREE
MINUTES ISH TO PROVIDE THEIR
TESTIMONY. ALL SUBSEQUENT
WITNESSES. SHE WOULD STAY THERE
NAME THE ORGANIZATION IN THE
POSITION ON THE BILL ONLY LOOKS
LIKE WE DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM YET
, SO WE WILL OPERATE. I SAY
SUBCOMMITTEE WERE ABLE TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SANTIAGO,
PLEASE, WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT ON A B 16 79, WHICH
WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES TO IMPOSE TAXES UP 2.5%
THAT EXCEEDS THE 2% LIMIT THAT
THE STATE CAPS AT SO JUST TO
REFRESH. 7.25 IS WHAT THE STATE
AMOUNT IS. CAPTAIN 2% FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL REVENUE, AND THIS
WOULD ALLOW US TO CONTINUE ON
MEASURE. H MEASURE H IS THE
BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT WAS
PASSED BY THE VOTERS OF L. A
COUNTY TO ENSURE THAT WE HAD THE
WRAPAROUND SUPPORT SERVICES TO
ADDRESS THE EVER GROWING
HOMELESS CRISIS IN THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES. UM BUT THIS IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR US TO
CONTINUE IT TO BE ABLE TO LIFT
THE CAP, WHICH IS WHAT
CURRENTLY, THE L. A COUNTY HAS
THIS MEASURE ENDS. NOT THIS
MEASURE. SORRY MEASURE H ENDS IN
2027, SO THIS GIVES US THE
ABILITY TO CONTINUE IT. WITHOUT
THIS. WE WON'T HAVE LONG TERM
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
OF HOMELESSNESS. WITHOUT THIS,
WE WON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
REFORM OR STRICT OVERSIGHT OR
TRANSPARENCY. WITHOUT THIS. THE
PROGRAM ENDS. THE REASON WE NEED
IT NOW. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
CHATTER ABOUT. CAN WE WAIT A
LITTLE BIT FOR THIS? THE REASON
WE NEED IT NOW IS BECAUSE L. A
COUNTY CAN'T PLAN LONG TERM
SERVICES TO ADDRESSING THE ISSUE
OF HOMELESSNESS IF THERE IS NO
CERTAINTY IN THE FUNDING SO WE
HAVE TO ACT NOW TO GIVE THE
ABILITY FOR L, A COUNTY AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO BE ABLE TO COME
TOGETHER. FIGURE OUT IF THEY'RE
GOING TO DO THIS BALLOT
INITIATIVE AND THEN CHOOSE
WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT
IN THE 2024 OR THE 2026 ELECTION
CYCLE. NOW I'VE HEARD FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SOME
FRUSTRATION ABOUT MAYBE SERVICES
OR ALLOCATION OF DOLLARS. AND I
LIKE WHAT I'VE SAID TO EVERYBODY
ELSE. I FEEL SOME OF THE SAME
FRUSTRATIONS. BUT HERE'S THE
OPPORTUNITY TO FIX THAT. THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE MEASURE
A H THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN
A CONVERSATION. NOW THAT WE HAVE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT HAS WORKED.
WHAT COULD WORK BETTER, UM,
GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
SO. WE'VE INCLUDED LANGUAGE IN
THERE. THANKS TO THE COMMITTEE,
THANKS TO OTHERS WHO HAVE HELPED
US TO DO THAT, TOO. INCLUDE
ROBUST OVERSIGHT AND
TRANSPARENCY WHERE THAT WASN'T
DONE BEFORE. BUT I WANT TO SET
THE STAGE CLEAR THAT THIS ISN'T
ABOUT GOING TO THE VOTERS. THIS
IS ONLY ABOUT LIFTING THE CAP
THE PREVIOUS CAPITAL ALREADY
BEEN LIFTED. WE WANT TO CONTINUE
TO LIFT THE CAP, BUT TO BE CLEAR
NOT FROM POINT TO 5.5 IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT
STAKEHOLDER CONVERSATION. TO
ENSURE THAT THAT THAT THE
SERVICES FOR TO ADDRESS THE
HOMELESS POPULATION CONTINUE. UM
AND JUST WANT TO REMIND
EVERYBODY THAT AND WE DO HAVE
SOME STATS THAT WILL GO THROUGH
THE INTEREST OF TIME OUT. CUT IT
SHORT. BUT 350 MILLION IS WHAT
IT WAS PRODUCING LAST YEAR
PRODUCED 500 MILLION AND WE HAVE
SOME STEPS ON IN TERMS OF HOW
MANY FOLKS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO
HELP ON THE WRAP AROUND SUPPORT
SERVICES. UH AND MR CHAIR IF
YOU'D ALLOW ME TO HAVE TWO
WITNESSES THAT WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO PRESENT ABSOLUTELY YES. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
MARTHA GUERRERO, REPRESENTING
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT OF A BEAT
16 79. UM EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE
2023 HOMELESS COUNT FOR THE
GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA WAS
RELEASED, AND IT REFLECTED A 9%
INCREASE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TO ROUGHLY 75,000 PEOPLE AND A
10% RISE IN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES TO ROUGHLY 46,000 PEOPLE
, SO THE INCREASE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
TRENDS, AND IT SUGGESTS THAT THE
ONGOING HOUSING CRISIS AND THE
ENDING OF COVID PROTECTIONS
CONTINUE TO HAVE A NEGATIVE
IMPACT ON ADDRESSING
HOMELESSNESS. BOTH THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND L. A CITY
HAVE DECLARED KILLER. UM AND ANY
KIND OF DECLARED STATES OF
EMERGENCIES IN THEIR
JURISDICTIONS AND ARE
COORDINATING RESPONSES TO
ADDRESSING AND LEVERAGING
RESOURCES. AND WITH THIS
UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION
AMONGST THE COUNTY AND CITY
LEADERS, IT'S KEY TO ENSURE THAT
RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP
TACKLE THESE ISSUES.
UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF L. A
COUNTY'S CURRENT FUNDING
MEASURES FOR ADDRESSING
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS NOW MORE
COMMONLY KNOWN AS MEASURED AGE
IS SUNSETTING IN THE NEAR FUTURE
, AS AS, UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
SANTIAGO REFERENCE AND
CONSIDERING THIS, THE COUNTY AND
THE CITY AND VARIOUS REGIONAL
STAKEHOLDERS HAVE BEEN IN
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A FUNDING
MECHANISM TO CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT. VITAL SERVICES FOR
HOUSED POPULATIONS, WHICH YOU
WILL HEAR FROM THE NEXT WITNESS
ON WHAT THOSE RESOURCES ARE.
