Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Many criticize lack of intervention amid violence
    A row of people face a lighted building. A sign on a long piece of cloth reads: No Genocide
    The scene on the UCLA campus Wednesday night as police in riot gear declared an unlawful assembly.

    Topline:

    The University of California’s campus safety plan was designed to calm protests by limiting law enforcement. Yet as tensions grew to violence against a UCLA student encampment erected in protest over the war in Gaza, many are criticizing law enforcement’s lack of intervention.

    The reason for such a mixed response from law enforcement: haphazard adherence to UC President Michael Drake’s 2021 UC Campus Safety Plan.

    Why it matters: Encampments at a growing number of universities across the state and nation are sparking battles between students’ free speech and campus policies against trespassing and obstructing operations. For the University of California system, the encampments at five campuses are a test of newly implemented campus policing reforms meant to address systemic racism post-2020.

    The backstory: The safety plan was designed to deter potential violence — and reduce a police role in campus protests. But now, people are questioning why law enforcement did not break up any of the physical assaults or otherwise intervene as violence escalated at the Los Angeles campus. According to a statement Drake released Wednesday, there were at least 15 injuries and one hospitalization.

    Read on... for more on UC's response to the protests.

    As counterprotesters tore at barricades, threw fireworks, and beat and pepper sprayed pro-Palestinian protesters at UCLA overnight Tuesday, no law enforcement officers took action to stop the violence or made any arrests. In stark contrast, by Wednesday night, UC Police declared that anyone who remains in the “unlawful” encampment would be arrested.

    The reason for such a mixed response from law enforcement: haphazard adherence to UC President Michael Drake’s 2021 UC Campus Safety Plan.

    Encampments at a growing number of universities across the state and nation are sparking battles between students’ free speech and campus policies against trespassing and obstructing operations. For the University of California system, the encampments at five campuses are a test of newly implemented campus policing reforms meant to address systemic racism post-2020.

    Drake’s safety plan states: “The University will reinforce existing guidelines that minimize police presence at protests, follow de-escalation methods in the event of violence and seek non-urgent mutual aid first from UC campuses before calling outside law enforcement agencies.”

    The plan was designed to deter potential violence — and reduce a police role in campus protests. But now, people are questioning why law enforcement did not break up any of the physical assaults or otherwise intervene as violence escalated at the Los Angeles campus. According to a statement Drake released Wednesday, there were at least 15 injuries and one hospitalization.

    The UC president has ordered a review of UCLA’s “mutual aid response” and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said he plans to “dismantle (the encampment) at the appropriate time.”

    “My office has requested a detailed accounting from the campus about what transpired in the early morning hours today,” Drake said today. “But some confusion remains. Therefore, we are also ordering an independent external review of both UCLA’s planning and actions, and the effectiveness of the mutual aid response.”

    UC lecturers were quick to call for Block’s resignation, citing the mismanagement of police and security response to the overnight violence.

    “Chancellor Block has refused to meet with protesters to discuss their interests; instead he has created an environment that has escalated tensions and failed to take meaningful action to prevent the violence that occurred last night,” the UC lecturers’ statement read.

    Counterprotesters began setting off fireworks around 10:30 p.m., and later, armed with pepper and bear spray, physically attacked those residing in the pro-Palestinian encampment. During this time, university-hired, unarmed security guards and campus public safety aides watched the scene but did not stop the attacks. By about 1:30 a.m., Los Angeles Police and the California Highway Patrol arrived, after the chancellor called them to assist security guards and UC police. The officers did not break up the violence. Instead, they advanced a line every few minutes to push the counterprotesters out of the area. Some of the counterprotesters who remained, however, continued their assaults.

    At about 4 a.m., a small group of student journalists for the Daily Bruin, including Christopher Buchanan, a student fellow for the CalMatters College Journalism Network, were confronted by a group of counterprotesters who began berating them. They targeted the staff’s news editor, calling her names, and blocked the journalists’ route to the Daily Bruin office. One shined a strobe light into Buchanan’s face while others attacked him as he fell to the ground.

    “After I was struck and debilitated, I was surrounded by four to seven counterprotesters who proceeded to punch and kick my head and torso for thirty seconds to a minute,” Buchanan said. “I didn’t sustain any internal injuries, but I was badly bruised on the body and face.”

    Buchanan said this all happened within earshot of CHP officials, who did nothing to intervene.

    Students and government officials are decrying UCLA’s response. UCLA refused to provide interviews or answer questions about their policing response.

    California Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Democrat whose district includes UCLA, issued a statement condemning the violence against pro-Palestinian protesters.

