The Brief

In Bloomington, a small community of some 24,000 people in unincorporated San Bernardino County, people ride horses next to big rig trucks rushing to warehouses. Solar panels adorn the roofs of homes next to truck yards — the panels sometimes paid for by warehouse developers.

Like so much of Southern California, Bloomington is a place of contrasts.

Over the last 15 years or so, this once-rural town that’s bordered by the cities of Fontana, Rialto and Jurupa Valley has been surrounded by warehouses being built to support our online shopping habits and the supply chain corridor from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach. That pipeline is one of the largest sources of the Southland’s health-harming and planet-heating pollution.

A partially demolished home in Bloomington, where a 213-acre warehouse project is being developed.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

And now, 117 homes and small ranches in Bloomington are being demolished to make way for yet another warehouse — the largest one yet in the community. The project will bring more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space built by Orange County company Howard Industrial Partners. The project is expected to bring more than 1,000 additional big rig truck trips per day.

After years of debate, San Bernardino County supervisors unanimously approved the project in 2022. Today, everyone in the development’s way — the non-numbered streets of Bloomington — have been bought out and homes have already been demolished.

The project was able to happen because back in 2017, the county designated the non-numbered streets of Bloomington as a potential area for re-zoning and development to boost tax revenue to fund more services for the community.

Construction progress has now stalled due to a lawsuit against the project brought by environmental justice groups. (County Supervisor Joe Baca, who represents Bloomington, declined an interview with LAist due to the ongoing litigation).

But those who want to stay in Bloomington worry the warehouse will mean the end of their small town and rural lifestyle. Others say the project is necessary to get badly needed infrastructure improvements.

The site of the future warehouse project, which will bring more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space to Bloomington.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

A changing community

I meet Margaret Razo and her husband Rafael at a park that will be right across the street from the new warehouse project and next door to another warehouse being developed in Jurupa Valley.

The 54-year-old grew up in Bloomington and has watched the community transform.

“Bloomington was so pretty, so beautiful,” Razo said. “And, just driving over here now, it's awful. All the houses are torn down. Childhood homes of our friends. I almost want to cry thinking about how much Bloomington has changed.”

Rafael and Margaret Razo live in a house near the new warehouse development in Bloomington. They regularly receive calls from developers asking if they want to sell.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

When she was a kid, the road in front of her family’s house was dirt. Her little brother and sister played Little League at the park we’re sitting at. The park has changed too … but for the better, thanks to recent donations the county received to improve the park, with a new skate park, children’s play structure and well-kept grass. She loves seeing people ride horses around town.

The warehouse project will be across the street from a park and baseball field. Another warehouse being developed in neighboring Jurupa Valley is also being developed just west of the field.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

“We just never left Bloomington because we loved it,” Razo said. “And it's the first time in my whole entire life that I've ever thought maybe it's time to leave. Because I feel like we're being pushed out by industry.”

Though they’re not within the bounds of this project — they live in the numbered streets of Bloomington — they’re close to it, and Razo said calls from warehouse developers offering to buy the home she and her husband live in are constant.

“It just takes one person to sell,” said Rafael.

But Razo said she can’t blame others for selling.

“My cousin is a teacher at Colton High School and she said she was talking to someone and the guy told her, ‘You know, if they're offering me a million dollars for my house, and I'm going to be able to send my kids to college now, how can I say no to that?’” Razo said.

“At first I was mad at the people who were accepting the money and leaving Bloomington because I'm like, ‘Oh, they don't really love Bloomington,’” Razo continued. “How can you blame them? These big old companies are coming in and just throwing money at people and it's such a poor community. And it just keeps chipping away and chipping away more at Bloomington.”

For some people, the buyouts, which have all been at or above fair market value, were welcome. I spoke to one Bloomington resident who lives with his grandmother across from the construction site — he declined to share his name, but said they want to move to Yucaipa due to rising crime in Bloomington and his grandmother’s desire to be in a more rural area. He said they were excited to be in conversation with the developer for a generous buyout, but those discussions have now halted due to the lawsuit.

Razo said if they left, she doesn’t know where they’d go. After all, Bloomington is home. She raised her own children here, her siblings still live here, and her parents are buried here.