CONSIDERING THIS. THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VOTED IN
SUPPORT OF A B 16 79 AS IT IS AN
IMPORTANT VEHICLE TO HAVE IN
PLACE IN DISCUSSIONS AS THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO CONTINUE TO
PROGRESS AND ESTABLISHED
CONSENSUS. BUILT AMONG
STAKEHOLDERS. SEVERAL OF L. A
COUNTY'S 88 CITIES AND
INCORPORATED CITIES HAVE
EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR A LOCAL
RETURN IN THE MEASURE, AND THIS
IS NOT OFF THE TABLE AND
DECISIONS ON HOW FUNDS WILL BE
DISPERSED. HAVE YET TO BE MADE
WELL. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE
ON A SPECIFIC FUNDING MECHANISM
. HOWEVER WE FEEL ALL OPTIONS
MUST BE ON THE TABLE. AND MAYBE
16 79 AS THE AS THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SANTIAGO
REFERENCES SIMPLY PROVIDES THE
FRAMEWORK FOR MORE FUTURE
FUNDING MECHANISM, AND IT DOES
NOT COMMIT THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES OR ANY OF ITS
INCORPORATED 88 CITIES, UM AND
OR THE STATE TO PURSUING
ATTACKS. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS. UH
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
CHRISTOPHER NAKHEEL BOHAN,
DIRECTOR OF POLICY WITH L. A
FAMILY HOUSING HERE TO SPEAK IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 16 79 AND
FORGIVE ME. THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME I'M DOING THIS. UM BUT TO
GIVE YOU A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON
OUR ORGANIZATION L A FAMILY
HOUSING IS CELEBRATING OUR 40TH
ANNIVERSARY AND THERE IS A LOT
TO CELEBRATE. WE HELP PEOPLE
TRANSITION OUT OF HOMELESSNESS
AND POVERTY THROUGH A CONTINUUM
OF HOUSING ENRICHED WITH
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. L A FAMILY
HOUSING JOINED WITH A BROAD
COALITION OF NON PROFIT
BUSINESS, HOMELESSNESS, SERVICE
PROVIDERS, LABOR IN VARIOUS
ADVOCACY. ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS
L. A TO URGE THE PASSAGE OF HB
16 79 BECAUSE MEASURE AGE WHICH
PASSED WITH 69% OF THE VOTE IN
2017 AND GENERATES OVER $350
MILLION ANNUALLY, IS SET TO
EXPIRE IN 2027 LONG TERM FUNDING
COMMITMENTS ARE HARD TO COME BY
IN LOS ANGELES AND IN
SACRAMENTO. BUT THEY ARE
CRITICAL FOR THE OPERATION OF
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES MEASURE
AGE CREATED THE FIRST REVENUE
STREAM DEDICATED TO ADDRESSING
AND PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS IN
THE COUNTY. IF MEASURES H WAS
NOT TO BE RENEWED. THOUSANDS OF
L. A FAMILY HOUSING PARTICIPANTS
WOULD BE IMPACTED AND OVER 600
OF OUR UNITS. THAT STAT ONLY
ENCOMPASSES ARE TIME LIMITED
SUBSIDY, NOT PREVENTION, OR PSH
. WE WOULD LOSE $18 MILLION,
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE ENTIRE
STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM THAT WE
OPERATE. INSPIRE ONE AND TWO AND
FOR FOLKS WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF
WHERE SPOT ONE AND TWO ARE THEY
ENCOMPASS CITIES LIKE PALMDALE,
LANCASTER, SANTA CLARA TO AND
BURBANK, UM THIS, UM MEASURE H
WOULD HAVE THE NON RENEWAL OF
MEASURE AGE WOULD HAVE
REVERBERATIONS FELT WIDELY
ACROSS OUR AGENCY AND THE ENTIRE
COUNTY SIMPLY PUT IF MEASURE H
EXPIRED. THE WORK WE DO WOULD BE
SEVERELY DISTRESSED AND THE WORK
WE DO IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AS
WAS REFERENCED EARLIER IN 2023
LOS ANGELES. HOMELESS COUNT
THERE WERE 75,000 PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ON ANY
GIVEN NIGHT IN OUR COUNTY UNLESS
A NEW REVENUE SOURCE IS APPROVED
WITH SUFFICIENT TAX BASE, THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WILL BE
FORCED TO DRASTICALLY SCALE BACK
THOSE SERVICES. UH, AT A TIME.
OF MEASURE HS ADOPTION. SIX
CITIES IN THE COUNTY WERE AT
THAT 2% SALES TAX CAP, MEANING
THE TAX DID NOT TAKE EFFECT IN
THOSE JURISDICTIONS TODAY. 49
CITIES REPRESENTING OVER HALF
THE COUNTY ARE IMPACTED. SO WE
ARE URGING A YES VOTE AND WE ARE
PROUD TO SUPPORT THE BILL THAT
WILL ENSURE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HAS ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO
ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU APPRECIATE US
COMMENTS. ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE,
PLEASE COME UP.
MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
DEVICE. WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. CALIFORNIA ALREADY
HAS THE HIGHEST STATE IMPOSED
SALES TAX RATE IN THE COUNTRY
AND DISTRICTS THAT ARE
AUTHORIZED TO EXCEED THE CAP,
INCLUDING MANY IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY ARE AMONG THE HIGHEST
COMBINED SALES TAX RATES IN THE
UNITED STATES. IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE
STATE IS NOT NOT OFFER A LOCAL
EXEMPTION FOR MANUFACTURING AND
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PURCHASES. WHICH MAKES OUR
ABILITY TO COMPETE FOR THESE
INVESTMENTS HARDER. WE THINK THE
CAP PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN
KEEPING THE STATE AFFORDABLE AND
ESPECIALLY FOR LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS AND SHOULD NOT BE
CIRCUMVENTED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR COMMENTS ANY WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? PLEASE COME UP TO
THE MIC. GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS MARTIN RADOSEVIC ON ON
BEHALF OF UNITED WAY OF GREATER
LOS ANGELES AND STRONG SUPPORT.
ANYBODY ELSE SEE NONE ANY PUBLIC
COMMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE? MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ERIC TURNER ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF DOWNY APPRECIATE THE
INTENT OF THE BILL. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SEEN, NOBODY ELSE
WILL OPEN IT TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ANYBODY WANTS TO HAVE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. UM WELL, I CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND, AND WE ALL READ AND
UNDERSTAND THE HOMELESSNESS
SITUATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
UM I THINK WE ALL ARE CONCERNED.
WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? AND YOU
CAN'T DEFINE THAT YET, OR IT
WON'T BE DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE
ALLOCATION TO THE PROGRAMS.
