Towns across the U.S. want to stop building homes that are vulnerable to climate-driven disasters, like wildfires, floods and droughts. It's easier said than done.
Why it matters: It's one of the most difficult choices a community can make. Local governments typically want more housing, not less, because budgets are generally funded by the property taxes from those homes. At the same time, a nationwide housing shortage is creating even more pressure to build.
Read on ... to see how cities in three states are dealing with the question.
With climate-fueled disasters killing hundreds of Americans annually and costing communities billions of dollars, a growing number of local governments are asking a basic question: Are there some places where people shouldn't build homes?
It's one of the most difficult choices a community can make. Local governments typically want more housing, not less, because budgets are generally funded by the property taxes from those homes. At the same time, a nationwide housing shortage is creating even more pressure to build.
"[If] you're a local government, of course you want to develop," says Katharine Mach, who studies climate change and housing at the University of Miami. "You're building a community. You're supporting livelihoods. You're supporting tourism oftentimes. [And] there's the pragmatic dimension of, you need the property taxes."
As a result, putting limits on homebuilding can feel like a non-starter for the local officials who generally control land-use decisions.
But with often deadly extreme-weather disasters on the rise, the problem can no longer be ignored. In the last five years, floods, wildfires, severe storms and droughts have caused more than $580 billion in damage and killed hundreds of people. And some states are passing laws that put conditions on future growth.
NPR visited three places that are grappling with the question of how to stop building homes in harm's way — with varying degrees of success. Whether it's flooding, wildfires or drought that threatens a community, similar conversations are now playing out across the United States.
California: Building homes in places that could burn
A development of almost 3,000 homes planned for a valley in Santee, Calif., has ignited a debate in the community about housing and wildfire risk.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
Two things are painfully apparent for many California cities: the massive statewide housing shortage and a growing danger from wildfires.
With some of the most expensive housing in the U.S., California's cities face requirements to build more housing to boost supply. But where to put it is tricky. About one-quarter of California is at high risk of burning, according to state wildfire authorities. And as the climate gets hotter, ten of thousands of homes have been lost in destructive wildfires in the last five years alone.
With some of the most expensive housing in the country, California's cities, like San Diego seen here, face requirements to build more housing to boost supply.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
With few statewide regulations, navigating housing needs and wildfire risk falls to local governments, like Santee, Calif., a largely suburban town on the outskirts of San Diego.
Santee is nestled next to miles of open space, and at the edge of town, a major new development of almost 3,000 homes, known as Fanita Ranch, is being planned. For years, residents like Van Collinsworth have fought the project, which would be tucked away in the golden, shrubby hills. As a wildfire inspector by day who examines flammable brush, he knows the city is at risk. It barely escaped the 2003 Cedar Fire, which destroyed more than 2,000 homes.
"I don't think the project should be built — that's the bottom line," he says. "I don't think developers and decision-makers are willing to acknowledge that we are living in a new era of extreme weather and really grapple with what that means for the desire to build and build and build."
Collinsworth directs Preserve Wild Santee, an environmental group that joined several others to file a lawsuit to stop the development after the city approved it in 2020. A judge agreed, finding that the developer didn't adequately analyze how long it would take residents to evacuate during a fire or whether they could do so safely.
Van Collinsworth has been fighting development on the outskirts of Santee for decades. "It's a recipe for chaos and potentially death and disaster," he says.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
The developer, HomeFed Corp., proposed the project again in 2022, this time with a phased evacuation plan that works by zones, so neighborhoods could be cleared more efficiently. Houses would be built with fire-resistant materials and have fire sprinklers. Inspectors would check that flammable vegetation was cleared twice per year, something that would be paid for by homeowners association fees. Those funds would also ensure vegetation was cleared around the outskirts of the community, creating a buffer.
"Other parts of the country are in a hurricane zone, and they have codes and standards that say, if you build to these standards, you can go ahead and build a home," says Kent Aden, senior vice president of HomeFed. "We have all these standards for building in wildfire zones, but there seems to be a resistance to allow projects to move forward that meet or exceed those standards."
Around a quarter of California's land is at high risk for burning, which means cities are facing tough choices about where to put much-needed new housing.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
In 2023, the City Council approved the project again, with several members saying they were satisfied with the wildfire safety measures after local fire officials supported the plan.