    “The horrific acts of violence against UCLA students and demonstrators that occurred on campus last night are abhorrent and have no place in Los Angeles or in our democracy,” Zbur said. “No matter how strongly one may disagree with or be offended by the anti-Israel demonstrators’ messages, tactics, or goals, violence is never acceptable and those responsible must be held accountable.”

    In the past few days, UC Irvine and UCLA have declared their campus encampment protests illegal and in violation of the state education code against non-UC use of university property. Many pro-Palestinian student advocates see this position as an attempt to disrupt their advocacy.

    In responding to the encampments, the UC, unlike some universities, has avoided an aggressive law enforcement response. Police have not arrested anyone or used tear gas. The UC Campus Safety plan, however, has not been uniformly followed at each campus.

    UC Irvine appeared to ignore the campus safety plan. When an encampment was erected on April 29, the university immediately called in the UC police department, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and the police forces of Irvine, Costa Mesa and Newport. Officers in riot gear barricaded the encampment entrance.

    UC Irvine spokesperson Tom Vasich described the decision to involve five law enforcement departments as “a standard response” for situations where the campus needs support while simultaneously describing the protest as a “very peaceful environment.” He attributed the police response to potential trespassing violations from people not affiliated with the university.

    “This isn’t a free speech issue, this is a trespassing issue,” Vasich said.

    Sara, a UC Irvine student studying psychological sciences who only gave her first name in fear of retaliation for participating in the protest, said that at around 9 a.m. on Monday, law enforcement prevented students from entering the encampment and giving protesters water.

    Despite police pushback, she said students and bystanders later created barricades around their encampment, allowing students to enter the area and receive supplies. “The students here all know the risks,” Sara said. “But regardless, they stood their ground and will continue to stand their ground until our demands are met.”

    UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman said in a Monday night statement that police would no longer engage with the protesters, and hours later police cleared out. Gillman promised to work with students to find a different location “that is appropriate and non-disruptive.”

    How the UC plan is supposed to ensure safety

    The UC Campus Safety Plan is being put to the test amid heightened tensions between pro-Palestinian groups calling for the UC to financially divest from companies with ties to Israel, and pro-Israel groups counterprotesting and calling the actions of those in the encampments anti-semitic.

    The UC Office of the President released a statement on April 26 rejecting demands for divestment.

    “The University of California has consistently opposed calls for boycotts against and divestment from Israel,” the statement said. “While the University affirms the right of our community members to express diverse viewpoints, a boycott of this sort impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses.”

    President Drake’s office refused multiple requests from CalMatters to answer questions about UC’s response to campus encampment protests.

    The UC’s policing reforms came after the system faced several high-profile instances of excessive force in response to student advocacy on campuses. In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street protests at UC Davis drew international attention when peaceful activists were pepper sprayed by the university’s police department. In the end, students won a $1 million settlement from UC Davis.

    In 2020, racial justice organizations and Black student unions at the UC’s nine undergraduate campuses led protests over the police-custody murder of George Floyd, and to cast a light on other Black Americans killed by law enforcement officers.

    Their activism elevated negative experiences that some students of color reported with campus police. Students and employees demonstrated against racial profiling and a lack of police transparency. Some pushed for reforms; others called for abolishing police on university campuses.

    The 2021 safety plan instituted data dashboards, police advisory boards, mental health responders and professional accreditation for individual police departments. According to the UC’s director of community safety Jody Stiger, all 10 campuses are expected to put the plan into action — with the final, delayed step being professional accreditation for campus law enforcement agencies — by the end of this year.

    The UC Cops Off Campus Coalition, composed of UC students and faculty, has criticized the safety plan for not acknowledging the structural biases of police forces, and only increasing the scope of policing power.

    UC Riverside Black Studies professor and faculty coalition member Dylan Rodríguez described the Campus Safety Plan as largely reactionary. He said it is the UC’s attempt to quell a push for police abolition in the wake of the UC’s own crises and Floyd’s murder.

    “It’s a response to a period of time in which there are deep questions, fundamental and abolitionist questions, about whether campuses should have fully armed, militarized and, sometimes, riot-gear equipped and SWAT team-trained police officers on their campuses,” Rodríguez said.

    The stated aim of UC’s tiered response is to use several non-sworn responders in calls for emergencies that don’t require police. Relying on alternatives to police allows campuses to respond to students in crisis who require mental health support or intervention. The plan also establishes public safety officers to patrol residence halls on foot, escort students across campus at night, provide security for events and diffuse unsafe behavior.