THAT'S ALRIGHT, I CANNOT. WHAT
ASSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE? ME
ANYWAY. THAT IS, ISN'T JUST A
TAX RATE THAT WILL BE REGRESSIVE
TO LOWER INCOME PEOPLE. AND WE
DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE SOLUTIONS
ARE WORKING. I MEAN, IT'S JUST
MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE
MONEY. AH TO HOMELESS. AH
SHELTER. I MEAN, WE KNOW ALL
READ THE NEWSPAPERS AND SAY THAT
THE AVERAGE PRICE OF BUILDING
ONE ROOM HOMELESS FOR THE
HOMELESSNESS, ALMOST UPWARDS OF
$800,000 PER UNIT IN TERMS OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND HOW THIS
MONEY IS SPENT. I THINK IT'S
UNKNOWN. I MEAN, EVEN AT THE
STATE LEVEL, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THE MONEY IS GOING AND JUST
RAISING MORE TAXES. TO GO INTO A
DARK HOLE. WHERE IT DOING GOOD
WORK. WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE
NEEDS TO BE HOMELESS HOUSING.
HOW DO WE KNOW YOU TALK ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
? COULD YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WE
WILL MEASURE HOW YOU WILL
MEASURE THE SUCCESS OF THE USE
OF THOSE TAX REVENUES? AND I'M
GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. SO
LET ME FIRST OFF. I KNOW THERE
WAS A COMMENT ON OPPOSITION.
THIS BILL CANNOT BE AMENDED. THE
ALL THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
STAKEHOLDERS AND WHAT YOU AND
OUTCOMES AND SIMILAR TO THE
MEASURE W WHEN IT WENT PAST WHAT
WHEN THE COUNTIES AND THE CITY'S
DID THAT, UM THAT WILL HAVE TO
BE DONE AFTER THIS IS THIS BILL
IS PASSED. BUT YOU CAN'T GET TO
THAT CONVERSATION UNLESS THIS IS
DONE. UM AND I'M GLAD YOU
BROUGHT THOSE COMMENTS UP. BUT
THIS IS MEASURE H, WHICH ISN'T
ABOUT THE BUILDING MEASURE, H H
H, WHICH AT THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES PAST WAS ABOUT PERMIT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING EMERGENCY
SHELTER IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
. SO I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THIS
IS A CHURCH TOTALLY DIFFERENT
INITIATIVE AND MEASURE H. THERE
ARE SOME STATS ON THAT IN TERMS
OF WHAT HAS WORKED. FOR EXAMPLE
, IT'S AND THERE IS TRANSPARENCY
ON IT AND THERE IS REPORTING ON
IT. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT RIGHT
NOW, UH, AND THE COUNTIES HERE
IN MILAN SO A LITTLE BIT MORE,
BUT WE BUT ABOUT 100 AND 23
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE
INTERIM HOUSING. IN ABOUT 19
90,000. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PUT
INTO PERMIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING,
AND IT'S PREVENTED ABOUT 24,000
PEOPLE FROM BECOMING HOMELESS.
SO THIS MEASURE THAT WE'RE
DEBATING IS NOT THE MEASURE THAT
YOU ASKED ME ABOUT REGARDING
BRICK AND MORTAR. UM, THIS IS
ABOUT THE WRAPAROUND SUPPORT
SERVICES, THE HEALTH AND HUMAN
SIDE OF IT THAT HAS BEEN
DEBATED. THIS IS NOT FOR THAT.
YEAH, IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
MEASURE MEASURE. H H H IS A CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, WHICH IS THE
BRICK AND MORTAR PIECE. THIS IS
MEASURE H, WHICH IS DEDICATED TO
THE WRAPAROUND SUPPORT SERVICES
ONCE A PERSON IS PLACED IN THE
PERMIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, UM
THAT'S AS WELL AS SIMPLE AS I
CAN PUT. THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. WHAT IS THE
EXPECTED REVENUE IF THIS IS
PASSED, AND AGAIN THIS PROVE IT
. THEN IT HAS TO GO TO THE
VOTERS. NO THIS IS JUST ON THE
CAP PIECE, SO THIS DOES NOTHING
TO BRING IT TO THE VOTERS. UM
THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE
LEGISLATURES PASSED IN IN
PREVIOUS YEARS TO ALLOW THE CAP
TO GO UP. THE ONLY THING IN I
THINK IN THE PAST IS THAT THE
BALLOT SORRY. THE MEASURE PASSED
BY THE VOTERS, AND THEN THEY
CAME TO THE COUNTY CAME TO THE
LEGISLATURE. TO LIFT THE CAP.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE IS YOU'RE COMING
TO THE BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE TO
LIFT THE CAP. AND THEN ALL
CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL. UH, TO PROPOSE
AN INITIATIVE TO GO TO THE
VOTERS THAT ULTIMATELY WILL GO
TO THE VOTERS UNDER THE NEW
ACCOUNT DOES NOT GIVE
PERMISSION. THIS IS NOT A BALLOT
INITIATIVE. THIS IS NOT DO ANY
OF THOSE THINGS, THOSE THINGS
THAT IT REQUIRES TWO THAT ARE
REQUIRED TO GO TO THE VOTERS
HAPPENED INDEPENDENT AND OUTSIDE
OF THIS, THERE'S ONLY LIFTS THE
CAP. UM IF THE VOTERS PASS IT,
BUT LOOK, THERE'S BEEN
RESOUNDING SUPPORT FOR 69. AH IS
WHAT WAS IS WHAT? IT WAS
APPROVED THAT LAST TIME. THE
SAME PERCENTAGE. 69% IS WHAT WAS
REFERENCED IN TERMS OF MEASURE H
PASSING, AND THAT WAS THE SAME
CAMP NUMBER OR NOW IT'S CHANGING
. IT WAS 2.5, BUT THERE'S A
REALLY GOOD REASON FOR IT TO
STATED EARLIER. AT THE TIME THAT
MEASURE H WAS PASSED, THERE WAS
ONLY SIX CITIES. UH THAT DIDN'T
MEET THE CAT. THAT MEANS SIX
CITIES THAT WEREN'T PAYING INTO
IT TODAY. IF YOU MOVE FORWARD
WITH IT, THERE ARE HOPING GET
THIS RIGHT 40 YES AND 49 CITIES.
THAT ARE CAPPED OUT. SO YOU
WOULD PASS A MEASURE WITH A LOT
MORE CITIES NOT PAYING INTO IT.
WHICH IS WHICH WOULD DECLINE THE
REVENUE SIGNIFICANTLY. THIS IS
MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER TODAY
BECAUSE IF THIS IS NOT PASSED
AND YOU GO BEFORE THE VOTERS.