"We tried to take everything we can learn from the fires plus even more, making it, in my opinion, the best example of what can be done to make a defensible community," Aden says.
Collinsworth and environmental groups filed a second lawsuit to halt the project, and it will be heard in court next year. It's one of several lawsuits aimed at stopping developments in California, and some of these suits were supported by state Attorney General Rob Bonta. He recently released guidance for cities about how to analyze wildfire risk.
Still, while California leads the nation in some wildfire policies, like building codes for individual homes, there are few statewide laws about making development decisions in high-risk zones. Those decisions fall to local governments alone. A bill now being considered from state Sen. Ben Allen would require developers to analyze fire behavior and create evacuation plans in cooperation with local fire authorities as part of their projects.
To reduce wildfire risk, the developer of Fanita Ranch says the homes will be built with wildfire in mind, like using fire-resistant materials and requiring mandatory inspections for flammable brush.
"If we site houses and infrastructure in places better, safer, that makes it easier to keep people safe as climate change intensifies into the future," Mach says. "But it's not as if we have easy choices of just building in the safe places, because there are no places that are devoid of hazards right now."
Arizona: Limiting growth where water is scarce, with a catch
Arizona's population has quadrupled in the last 50 years, but climate change and a long-running drought are straining water supplies like never before.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
Located in a desert, cities around Phoenix are constantly facing questions of water supply — not just at water management agencies but also at city councils considering where to develop. That's because Arizona has one of the most powerful laws in the country linking water with the decision to build.
In Casa Grande, about an hour south of Phoenix, Mayor Craig McFarland knows his city's future is linked to water. Housing is already in high demand. Industry is moving into the area, with both a battery and an electric car manufacturer offering thousands of jobs near town.
"We have this huge need for workforce housing, and that workforce housing needs a place to go," McFarland says. "And so that's why all of a sudden the rush is on."
Casa Grande Mayor Craig McFarland holds a map showing land with and without a water supply. "Casa Grande will continue to grow," he says. "We have to be frugal with the water we have."
(
Lauren Sommer
/
NPR
)
But whether that housing can be built is a question. A two-decade drought in the Southwest has triggered cutbacks to Arizona's water supply, as climate change strains the Colorado River, one of the state's biggest water sources. Underground aquifers are the state's other major water source. But in Pinal County, where Casa Grande is located, overpumping of aquifers is a big concern.
So when it comes to development, McFarland consults a map that looks like a patchwork quilt. Some parcels of land are blue, which means a water supply would be ensured for new homes. But many other parcels are white. There, developers would have to find their own water supply in order to build. State law limits growth where water is in short supply, requiring new subdivisions to show they have 100 years of water for their customers.
"Arizona is the only state in the country that requires 100 years' worth of water," McFarland says. "It's a consumer protection."
This year, regulators announced they would not be guaranteeing water supplies for new subdivisions around Phoenix, limiting future construction. That has been the situation for several years in Casa Grande.
Still, McFarland isn't discouraged. In the long term, the city is looking at water recycling and conservation. And in the short term, building hasn't stopped.
That's because developers have found a profitable workaround. Arizona's water law applies only when lots are subdivided into smaller lots for six or more homes and those houses are either sold or made available for long-term rentals. Instead, developers have turned to building short-term rentals on a single large piece of land.
Not far from the center of town, construction workers are putting the finishing touches on new single-story homes in a 331-unit development. Water supply hasn't been a barrier to building because these units will be part of one large rental project.
"We don't need an assured water supply because it's one lot," says Greg Hancock of Hancock Builders, which is constructing the project. "Although it's 331 units, it's one lot."
Casa Grande, like several other Arizona cities, has seen a boom in these "build to rent" projects. Hancock says after decades in the business, his company started building them only recently and has more than 10,000 units built or in development.
"It's been one of the greatest housing markets forever," he says. "People will not stop moving here."
But with the growth, that unaccounted-for water demand is raising red flags. Already, Arizona water regulators say there won't be enough groundwater to meet existing needs over the next 100 years.
"If you build houses and you rent them, there's no way to go back and undo the fact that they're there and people are living in them," says Kathleen Ferris, senior research fellow at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University.
