The Brief

The late application window for Los Angeles Unified School District opens Monday.

Every fall, LAUSD opens applications for families who are interested in attending a school that is not their neighborhood school (or “resident school,” in the district’s terminology).

The process for the largest pool of non-resident schools is called “Choices.” This includes hundreds of magnet schools, dual-language programs and some charter schools, among other options.

The regular application window closes in November. The spots available during the late application period are those left after families who applied “on time” accept their offers.

The application can be done online or on paper, and the selection process begins in April — and acceptances can run into the following school year.

How do I know what schools I might want to apply to?

Families have told us the process of choosing a school for their child is often confusing and anxiety-driven.

Still: No one type of school is inherently better than another, and the “right” school will look different for every family.

To help, LAist has our School Game Plan — a series that helps families think through and evaluate their options. That includes:

• How do I choose a school?
• Know if a school is 'good'
• Enroll in transitional kindergarten
• Acquire magnet school points
• Understand charter schools
• Learn what happens in transitional kindergarten
• Get involved at a child's school
• Make a school repair request
• Get your child a bus seat
• Hold the school board accountable

Our guides are also available in Spanish. And if you prefer an easy-to-print version, we also have PDFs in English and Spanish.

What you read is based on the experience of real southern California families, educators and other experts, including their experiences in their own words.

Any other questions? Get in touch with us.

Senior editor Ross Brenneman contributed to this story.

For years, California has grappled with a problem that has affected nearly every aspect of our society: The state doesn’t have enough homes that people can afford to live in. Proposition 1 aims to address that crisis.

It’s estimated that more than 180,000 Californians are homeless. Rents are so high that a minimum wage worker would need to work 102 hours a week to afford a typical one-bedroom apartment, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

A big piece of that problem is construction: Not enough homes are being built. Fewer than a third of California cities and counties are on track to permit enough market-rate housing to hit their state-mandated targets, and fewer than 6% are on track for very low-income housing. Those targets are based on the state’s assumption that we need nearly 2.5 million more homes.

Legislators have passed multiple laws trying to address that by making it easier, faster and cheaper to get projects permitted and built. Prop. 1 is supposed to supply the money.

A recent report estimated nearly 40,000 affordable units throughout California have been designed, permitted and partially funded and are sitting stalled because developers just can’t quite get enough money to build them.

What would Prop. 1 do?

If it passes, Prop. 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds to fund various types of housing, including homes for veterans, homeless Californians, renters, homeowners, farmworkers, students and tribes.

Where would the money go?

Prop. 1 would fund a variety of programs. Here’s how it breaks down:

• $7.2 billion to buy, build or renovate apartment buildings, generally through low-interest loans to developers. Projects funded this way would have to reserve a certain number of units for low-income households. Some would be used for “supportive housing,” homeless housing that includes additional services. This, in combination with other funding sources, would help support up to 40,000 rental units, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
• $1.25 billion to help veterans secure loans to buy homes.
• $1.1 billion to help low and moderate-income households buy homes.
• $500 million for the infrastructure that supports new housing construction, such as water, sewage, parks and transportation improvements. 
• $450 million to build or renovate an estimated 2,500 units of farmworker housing. 
• $350 million to fund affordable homes for an estimated 1,200 University of California and California State University students.
• $200 million in housing grants to tribes, which could fund both home construction and renovation.
• $200 million up for grabs to cities, counties and other groups that pitch pilot projects to develop low-cost housing. 

How would California pay for it?

It would cost the state between $500 million and $600 million each year for about 25 years to repay the cost of the general housing bond, according to the legislative analyst. That money would come from the state’s general fund, and factors in interest. The $1.25 billion for veterans housing would not cost the state anything, as participating vets would pay it off through monthly loan payments.

Have we done anything like this before?

California voters approved (by the slimmest of margins) another bond in 2024 that provided $2 billion to fund homes for people who need mental health and addiction services and veterans. That 2024 bond also was dubbed Prop. 1.

What do supporters say?

Supporters include housing developers and advocates, veterans groups, the California State University and University of California boards, groups representing California’s cities and counties, Democratic legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Donors backing Prop. 1 also reflect some who would benefit. The campaign has received more than $12 million, including about $2 million from carpenters' unions, $1 million from Airbnb and $1 million from Building a Better California, a PAC funded by Google founder Sergey Brin and other Silicon Valley billionaires.

Vivian Wan, chief executive of affordable housing provider Abode, says her organization has four projects with a planned total of about 230 units in the works that she hopes Prop. 1 will fund. Three are in the Bay Area and one is in Yolo County. Without that cash infusion, all four projects are stalled, she said. Projects for homeless and low-income residents need large subsidies since their tenants don’t pay enough in rent to offset the cost of building. They often also have to fund additional services, such as case managers to help residents navigate their physical and mental health, addictions, finances and more. City and county dollars can pay for some but not all of that.