YOU CAN SEE A SITUATION WHERE
THAT'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
CITIES ARE NOT PAYING INTO IT
BECAUSE 49% OF THE CITIES ARE
ALREADY CAPPED THE MINUTE THE
MINUTE DESCENT OKAY, WE'LL GO
BACK TO THE PROJECTED REVENUE.
DO WE HAVE ANY VISIBILITY ON
THAT AT THIS POINT? UM IF TODAY
350 MILLION WAS THE PROJECTED
REVENUE, AND LAST YEAR WAS ABOUT
500 MILLION AT 0.25. YOU COULD
SEE A SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD
HIT BETWEEN 700 MILLION THAT 1
BILLION AT 0.5. AND WHO MANAGES
THAT? THAT WOULD GO THROUGH L. A
COUNTY L. A COUNTY WOULD BE THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF ALL THOSE FUNDS
THAT COME IN. OKAY ALRIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH PROBLEM
BEFORE WE GO TO OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT
WE HAVE REACHED MORE. UM JUST TO
GO ON THE RECORD. ANY OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. I'M SORRY. PLEASE
CHECK ON IT'S ON. SO I HAVE
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL
. UM I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS BILL BECAUSE THERE'S
A COUPLE OF MY CITIES THAT ARE
OPPOSED AND AS AMENDED WHICH ARE
CITIES OF DOWNEY, NORWALK. UH
HUH. AND SANTA FE SPRINGS. I
THINK THEY SENT IN A LETTER OF
CONCERN. BUT TWO OF MY LARGEST
CITIES WITHIN MY DISTRICT HAVING
OPPOSING THIS AMENDED AND I
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE THIS
POSITION. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OF THOSE
FUNDINGS. UM THE TO THESE CITIES
. CITY OF DOWNY RECEIVES ZERO
FUNDING AND IT'S THE LARGEST
CITY WITHIN MY DISTRICT. IT'S
ALSO THE 10TH LARGEST CITY
WITHIN L, A COUNTY AND YET DOWN
IS DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN DO
WITH RESPECT TO HOMELESSNESS AND
PROVIDING WRAPAROUND SERVICES
YET RECEIVES ZERO FUNDING. SO
I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHY IS THIS?
UM THIS IS A GLUTTON AMEND BILL
AND WHY WE DIDN'T JUST GO
THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESS.
BEFORE BEFORE YOU CONTINUE
SECURITY. COULD YOU PLEASE CALL
THE WORLD ANOTHER WAY OF CORN?
FOR REAL. PRESENT PRESIDENT
DICKSON DICKSON, PRESIDENT
BURNER BERNARD PRESIDENT HANEY
PAINTED PRESIDENT CHICO
PRESIDENT PRESIDENT RAMOS RIVALS
PRESIDENT WALDRON. WILSON
PRESENT. MR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S YOU
WANNA I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION
. LET'S HAVE AN HONEST
CONVERSATION. THE REASON IT'S
GOT AN AMENDED BECAUSE IT WAS
BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS
INTERCESSION. I MEAN, THAT'S HIS
THE SIMPLEST AND THE HONEST
ANSWER. IF THE COUNTY BROUGHT IT
TO US AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
YEAR, THEN WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT
IT. FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
YEAR. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR
ATTENTION THAT THEY NEEDED TO
GET THIS UP FOR A VARIETY OF
REASONS. NUMBER ONE IF THERE WAS
A POSSIBILITY, PUTTING IT UP ON
THE NOVEMBER ELECTION NUMBER TWO
THAT YOU COULDN'T WAIT. AS AS
LONG AS 2026 MEANING NEXT YEAR
TO GET IT DONE THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE. AND TO GO TO 26
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PLAN LONG
TERM. EFFECTIVELY IF YOU'RE
GOING TO PROVIDE, UH UM,
SERVICES THAT ADDRESS THE ISSUE
OF HOMELESSNESS, IN OTHER WORDS,
LONG RANGE PLANNING, RIGHT? SO
IF YOU WENT UP IN 26 UM, KNOWING
THAT THIS ENDS IN 27. YOU YOU
WAS AGENCIES COULDN'T COULDN'T
PREPARE LONG TERM PLANS, EXCEPT
THE ONLY THING BEFORE YOU WAS
THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FUNDS
WERE ENDING, AND SO YOU'D BE NOT
YOU. BUT GENERAL, YOU WOULD BE
IN A SITUATION WHERE AGENCIES
ARE STARTING TO LOOK TOWARDS
ENDING MEASURE H ALL AT THE SAME
TIME. HOPING THAT IT PASSES SO
YOU'D BE MORE THAN LIKELY NOT
BEING ABLE TO PLAN LONG TERM SO
MORE EFFECTIVE APPROACH WOULD BE
GOING TO THE VOTERS IN 24. BUT
THE SIMPLE THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS
I WAS APPROACHED AT THE END, SO
I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S THE TRUTH.