Ferris helped write Arizona's 100-year water law four decades ago. She says its strength is that it tethers building decisions to water decisions. Back then, build-to-rent wasn't common. Now, she says, the state is reaching a pivotal moment when all water use needs to be accounted for.
"Climate change and aridification have come on so much faster than most people thought," she says. "Yes, there is still opportunity for growth, but there needs to be an understanding of the limits."
In Pinal County, Ariz., developers must find a water supply to build a traditional subdivision. Large rental projects don't face that requirement.
(
Lauren Sommer
/
NPR
)
This year, Arizona legislators drafted two state bills to close the loophole, which would require rental projects to have a water supply. Both failed to pass. Some cities pushed back, saying it would limit a key way to address the housing shortage. Now, a working group convened by Gov. Katie Hobbs is examining the issue.
Still, the overriding conversation is about growth. With droughts expected to worsen, Arizona's water law is pushing cities to look at boosting their water supplies locally, whether that's through building water-recycling projects or amping up conservation.
Arizona's groundwater law is a rarity among Western states, requiring cities to think about how building decisions will affect the water supply over the next century.
(
Lauren Sommer
/
NPR
)
"I used to say, 'Maybe we're at our limit. Maybe we can't build any more houses,'" says Pinal County Supervisor Stephen Miller, who works on water issues. "So now I say, 'If we're going to maintain any type of growth, we have to bring water in.'"
New Jersey: A little bit of everything adds up to a lot of flood protection
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. and one of the most flood prone. Nonetheless, the state has made progress in protecting people from flooding.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
New Jersey may offer a blueprint for how to get people out of harm's way while continuing to grow and prosper economically, according to climate experts.
The marshy coastal state is a decade into a systematic statewide effort to protect residents from floodwaters. And those efforts appear to be successfully limiting new construction of homes in flood-prone areas and better protecting people who live in flood zones or are considering moving into them.
"This is an area where New Jersey is very proactive," says A.R. Siders, a climate researcher at the University of Delaware who studies climate risk and housing.
Heavy rain caused flooding in Middlesex County, N.J. — home to Woodbridge Township — in October 2021. Woodbridge is more than a decade into a multipronged effort to reduce the number of people living in places at high risk for flooding.
(
Tayfun Coskun
/
Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
)
New Jersey has attacked its flooding problem from every angle. Since Superstorm Sandy devastated the region in 2012, New Jersey has passed regulations that make it harder to build new homes in flood zones. If you want to substantially renovate a home that already exists in a flood-prone area, the new rules require major upgrades to protect the house from water, such as putting the whole house on stilts or moving air conditioning units and other crucial utilities off the ground so they can survive a flood.
This year, New Jersey also passed some of the strongest flood disclosure laws in the country, which means that people who are buying homes in the state get information about whether their prospective new house has flooded in the past or is likely to flood in the future.
The town of Woodbridge, N.J., has removed homes from some parts of town that frequently flood. Today, where houses once stood, there is a wilderness trail. The open space allows water to spread out after big storms without damaging homes.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
And the state has purchased more than 1,000 houses in the last decade through a permanent home-buyout program known as Blue Acres, which acquires homes that have flooded and knocks them down to provide more open space for floodwater.
As a result, New Jersey appears to be doing significantly better than the national average when it comes to the number of homes in flood zones, according to preliminary findings by a group of climate scientists including Siders and Mach.
That's particularly notable since New Jersey is both the most densely populated state in the country and one of the most flood prone.
New Jersey is surrounded by water. Living by the shore is one thing that draws people to the state, but as sea levels rise and storms get more intense, flood damage to homes is skyrocketing.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
The town of Woodbridge, N.J., has been on the front lines of New Jersey's strategy.
After Superstorm Sandy flooded the town, the local government decided to support home buyouts.
"[It's] not something we wanted to do, but we had to do it," says longtime Mayor John McCormac. "We didn't want to lose residents."
But it was equally unthinkable that homes would be rebuilt in places that had flooded, he says. And there were alternative ways for the town to grow economically.
Stephanie and Nicholas Cepparulo's home in Lambertville, N.J., was destroyed in a flash flood in 2021. The property had been in Stephanie's family for over 100 years, but with climate change causing more severe storms, it was no longer a safe place to live. They chose to accept a home buyout, with the support of their local mayor and a case manager from the state government.
