The Brief

If Los Angeles's growing concerns about wildfires weren't clear enough already, maps released by the state earlier this week confirmed the obvious: The county's fire hazard has grown in the past decade.

The updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps — published by the Office of the State Fire Marshal — show that land considered to have "very high" hazard in L.A. County has expanded by more than 30% since a 2011 assessment.

That designation will have practical implications for property owners once the county adopts the map, but what does it mean for insurance?

According to the Insurance Commissioner and CalFire, the maps aren't meant to influence insurance companies, which use their own models to determine rates. But they do reflect a reality that insurance companies are also seeing when setting premiums, which were already on the rise before January's fires.

" These maps would track relatively closely with many of the ... internal models that insurers are using," said David Russell, professor of insurance and finance and director for the Center for Risk Management and Insurance at Cal State Northridge.

" The maps are telling us that climate science projects more fires, or bigger fires, or fires that cover more area and closer to homes. And ultimately insurance rates have to reflect an expansion of those expectations."

Higher insurance costs could displace people

The reality of growing fire danger in L.A. will inevitably make living in certain parts of the county even more unaffordable, experts told LAist.

" Most people have owned their homes for years, decades, and they made their purchase at a time when they didn't expect this level of expense from the insurance component," said Joel Laucher with United Policyholders, a nonprofit that helps consumers navigate insurance.

Russell from Cal State Northridge said higher premiums in high-risk fire areas could lead some homeowners to be forced to sell. He noted that renters also feel the squeeze of rising insurance rates — both through renters insurance and higher rents.

Insurance rules have changed

The fires that devastated L.A. came at a time of tumult for California's insurance market. As insurance companies retreated from fire-prone areas, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara announced new regulations aimed at bringing them back in December.

The rules require insurers to increase coverage in fire-prone areas and account for efforts to fire-proof homes when setting rates. In exchange, they allow insurance companies to set rates using models that consider future catastrophes, rather than depending on historic wildfire data.

Consumer advocates criticized the new policy, saying it didn't require companies to reveal how they set rates.

" With these rules, the circumstances for consumers won't change. They will still have an access and affordability crisis," said Carmen Balber with Consumer Watchdog.

A spokesperson for the commissioner's office responded to the critique by saying that state review and approval of these catastrophe models are required under the new regulation.

Fire mitigation

The new state fire maps will mean new regulations for homeowners newly designated to be in "very high" hazard areas. Under state law, they are required to maintain 100 feet of defensible space around their home, essentially creating a barrier to slow down or stop a fire from spreading.

These types of mitigations can help bring down insurance rates. But with premiums regularly increasing, it's unclear how much those discounts will save policyholders. Laucher with United Policyholders said while homeowners can find out what discounts their insurer offers for hardscaping their home, future rate increases are impossible to predict.

For "the next rate increase that an insurer takes and gets approved by the Department of Insurance, you don't know what that impact will be on your home specifically," he said. "So it is very hard to know what your future premiums will be."

This month, the insurance commissioner provisionally approved State Farm's request for a 22% rate hike. The company said the increase is needed as anticipated claims from the two L.A. fires could reach $7.6 billion.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has entered the fray around the fate of embattled Olympics head Casey Wasserman, saying he should resign for his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The comments, made on CNN Monday, turn up the heat on Wasserman, who has been under fire since a series of flirty 2003 emails between him and Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell surfaced in files released by the Justice Department. Wasserman said last week he would sell his namesake talent agency but remain in his role leading the Olympic Games.

"My opinion is that he should step down," Bass told CNN's Dana Bash.

It was a shift for Bass, who at first declined to weigh in on whether Wasserman should stay or go. And it comes after councilmember Nithya Raman entered the mayoral race — she and four other other councilmembers have said the Olympics head should step down.

But even the mayor of Los Angeles has only limited ability to influence the make-up of the private organizing committee tasked with putting on the Olympics in two years' time.

Despite its role as host city and financial guarantor of the coming mega-event, the city of Los Angeles isn't the one calling the shots on the Olympic Games. LA28 is in charge, with Wasserman at the helm.

