The Brief

The Imperial Irrigation District, which provides water to farmers in the southeastern corner of California, drew a figurative line in the sand earlier this month, calling for a halt to the conversion of agricultural fields into solar panel farms.

Noting that more than 13,000 acres of fertile land had already been converted, the water district asked the Imperial County Board of Supervisors to protect productive farmland.

“Our identity and economy in the Imperial Valley are rooted in agriculture,” Gina Dockstader, who chairs the district board, said in a statement. “Solar energy has a role in our region’s future, but it cannot come at the cost of our farmland, food supply, or the families who depend on agriculture. This resolution is about protecting our way of life.”

The Imperial Valley conflict is one manifestation of an increasingly sharp debate within California’s $60 billion agricultural sector — the largest of any state — over what should happen as the acreage devoted to crops and livestock shrinks.

The state Department of Conservation says that agricultural lands declined by more than 1.6 million acres between 1984 and 2018, averaging 47,000 acres a year. The most productive land experienced the largest decline. Urbanization — the conversion of fields into homes and businesses — accounted for most of the decline, but residential development has slowed in recent years, contributing to a chronic housing shortage.

Other factors, such as labor shortages, production costs and uncertain water supplies, have created what industry leaders say is a crisis. The Public Policy Institute of California has estimated that the recently imposed limits on tapping underground aquifers to irrigate crops will result in 500,000 acres of farmland being taken out of production.

More recently, President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs and a crackdown on undocumented immigrants have put more pressure on the agricultural industry.

As farmers, particularly the larger corporate growers, take land out of production, many believe that their economic salvation lies in solar panel arrays that generate the emission-free electricity that the state wants, as it phases out power fueled by hydrocarbons.

However, that doesn’t sit well with farmers who want to continue production, as the Imperial Irrigation District’s call for a solar moratorium implies.

Like many conflicts, this one has landed in the Capitol in the form of legislation. Assembly Bill 1156 would make it easier for farmers whose lands are contractually obligated to remain open space under the Williamson Act to avoid paying the heavy penalties required by law.

The Williamson Act, enacted six decades ago to slow the sprawl of urban development into farmlands, gives farmers hefty breaks on property taxes on land they maintain as open space. AB 1156 would specifically declare that farmers can replace crops with solar farms without incurring penalties if the owner is experiencing water shortages. The bill is backed by the solar power industry, environmentalists, labor unions and many large farmers.

The California Farm Bureau and family farm groups oppose it, arguing that it will undermine the Williamson Act because almost any farmer can declare a water shortage, given the chronic uncertainty of California water supplies. Emulating the Imperial Irrigation District’s stance, opponents say wholesale conversion of farmland into solar farms will devastate rural communities that depend on agriculture for jobs.

Politically, it’s a David vs. Goliath conflict. AB 1156, carried by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, has been moving briskly through the legislative process. It’s already cleared the Assembly and is likely to hit the Senate floor soon.

The solar farm displacement issue is only one of many factors that will determine the future of agriculture in California. The larger existential issue deserves more political attention than it’s getting.

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

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

On most weekday afternoons at the Expo Park/USC Metro station outside the University of Southern California, the platform feels like an extension of campus life. People are usually bunched up in pairs or groups. Many wear USC crewneck sweatshirts and talk about campus life as they straddle the edges between downtown Los Angeles and the classroom. What they aren’t talking about are their cars or debating the pros and cons of taking an Uber versus a Waymo. 

“Ubering is expensive every time I’m going somewhere, it’s at least gonna be $30,” Jaiden Torres told The LA Local. Torres is a third-year student at Hofstra University doing a semester in Los Angeles. 

He said a car is the last thing on his mind as he navigates the city. “That’s money that I could be spending on other things. So I try to opt out to take the train.”

For many young Angelenos, the Los Angeles Metro isn’t a last resort. It’s how they move through the city. They’re embracing transit even as the system evolves and works to rebuild ridership and public trust.

More than 500,000 students, including community college students, across L.A. County now ride Metro through its GoPass program, with nearly 60 million student boardings since 2021. Metro says its overall ridership has also continued to recover since the pandemic, reaching more than 82% of pre-pandemic levels in January 2025 and extending a run of more than two years of growth.

In a statement, Metro attributed that increase in ridership to improvements in service, safety and a return of public confidence in the system. 

For Josh Figueroa, a first-year urban planning major at the USC, transit is both a classroom topic and a daily necessity. Originally from Riverside, he moved to L.A. this year without a car and now relies on Metro to get around.