(
Nicholas Cepparulo
)
Because home buyouts are voluntary, the town could move forward only if people agreed to move. McCormac remembers a town meeting he presided over in the high school auditorium.
"It was difficult. People were angry," he says. "It wasn't an easy process. You know, somebody's talking to you about moving out of their home that they've been in for 60 years. And it's their biggest investment in their life."
Similar conversations have played out across the state in recent years, says New Jersey's chief resilience officer, Nick Angarone. "These are very complicated and very difficult conversations to have," he says. "You're talking about some of the basic principles of the country, you know? Where and what you can do with your property."
Reducing the number of homes in harm's way isn't easy. In New Jersey, local flood plain managers and state case workers often spend years working with individual families to help them move to higher ground. Some people choose to stay in repeatedly flooded homes. "These are very complicated and very difficult conversations to have," says Nick Angarone, New Jersey's chief resilience officer.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
But unlike in other states, New Jersey residents who are considering a home buyout are assigned a case manager who can help navigate both the paperwork and the emotions that come along with such a momentous decision.
"Our case managers are sort of our secret sauce," says Courtney Wald-Wittkop, who runs the Blue Acres program. "They're very good about developing that rapport and relationship with the homeowners."
One way to reduce the danger from climate-related flooding is to elevate homes so that the living space is above floodwaters. Tom Flynn, the flood plain manager in Woodbridge, N.J., says homes that are in high-risk areas must be elevated if they're renovated.
(
Ryan Kellman
/
NPR
)
One reason New Jersey is able to match people up with experienced case managers is that, unlike other state buyout programs, Blue Acres exists all the time, not just after major disasters. Because it's permanent, it's more accessible to both homeowners and local officials, without whose support buyouts cannot happen.
Ultimately, more than 180 homeowners in Woodbridge decided to accept buyouts and move away, says McCormac, the mayor.
The homes that remain in flood-prone areas of Woodbridge are subject to New Jersey's new, tighter regulations that require them to be elevated. Instead of building new homes in marshy areas, Woodbridge is allowing more units to be built in denser parts of town near train stations and highways. The town's population is stable, and its economy is growing.
The town's flood plain manager, Tom Flynn, says the strategy is also paying off in the form of less flood damage. When the remnants of Hurricane Ida dropped 8 inches of rain in Woodbridge in 2021, Flynn says, it flooded dozens of homes instead of hundreds.
Despite proactive steps to prevent new homes from being built in flood-prone areas, New Jersey still has a significant flooding problem. As the Earth continues to warm, the number of safe places to build will only narrow further.
Faith leaders walked on foot from Adelanto to DTLA
Julia Barajas
is following the impact of President Trump's immigration policies on Southern California communities.
Published October 5, 2026 11:51 AM
Amid a blistering heat wave, faith leaders and family members of people who’ve been detained by federal immigration agents will conclude a weeklong.
(
Courtesy Jaime Edwards-Acton
)
Topline:
Amid a blistering heat wave, faith leaders and family members of people who’ve been detained by federal immigration agents will conclude a weeklong, 96-mile pilgrimage that began at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in the Mojave Desert. Midday Tuesday, they'll make their final stop at the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown L.A.
Why now: The pilgrimage — organized by Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice, Nefesh LA, Sacred Resistance and other immigrant rights groups — is meant to draw attention to conditions inside detention centers, while calling for an end to the Trump administration’s mass deportation project.
Why it matters: Although the federal government maintains that conditions at immigrant detention centers are adequate, deaths in ICE custody continue to mount nationwide. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, at least 57 people have died in immigrant detention since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.
Walking for community members: Jaime Edwards-Acton, senior pastor at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Hollywood and St. Barnabas Episcopal Church in Eagle Rock, told LAist he’s walking on behalf of “immigrant brothers and sisters” throughout the U.S. But, he said, the 14 parishioners who were detained during a raid at the Ambiance Apparel warehouse last summer were foremost on his mind.
Mayra Joseph, a teacher at Sylvia Mendez Elementary School in Berkeley, joined members of the California Teachers Association and supporters of public education in a march to the Capitol as part of RedForEd Day of Action in Sacramento on May 22, 2019.