Prop. 1 would be “huge,” Wan said. But it wouldn’t magically solve the housing crisis.

“Is it enough? Absolutely not,” she said. “We are lightyears behind in terms of production to meet the need. We have underinvested in housing for decades. This is going to help, for sure, but we really need a permanent source.”

What do opponents say?

When this measure came up for a floor vote before the Legislature, two Republican senators voted no, as well as seven Republican assemblymembers.

Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who opposed the bill, said calling it “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” amounted to a bait-and-switch maneuver, as only a small fraction of the total funds go to vets.

“It really just says that you're using veterans to pass your $10 billion general obligation bond,” he said during a June hearing.

And, he said, there are better ways to get families into housing than using a bond to “borrow money against the future.” The strong revenues California experienced this year won’t continue, making it risky to push the state deeper into debt, he said.

Opponents have not reported receiving any contributions.

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

Throughout the arduous process to rebuild the Altadena home where she lived for nearly 50 years, Mary Landau has sometimes felt like giving up. Much of what has sustained her is the encouragement she receives from her disaster case manager.

“She said, ‘You can do this,’” said Landau, a 78-year-old retired teacher who enjoys studying Altadena history and cannot imagine living anywhere else, even after the Eaton Fire destroyed her house. “She gave me hope and strength.”

Landau meets weekly with Veda Ashby Romero, a trained recovery expert who helps her navigate insurance, complete online forms and qualify for financial assistance.

Now Landau is one of roughly 1,400 households affected by the 2025 Los Angeles fires who are set to lose their disaster case managers by the end of October, as a standoff between California and the Federal Emergency Management Agency over the program’s funding drags on.

The news has rattled Landau. “The safety net has been pulled out from under me, and the hope is not as strong as it was,” she said.

The program’s early termination is the latest setback for L.A. communities in the middle of recovery and awaiting billions of additional federal dollars. It also highlights how some disaster-impacted communities still face issues like delayed FEMA payments and inconsistent communication, despite President Donald Trump’s administration pledging to streamline processes after long criticizing the agency’s bureaucracy.

FEMA did not respond to a request for comment but has previously touted the assistance it has provided for the program. The White House says California has mismanaged the crisis.

Case managers simplify a notoriously opaque recovery process

Landau kept her insurance policy up to date for the 1938 two-bedroom, one-bathroom ranch home where she raised her three children and tended a wildflower garden. She still faced a shortfall of at least $200,000 to rebuild the modest home and owed $225,000 on her mortgage.

Ashby Romero supports her through the insurance process — a tedious one that has involved multiple adjusters and required creating an inventory of the half-century’s worth of possessions she lost. She also found Landau a grant to cover a year’s worth of mortgage payments. “I would never have gotten it without her,” Landau said. “I’m very bad with paperwork.”

Trained disaster case managers help people find rental assistance, new employment and money to close the gap between what insurance pays and the actual cost to rebuild. They guide survivors on how to avoid scams, challenge insurance payouts and appeal FEMA decisions.

“The recovery process is very complicated, and a lot of the systems are not designed to make it easy for people,” said Matt Gsell, disaster recovery manager at CORE, the nonprofit managing Landau’s case and one of five participating in LA’s case management program.

Late reimbursements and insufficient funds led California to end the program

After the January 2025 fires, California requested $28 million for case management. FEMA instead awarded $13.2 million for 24 months, to be paid in four equal installments.

FEMA can fund disaster case management for presidentially declared major disasters. The money is reimbursed to the state, which usually contracts with one or more nonprofits to administer the program. In the case of an exceptional disaster, states can request extensions for up to 36 months.

By August, FEMA had made only one of the four payments, leaving the state to front the rest despite “numerous requests” for reimbursement, according to the California Department of Social Services.

FEMA also had not answered a March request for an additional $6.5 million to sustain the program the full 24 months, in light of high demand. Seven hundred households remain on a waitlist for services.

California then announced it could no longer float the costs and would shutter the program at the end of October. FEMA eventually reimbursed the outstanding payments but did not give an answer about the additional money.

Rep. Judy Chu, a Democrat whose district includes Altadena, told The Associated Press that FEMA also had not responded to questions from her office about the additional money. Failing to fund the program the full 24 months “risks abandoning survivors,” Chu said, adding that FEMA should also be prepared to extend the program for longer if needs persist.

Nonprofits scramble to reassign clients

With the projected end date looming, nonprofits are triaging open cases and trying to move as many as possible to other organizations that can continue the work using philanthropic dollars.

But there won’t be enough resources to keep everyone in case management.