And last week, the executive committee of LA28's board of directors said it was keeping Wasserman on top.

"LA28, which is the committee that is involved with the Olympics, has the discretion. The board made a decision," Bass said on CNN. "I think that decision was unfortunate."

LA28 operates mainly behind closed doors

The board's decision — and Bass's comments — highlight a dynamic that has some in the city increasingly uncomfortable as the Games draw nearer.

When the city of Los Angeles made a deal to play host for the 2028 Olympics, it agreed to cover cost overruns — exposing taxpayers to an essentially unlimited amount of risk. But it handed LA28 the reins to fundraise, execute and finance a privately run Games.

" Now we're seeing the perils of hiding an Olympic bid behind a private curtain," said Jules Boykoff, a politics professor at Pacific University who studies the Olympics.

LA28 has to report to the city council periodically, and the mayor has six appointees on LA28’s board. But beyond that, the organizing committee mainly operates behind closed doors and without the transparency required of government agencies.

LA28 has not said which of its 35 board members are on the executive committee that determined Wasserman’s fate. The meeting was private. A statement from the board's executive committee said that it had brought in outside counsel to review Wasserman's past interactions with both Maxwell and Epstein, and that Wasserman had cooperated with the review.

"The Executive Committee of the Board has determined that based on these facts, as well as the strong leadership he has exhibited over the past ten years, Mr. Wasserman should continue to lead LA28 and deliver a safe and successful Games,” the statement read, in part.

Bass's office confirmed that three of her appointees are on the executive committee: lawyer Matt Johnson, real estate developer Jaime Lee, and labor leader Yvonne Wheeler.

Mike Bonin, head of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute and a former L.A. city councilmember, told LAist that those appointees present a potential source of leverage for the city.

"I think a lot of people are beginning to feel more like, 'Alright, where is our voice in this? How is it being heard?'" Bonin said. "People probably want to know more about what the mayor is saying to her appointees. And what are her appointees saying to the broader board?"

LAist reached out to the three board members for their comments. Wheeler declined to comment. Johnson and Lee did not respond before publication. The mayor's office also did not respond to a request for more information on how Bass is corresponding with city-appointed board members and whether she spoke with them before the Wasserman vote.

The LA28 board also has several prominent allies of President Donald Trump, who were quietly added to the roster late last year.

Richard Grenell, the former director of national intelligence in the Trump Administration, said in a post on X that Bass's statements against Wasserman spelled trouble for the city.

"Karen vs Casey is very troubling for the Olympics," he wrote. "The LA Olympics are now in turmoil — and the city is facing questions about being able to pull them off."

Calls for transparency grow

The storm around Wasserman comes as some in the city have already been demanding more transparency from Olympics organizers.

Citing fears around how ramped up immigration enforcement might affect the Games, the city council passed a motion requesting that LA28 produce a detailed report on President Donald Trump's federal Olympics task force on security. But the council has no way to enforce the motion, and LA28 hasn't yet produced such a document.

Others have expressed alarm that a key agreement between the city and LA28 over what extra city resources Olympics organizers will need to pay for — like policing — is more than four months overdue. If the agreement leaves L.A. exposed to unexpected or additional expenses, taxpayers could end up paying many millions.

Los Angeles civil rights attorney Connie Rice told LAist that's where local officials, including the mayor's lead on special events Paul Krekorian, should be focusing their energy.

" Casey Wasserman's resignation is a red herring," she said. "What the mayor, the city attorney, and the council and Mr. Krekorian need to be focused on is making sure that taxpayers of the city of Los Angeles aren't left holding a billion dollar bag of cost payments that they shouldn't have to pay."

A divided Los Angeles Unified School District Board voted 4-3 Tuesday to issue preliminary layoff notices to 657 employees, as part of a plan to reduce the budget after several years of the district spending more money than it brings in.

Even as California is poised to fund schools at record high levels, Los Angeles Unified and other districts have grappled with increased costs. For example, LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone. For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit.