“If they start chipping away at my neighborhood, I don't know,” Razo said. “We're gonna be the little 'Up' house [referring to the movie “Up”]. I don't want to leave, but I feel like they're pushing me out. There's going to be nothing left of the character of Bloomington, the place that we grew up in, it's just going to be all gone.”

A rural lifestyle coming to an end

I run into Felipe Ortiz and his daughter Fatima while he’s picking her up from Bloomington High School, which is across the street from the future warehouse project. He, his wife and three kids rent a house in the path of the warehouse. One day they were startled by a bulldozer destroying palm trees Ortiz had planted and fencing on the property. Their landlord didn’t tell them that he’d sold the house to the developer.

Felipe Ortiz shows a photo of his children, who grew up riding horses.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

Felipe Ortiz and daughter Fatima outside Bloomington High School. Ortiz and his family are currently looking for somewhere else to live after their landlord sold the house they rent to a warehouse developer.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

Like many people in the area, they own horses, goats and other livestock and thought Bloomington was a place where they could maintain their rural lifestyle and connection to their Mexican roots. Now, they don’t know what they’ll do.

“It’s hard that we can't find anywhere to go because we don't have the money to buy a house,” Ortiz said in Spanish. “I have to protect my family and my animals.”

15-year-old Fatima said the whole experience has been so stressful she’s had trouble focusing in school.

“I be seeing machines going through, passing by my house, and I be getting scared,” she said. “And then sometimes I get the feeling of not wanting to come to school. Even if I do, I be thinking about the house instead of thinking about my subjects at school.”

Across the street from where I talk with the Ortiz’s, I meet 15-year-old Jose Sanchez and 17-year-old Francisco Plascencia riding their horses, something they do every day. They grew up riding, and even in their short lives they’ve seen other warehouse projects already change the community — more big rig trucks driving the roads, and less open space to ride their horses.

“I grew up here in Bloomington so seeing everything go away … it kind of hurts me,” said Sanchez.

For now, he said, they’ll have to appreciate riding their horses around town as much as they can.

“Just enjoy what we have right now,” Sanchez said. “Until the time comes, if they do end up buying our property, it is what it is.”

Jose Sanchez, left, and Francisco Plascenscia grew up riding horses in Bloomington and have seen the community become more industrial over the years.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

A necessary project? 

Others in the community say the project is desperately needed.

Like many unincorporated areas, Bloomington has a lack of basic infrastructure, such as sidewalks, sewage lines and flood control. That’s led to persistent flooding issues and dangerous traffic conditions. Many community members also worry about public safety with little law enforcement dedicated to the area.

“The residents of Bloomington need better streets, better schools, good paying jobs and law and order,” said Irma Hansel, who's lived in Bloomington for more than 40 years, at the 2022 supervisor’s meeting when the project was approved. “We believe that the Bloomington project is a way to help to achieve prosperity and a better future for the residents of Bloomington.”

“Personally, my family and I would love to go one winter without our house flooding or having a river that builds up in my backyard, [taking] my 68-year-old mom along with it when she tried to redirect the water without success,” said resident Raquel Diaz at that same meeting.

To address the flooding issues, traffic conditions, and public safety concerns, the developer has promised to spend:

• $39 million for 2.2 miles of street improvements like sidewalks and traffic signals (some of those street improvements will also support an increase in truck traffic expected from the project).
• $30 million to build a 13-acre drainage basin and 2 miles of storm drains 
• More than $1 million in tax revenue per year will go to a fund for Bloomington to spend on public safety, code enforcement and parks. $6.4 million in one-time funding will go to a Bloomington-specific infrastructure fund. 
• $45 million for a brand new elementary school because the old one is right next to the project
• 198 apartment units will be built in another part of Bloomington to make up for the homes destroyed and comply with California's housing law. 

The project is also expected to generate more than 3,200 permanent local jobs and some 5,450 union construction jobs, as well as $500 million in tax revenue for the county over 30 years.

A FedEx truck drives past a trucking terminal in Bloomington. The new "Bloomington Business Park" isn't the first warehouse development to come to Bloomington, but it's the largest.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

A spokesperson for the developer said in a statement to LAist that the property will be landscaped with mature trees and drought-tolerant plants and that electric charging infrastructure will be installed to power electric forklifts and other heavy duty electric equipment onsite.

“If you're going to get infrastructure improvements, it's going to come out of one of two sets of hands — it's either going to come out of the business and development community," said Gary Grossich, a 45-year Bloomington resident, "or it's going to come from the residents. The residents don’t have that kind of money."