AND IS THERE ANY KIND OF
URGENCY? UH IN HAVING A PAST
THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF HAVING IT
PASSED NEXT YEAR, EXACTLY FOR
WHAT THE REASON IS EXPLAINED
THAT IF YOU IF YOU DON'T GO TO
THE VOTERS IN 24 DURING THE
PRESIDENTIAL YEAR, AND IF IT
DOESN'T PASS IN 24, YOU COULDN'T
PASS YOU COULDN'T ADDRESS YOU
COULDN'T PLAN LONG TERM. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE. IF IT PASSES IN 24. YOU
NOW HAVE THREE YEARS TO CONTINUE
THOSE PROGRAMMING AND PLAN LONG
TERM. IF YOU WAIT TILL 26 THE
COUNTY HAD TO START POTENTIALLY
SHUTTING DOWN PROGRAMS BECAUSE
THERE IS NO COMMITMENT OF LONG
TERM FUNDING. SO YOU SO COULD
YOU PASS IN 26? YEAH BUT YOU
WOULD BE WINDING DOWN A PROGRAM
AT THE SAME TIME YOU'RE ASKING
VOTERS TO INCREASE YOU JUST
CAN'T PLAN LONG TERM. UM SO YOU
SO THE BETTER THE BETTER THING
TO DO. AND IF YOU DIDN'T PASS IN
█24 BACK IN 26, BUT THE TRUTH OF
THE MATTER IS THE WAYS EXPLAINED
TO ME, IT'S JUST CAN'T PLAN LONG
TERM FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT
THERE WAITING UNTIL 26 DOESN'T
GIVE YOU ABOUT THE ABILITY TO
PLAN LONG TERM ANY OF THESE
PROGRAMS. HOW ARE WE ASSURED FOR
LOCAL CITIES? UH, THAT THEY WILL
RECEIVE THE FUNDING THAT THEY
NEED THE COUNTY ANSWER THAT
BECAUSE LOOK, I I'VE HAD THIS
CONVERSATION WITH EVERYTHING. I
HAVE THE SAME FRUSTRATION LOOK
AT THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF
HOMELESS POPULATION IS IN LOS
ANGELES CITY. UM, AND WE'RE NOT
RECEIVING THE LION'S SHARE OF
DOLLARS. I SHARE THE SAME
CONVERT THE SAME FRUSTRATION, SO
I'M NOT GONNA SUGARCOAT THAT
SAME FRUSTRATION THAT YOU SHARE
THE SAME FRUSTRATION THAT I
SHARE THE INCREASED
ACCOUNTABILITY. THE INCREASED
TRANSPARENCY IS A FRUSTRATION
THAT I ALSO SHARE BUT ALSO PUT
THAT IN THE BILL. NOW YOU CAN'T
WRITE A BALLOT MEASURE IN A BILL
THAT IS PRESCRIPTIVE THAT IN IT
WOULD PROHIBIT IT WOULD NOT
ALLOW FOR THE STAKEHOLDER
CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN. TO GET A
BETTER PRODUCT. THAT'S WHY YOU
CAN'T WRITE IT HERE AND ALL THE
THINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT IN THEIR
PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN
THE BILL. THAT IS WHY THIS
ALLOWS FOR A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS
TO SIT DOWN AND THEN HAMMER OUT
THOSE DIFFERENCES. I SHARE THE
SAME FRUSTRATION WITH THE
ABSOLUTELY NO. I'M NOT GONNA
SUGARCOAT THAT PIECE AWAY. LOS
ANGELES CITY HAS THE LARGEST
PERCENTAGE OF HOMELESS
POPULATION. I'M GONNA ADVOCATE
FOR MY CITY THAT GETS THE
LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF FUNDING
THE SAME WAY THAT I EXPECT
EVERYBODY HERE IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY TO ADVOCATE FOR THOSE
STATES TO GET THE LARGEST
PORTION OF FUNDING. BUT ALSO
WANT TO JUST BE CLEAR THAT THIS
IS ABOUT THE WRAPAROUND SUPPORT
SERVICES AND NOT ABOUT THE BRICK
AND MORTAR PIECE OF A AND IF YOU
HAVE, UM IF YOU HAVE FRUSTRATION
ABOUT YOUR CITY, NOT GETTING
DOLLARS. I WILL STAND WITH YOU
IN THAT SAME FRUSTRATION ABOUT
MY CITY GETTING ITS FAIR,
EQUITABLE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THAT
I'M NOT GONNA THAT I'LL BE WITH
YOU, BUT THAT WAS CONVERSATIONS
CAN HAPPEN. IF WE DON'T GO TO
THE VOTERS, THOSE CONVERSATIONS
CAN HAPPEN IF THE CAP ISN'T
INCREASED, AND I'LL LET THE
COUNTY ANSWER THAT PIECE, BUT I
SHARE THIS IN FRUSTRATION AS YOU
AND I'LL BE. I'LL BE MAKING SURE
THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAPPEN.
SOMETHING MEMBER PACHECO. WE
WELCOME YOUR PARTICIPATION IN
THE PLANNING PROCESS AS WE MOVE
FORWARD TO ENGAGE WITH EVERYBODY
IN DETERMINING WHAT THE BALLOT
INITIATIVE WILL CONSIST OF SO
IN, UM, YOU KNOW, SEEKING TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
TRANSPARENCY AND ENGAGEMENT, WE
ARE GOING TO ENGAGE WITH
EVERYBODY, SO WE HAVE THE BEST
MEASURE POSSIBLE. ON THE BALLOT
AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS WE
WANT SUPPORT FOR THIS, UM AND
TAKING A LOOK AT NOT ONLY JUST
MEASURE AGE FUNDING. WE HAVE
OTHER RESOURCES IN THE COUNTY
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SOCIAL SERVICES PROVIDES AND
PROVIDING, UM, EITHER. BENEFITS
UM, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND
CONSUMER DEPARTMENT. BUSINESS
AND CONSUMER DEPARTMENT AFFAIRS
ALSO PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR
PREVENTING EVICTIONS. SO THERE'S
A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTY
RESOURCES THAT WE CAN SIT DOWN
WITH YOUR OFFICE AND SHARE WITH
YOU ALL THE RESOURCES THAT ARE
GOING INTO YOUR YOUR
JURISDICTION AND WITH THE CITIES
SO THAT THERE ARE FULLY AWARE
OF, UM BEYOND MEASURE AGE. WHAT
ARE THE RESOURCES ARE NEEDED FOR
THE FOR THE HOUSED INDIVIDUALS.
AND IS THERE A REASON MAYBE THE
COUNTY CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS? UM
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF THE
AUTHOR OF THIS BILL WAS FAIRLY
INFORMED AS TO THE NEED NOW,
INSTEAD OF ALERTING US SOONER AS
TO THIS, UH URGENCY AND THIS
HAVING THIS BILL PASSED BECAUSE
IT DOES GIVE ME SEVERE ANGST
THAT THIS IS A GUT AND AMANDA
AND BEING, UM, SENT TO US AT THE
VERY LAST MINUTE. YES WE HAD A
PLANNING PROCESS TO DETERMINE
WHICH INITIATIVE TO PUT FORWARD
IN THE IN THE BALLOT AND TAKING
A LOOK AT OUR OPTIONS. AND IN
DISCUSSING IT WITH THE STATE. UM
YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAX
AUTHORITY TO SEE YOU KNOW WHAT
OUR SITUATION WAS LIKE. WE
REALIZED THAT THIS IS ENDURING
THAT PROCESS, AND THAT'S WHEN WE
ALERTED THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
OFFICE THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THIS
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER PUTTING
THIS IN THE NOVEMBER 2024
BALLOT, AND WE NEEDED IT PASSED
THIS YEAR. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS I
LOVE THE OPPOSITION WANTS TO SAY
ANYTHING. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
I THE ANGST THAT I'M DEALING
WITH. I DID, UM, FULL
DISCLOSURE. I DID HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CONTRACT CITIES
MARCEL RODARTE THIS MORNING. UH
AND, UM. HE SAID CONVERSATIONS
WERE BEING HELD. UH HE EXPLAINED
TO ME THAT CONTRACT CITIES WAS
INITIALLY A POSE UNLESS AMENDED
. I BELIEVE OR SUPPORT IF
AMENDED. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH
ONE CONTRACT CITIES WAS. BUT HE
SAID THE CONVERSATIONS, UH HAVE
HAVE BEEN OCCURRING. UH, HE DID
WANT TO SAY THANKS TO SUPERVISOR
FOR BACK. I THINK SHE'S
SPEARHEADING THIS, BUT I AM
HAVING SEVERE PROBLEMS WITH THIS
GIVEN THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT MONEY IS BEING EQUALLY
ALLOCATED TO THE CITY'S BECAUSE
DOWNEY RECEIVED NOTHING. CENTER
PHASE RECEIVED THINGS AND IT'S
JUST THAT'S BEEN MY THANKS AND I
REPRESENT THESES AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT PROPER FUNDY IS
BEING ALLOCATED TO THESE CITIES
FOR PROVIDING THE WRAPAROUND
SERVICES THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING.