(
Rich Pedroncelli
/
AP Photo
)
Topline:
California voters haven’t had to make so many decisions about tax policy at the ballot since 1994. CalMatters' analysis shows voters to reject new taxes.
Why it matters: Altogether they have the potential to reshape the state’s finances, beef up or starve some of our largest public spending programs, change the rules around taxation and — if opponents of the proposed wealth tax are to be believed — trigger a Randian exodus of the state’s wellest-to-do.
The ‘black hole’ on the ballot: Though five tax measures are on the ballot, voters are really just seeing three big questions. The first: Should California be the first state in the nation to introduce a wealth tax? That question is “the black hole into which all political energy is going right now,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a group that advocates for low taxes. Three measures — Propositions 40, 41 and 42 — provide opposing answers.
Read on... for more on the five tax measures.
California voters will soon be asked whether they want to keep taxing the incomes of the rich.
And they’ll be asked whether to start taxing the accumulated wealth of the even richer.
That doesn’t include any of the other propositions on the November ballot that are likely to affect the state budget. Nor does it include the roughly 300 tax and bond measures that will be popping up in local elections across the state.
And you thought tax season only came in April.
With 14 measures in total, the 2026 California ballot is a busy one. Voters haven’t been presented with this many choices in a decade. It’s an especially active year for tax-related measures — those that hike taxes, cut them, introduce new ones, jettison old ones or change the rules by which taxes are approved and enacted.
Five of those are on the ballot this time around, the most since 1994.
Altogether they have the potential to reshape the state’s finances, beef up or starve some of our largest public spending programs, change the rules around taxation and — if opponents of the proposed wealth tax are to be believed — trigger a Randian exodus of the state’s wellest-to-do.
The 'black hole' on the ballot
Though five tax measures are on the ballot, voters are really just seeing three big questions.
The first: Should California be the first state in the nation to introduce a wealth tax?
That question is “the black hole into which all political energy is going right now,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a group that advocates for low taxes.
Three measures — Propositions 40, 41 and 42 — provide opposing answers.
Prop. 40 would slap every Californian with a net worth of at least $1 billion (all approximately 200 of them) with a one-time 5% tax on their wealth, excluding real estate and retirement accounts.
This isn’t an income tax, which skims off a share of a person’s earnings, but a tax on the assessed, unrealized value of investments. Think of this like the property tax that homeowners pay on their houses, except it applies to stocks, bonds, business shares, Bugattis and the occasional machine gun collection.
A sign displayed at the Billionaire Tax Now booth at the 2026 California Democratic Party State Convention in San Francisco on Feb. 21, 2026.
(
Jeff Chiu
/
AP Photo
)
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the measure has the potential to raise tens of billions of dollars. Almost all of it would be set aside for the state’s public health insurance programs, which are bracing for dramatic federal cuts.
That’s assuming the measure passes and survives the blizzard of inevitable legal challenges. Though a number of countries have introduced wealth taxes at either the national or regional level, California’s would be the first in the United States.
No surprise, many of the state’s billionaires are pushing back hard. They’re doing that in the usual way, with literally hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign spending. But they’re also doing it with two additional measures on the ballot itself. Prop. 41 would, among other things, ban the state from collecting taxes that circumvent a 1970s state spending limit, which Prop. 40 is written to do.
Prop. 42 would ban new taxes on financial assets, private businesses and most other forms of wealth outright — an explicit reversal of Prop. 40.
If both the wealth tax and either of the countermeasures are approved by the voters, the one with the higher vote tally becomes law. That’s why the wealth tax could go down in defeat even if a majority of voters support it.
But voters shouldn’t think of Props. 41 and 42 as mere “no” votes on Prop. 40, said Kayla Kitson, a tax policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank. Prop. 41 would also require the state’s auditor to conduct a “pre-election” analysis of any program set to be funded by a future tax measure and then make recommendations on how to cut costs by 10%.
Beyond banning future wealth taxes, Prop. 42 would also prevent future taxes from applying retroactively before a tax is approved. That could remove the state’s ability to keep people or businesses from avoiding a tax they know is coming, said Kitson.
Two more tax questions
The other two tax measures have nothing to do with the wealth tax. One would make permanent a boosted income tax rate for higher earners. The other would make it harder for local governments to raise certain taxes in the future.
The high-earner tax is the third, and possibly final, installment in a decade-long electoral trilogy.