Meaning, taxes. Unincorporated areas often lack basic infrastructure because they have less tax revenue, and the revenue that does exist is stretched across an entire county.

Truck yards like this one are common in Bloomington.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

“So unfortunately — you can maybe call it a trade-off — for these types of infrastructure improvements that the community needs, we have to rely on the development community to bring in these types of projects because that's the only thing that's going to pencil out for that type of a huge, tens of millions of dollars of investment in a community,” Grossich said.

Grossich owns a pizza restaurant in neighboring Colton and has lived in Bloomington for 45 years. His home is near the development.

Grossich said he’s been against past warehouse projects in the community, but he thinks this one is the gold standard and will bring more benefit than harm.

Bloomington resident Gary Grossich stands outside his restaurant in Colton. He believes the warehouse project will bring more benefit than harm to Bloomington.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

A dream of becoming a city that can keep warehouses out

Grossich serves on the Bloomington Municipal Advisory Committee, or MAC, a non-voting group of community members that liaison between the community and county supervisors.

Gary Grossich owns a pizza shop in Colton, where he grew up, and moved to Bloomington 45 years ago after purchasing his dream home with his wife.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

He says that’s part of the problem — because Bloomington is unincorporated it has too little political representation. He worries that if Fontana and Rialto continue to build warehouses on Bloomington’s borders — multiple projects are planned, with land already leveled to make way for them — those cities will be able to annex Bloomington and turn all of it into warehousing space.

“The idea is that we want people that live in Bloomington to make these decisions, not people from outside,” Grossich said. “For Bloomington to ever get to the point where we can make our own decisions, it is going to be necessary to find funding. It was never the intention of the MAC to make Bloomington into any type of a warehouse central or anything like that. As a matter of fact, we wanted to preclude that from happening.”

Ultimately, he sees this project as a necessary step for Bloomington to generate enough revenue to become its own city, so it can ideally elect people from the community who will keep further warehouse development out.

He envisions a city that has some warehouses, but also has a thriving downtown corridor full of local businesses, restaurants and homes.

“Each individual project, you gotta weigh the pros and cons,” Grossich said. “All projects have impacts, no matter what it is. You can build a church, it's gonna have impacts. The question really is, can you mitigate the impacts to beyond a significant level.”

The foundation of a home demolished where the future warehouse project is planned.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

A dangerous precedent?  

Joaquin Castillejos, an organizer with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, worries that relying on warehouse development for necessary infrastructure improvements in unincorporated areas sets a dangerous precedent, and that there are not enough protections in place now to prevent future warehouse expansion into the numbered streets of Bloomington.

He said it’s up to the county to find the needed funding for building safe infrastructure without approving a project that brings more heavy truck traffic and pollution near residential areas, schools and a park.

People walk along a residential street. The green fencing on the right is where part of the warehouse development will be. The developer purchased a palm tree nursery.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

“The county has a responsibility to the residents of Bloomington to keep up with the infrastructure, to fix our streets and to make sure that it's a livable area,” he said.

The county said in a statement to LAist that it's made "significant investments" in Bloomington in recent years, including street improvements, an affordable housing project, a sewer installation on Valley Boulevard, a new park and additional dedicated sheriff's deputies to the area, among other things.

"There are challenges throughout the County, as with any government agency, to meet all the needs with funding not being unlimited," the statement to LAist read. "However the County has done well toward investing in Bloomington."

Castillejos said this new warehouse project is different from others for its scale and because the county rezoned a residential area to industrial to make way for the warehouse project. Unincorporated areas in the Inland Empire such as Bloomington have been some of the few places left in a state with rising housing costs where people, like Castillejos’ family, can still afford to buy their own homes.

Castillejos grew up in Bloomington after his family moved there from an apartment in south L.A. to achieve their dream of buying a house in the early 2000s. He lives in Pomona now, but his parents still live in Bloomington, two blocks from another large warehouse project that was built in neighboring Fontana.

Warehouses dominate the Inland Empire

(

Jesse Lerner

/

Courtesy of Riverside Art Museum

)

“There's nothing that they can say to justify creating an industrial zone in the middle of a residential area, but that's exactly what they did,” he said. “This project will just be the beginning of more types of developments like this, where they target residential areas in other unincorporated areas in the county.”