I KNOW. MAYBE NOT. EVERYBODY IS
DOING IT, BUT I KNOW IT'S BEING
DONE IN DOWNEY. SO I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M PROTECTING
THE CITY THAT I REPRESENT. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBER
WITH COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS,
PLEASE. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. UM. I SHARE. UH MY
COLLEAGUES CONCERNED, BUT A
LARGER CONCERN I HAVE IS, UH I'M
JUST NEW HERE, BUT I'M SITTING
THROUGH SO MANY PROPOSED TAX
INCREASES THAT AFFECT THE COMMON
PERSON. ON THE NOVEMBER 2024
BALLOT. I BELIEVE POTENTIALLY
COULD BE AN TAX, ANOTHER MEASURE
THAT WOULD REDUCE THE VOTER
REQUIREMENT FROM A TWO THIRDS
VOTE TO A MAJORITY VOTE. SO I
THINK MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THE
HASTE HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHEN
ALL THIS HAPPENED. I'M NOT
TRYING TO BE SUSPICIOUS ABOUT
ANYTHING BUT EVERYBODY'S NOW
WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF
OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE TAXES
ON THE PEOPLE WHO CAN LEAST
AFFORD. HOW DO WE KNOW THESE
PROGRAMS AS THEY'RE BEING
ALLOCATED ARE THE WRAPAROUND
SERVICES. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT
WRAPAROUND SERVICES FOR I SERVED
ON THE BOARD OF THE UNITED WAY
OF LOS ANGELES FOR 15 YEARS. WE
TALKED ABOUT WRAPAROUND
SERVICES, AND WE HAVE MORE
HOMELESS. THEN WE DID. I THINK
THE NUMBER WHEN I SERVED ON THE
BOARD, WHICH WAS 10 YEARS AGO
WAS MAYBE 50,000 HOMELESS.
WHAT'S THE HOMELESS NOW? IN LOS
ANGELES CITY OF LOS ANGELES?
46,000 HASN'T ACCOMPLISHED MUCH
. WHAT ARE THESE WRAPAROUND
SERVICES DOING? HOW MUCH IS
BEING SPENT? AND HOW DO WE
MEASURE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR
THE PEOPLE WHO DESPERATELY
NEEDED WE KNOW THAT SKID ROW IS
A CITY OF ON ITSELF IN DOWNTOWN
LOS ANGELES. NOTHING HAS CHANGED
. HOW ARE WE GOING TO HELP THESE
PEOPLE? INSTEAD OF JUST POURING
MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY, MORE
MONEY AND THE OVERHEAD THE
OVERHEAD THE OVERHEAD? HOW DOES
IT TOUCH THE PEOPLE WHO NEED
HELP? UH WELL, NUMBER ONE THAT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
MEASURE THAT WAS THAT WAS VOTED
ON. I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN THE
LEGISLATURE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH IT, AND IT WOULDN'T
IMPACT THAT. UM BECAUSE I WANT
TO CLEAR THAT UP AND THEN TO I
JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD AND
REITERATE WHAT I SAID ABOUT
MEASURE H AND SOME OF THE
SUCCESSES AND LOOK, I'M A GUY
WHO WANTS MORE TRANSPARENCY AND
ROBUST ACCOUNTABILITY, WHICH IS
WHY WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THERE.
UM PAGE THREE SECTION C. YOU
KNOW THAT IT IS INTENDED TO
LEGISLATURE THAT ANY
TRANSACTIONS UM, ANY
TRANSACTIONS IN USE TAX ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED IN THIS SECTION INCLUDE
ROBUST OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS SO
THAT WHEN THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE
HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
GOING TO THE VOTERS THAT THAT IS
GOING TO BE INCLUDED, BUT THIS
DOESN'T INCREASE ATTACKS. LET'S
BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT IT. IT
DOESN'T IT DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO
GO TO THE VOTERS. IT JUST IT
LIFTS A CAP. UM SO THEY COULD IF
THEY WANT. IF THEY HAVE SOME,
YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO SUBMIT A MEASURE TO THE
VOTERS TO INCREASE THE CAP? THIS
DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE VEHICLE
THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO DO
THAT OR THE COUNTY TO DO THAT.
THE COUNTY CAN ALSO GO THROUGH
DO THAT, AND THEN COME BACK, BUT
BUT THE BUT THIS IS REQUIRED IN
ORDER. UNDERSTAND IT'S JUST A
PROCESS. STEP. I GET IT. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF THESE PROGRAMS
WORK WAS MY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
, AND THAT'S WHAT I ANSWERED
EARLIER RIGHT MEASURE EACH HAS
CONTRIBUTED THE PLACEMENT OF
ABOUT 123 PEOPLE IN AN INTERIM
HOUSING. HOW MUCH DID THAT COST?
