discriminated against in the awarding of healthcare contracts. the suit specifically targeted funds given to longtime-standing local aids service organizations such as hiv/aids alliance for region two, family service of greater baton rouge, and others. the suit was settled with funding left unchanged. housing policy in an interview with the advocate in 2016, weinstein stated: "why isn't there development in south l.a.? why isn't there development in boyle heights? why concentrate all this development in hollywood? you have a in the valley and a in south l.a.". those and other similar statements have led opponents to characterize weinstein as a rich nimby who opposes development because it would add traffic to his commute and block the views from his office building, rather than because he cares about the plight of poor renters or people with hiv. dana cuff, an urban planning professor at the university of california, los angeles stated that weinstein's housing opposition "is not understandable ... i'd go further than that; it's actually a misuse of their funds. ... they're putting a lot of energy into stopping this project," says cuff. "if they put that same energy into getting some of this project to be affordable, i would understand . but to just stop it—they couldn't possibly be concerned about affordable housing." 2016 los angeles palladium development lawsuit the aids healthcare foundation (ahf) filed suit against the city of los angeles, alleging that the city violated laws and the city charter when it approved the development of two residential towers that are expected to be up to 30 stories tall. the city council changed existing zoning and height limitations to allow the development, which would be next to ahf's hollywood headquarters. a spokesperson for the development accused michael weinstein of filing the suit to maintain the view from his office. in 2019, the california supreme court refused to hear the case, leaving in place a lower court decision against the foundation. 2022 l.a. city council housing element dispute in 2022, the ahf sued to block los angeles's housing element, which is a new strategy by the l.a. city council to increase housing supply in l.a. with a goal of producing 500,000 new housing units by 2030, with 200,000 of those being affordable units. ballot initiatives 2012 los angeles county measure b "county of los angeles safer sex in the adult film industry act" - succeeded ahf spent $1.7 million sponsoring an initiative that requires the use of condoms in all vaginal and anal sex scenes in pornography productions filmed in los angeles county, california. it passed 57% – 43%. 2016 california proposition 60 "adult film condom requirements" - failed ahf spent $5.0 million (almost ten times what the total opposition spent) as the only financial backer of a statewide initiative that would have allowed cal/osha to prosecute an enforcement action anytime a condom is not visible in a pornographic film. it failed, 54% to 46%. 2013 san francisco proposition d - succeeded in 2013 ahf sponsored proposition d in the city of san francisco, which required the city to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers and set a city policy to request that state and federal lawmakers create laws that would reduce drug prices. it passed 80% – 20%. 2016 california proposition 61 "california drug price relief act" - failed ahf spent $18.7 million as the almost sole supporter of the california drug price relief act, (the opposition spent $109 million, making this the most expensive ballot measure to date across california and the united states) a statewide 2016 ballot initiative that would have revised california law to require state programs to pay no more for prescription medications than the prices negotiated by the united states department of veterans affairs (notwithstanding any other provision of law and insofar as permissible under federal law), while exempting managed care programs funded through medi-cal. it failed by a 6% margin. 2017 ohio issue 2 "ohio drug price relief act" - failed ahf spend $18 million as the almost exclusive sponsor of the ohio drug price relief act (the opposition raised $59 million). according to the ohio petition language, "the ohio drug price relief act would ... require that notwithstanding any other provision of law and in so far as permissible under federal law, the state of ohio shall not enter into any agreement for the purchase of prescription drugs or agree to pay, directly or indirectly, for prescription drugs, including where the state is the ultimate payer, unless the net cost is the same or less than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the u. s. department of veterans affairs." the initiative lost, 79% – 21%. 2017 los angeles city measure s "neighborhood integrity initiative" - failed in 2016, the foundation sponsored and provided more than 95% of the funding ($5.5 million) for an anti-development ballot initiative, measure s, which was rejected with 70.4% voting against. this initiative would have imposed a two-year moratorium on spot zoning as well as developments requiring height and density variances and other changes that would, it claimed, prevent the city from gentrifying and growing too fast. "as we work to house patients in l.a., city hall focuses on approving $3,500 apartments that sit empty," weinstein wrote in a los angeles times op-ed. opponents, who included many advocacy groups for the homeless as well as the city's business community, building trades unions, and developers, said that while the measure addressed some real problems, it went too far and would have not only prevented the construction of new affordable housing but made the city's overall quality of life worse by aggravating an existing housing shortage. they questioned whether the money spent by the aids healthcare foundation to get the initiative on the ballot was related to the foundation's mission, and suggested that it was motivated by ahf director michael weinstein's desire to block a development that would have dominated the view from his office window. 2018 california proposition 10 "repeal of costa-hawkins rental housing act" - failed ahf contributed $22.5 million to the campaign for proposition 10, a ballot initiative which sought to repeal the 1995 costa-hawkins act. the measure would have allowed local governments to adopt rent control on any kind of building. costa-hawkins is a state law which disallows local governments (cities and counties) from enacting rent control on buildings constructed after 1995, all single-family homes (regardless of construction date), and disallows laws that keep a property under rent control when tenants change (vacancy control).: 1 the proposition failed, 59% to 41%. 2020 california proposition 21 "expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property" - failed in 2019, the california legislature passed and the governor signed ab 1482, which created a statewide rent cap for the next 10 years. the tenant protection act of 2019 caps annual rent increases at 5% plus regional inflation, pegged to the rental rate as of march 2019. the new law does not apply to buildings built within the prior 15 years, or to single-family homes (unless owned by corporations or institutional investors) and retains "vacancy decontrol", meaning that rents can increase to market rate between tenants. in 2020, michael weinstein, ahf's founder, sponsored and financed a second ballot initiative to allow more rent control, because he felt that ab 1482 (above) did not provide enough tenant protections, such as limiting rent increases between tenants. ahf spent $40 million (99.8% of the supporters' funding) in support of proposition 21 (the opposition spent $85 million). it appeared on the ballot on november 3, 2020 and would have allowed local governments to establish rent control on residential properties that have been occupied for over 15 years. it would also have allowed landlords who own no more than two homes to exempt themselves from such policies, and would also have capped rent increases between tenancies at 15% over three years (vacancy control). proposition 21 was rejected by 60% of california voters, like proposition 10 (above) before it.