Though homes have already been demolished, Castillejos hopes the current lawsuit against the project at least sends a message to future warehouse developers.

“I'm hoping that this lawsuit shows all other developers that if you want to do a project like this,” he said, “there's going to be consequences.”

For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.

Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.

But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.

With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle.

Like a statewide game of Choose Your Own Adventure, local elected officials for the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles to San Diego are exploring ways to either lean into the spirit of the law, come up with their own plan tailored to the city’s whims and needs, or slow the local roll out for as long as possible while considering their options. Those that do nothing will be forced to accept the transit-oriented rezoning prescribed by state legislators.

Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.

The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.

For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.

Likewise, many lower income neighborhoods, those at risk of wildfire and sea-level rise or sites listed on a historic preservation registry also qualify for that temporary delay.

L.A.’s city council mashed every pause button it could.

Along with temporarily exempting zoning changes in poorer neighborhoods, known fire zones and historic districts, the council preemptively voted to allow modest multiplex buildings as tall as three or four stories in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently restricted to single family homes. That will bring those areas up above the cut-off needed for the four-year reprieve, according to the city’s planning staff.

By swallowing a little more allowable density in the short term, the city was able to ward off a whole lot more — for now. Backers of the measure said that will give the city more time to come up with a better alternative that still complies with the law.

The vote “adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.

When 2030 arrives, the city will either have to come up with its own plan that meets the overall density requirements of the state law — but with some allowable flexibility over where all the potential growth goes — or belatedly accept SB 79 whole cloth.

The L.A. vote came as a disappointment to many pro-development advocates, who have called upon city officials to speedily accept the state-imposed densification immediately, or barring that, to take more aggressive steps in the meantime.

“We’re pretty concerned that this is not actually going to produce housing,” said Scott Epstein, policy and research director with Abundant Housing Los Angeles, a “Yes In My Backyard” oriented advocacy group.

He noted that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to be financially feasible in areas where land costs are exceptionally high. The city’s ordinance achieves its increase in allowable density by permitting modest apartment buildings in relatively affluent neighborhoods.

But even some of the state law’s fiercest defenders see a silver lining in the city’s delay tactic.

“On the one hand, it’s disappointing because we're delaying the full potential of the law,” said Aaron Eckhouse, local policy programs director for California YIMBY, one of the sponsors of SB 79. But in Los Angeles, he noted, city officials have long been fiercely resistant to proposed zoning changes in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.

Now Los Angeles council members are effectively saying, “‘okay, we will do this on our terms rather than on the state’s terms,’” said Eckhouse. “But it is still happening, because the state forced the issue.”

How can cities go their own way?

The Los Angeles approach mirrors one being pursued by officials in San Francisco. There officials are considering a policy of exempting industrial areas and many of the city’s low-resource neighborhoods, while preemptively pushing up the allowable density on certain low-rise locations to get them over the 50% threshold and qualify for a delay until 2032.

But unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco doesn’t plan to spend years coming up with a bespoke local alternative. Instead, the city is proposing to roll out its own version before July 1. That task was made a bit easier given that local officials just wrapped up a citywide densification effort last year as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan.”

The current proposal is set to be heard by a Board of Supervisors subcommittee later this month.

For cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that decide to come up with their own local plans, they will still need to get the approval of state housing regulators. Officials from California’s Housing Department have yet to publicly weigh in on any individual city’s plans. But their boss has. In a handful of social media posts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has lambasted Los Angeles and San Diego for their proposed efforts to shield certain portions of their city from the requirements of the law. Newsom did not suggest that either city was violating the law itself.

Some cities may simply decide not to bother. Sacramento, for example, will soon consider an ordinance that would make modest tweaks to the way it accepts development applications subject to the state law, but otherwise leaves the state-set zoning rules intact.

Other municipalities, with smaller budgets and fewer professional planners on staff, may not have much choice but to accept the requirements of the state law, said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill when it was working its way through the Legislature.

Rhine said that some cities are still scrambling to understand the basics of the statute, such as how it applies to future transit infrastructure or how the law defines distance from a transit stop.

“If you’re a planner trying to come up with an alternative plan authorized by (the law), you don't have the information needed to even get started,” said Rhine. He said he is urging state lawmakers to consider extending the July 1 deadline. No one has taken him up on the idea yet.