“In terms of getting where I need to go, the Metro is very reliable,” he told The LA Local. “And, because I’m a student, it’s free.”

And it’s not just USC students. Since 2016, Metro has offered a U-Pass partnership that allows students to get unlimited or discounted rides with their TAP cards. The program went from one major university in 2017 to nearly two dozen schools in 2025. 

Jacob Wasserman is a research program manager at UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies. He told The LA Local that by offering passes, schools are helping create a culture of students using the Metro.  

“At UCLA, every undergrad and grad student gets a pass. It makes the transit agency money because [schools] buy it for everybody, and the people who do use it get a ton of value. It’s effectively free,” he said. 

For students juggling tuition, rent and groceries, the savings matter.

“I’m definitely more inclined to take the Metro than an Uber because of finances,” Figueroa said. “It’s way cheaper to take the Metro.”

Figueroa also feels more a part of L.A. when riding. “I feel more in connection with a community or in connection with a city when I’m taking the resources and the transportation that they provide,” he said. 

But there are drawbacks. 

On most weekday afternoons at the Expo Park/USC Metro station outside the University of Southern California, the platform feels like an extension of campus life. People are usually bunched up in pairs or groups. Many wear USC crewneck sweatshirts and talk about campus life as they straddle the edges between downtown Los Angeles and the classroom. What they aren’t talking about are their cars or debating the pros and cons of taking an Uber versus a Waymo.

Trains vs cars

L.A.’s landscape is built around cars and freeways, with many Metro stops located in inconvenient places. “It’s hard to fit a transit system into land use that’s built around the car, because you may have to walk that last mile, and if there isn’t just much around, it can be unsafe,” Wasserman said. 

Figueroa has personally experienced this. “A lot of places I want to go, like a food spot somewhere, I’d need to drive because the Metro stops are in inconvenient places. If I get off at a Metro stop, I might have to walk 30 minutes to an hour,” he said. 

But that may change. New Metro expansions are working to connect the city more efficiently.

Metro’s “28 by 28” initiative aims to complete 28 major public rail transportation projects before the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, including rail extensions, new light-rail segments and rapid bus transit lines. 

Nine projects have been completed so far, including the A Line (formerly the Gold Line) Foothill Extension to Pomona. “[The A Line] is great for connecting college students out there,” Wasserman said. 

He added that these projects are meant to serve everyday riders. “The difference that we’re seeing for the 28 Olympics is that a lot of these projects, even the bus projects, are designed to be Olympic supporting, but also legacy projects beyond that,” Wasserman said. 

Wasserman hopes Metro’s expansion will help keep Angelenos connected across the city and is optimistic about its future.

“We’re really ambitiously expanding our rail system,” he said. “If it can work in L.A., it can work anywhere in the U.S.”

But another major issue affecting ridership is around safety. 

Commuter safety concerns

Figueroa noted that Metro stations with the fewest riders feel less safe.

“In urban places that don’t have a lot of people, there’s this idea of having less eyes on the street. When you have less eyes and less people watching, people tend to feel unsafe because they feel alone. It’s very prevalent on the Metro,” Figueroa said.

Torres noted the difference between the buses and trains in L.A. 

“I feel a lot safer on the train than on the bus. On trains, if it feels unsafe, I can move to the next car. But on the bus you’re kind of stuck,” he said. 

Transit agencies are paying attention to these concerns. Wasserman conducted a research project into the L.A. Metro Transit Ambassador Pilot Program, which provides a visible, customer-focused presence at stations and on vehicles. 

“I think the ambassador program is working well. They’re just like extra eyes, so you’re not in an empty station,” Wasserman said. “They are also doing more serious stuff. They carry Narcan and address overdoses.” 

Figueroa has noticed the changes. “I definitely feel safer. I don’t feel like I’m in danger or threatened,” he said. 

The UCLA report concluded that Metro was “wise to consider, pilot, and now make permanent” the ambassador program. 

The continuous improvements are also shaping how young people view the city itself. “I feel like [by taking the train] I’m getting to observe the working class or day-to-day people of L.A.,” Torres said.

Most Orange County residents favor offering undocumented residents a pathway to legal status rather than blanket deportation, according to a new poll from the University of California, Irvine School of Social Ecology. But that’s not true for a majority of Republicans (54%), who favor deportation, the poll found.