The “reduction in force” vote is the first step in a monthslong process that could result in layoffs for a still-to-be determined number of positions.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the focus on cutting jobs at the district’s central office was intended to protect schools.

“Does it do it at 100%? No,” Carvalho said. “But this approach reflects the deliberate effort to shield students and frontline educators and support staff from the most severe impacts of this fiscal downturn.”

What positions will be affected? 

LAUSD staff estimate the proposed cuts include less than 1% of its more than 83,000 member workforce.

Notices will go out to 657 positions concentrated in the district’s central office, but which also work at local schools. More than a third of these are IT technicians, by far the largest group.

The plan also calls for reduced hours and pay for several dozen positions.

The board also voted to issue layoff notices to an additional 2,600 contract management employees and certificated administrators as part of a “routine action that’s been taken annually,” said Saman Bravo-Karimi, the district's chief financial officer

What about teachers? 

LAUSD said it expects to need 350 fewer elementary and 400 fewer high school teachers next year because of declining enrollment and the closure of some non-classroom positions.

While some educators may be moved from one school to another, the district said it does not plan to issue layoff notices to teachers for the 2026-2027 school year.

The district's decision is based on attrition and the assumption that a new labor agreement will lower high school junior and senior class sizes, requiring more educators.

“This is a calculated risk that the district is taking on in order to maintain the stability at the schools throughout the spring semester,” said Kristen Murphy, associate superintendent of talent and labor relations .

Were deeper cuts considered? 

Yes.

Murphy said schools also identified about 800 additional certificated position closures, but that the people in those positions would be moved to different jobs as they became available.

The district is also paying $50-60 million to restore planned cuts to classified positions at school sites.

“We have worked with every possible solution we can think of to reduce that number of initial [layoff] notices and keep as many of our employees as possible,” Murphy said.

How did the board vote? 

Yes:

• Board Member Sherlett Hendy Newbill (BD-1)
• Board President Scott Schmerelson (BD-3)
• Board Member Nick Melvoin (BD-4)
• Board Member Tanya Ortiz Franklin (BD-7)

“Every person in our LAUSD community contributed to the academic gains last year,” Schmerelson said. “So whether these RIFs are approved or not we will continue to fight until the very last minute for funding.”

No:

• Board Member Rocío Rivas (BD-2)
• Board Member Karla Griego (BD-5)
• Board Member Kelly Gonez (BD-6)

“I will not accept reductions in force as a default response without a clear discipline showing that this is the most responsible and strategic course available to us,” Rivas said.

Rivas, Gonez and Melvoin are on the ballot in this year’s election.

What do employees say?

Representatives from the unions that represent LAUSD school support staff, teachers and principals asked the board to reconsider the proposed cuts at the start of the meeting and to seek additional funding from the state amid growing revenues from the artificial intelligence industry.

“You can decide to be brave and lead in the state by example and show what a fully functioning school system is,” said SEIU Local 99 Executive Director Max Arias.

SEIU Local 99 members, which include classroom aides, IT technicians and gardeners, are currently weighing whether to give their leaders the authority to call a strike. Members of the union that represents LAUSD teachers, psychologists, counselors and nurses voted to authorize a strike last month.

The unions, as well as several board members, called on the district to share more information about contracts with third-party companies before making cuts to staffing.

“This framing is not an honest engagement around budget priorities,” said Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of United Teachers Los Angeles. “It is a tactic used to scare workers and scare our school communities.”

What happens next? 

By March 15, layoff notices will go out to the 657 impacted employees as well as employees with less seniority in positions that could be “bumped,” to accommodate the employees in the impacted positions.

The district plans to freeze hiring until it can evaluate whether an employee included in the reduction in force can fill any vacant position.

“The district can’t issue these notices and then hire new people if vacancies come up,” Murphy said.

Staff said the board would vote to finalize any un-rescinded layoff notices in May or June.

What else has the district done to save money?

Tuesday’s vote is part of a $1.4 billion fiscal stabilization plan first approved last June.

Bravo Karimi said additional money-saving strategies included transferring $496 million in reserved funding to the district’s general fund and using $796 million to fund future labor agreements.