‘A matter of urgency’

In Oakland, the decision over whether to delay or accept the state upzoning has played out at the neighborhood level.

Last month, the city’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to take the full suite of possible delays in order to buy time and develop an alternative plan. This, city staff stressed, was not about opposition to the goals of state law, but about a preference among local planners to reconsider the city’s plan comprehensively and at all once, rather than in fits and starts.

“It’s no dispute over outcome,” Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist told the council. “I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.”

Even so, three city council members objected, arguing, in effect, that they would like the state’s override in their districts now, thank you very much.

Zac Unger, who represents some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods in North Oakland, argued that parcels that have already achieved the 50% density threshold should not be exempt in his district, especially because the bulk of them are located along busy commercial corridors.

Change is coming, one way or another, he argued at council. “I am arguing for, in a sense, coming to grips with that reality right now rather than spending a year providing people with the false idea that we can somehow exempt ourselves from state law.”

Two other members — Charlene Wang and Ken Houston — who represent some of the low-resource neighborhoods entitled to delay, also wanted to adopt the law in their districts now. “In an urban area like Oakland we should be far exceeding the density minimums in (state law),” said Wang.

In a follow-up interview, Unger noted that the debate in Oakland may be more symbolic than it is in other cities. By happenstance, city planners have been working for years toward an overhaul of the city’s zoning map, which they aim to wrap up next year. In other words, Oakland is likely to have an alternative plan that complies with the state law’s requirements by 2027 anyway.

“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings blowing up from the street,” he said. “It’s just a matter of urgency — and a statement of values.”

Aside from those cities that are racing to embrace the state law and those seeking delay or their own versions, there is another possible category: Those that resist the law entirely.

After California lawmakers passed a law in 2021 allowing homeowners to split up their properties into as many as four separate units, density-averse cities pushed back. Some took the state to court, others explored adopting municipal charters, one flirted with the idea of becoming a mountain lion refuge. None of the measures ultimately succeeded.

If SB 79 is met with a similar array of resistance, we aren’t likely to see that until after the July 1 deadline, said Eckhouse with California YIMBY.

“The reason to do something now is either to lean into it or to use the provisions of the law for flexibility and deferrals,” he said. “But if they just want to stand in the door and say ‘no,’ we might not find out about that until the zoning standards go into effect.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.

City officials and community groups are planning a two-day event for a FIFA World Cup watch party in July. The events will close a part of Wilshire Boulevard that passes through the park and turn the street into a pedestrian space.

For some residents, that change can’t come soon enough.

“I support this idea because right now kids aren’t really able to play in this area,” said Palea Hernandez, a Westlake resident and mother of three young children. “It’s not safe and clean enough for them.”

The events, scheduled for July 10 and 11, will coincide with the playoff matches. The teams have not been determined yet. Organized by Council District 1, the events will include food vendors, a large screen to view the games, and family activities.

Organizers say the goal is not just to celebrate the tournament, but to give residents a preview of what MacArthur Park could become.

The concept mirrors the proposed Reconnecting MacArthur Park project, which would permanently close the stretch of Wilshire that cuts through the park and unify its north and south sides into one continuous green space.

“They do plan to close Wilshire Boulevard between the parks to be showing the World Cup,” said Diana Alfaro of Central City Neighborhood Partners. “So that is something that’s basically the same as reconnecting MacArthur Park.”

More than 60% of surveyed residents support removing the roadway, according to preliminary findings from that study.

The World Cup events will offer a temporary version of that idea.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation plans to release a report on their outreach into the community and an evaluation on alternatives to reconnecting Wilshire Boulevard. The open streets event in the summer will preview potential changes to the area.

Organizers plan to model the event after open-street initiatives like CicLAvia, using a road closure to create space for pedestrians. Chelsea Lucktenberg, a spokesperson for Council District 1, said there will also be community organizations tabling with resources, including on where to get grocery and rental assistance. 

“We’re also looking to have activities and fun. Maybe a soccer clinic and other pop-up workshops,” she said.

The office is still finalizing details, but outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May.

Lucktenberg said a similar event had been planned for last June but was canceled due to safety concerns during a period of heightened immigration enforcement activity in the area.

Not everyone is convinced the event alone will make a difference.