First proposed by former Gov. Jerry Brown as a temporary solution to fund education in the fiscal hangover of the Great Recession, the measure sticks a higher tax bracket on the state’s top 2% of earners. Re-authorized by voters in 2016, the tax hashttps://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2025/250421.pdfgenerated between $5 billion and $16 billion annually. Most of that money has gone to schools.
The tax expires in 2030, which is why the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest K-12 public school educators’ union, was eager to put its permanent renewal on the ballot this year. If it fails, the union will have two more chances.
Hence, Proposition 3, which would make the boosted tax rates for individually earned income above $360,000 per year a perpetual part of the state’s tax code.
Proposition 43’s backstory also goes back nearly a decade.
The measure would hike the share of votes needed to pass certain local taxes. Specifically, these are taxes that raise money for a specific program or purpose and that are placed on the ballot by citizen signature-gathering efforts, as opposed to local elected officials. If Prop. 43 passes, this very particular type of tax would need the support of at least two-thirds of local voters.
Business groups and anti-tax advocates have been wanting to put some version of Prop. 43 on the ballot since 2017 when the state Supreme Court ruled that so-called citizen-initiated special taxes only need a simple majority of the vote to pass. The anti-tax advocates got close two years ago, but were stymied by another court ruling. This year, the measure finally made it, but only after negotiations with the Democrats in the Legislature pared it down, applying the rule to future taxes only.
California tax measures tend to fail
This all makes for a tremendously confusing voting experience for most Californians.
That’s probably bad news for the supporters of these measures, since uncertain voters tend to err on the side of “no,” said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California.
“When voters aren’t sure how to proceed, staying with the status quo and letting someone else decide at a later date is a safe bet,” he said.
That may partly explain why tax measures, which are inherently complicated and tend to come with unpredictable consequences, fare especially poorly on the ballot. Since 2000, a solid majority (57%) of non-tax ballot measures have passed compared to a mere third of tax propositions.
The sheer number of open questions surrounding the proposed wealth tax (Is it constitutional? Can the state effectively implement it? Will all the billionaires flee to Florida?) puts it on shakier footing with an electorate that tends to reject uncertainty, said Baldassare. A narrow majority of 52% percent of likely voters said they supported the measure in a recent PPIC poll.
The tax on high earners in Prop. 3, may face better odds because it makes permanent an existing tax rather than introducing a new one. In the same poll, 58% of likely voters indicated that they would support the measure.
“When people see the words ‘renew’ or ‘extend’ it gives them a sense that this is the status quo, we’re not being asked to make a change here,” he said.
But Prop. 3’s backers shouldn’t take too much comfort in that. Support for propositions tend to decline as Election Day approaches. The sheer number of tax measures on offer could also inflict voters with “tax fatigue” leading them to vote “no” across the board, said Baldassare.
Then there’s the general political vibe.
Earlier this year, PPIC asked a sample of Californians whether they preferred lower taxes and fewer services or higher taxes and more services.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
A young girl sits down to eat free breakfast at Rosa Parks Elementary School in San Diego.
(
Photo by John Gastaldo
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
Food assistance to pay for groceries is still available to many low-income California families who receive summer food assistance for their kids.
SUN Bucks: Nearly $106 million of the federally funded SUN Bucks benefits are still unspent — but eligible families have just a few weeks left to tap the money, according to the California Department of Social Services. The benefits are only available to households that have already gotten the SUN Bucks in the mail this summer. Families must spend the funds within 122 days of receiving them, or they expire and return to the federal government.
How the program works: Every summer, California sends eligible low-income families electronic benefits (EBT) cards preloaded with $120 in food benefits per child. The state provides two meals a day to all public K-12 students, and the cards are meant to help families afford groceries for their kids throughout the summer when school is out. Families receiving SUN Bucks cards have kids who are eligible for a free or reduced school lunch or who are enrolled in other assistance programs such as Medi-Cal or CalFresh. This year the state automatically mailed cards to the families of 3.8 million children.
Food assistance to pay for groceries is still available to many low-income California families who receive summer food assistance for their kids.
Nearly $106 million of the federally funded SUN Bucks benefits are still unspent — but eligible families have just a few weeks left to tap the money, according to the California Department of Social Services. The benefits are only available to households that have already gotten the SUN Bucks in the mail this summer.