I'LL LET THE COUNTY AND ABOUT
90,000 PEOPLE IN THE PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND PREVENTED
ABOUT 24,000 PEOPLE FROM
BECOMING HOMELESS AND I'LL LET,
UH SHE'S GOT A CHART NEXT TO HER
THAT SHE COULD EXPLAIN IF THAT'S
OKAY WITH THE CHAIR. I
APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU FOR THE
PERMANENT SUPPORT FOR THE
PERMANENT HOUSING 270 MILLION,
WHICH IS 44.3% IS THE FUNDING
AND THEN FOR INTERIM HOUSING,
AND THIS IS FOR 2020. 3 2024
PROPOSED BUDGET OF 609 MILLION
TOTAL. UM FOR INTERIM. THIS IS
182 MILLION. THAT'S 30% AND TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION RELATED TO
THE WRAPAROUND SERVICES THAT'S
IN THAT WE PROVIDED FOR OUR
22,000 INDIVIDUALS THAT RECEIVED
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THEY HAD CHRONIC MEDICAL AND
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUES. SO IN
ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO HELP
STABILIZE THEM, THEY WERE IN
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FIRST. UM
GETTING THEM ACCESS TO THE
RESOURCES AND ALSO SUBSTANCE
ABUSE TREATMENT. AND THEN YOU
KNOW, ONCE THEY'RE STABILIZED,
AND THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW THEIR
CASE MANAGEMENT, UM ALL SET AND
THEY'RE ABLE TO WORK
COLLABORATIVELY WITH, UM, THE
TREATMENT PROVIDERS. THEN THEY
WILL, THEN WE CAN TRANSFER THEM
INTO RENTAL HOUSING AND GET THEM
INTO YOU KNOW TO BE MORE
INDEPENDENT, SO THAT'S ALSO YOU
KNOW, PROVIDING THEM WITH THE
RESOURCES SO THAT THEY CAN LIVE
INDEPENDENTLY, AND I COMMEND
THAT. OF COURSE, I JUST WANT TO
KNOW WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THAT'S
22,000 INDIVIDUALS HAVE RECEIVED
THOSE SERVICES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. REMEMBER WARNER. YEAH I
THINK YOU KNOW TO ROUND OUT THE
QUESTION MY UNDERSTANDING OF
THIS BILL IS YOU NEED THIS
INCREASE IN CAP AND ORDER TO LET
THIS GO TO THE VOTERS AND L, A
COUNTY AND IF THEY L A COUNTY
FOLKS WANT TO VOTE FOR ALL THESE
TAXES THAT IS THEIR RIGHT UNDER
DEMOCRACY. RIGHT LIKE THAT IS
THEIR RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
RESTAURANT DEMS. THAT'S WHY WE
HAVE BALLOT INITIATIVES. THIS IS
THEIR CHOICE, SO I'M NOT IN L. A
COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL
IF I WERE AN L, A COUNTY, BUT
THIS IS YOUR THING, AND YOU GUYS
HAVE THE LARGEST SHARE OF
HOMELESSNESS AND IN CALIFORNIA,
AND YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
YOU'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, AND
THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THE STATE
CAN PUT IN. SO I YOU KNOW, WILL
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE TODAY. AND
WITH THAT I MOVED THE BELT.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. CAN I MAKE
A COMMENT? QUICK COMMENT. YES
ABSOLUTELY. NO. GOD YOU BROUGHT
THAT UP BECAUSE THE DIRE
SITUATION TODAY IS ACTUALLY A
LITTLE BIT MORE. MORE IMPERATIVE
THAT WE PASSED THIS AND EVEN
WHEN MEASURE H WAS PASSED THE
FIRST TIME IN 2017, THERE WAS
SIX CITIES THAT WERE CAPPED OUT
AT THE 2% TODAY. THERE ARE 49
CITIES THAT ARE TAPPED OUT. SO
IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS
WITHOUT THIS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT
SIGNIFICANT, REDUCED AMOUNT OF
REVENUE, WHICH MEANS WORSENING
SITUATION WORSE, WORSENING THE
HOMELESS SITUATION. THAT'S WHY
IT'S IN DIRE STRAITS TO DATA
PASSES MORE THAN IT WAS BEFORE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S UM. THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR. AND THANK YOU TO
MY COLLEAGUE UM,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DIXON FOR
BRINGING UP. UM YOU KNOW HER
CONCERNS AND AGREE THAT YOU KNOW
WE DO HAVE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF
TAXES ON THE BALLOT THIS YEAR
AND DOING QUITE A BIT ONE THING
THAT I CAN APPRECIATE ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR BILL. IT IS A
DISTRICT BILL, BUT IT ALSO
DOESN'T ALLOW THE CAP TO JUST BE
BLOWN THROUGH WITH ANYTHING.
IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. IT ALLOWS AN
EXEMPTION TO THE CAP
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO HOUSING
OR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RELATED TO I MEAN FOR
HOMELESSNESS AND PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM WITHIN
THE BILL, SO I THINK THAT THAT
IS A SAFETY MEASURE, SO TO SPEAK
IN TERMS OF NOT LETTING L A
COUNTY BE LIKE, OH, I JUST WANT
TO USE A GENERAL TAX TO DO
WHATEVER I WANT WITH, BUT IT IS
SPECIFIC TO HOMELESS AND
RECOGNIZING THAT THE WHOLE POINT
OF HAVING THE CAP STATEWIDE IS
THAT THERE WAS SOME UNIFORMITY
AMONGST, UM ALL COUNTIES OR
AGENCIES, LOCAL AGENCIES WITHIN,
UM THE STATE. AND SO THIS ALLOWS
AN EXEMPTION ONLY ONE UNDER ONE
SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE VERSUS IT
BEING JUST YEAH, NOT THE WHOLE
STATE. BUT JUST EVEN IN THE
COUNTY. EVEN IN L, A COUNTY.
THEY CANNOT, UM DO JUST THE
GENERAL TAX FOR SOME OTHER
SPECIFIC PURPOSES, THEY CAN ONLY
EXCEEDED THE CAP RELATED TO THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND THEN IT IS
UP TO THEM TO MAKE THE VOTES.
THE CASE TO THE VOTERS, AS WAS
NOTED FROM MY COLLEAGUE ACROSS
THE WAY UM, TO MAKE THAT CASE
AND FOR THEM TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY WANT THE TAX OR
NOT, AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW IF
IT'S NOT BEING SPENT ON WHAT IT
IS, OR THEY'RE FINDING THAT IT
BECOMES A BLACK HOLE BECAUSE WE
ALL KNOW THAT WE NEED MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND, UM NOT JUST
HOMELESSNESS, BUT ALSO MENTAL
HEALTH. IF IT'S A BLACK HOLE,
THEN THE VOTERS WILL DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THAT AS WELL. SO
WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S BEEN A SECOND, BUT I
SECOND IT THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WOULD LIKE TO
CLOSE. YEP AND I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR HAVING A
ROBUST CONVERSATION. UM AND I DO
MEAN THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE
FRUSTRATION THAT YOU HAVE SAID
ABOUT IT IS THE SAME
CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD WITH
THE LAKE COUNTY WHEN THEY
BROUGHT IT UP TO US TO TALK
ABOUT THE MEASURE, WHICH IS YOU
WANT INCREASED TRANSPARENCY. YOU
YOU WANT ROBUST ACCOUNTABILITY
BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE DON'T GET
THE OUTCOMES THAT WE WANT. SO
IT'S SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A
DEFENSE FOR THAT AT ALL RIGHT? I
DON'T I DON'T AND I'VE HAD MANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU FOLKS
THAT I'M GONNA BE ENGAGED AS
MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN. BECAUSE
I WANT BETTER OUTCOMES FOR THIS.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IF THIS
DOESN'T HAPPEN, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO GET THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT
HER OUTCOMES, AND THIS WILL
ALLOW TO PASS AND REPEAL. WHAT
YOU WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE.
