The Brief

It’s no secret that South L.A., like many parts of the city, faces a major equity issue when it comes to tree coverage. Roughly 13% of South L.A. is covered by a tree canopy compared to 23% across the rest of the city, contributing to higher temperatures, more air pollution, and reduced shade, among a host of other health and safety concerns.

While the data are important to understanding the disparity, a new study from researchers at the University of Southern California tackles the issue through a different lens, compiling interviews with stakeholders and community members in South L.A. about what they would like to see as trees are planted in the area.

“What we were really interested in is sort of coming to the table and just sort of asking people really open ended questions,” said USC urban planning professor and lead researcher Santina Contreras. “What are your needs? What are your interests? What are your priorities? What sort of challenges have you faced? What are your recommendations moving forward?”

Not as simple as just planting trees

As the saying goes, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” But when trees go into the ground without proper planning, issues like sidewalk upkeep, pruning, watering, and planting of invasive species can flare up.

That’s why Contreras said the aim of the study was “shifting the conversation a bit away from just ‘trees are good,’ and leaving it at that, and having a more detailed conversation about what's that going to involve.”

Residents brought up concerns regarding limited resources available for tree planting and maintenance, especially since South L.A. has historically been under-resourced in many aspects of city planning.

“We heard lots of stories about, ‘Yes, I would like them, but, am I going to be responsible for them? Who's going to water it? You know, what's the long term plan for maintenance?’” Contreras said.

Trees’ thorny association with other issues

Trees were obviously the focus of the researchers’ questions, but respondents also mentioned a host of other issues facing South L.A. Researchers then followed up on the concerns as they were mentioned.

“That's part of what's embedded in doing a really rigorous qualitative study is sort of seeing unprompted that these are things that lots of different people bring up,” Contreras said.

Rising rents and displacement in South L.A. neighborhoods were two of the issues that respondents brought up in conjunction with tree planting.

“I've also heard [people] say, ‘When we see white people coming in and planting trees, we know the rents are going up,’” said one participant quoted in the USC study. “So trees, on some level, represent gentrification, and gentrification means that they are going to have to leave.”

Money doesn’t grow on trees

Another common refrain had to do with allocation of resources to South L.A. neighborhoods overall, especially as funding and resources in the predominantly low-income region are already stretched thin.

“We have some quotes from folks that are talking about [how] trees are a value, but also, what does that mean in terms of getting access to housing and health care and all these other sorts of issues?” Contreras said.

Need for trees

Respondents also highlighted the benefits of sufficient tree cover, including more water capture, improvements in mental health, opportunities for connections with neighbors, and of course, the physical health benefits and cooling effects that more trees could bring to the urban canopy.

“That's something that I think is hopefully an important takeaway from this, really thinking about the holistic piece of how tree planting fits into planning more broadly for communities,” Contreras said.

Many of the study’s takeaways highlighted the desire for providing more sustainable tree canopy, including issues that may be familiar to tree planters anywhere.

“There's a strong interest in making sure that we have native species to California, as the people are very aware of all the different types of problems that we face from an environmental standpoint,” Contreras said.

While planting too much of one sort of tree isn’t ideal for biodiversity, researchers also highlighted the positive effects it can have on neighborhood identity and sense of place.

“People can say, ‘Hey, we're the [neighborhood of] yellow trumpet trees! We're the neighborhood of all the Hong Kong orchid trees!’” one survey respondent said. “It is beautiful. You look down a certain street, and you see all the jacarandas [that] bloom at the same time. You're like, ‘Oh, wow, what harmony!’"”

The researchers stopped short of making any specific policy recommendations — especially as South L.A. is made of diverse neighborhoods that may need different approaches — but they do plan to present the findings to local planners and officials in order to underline the concerns of South L.A. residents and start a dialog about best practices when it comes to planting more trees.

“It's a little more arduous, but it's more beneficial if you actually outreach and directly engage elements of the community in the tree planning, rather than having a top-down [process where] the city of Los Angeles comes through and plants trees…because you don't get the buy-in,” said another community member quoted in the report. “And you don't get the true benefit of using the trees to connect communities to make stronger, better communities.”

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.