LAUSD staff’s report to the board said that even if the board approved the reduction in force notices, more cuts will be necessary to balance the budget in future years.

About 15% of California households lack access to high-speed internet, according to the latest report from UC Riverside. Researchers pointed to affordability as one of the biggest barriers to closing the persistent digital divide.

Edward Helderop, associate director at UCR’s Center for Geospatial Sciences and report author, told LAist that the findings weren't surprising.

“A lot of American households and California households don't have high-speed internet available at home,” Helderop said. “It's sort of just an unfortunate reality that that's the case for the state of California.”

What does the report say? 

Nearly one in seven households in California doesn’t have reliable internet access, according to the report. The biggest barrier continues to be affordability. Even in urban areas, like Los Angeles, where broadband internet is more widely available, the average monthly cost can range from $70 to $80 per month.

But in rural areas, broadband internet is still widely unavailable because of a lack of infrastructure investments from private companies. Only two-thirds of rural households have broadband access at home.

“This digital divide represents not just a technological failure, but a profound barrier to economic opportunity, educational advancement, and civic participation that undermines California’s potential for shared prosperity,” the report states.

Experts also call for mandatory broadband data transparency — internet providers should be required to publicly disclose their service speeds, pricing, reliability metrics and coverage areas.

“Private telecom companies administering the service, they're under no obligation to maintain publicly available data sets in the same way that you might get with other utilities,” Helderop said. “There are issues with the fact that the advertised speeds don't really match up with the actual speeds that people experience at home.”

Researchers also recommend that broadband providers be regulated as utilities, like water and power, monitoring rates, quality and service obligations.

“When we regulate something like a utility, it comes with a few regulations that we take for granted,” Helderop said. “Something like a universal service obligation, in which the utility … their primary motive is to provide universal service, so to provide the service to every household in California.”

As a public utility, officials could ensure that providers are offering the same type of service to every household in the state, as well as regulate rates.

Why it matters 

Norma Fernandez, CEO at Everyone On, said access to affordable, high-speed internet is a basic necessity.

"Still, too many families, particularly those in under-resourced communities, predominantly of color, are still left out,” Fernandez said. “Expanding reliable connectivity means addressing affordability, investing in community-centered solutions, and ensuring that digital access is part of every policy conversation."

Digital equity advocates say they see the need from local families every day, but available data doesn’t reflect that.

“On the maps, families appear to live in ‘connected’ neighborhoods, but in reality, they still can’t afford to get online because the monopoly provider’s plans are unaffordable,” Natalie Gonzalez, director at Digital Equity Los Angeles. “The provider-reported broadband maps don’t match what residents experience on the ground, and that gap has real consequences.”

In L.A., for example, hundreds of thousands of households lack reliable internet, but only a fraction qualify for public funding because available data says they’re already served, Gonzalez added.

“Public investment alone doesn’t guarantee equity if the underlying data is flawed,” Gonzalez said. “When the only data regulators have come from the providers themselves, the providers end up defining reality. Communities are then forced to prove they’re disconnected, without access to the same information the companies use to claim coverage.”

Cristal Mojica, digital equity expert at the Michelson Center for Public Policy, said pricing data is intentionally obscured.

“It makes it harder for people to shop around between internet plans,” Mojica told LAist. “It makes it really challenging for our state legislators to be effective and make effective decisions around affordability when they have to try to dig around for that information themselves.”

What’s next? 

California has already invested $6 billion for broadband –called the “Middle-Mile” project –through Senate Bill 156. The 2021 law is the largest state investment in broadband in U.S. history to get more people online.

Helderop explained that broadband investments are typically made possible through grants or loans to private telecom companies, making the state’s investment critical.

“It's the first time that any state, or any government in the United States, is taking it upon themselves to build and then own the infrastructure at the end of it,” Helderop said. “I would say that's probably the primary reason that we don't have universal broadband available to households in the United States right now.”

When completed, the “Middle-Mile” project will open markets to new providers and reduce monopolies, Helderop added.