Families must spend the funds within 122 days of receiving them, or they expire and return to the federal government.
The program works like this: Every summer, California sends eligible low-income families electronic benefits (EBT) cards preloaded with $120 in food benefits per child. The state provides two meals a day to all public K-12 students, and the cards are meant to help families afford groceries for their kids throughout the summer when school is out.
Families receiving SUN Bucks cards have kids who are eligible for a free or reduced school lunch or who are enrolled in other assistance programs such as Medi-Cal or CalFresh. This year the state automatically mailed cards to the families of 3.8 million children.
Though the state tries to remind families about the benefits through text messages and other nudges, households sometimes still leave a lot of money on the table. Last year, nearly a quarter of the summer food benefits — $118 million — went unspent, according to records from the Department of Social Services obtained by New York-based public policy consultant David Rubel and shared with CalMatters. And nearly a fifth of cards mailed out last year were never activated by the recipients.
Many of the cards this year haven’t expired yet because California mailed SUN Bucks to families in different batches throughout the summer. If a family got a card in mid-June, they may only have a couple of weeks left to use the benefits. The last cards were mailed out in late July and expire in mid-November.
If a family receives both SUN Bucks and the traditional CalFresh food assistance program, Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel says the state recommends they use the SUN Bucks first because they expire soon.
Estuardo Mazariegos, left, a candidate for LA City Council District 9, speaks during the candidate forum that also featured his opponent, Jose Ugarte, that took place at A Place Called Home on Oct. 3, 2026.
(
J.W. Hendricks
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
The differences between the two candidates for L.A. City Council District 9 became crystal clear for South L.A. residents during an energetic community forum in South Central on Saturday.
Why it matters: Attendees, who braved the extreme heat, told The LA Local they were happy to hear candidates Jose Ugarte and Estuardo Mazariegos discuss transportation, housing and making the community safer.
The backstory: Gio Garcia, chair of the local Voices Neighborhood Council, helped organize the forum along with the rest of the collection of community groups called the CD9 Coalition. LA Local reporter LaMonica Peters and youth journalist Charli Padilla moderated the CD9 candidate forum. Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, District 4 Councilmember Nithya Raman, also spoke during the event.
Read on... for more on the candidate forum on Saturday.
The differences between the two candidates for L.A. City Council District 9 became crystal clear for South L.A. residents during an energetic community forum in South Central on Saturday.
Attendees, who braved the extreme heat, told The LA Local they were happy to hear candidates Jose Ugarte and Estuardo Mazariegos discuss transportation, housing and making the community safer.
“It was exciting,” said Sandy Ramos, a local attending her first ever forum. Ramos said Mazariegos focused on building housing and community aid, while Ugarte was oriented toward neighborhood safety and cleanups.
Gio Garcia, chair of the local Voices Neighborhood Council, said Ugarte’s platform is built around leveraging existing systems, while Mazariegos wants to make deeper changes to those systems.
Garcia helped organize the forum along with the rest of the collection of community groups called the CD9 Coalition. LA Local reporter LaMonica Peters and youth journalist Charli Padilla moderated the CD9 candidate forum. Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, District 4 Councilmember Nithya Raman, also spoke during the event.
Whoever of the two candidates comes out on top after polls close on Nov. 3 will replace departing Councilmember Curren Price, Ugarte’s old boss, who is terming out after 12 years representing the district stretching from downtown L.A. through South Central.
Ugarte and Mazariegos are both Latino immigrants who each said they came to the US as undocumented children. Either would be the first non-Black councilmember for District 9 since 1963.
The two candidates reflect a larger demographic shift in the district, which historically was the center of Black political power in L.A., but today is nearly 80% Latino. Both candidates have stressed the importance of Black-brown solidarity during their campaigns.
Residents of the district have pushed for the city to do more to make a safer community, address homelessness and deliver basic services from street repairs to trash pickup. At times, community members have taken the issues into their own hands with neighborhood patrols and street cleanups.
Ugarte, a former aide to Price, wants to ban RVs in neighborhoods, build a rail line down Slauson and hire more police officers. Community organizer Mazariegos wants to build more housing, hire young people to clean streets and bring social workers into some traditional police domains.