“If I’m being honest, I hate LA. I don’t like this place,” said Alex Valenzuela, who was born in Westlake and visits the area periodically when he has business at the Mexican consulate nearby. “The park is nice, but I just don’t like the fact that everywhere you see, there are homeless people, people smoking, people on drugs.”

Concerns about homelessness and drug activity came up repeatedly in interviews with residents and workers near the park.

Fernando Rodriguez, owner of Variedades A and K, where he does money transfers and sells vitamins and other household supplies, supports the idea as long as it does not disrupt access for workers. 

He believes kids could benefit from closing down Wilshire and opening it up for activities, but that the city needs to address homelessness in the area.

“Every day it’s packed with homeless people. The kids come to play in the park, but I’ve seen the homelessness and drugs,” he said. “Even if they close down to provide activities for kids, it’s not going to be safe for them if all the homeless are still here.”

Jonathan Santos, a leasing agent inside the MacArthur Park swap meet, said he would support the plan if it leads to visible improvements.

MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

“I would support this if it gets rid of the homelessness. I’m sick and tired of it,” Santos said. “I think closing down this street might be the beginning of something.”

Santos, who grew up in the neighborhood, said he no longer feels comfortable bringing his children to the park.

“My kids do not like it here … No way I would let them come here to play at MacArthur Park,” he said.

Others said more activity could help shift the feel of the park, even if temporarily.

“I feel like it will take a lot of homeless people away if they see a lot of people in the area with little kids,” said Erica Garcia, a local resident and mother. “I’ve been living here for two years now and I don’t bring my kid out here because it’s not safe.”

Garcia said she would be open to bringing her baby out to the park in July to experience the World Cup activation if there are extra security guards and police patrolling the area.

Outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May as organizers finalize plans for the July event. Lucktenberg said residents can also expect to hear more about the events starting in May. The viewing parties at the park are just some of several that will be hosted across the city, including a block party at Liberty Park in Koreatown.

Neither of those parties are officially sanctioned by FIFA, who are planning to host their own events at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

The post FIFA World Cup events to close Wilshire through MacArthur Park for two days in July appeared first on LA Local.

Early spring means the return of warm weather and … taxes. On a recent weekend, Dan and Glynna Courter were enjoying the sun with friends over a picnic of blueberries and Cheez-Its at Birmingham's Railroad Park.

When the topic moved to how they're feeling about their tax refunds, nearly everyone at the gathering responded with a chorus of lukewarm just fines.

The lack of enthusiasm was surprising considering everyone on the picnic blanket received sizable refunds, including about $10,000 for the Courters combined. But Glynna thinks their refund wasn't that much different from last year. The couple withhold the maximum taxes from their paychecks, which helps them avoid the risk of owing taxes and leads to a bigger refund.

"We might go to a nice restaurant," Dan added, after Glynna said they'd use the refund for savings.

This is not the vibe Republican lawmakers were planning for this tax season. The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year."

But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.

So far, the average refund has totaled about $350 more than last year. By early April, the average tax refund sat at $3,462, which is 11.1% higher than the same point last year, according to the IRS.

And Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.

"There's a bit of a disappointment in how much those refunds are," said Tom O'Saben, the director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. "People are quietly, perhaps, happy but not to the extent where I would call it significant."

Americans who owe taxes could be seeing a bigger slice of the savings

One possible explanation for the lower refunds is that the benefits from the tax law changes could be showing up more for Americans who don't receive refunds, but owe taxes. The IRS data on tax refunds this season does not factor in how much less Americans owed compared to last year.

"The evidence is stronger that more tax relief is relatively flowing to those who otherwise would owe when they file," said Don Schneider, deputy head of U.S. policy at the investment bank Piper Sandler.

But Schneider points out that owing less money is harder to notice than getting cash in hand.

"Getting it in a refund is probably more impactful, more easy to understand than having a reduction in what you otherwise would owe," Schneider said.

Higher-income procrastinators still have to file

Wealthier filers so far seem to have received larger benefits from the tax changes.

"Higher income taxpayers are much more likely than lower income taxpayers to report significantly higher refunds this year," said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

That's due in part to the increase in the SALT, or state and local tax, deduction cap raised by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Filers can now deduct up to $40,000 for property, sales and income taxes paid to state and local governments. The deduction primarily goes to wealthier Americans who own homes with big mortgage payments.