Jon Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology, said the poll demonstrates the stark difference in public opinion on immigration between Republicans on one side, and Democrats and independents on the other.

“ Majorities are very much in favor of immigration, paths to legal citizenship, and are hesitant to use the enforcement power too strongly," Gould said of the poll results. “It’s surprising in a purple county that we’re seeing both a strong majority one way, and a cleavage where one of the political parties [Republican] is off by itself compared to independents and Democrats.”

Orange County is considered “purple” because the county’s 2 million voters are nearly evenly split, with one-third each registered as Republican or Democrat, and another third registered as No Party Preference or with a smaller political party.

There was agreement across political parties on some issues, Gold said. The majority of respondents agreed that violent criminals should automatically be deported, and that immigrants who are U.S. veterans should never be deported.

UC Irvine School of Social Ecology polled 1,200 Orange County adults on immigration issues in March 2026.

(

Courtesy UC Irvine School of Social Ecology

/

LAist

)

Gould also said the poll of some 1,200 adults demonstrates the nuanced opinions that most residents have on the subject of immigration. For example, a majority of all respondents (61%) support limiting immigration from countries the government deems dangerous or unstable.

Results of the UC Irvine poll on immigration show agreement across party lines on some nuanced questions.

(

Courtesy: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology

/

LAist

)

Some other key takeaways:

• While 62% of respondents said they disapproved of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration issues, a smaller margin, 55%, disapproved of his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
• A majority said immigration fills essential low-wage jobs (76%) and enhances civic life (67%). A plurality also said immigration strains public services (48%).
• Only small percentages of all respondents said they supported automatic deportation for immigrants convicted of non-violent crimes (23%), unemployed immigrants (16%), recent arrivals (11%), and non-English speakers (10%). 
• On the question of ICE, 73% of Republicans said they supported the agency’s actions, whereas 67% of Democrats and 40% of independents said the agency should be abolished.

Implications for the upcoming elections and immigration reform

Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement has taken a heavy toll in Orange County. Some families have lost breadwinners to deportation, while others have sought to limit their exposure by quitting jobs and staying indoors. Spending in the county decreased by about one-quarter of a percent immediately after enforcement ramped up last year, according to a separate UC Irvine study. That led to a $4.5 million decline in sales tax over an eight-week period, the study found.

Students protest ICE on Jan. 27, 2026 in front of Anaheim City Hall.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

A growing number of cities, plus the county itself, have set aside funds to support immigrant residents with basic needs and legal services.

This support reflects what Gould called a “sea change” in public opinion since 1994, when two-thirds of Orange County voters cast ballots in favor of excluding undocumented immigrants from public education and other public services. That ballot initiative, Proposition 187, was ultimately found to be unconstitutional and never went into effect.

Gould said the majority of respondents’ positive views on immigration in the recent poll shows how much the county has changed. It’s also a reflection of the vast demographic shifts that have occurred in the county in recent decades as a result of immigration and refugee arrivals from countries like Vietnam.

Nearly 40% of residents polled said both of their parents were born in another country; 82% of Asians polled said both parents were born in another country.

Slightly more than one-third of respondents said they personally knew someone who is undocumented.

Gould thinks the results of the polling bode well for the prospects for immigration reform — despite decades of failure in Washington to strike a deal between Republicans and Democrats. The shift in public opinion might not lead to change in policy yet, Gould said, “but politicians generally follow where the wind’s blowing.”

 “At a time where we're being led to believe that immigration pits people against one another, it's intractable, these battles will go on forever," he said. "I actually think what we're seeing in the data here is that there is a supermajority support for a number of policies on immigration. There is actually potentially a solution here.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Jacque Langston was driving down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood when he came face-to-face with an odd sight: sea creatures floating across one of the city’s new, spiraling digital billboards. 

“Why am I looking at jellyfish? That has nothing to do with me,” said Langston, an Inglewood native. For Langston, the video billboards that have come to dominate stretches of Inglewood’s major roads are a square peg in a round hole.

“The city has never been touched like that,” Langston said. “Now you’ve got a mini-Vegas.” 

A digital billboard is seen on La Cienega Blvd. at Florence Ave. in Inglewood on April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Video billboards have proliferated in Inglewood in recent years, targeting the influx of people driving into the city for concerts and sporting events at SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum. 

Last summer, though, they became a flashpoint for a series of lawsuits that revealed fractures in the once-close relationship between the city and its major entertainment venues. The various parties are now fighting over lucrative advertising territory as major international sporting events approach.