“They are overloaded,” said Bree Jensen, spokesperson for the Eaton Fire Collaborative and an Eaton Fire survivor. “You can’t put everything onto the local nonprofits.”

The uncertainty is destabilizing, as more than 100 case managers stand to lose their jobs and must weigh whether to seek new work now or wait for answers, Jensen said.

“We can’t go month to month,” said Gsell. CORE has already closed some of its less severe cases and is trying to transfer 200 of its 450 clients to other nonprofits.

The case management program is just a small part of the federal support California has requested to recover from fires that destroyed more than 16,000 structures.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, asked Trump, a Republican, and Congress for $15.7 billion, pared down from an earlier request of $33 billion, much of which would go toward rebuilding housing. Trump has not sent the Republican-controlled Congress a supplemental disaster request for the L.A. fires.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said the Trump administration has obligated billions of dollars for L.A.’s recovery.

Landau is waiting for construction to begin on her new home. She is still wrangling with insurance and a bank to receive her final payment. She and her children lean on each other for support, she said, but pressing on won’t be the same without Ashby Romero.

“To meet with somebody who cares about you, wants to see that you land on your feet in a good situation,” she said, ”it was so important.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed the state’s 100th lawsuit against the federal government since President Donald Trump took office for a second time in 2025.

Bonta reached that milestone in 21 months. During the first Trump administration, California officials sued the federal government a total of 123 times in four years.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleges that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement overstepped its Constitutional limits by taking people into custody at state courthouses, a practice forbidden by a U.S. District Court judge that the lawsuit alleges ICE nevertheless continues to employ.

For instance, the California Justice Department found that ICE detained 34 people at state courthouses in June 2026. In July 2026, the month after the judicial order to stop making arrests at courthouses, ICE detained 28 people at courthouses.

“ICE’s directive on courthouse enforcement and the resulting enforcement activities have had a profound chilling effect that has hindered California’s ability to enforce the law and protect public safety,” the state Justice Department said in a news release.

Picking people up at a courthouse can have a chilling effect on witnesses, victims and even suspects who are afraid to show up for court, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said last year.

“Making courthouses a focus of immigration enforcement hinders, rather than helps, the administration of justice by deterring witnesses and victims from coming forward and discouraging individuals from asserting their rights,” Guerrero said.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a measure that requires federal immigration agents to present a judicial warrant and identify themselves before making arrests within 1,000 feet of a state courthouse.

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

Rancho Palos Verdes’ landslide woes have hit the city’s coffers hard. By the end of June 2027, the city will have spent around $75 million just on landslide-related damages over the last three and a half years.

So now, they are looking at one of the city’s best-known attractions for help: the Terranea Resort. Voters in the city are being asked to vote in November on Measure RS, which would increase the tax overnight hotel guests pay from 10% to 13%.

A two-star inn in the city would also be affected if the tax measure passes.

How would the tax help?

If Measure RS passes, it could bring in around $2.2 million annually.

“We reached out to Terranea as we were exploring different revenue streams and talked to them about the possibility of increasing the [transient occupancy tax] from 10% to 13%,” said Ara Mihranian, the city manager. “We looked at comparables of similar resort hotels in the greater Los Angeles area and Orange County that are generally their competitors or similar establishments to see where they ranked. And Terranea was below the market rate in terms of the transient occupancy tax.”

The 102-acre resort sits on bluffs along the coast overlooking the Pacific Ocean and offers guests casitas, villas and rooms that start at $350 and can exceed $1,500 during peak seasons.

A spokesperson for Terranea Resort declined to comment for this story.

How we got here

The Portuguese Bend area in Rancho Palos Verdes was once green rolling hills offering spectacular views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island. Now, much of that land is riddled with 20-foot chasms, some spanning 12 feet.

For decades, land movement was minimal. But with above-average rainfall in 2022 and 2023, that movement rapidly accelerated — up to 1 foot per week in some places. Land movement has since slowed to about an inch a week, thanks in part to wells the city installed that suck water out of the ground. But damage to the area remains and will likely never be abated.

RPV has spent a significant amount of money to lessen the erosion.

Mihranian said the city has filled fissures in the landslide area, installed protective lining in the canyons and has checked all the deep dewatering wells to make sure they can pump water out of the ground so it cannot collect and cause land movement — especially important ahead of El Niño.

“We're also making sure that the wells and the generators that support and energize the wells are encased and housed so that in the event of extreme weather, they are protected from any elements,” he said.

The city has also installed pipes along the main road through the landslide complex so that, instead of flooding the road, water will be diverted to the ocean.

Still, even if the measure passes, the $2.2 million annually will still not cover all landslide-related costs. A spokesperson told LAist the city is still “aggressively” pursuing grants to cover mounting costs.