Since they traditionally are more likely to procrastinate sending in their returns, that could cause this year's average tax refund to grow later on, but likely still fall short of the additional $1,000 mark, Lautz said. "It is unlikely that we will see that kind of boost by the end of this."

Refunds are getting eaten up by higher gas prices

Part of the tepid response to refunds could be related to the extra cash Americans are spending at the pump.

The war with Iran has brought the average price for a gallon of regular in the U.S. well above $4. Data from the Bank of America Institute and PNC shows consumers have continued spending on gas, and depending on how long gas prices stay elevated, all of the benefits Americans received from the 2025 tax and spending bill could go solely to staying fueled up.

"The tax refund season might be very good, but it's also being offset by this price in gasoline," said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.

Bob Jones, a retiree in Birmingham, is satisfied with his refund. He benefited from an extra deduction of $6,000 for a lot of seniors 65 and up. But the war with Iran has him worried about what that means for the price of gas, so he's put it all in savings.

"You need the savings simply for gas," Jones said.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Updated April 15, 2026 at 11:21 AM ET

The U.S. military said it had "completely halted" all commercial trade moving in and out of Iran's ports, less than 36 hours after imposing a naval blockade.

The announcement comes after President Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to enforce a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad over the weekend that ended without any agreement.

But on Tuesday, Trump told the New York Post a second round of direct talks could resume in Islamabad within two days.

In a Wednesday morning interview with Fox Business, Trump said the war with Iran was "very close" to ending.

"I view it as very close to being over," Trump told anchor Maria Bartiromo.

Trump has repeatedly suggested the war is nearing an end without offering a clear timeline.

The latest developments came as the International Monetary Fund warned Tuesday that the global economy could be heading toward a recession triggered by the war.

A girl plays with a bubble blower at an unofficial camp for displaced people in Beirut's waterfront area on Tuesday.

(

Joseph Eid

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Here are more updates from the region:

U.S. blockade | Peace talks | Recession fears | Israel-Hezbollah fighting

U.S. military says it has blocked Iranian ports

A top U.S. military commander said U.S. forces have imposed a blockade of Iranian ports and have established "maritime superiority" in the Middle East.

"In less than 36 hours since the blockade was implemented, U.S. forces have completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea," Adm. Bradley Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, said in a statement shared online early Wednesday local time. He suggested the U.S. blockade brought to a halt Iran's economy, which relies on international trade by sea.

The U.S. blockade of Iranian ports entered into force on Monday following face-to-face negotiations between U.S. and Iranian officials in Islamabad to end the war. According to Trump, the meeting failed to achieve a breakthrough over Iran's insistence to continue its nuclear program.

A ship is seen off the coast of Ras al-Khaimah, the day after the failure of US-Iran peace talks on Monday.

(

AFP via Getty Images

)

The blockade is seen as a tactic to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 20% of the global supply of oil and gas normally moves. It's also a key passageway for other goods such as fertilizer, aluminum and helium.

Iran closed the waterway in retaliation to U.S. and Israeli strikes on Feb. 28. It has let a small fraction of ships through from countries it considers friendly or neutral in the conflict. An Iranian lawmaker told state media recently that Iran collects $2 million fees from some vessels passing through the strait. Trump called the move "extortion."

The U.S. military said Tuesday 10,000 U.S. service members, more than 100 aircraft and over 12 warships were enforcing the blockade of vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

The shipping information firm Lloyd's List said at least one ship, the Rich Starry, a combined chemical and oil tanker, transited the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday morning local time and then made a U-turn in the Gulf of Oman.

The U.S. military said six merchant vessels "complied with direction from U.S. forces to turn around."

Trump says peace talks in Pakistan could resume this week

In an interview with The New York Post on Tuesday, Trump said additional peace talks between the U.S. and Iran "could be happening over the next two days" in Islamabad.

Peace talks in Pakistan's capital over the weekend ended after 21 hours without any agreement.

"You should stay there, really, because something could be happening over the next two days, and we're more inclined to go there," Trump said, referring to Islamabad.

He went on to praise Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, for doing a "great job" in mediating the talks.

"He's fantastic, and therefore it's more likely that we go back there," Trump said.

Pakistan, which holds strong diplomatic relations with both the U.S. and Iran, has emerged as a key mediator in negotiations between the two countries.

Vice President Vance, Washington's lead negotiator, said a major sticking point that led to the breakdown in Saturday's talks was Iran's refusal to commit to abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

"The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon," Vance said.