That legal drama — reported last week by The LA Local — also threatens to undo the contract that underpins SoFi Stadium’s financial relationship with the city. 

Langston and other Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.

Meanwhile, the bright LED video screens have divided local opinion. 

Vanessa Cowan, an Inglewood resident, said the gleaming screens are a sign of progress in the city. “I like them,” she said. “It has a different look.” 

A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Avenue in Inglewood on April 18, in Los Angeles.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Khnum Alexander, owner of Swank Men’s Fashion on Manchester, called the billboards “monstrosities” and said advertising on the screens is too expensive for small businesses like his. He also questioned the new, twisting screens that billboard company WOW Media has recently begun to install in groups of three across the city.

“Do we really need more?” he asked. 

Down the street from Alexander’s menswear store, EZ Will Driving School owner Will McDaniel felt differently.

“I’m all for it,” McDaniel said. “People are afraid of change. Change to them feels awkward.” 

If city leaders have their way, the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative won’t make it to voters this fall.

“What is packaged as an initiative by and for Inglewood residents appears to be a product of avaricious puppeteering by a billionaire developer,” lawyers retained by the city wrote in a March 4 court complaint filed in an attempt to block the initiative. 

That developer, the city’s lawyers contend, was SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke. Attorneys later amended the complaint to include Intuit Dome owner Steve Ballmer.

“Voter suppression”

In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals. 

“Public spaces belong to people, not billboard companies,” Roberts wrote, adding advertising should instead prioritize public safety messaging, such as emergency alerts, not advertising for profit.

“Inglewood should not be for sale to billboard companies for decades at a time — especially when such arrangements permanently alter the character of our beautiful city and erase the legacy of those who fought to preserve our neighborhoods,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts did not respond to a request for comment. When The LA Local reached out to her lawyer, a veteran campaign spokesperson responded.  

John Shallman has been a consultant in Southern California politics for decades and formerly worked for the Clippers when they moved to the Intuit Dome. 

He is now working with Roberts to get the anti-billboard initiative on the ballot; their website and campaign are called Inglewood Not for Sale.

He said he’s never seen a city sue one of its residents over an idea they’re attempting to put before voters.

“It’s voter suppression,” Shallman told The LA Local. “You can run a campaign against it, but trying to stop it from getting in front of citizens at all, that’s a big red flag. We’re all about voter empowerment. They’re the public’s streets, parks and medians. They control how they’re used and how they’re sold.”

Inglewood Mayor James Butts did not return a request for comment. The city’s lawyers argued in court filings that the initiative shouldn’t be allowed to go before voters because it would unconstitutionally restrict speech, lay out illegal zoning guidelines and hurt the city’s contract with WOW Media, the company that controls many of Inglewood’s billboards. 

Shallman believes that the Inglewood City Council cut a bad deal in April 2025 with WOW Media when the city approved a 20-year contract, which can be extended for decades. “It’s sort of biblical in its length of time,” he said. “The city decided that the profit of one company is far more important than the residents who will have to live with these billboards.”

The campaign has already collected several thousand signatures, Shallman said. 

Shallman dismissed the city’s accusations that the coalition he works with does not authentically represent Inglewood’s residents. Though Roberts’ name is on the initiative, the filing fee was paid for by Gerard McCallum II, a longtime associate of Hollywood Park.

Shallman said the initiative is raising money from all sorts of supporters, including those tied to the Rams and Clippers professional sports teams.

“You’re talking about an insignificant sum of money that pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that will be spent to sue this Inglewood resident,” Shallman said of the filing fee.

Inglewood’s November election could be packed

WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability. 

CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.

“The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents. We trust the people of Inglewood to see the stadium owner billionaire’s scam for exactly what it is,” Krantz wrote.

Krantz and Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability are also backing a pair of initiatives that could have a big impact on stadiums’ bottom line: The initiatives seek to remove admissions tax caps for large venues and limit how much some parking lots can charge during major events. 

Longtime Mayor Butts is also up for reelection in November, as are Councilmembers Gloria Gray and Alex Padilla and a few school board members. 

Wherever the votes land, Inglewood’s rapid transformation doesn’t appear to be slowing down. 

“Times are changing around here,” said Rick Todd, who sat at a table on Manchester Boulevard on Thursday, selling jugs of soursop tea. Up the street, a video billboard flicked between an Inglewood police recruitment poster and an ad for “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” “This goes along with it.”