BECAUSE ONCE YOU PASS A NEW
MALLET MEASURE, THE OLD ONE GOES
AWAY, BUT IT GIVES US THAT
ABILITY TO GET INTO THAT
CONVERSATION. SAY HERE'S WHERE
WE'D LIKE IT TO BE. HERE'S HOW
MUCH BETTER IT CAN WORK. AND
HERE'S THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
THE TRANSPARENCY THAT WE WANT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IF WE
DON'T GET THIS, SO FOR
EVERYBODY'S FRUSTRATION, I GET
IT. I FEEL IT. I AM WITH YOU ON
THAT FRUSTRATION AND I'M GONNA
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
GET BETTER OUTCOMES AND BETTER
TRANSPARENCY. AND I'M NOT GOING
TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR CITIES NOT
GETTING IT. THEY SHOULD GET IT
THE SAME WAY THAT I'M GONNA BE
FIGHTING FOR THE AREA THAT I
REPRESENT IS THE SAME WAY. I
EXPECT EVERYBODY TO BE FIGHTING
FOR THOSE AREAS THAT THEY
REPRESENT. BUT THAT HAPPENS IF
WE CAN GO BACK TO THE VOTERS.
AND THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN UNLESS
THIS GETS OUT OF THE
LEGISLATURE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SANTIAGO
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND
WITNESSING OPPOSITION FOR THIS
CONVERSATION. AS WE'VE DISCUSSED
, WE ALL KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA IS
FACING AN IMMENSE HOMELESSNESS
CRISIS. ANGELES COUNTY CONTINUE
TO SEE INCREASES IN HIS COMMERCE
POPULATION, AS IT WAS STATED
EARLIER TODAY. UM MEASURE
ACTUALLY, 1,002,017 AND I STRESS
BETWEEN 10 AND 50 TO $500
MILLION A YEAR, SAYS STATE I
ALSO AND SINCE 2017. I BELIEVE
THIS THREE CHAPTER $2 BILLION
SINCE THEN. DESPITE THIS REVENUE
, HOMELESSNESS AS INCREASE WITH
THE CURRENT HOMELESS POPULATION
THAT IS X 70,000 ANGELENOS, AND
I BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN CONCLUDE
TO THAT AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO
CHANGE. WE'VE ALL WE ALL AGREED
TO THAT IN THIS DISCUSSION WE
HAD UM AS STATED BY MR CHECK,
WHEN ARE THE ONES THAT CONCERN
IS THAT COMMUNIST CONTINUES TO
INCREASE IN OUR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS. THERE ARE LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE TACKLED
THAT ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY ON
THEIR OWN. THERE ARE
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP
WITH A HOMELESSNESS PLAN, LIKE
THE CITY OF PAMELA REPRESENTED
SIX YEARS WE DID COME UP WITH A
HOMELESS PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE. UM BUT I JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
MADE HERE BY SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES. WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY AND ABOUT THE WAY
THAT THESE FUNDS GET DISTRIBUTED
TO THROUGHOUT L. A COUNTY.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES IS THE ONE WITH THE
HIGHEST HOMELESS POPULATION AND
THE BIGGEST POPULATION WITH 3
MILLION PEOPLE. UM SOMETHING IS
TO CHANGE BECAUSE WHEN I GO TO L
A. I SEE THAT RIGHT AWAY AS YOU
ENTER THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
YOU'RE SMALLER JURISDICTIONS HAS
EXPRESSED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
PACHECO. THAT JURISDICTION THAT
I REPRESENT FAMILY IN LANCASTER
. WE BARELY GET ANYTHING SOME
DOMINANT GET NOTHING. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A
COMMITMENT FROM L. A COUNTY.
THAT THERE WILL BE INCLUSIVE
DISCUSSIONS THAT THERE WILL BE
TRANSPARENCY AND MECHANISMS TO
ENSURE THAT EVERY LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT THE
ENTIRE COUNTY THROUGHOUT THE
ENTIRE COUNTY, NOT ONLY THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES SO THAT YOU CAN
FIND THE SUPPORT I RECOGNIZE
THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FIND
THE SOURCES OF FUNDING TO
ADDRESS THE HOMELESSNESS
SITUATION THAT WE ARE FACING.
FOR MANY, MANY REASONS, WE ALL
KNOW THAT THERE'S NOT ONLY ONE
REASON WHY WE'RE FACING THIS, UH
UM HOMELESSNESS POPULATION THAT
WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THIS MEASURE BEING AH, L. A
COUNTY AGAIN. I WANT TO HAVE A
COMMITMENT FROM L. A COUNTY THAT
WE ARE GOING TO BE INCLUSIVE.
WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE EVERY
JURISDICTION THAT WANTS TO
PARTICIPATE TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERY HOMELESS PERSON IS
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THESE
FUNDING, NOT ONLY THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES ALSO RECOGNIZING
THAT THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS
GOING TO BE IN THE EYES OF THE
WORLD, NOT ONLY IN 2028 WITH THE
OLYMPICS, BUT IN 2026 WITH THE
SOCCER WORLD CUP COMING TO THE
US WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE WELL REPRESENTED. WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT VISITORS COME AND
SEE THE POTENTIAL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES AND THE KANYE LOSS.
ANGELES HAD BUT DO I HAVE THAT
COMMUNITY FROM THE COUNTY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AND MAKE
SURE THAT CAN YOU STATE THAT ON
THE RECORD? YES YES, WE WILL. UM
YOU DO HAVE A COMMITMENT TO WORK
WITH EVERYONE SO THAT WE HAVE
THE BEST MEASURE MOVING FORWARD
ON THE ON THE 2024 BALLOT. THANK
YOU WITHOUT THE MOTION IS THAT
SENATOR MEN'S BE CONCLUDING? UH,
THIS BILL? SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS.
CONCURRENCE INDENT AMENDMENTS
MORRELL. HI, I DIXON. DIXON NO
BURNER I PATEK Ó. CHECK ON
VOTING. RAMOS. BROUGH? AYE.
WALDRON WILSON WILSON. AYE. ONE.
IT'S GREAT. WHAT? SORRY. HEY SO
SORRY. CANDY DIÆN AM SO SUCK
ANYTHING. THERE'S. THE MOTION
PASSES 5 TO 1. THANK YOU,
EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. LAST WHAT?
WHAT HAPPENED?