President Trump speaks to the press outside the Oval Office at the White House on Monday.

(

Brendan Smialowski

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

However, he left open the possibility an agreement could still be reached, saying: "We leave here with a very simple proposal: a method of understanding that is our final and best offer," adding, "We'll see if the Iranians accept it."

Iran said the two sides had "reached an understanding on a number of issues, but ultimately the talks did not lead to an agreement." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a member of the Iranian negotiating team, accused the U.S. delegation of "maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade."

Iran, under its 10-point negotiation plan, demanded an end to Israel's attacks against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah as part of any permanent agreement. Other demands from the Iranian delegation included the release of $6 billion in frozen assets, guarantees around its nuclear program and the right to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

IMF warns global economy at risk of recession

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned Tuesday that the war with Iran could trigger a global recession that would hit the U.K. more than any other G7 country.

In its biannual update, the IMF cut its estimate for U.K. growth this year to 0.8%, down from the 1.3% prediction made in January.

The U.K. imports the majority of its oil and gas from abroad.

The Resolution Foundation, a British think tank, says U.K. households will already be about $500 (£480) worse off this year due to the war.

Britain's finance minister, Rachel Reeves, issued a sharp critique of the U.S.-Iran war on Tuesday, which she called a "folly" with no clear exit plan.

"I feel very frustrated and angry that the U.S. went into this war without a clear exit plan, without a clear idea of what they're trying to achieve," Reeves told the British newspaper The Mirror.

A man fixes the United Arab Emirates' national flag to the roof of his house in Dubai on Tuesday, after a call by the Emirati leaders urging people across the country to hoist the flag as a symbol of unity and pride.

(

Fadel Senna

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, told the BBC that U.S. ally countries were going to suffer a "small bit of economic pain," but said it would be worth it to eliminate the threat of Iranian nuclear strikes on Western capitals.

"I wonder what the hit to global GDP would be if a nuclear weapon hit London…I am saying that I am less concerned about short-term forecasts, for long-term security," he said.

Across Europe and beyond, governments have begun implementing emergency fuel tax cuts in response to surging prices.

In Ireland, the government announced more than $589 million (€500 million) in tax cuts on motor fuel over the weekend following a week of protests over high fuel prices, which brought many parts of the country to a standstill.

In Germany, lawmakers unveiled a $1.9 billion (€1.6 billion) fuel price relief plan to help people with the rising costs.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Tuesday said he was suspending the country's federal gas tax until early September.

Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel resumes  after historic Israel-Lebanon talks

Hezbollah and Israel continued to exchange fire on Wednesday, a day after Israel and Lebanon met for direct talks in Washington, the first in more than 30 years, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Hezbollah said it targeted Israeli troops several times with rockets, artillery strikes and drones and it fired at communities in Israel's north. Israel expanded its military occupation of southern Lebanon, where it said its forces engaged in fierce battle with Hezbollah fighters.

A relative of Hassan Ali Badawi, a paramedic with the Lebanese Red Cross who was killed the previous day in an Israeli airstrike, mourns as the family receives condolences at their home in the Bchamoun area south of Beirut, on Monday.

(

Anwar Amro

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The talks came after nearly seven weeks of fighting between the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon. Hezbollah, which is also a major political party that holds seats in the Lebanese parliament, does not support the talks and has called on the Lebanese government to cancel them.

More than 2,100 people have been killed by Israeli strikes, according to Lebanese health officials. Hezbollah has also fired at Israel, killing at least 12 soldiers and two civilians, according to Israeli authorities. Lebanese officials said Israel has demolished more than 40,000 homes in the south, seizing land for what Israel calls a "buffer zone" to keep Hezbollah from firing rockets into northern Israel.

The Lebanese government wants a ceasefire, but Israel said it would not agree to it until Hezbollah disarms, a longstanding Israeli demand, which the Lebanese government has been unable to enforce in the past.

Following the talks on Tuesday, Rubio said the talks were about "bringing a permanent end to 20 or 30 years of Hezbollah's influence in this part of the world."

Daniel Estrin in Tel Aviv, Kat Lonsdorf in Beirut, Aya Batrawy in Dubai, Fatima Al-Kassab in London and Rebecca Rosman in Paris contributed to this report.

Copyright 2026 NPR