Locals have also worried if the Olympics in two years will actually bring dollars to local businesses and workers, or if the international attention will gloss over the neighborhood while driving more intense policing. The district is home to L.A.’s cornerstone Olympic venues, including the Crypto.com Arena, Exposition Park and L.A. Memorial Coliseum.
County election officials have already begun mailing ballots out to voters, and voting will continue until Nov. 3. Voters can mail their ballots, drop them in dropboxes, or vote in person once vote centers open on Oct. 24.
Mazariegos wants to bring social workers into policing, Ugarte wants more community police officers
Jose Ugarte, right, candidate for LA City Council District 9, speaks during the candidate forum that also featured his opponent, Estuardo Mazariegos, that took place at A Place Called Home on Oct. 3, 2026.
(
J.W. Hendricks
/
The LA Local
)
Mazariegos said the district is over-policed, and that too much funding goes to paying for officers instead of other services. As an alternative, the candidate proposed bringing social workers into situations historically in the domain of police.
“We need to ensure that when there is a mental health crisis, it’s a social worker showing up. When we have a family crisis, it’s a social worker showing up,” Mazariegos said.
Ugarte, by contrast, said the city doesn’t have enough officers and that police response times have grown too long. He wants more women officers and more officers with college degrees, more officers on foot, horseback and bicycles and a greater focus on community policing.
“I want an officer to just walk by and patrol to make sure that our community feels safe and secure,” Ugarte said.
Ugarte would ban RVs, Mazariegos would audit homelessness spending
Jose Ugarte, right, a candidate for LA City Council District 9, speaks during the candidate forum that also featured his opponent, Estuardo Mazariegos, that took place at A Place Called Home on Oct. 3, 2026.
(
J.W. Hendricks
/
The LA Local
)
Ugarte wants to ban RVs, campers and trailers from residential neighborhoods.
The candidate said he wants unhoused people to get mental health, detox and job training resources before the city provides housing. Many California homelessness service providers currently use a “housing first” approach, based on the logic that services are less effective if a person doesn’t have housing.
“The last seven years haven’t worked, so I’m taking a different approach,” Ugarte said.
Mazariegos countered that homelessness in L.A. has increased because public dollars are being misused.
“The first step is holding accountability at the top by auditing and making sure that every homeless service, every dollar is being spent the right way,” Mazariegos said. “Enough of the corruption.”
Mazariegos said he wants to solve homelessness by increasing wages and lowering rents in order to stop people from losing their homes.
Mazariegos wants to hire locals for cleanups, Ugarte wants to start business improvement districts
Estuardo Mazariegos, left, speaks during a candidate forum that also featured his opponent, Jose Ugarte, right, that took place at A Place Called Home on Oct. 3, 2026.
(
J.W. Hendricks
/
The LA Local
)
Mazariegos wants to increase the city’s budget for services like cleanups and to hire young locals to do the community cleanups around the clock, seven days a week.
“We could feed two birds with one hand,” Mazariegos said. He swiped at Ugarte for the lack of local services while Ugarte was working under Price.
Ugarte agreed that South Central hasn’t been getting the services it needs due to past funding cuts.
He wants city services to be fully funded, and to bolster city efforts with with business improvement districts, a type of self-funded organization that pays for services like maintenance and security with taxes on property owners.
“You see the trash everywhere,” Ugarte said. He said with the Olympics coming, cleanup crews should be working all the way down Figueroa Street and Vermont Avenue to Slauson Avenue.
Ugarte wants to keep pushing developers for local hiring, Mazariegos wants to tap into major event revenue
Ugarte touted his work in Price’s office to get developers to commit to local hiring when they build major projects. He referenced his plan to bar RVs from residential neighborhoods, saying that the L.A. Chamber of Commerce told him all they want is clean and safe areas to do business.
“I have a plan to clean up the district,” Ugarte said. “If the government and politicians have not done that for small business, we failed it.”
Mazariegos said he wants to make it easier for local small businesses to afford brick-and-mortar spaces.
He said he wants to tap into the flow of money into the district’s entertainment venues by putting a surcharge on tickets to events — like Laker games, concerts and the Olympics — then divert that money back into local businesses and parks.
“We need to make sure that money isn’t being extracted and that it’s coming back to the neighborhood,” he said.