    In an interview with CalMatters before this week’s violence, Stiger praised the increase of unarmed security guards and guidance against a police presence at protests. Police were not called to the scene during recent labor strikes, nor for earlier protests on both sides of the Gaza war.

    “In almost a majority of those on every campus, you don’t see any police. You might see maybe one or two that are just in the area, but you don’t see a major police presence,” Stiger said.

    Late Tuesday, the university delivered a formal letter to UCLA’s Divest Coalition declaring the encampment an unlawful assembly in violation of campus policy. Chancellor Block put out a statement saying the university removed demonstrators’ barricades blocking entrances to specific buildings, and warned that students could face suspension or expulsion.

    Campus police chiefs at UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC Irvine refused several requests for comment from CalMatters.

    The UC Student Association — systemwide student representatives — published a statement on April 29 in solidarity with students protesting for “Free Palestine” and condemning the law enforcement response.

    “We demand that the UC, at a minimum, allow students to exercise their freedom of speech,” the statement read. “We denounce any use of police force to silence us.”

    Christopher Buchanan, Li Khan and Hugo Rios contributed to this story.  All authors are fellows with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

  • Netflix jilted, paving way for Paramount takeover

    Topline:

    The Warner Bros. Discovery board announced late Thursday afternoon that Paramount's sweetened bid to buy the entire company is "superior" to an $83 billion deal it had struck with Netflix for the purchase of its streaming services, studios, and intellectual property.

    What's next: Netflix says it is pulling out of the contest rather than try to top Paramount's offer. "We've always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance's latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid," the streaming giant said in a statement.

    The context: Warner had rejected so many offers from Paramount that it seemed as though it would be a fruitless endeavor. Speaking on the red carpet for the BAFTA film awards last weekend, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos dared Paramount to stop making its case publicly and start ponying up cash.

    The background: Paramount previously bid for all of Warner — including its cable channels such as CNN, TBS, and Discovery — in a deal valued at $108 billion. Earlier this week, Paramount unveiled a fresh proposal increasing its bid by a dollar a share.

    Read on... for more on what to expect.

    The Warner Bros. Discovery board announced late Thursday afternoon that Paramount's sweetened bid to buy the entire company is "superior" to an $83 billion deal it had struck with Netflix for the purchase of its streaming services, studios, and intellectual property.

    Netflix says it is pulling out of the contest rather than try to top Paramount's offer.

    "We've always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance's latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid," the streaming giant said in a statement.

    Warner had rejected so many offers from Paramount that it seemed as though it would be a fruitless endeavor. Speaking on the red carpet for the BAFTA film awards last weekend, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos dared Paramount to stop making its case publicly and start ponying up cash.

    'If you wanna try and outbid our deal … just make a better deal. Just put a better deal on the table," Sarandos told the trade publication Deadline Hollywood.

    Netflix promised that Warner Bros. would operate as an independent studio and keep showing its movies in theaters.

    But the political realities, combined with Paramount's owners' relentless drive to expand their entertainment holdings, seem to have prevailed.

    Paramount previously bid for all of Warner — including its cable channels such as CNN, TBS, and Discovery — in a deal valued at $108 billion. Earlier this week, Paramount unveiled a fresh proposal increasing its bid by a dollar a share.

    On Thursday, hours before the Warner announcement, Sarandos headed to the White House to meet Trump administration officials to make his case for the deal.

    The meetings, leaked Wednesday to political and entertainment media outlets, were confirmed by a White House official who spoke on condition he not be named, as he was not authorized to speak about them publicly.

    President Trump was not among those who met with Sarandos, the official said.

    While Netflix's courtship of Warner stirred antitrust concerns, the Paramount deal is likely to face a significant antitrust review from the U.S. Justice Department, given the combination of major entertainment assets. Paramount owns CBS and the streamer Paramount Plus, in addition to Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and other cable channels.

    The offer from Paramount CEO David Ellison relies on the fortune of his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. And David Ellison has argued to shareholders that his company would have a smoother path to regulatory approval.

    Not unnoticed: the Ellisons' warm ties to Trump world.

    Larry Ellison is a financial backer of the president.

    David Ellison was photographed offering a MAGA-friendly thumbs-up before the State of the Union address with one of the president's key Congressional allies: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican.

    Trump has praised changes to CBS News made under David Ellison's pick for editor in chief, Bari Weiss.

    The chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, told Semafor Wednesday that he was pleased by the news division's direction under Weiss. She has criticized much of the mainstream media as being too reflexively liberal and anti-Trump.

    "I think they're doing a great job," Carr said at a Semafor conference on trust and the media Wednesday. As Semafor noted, Carr previously lauded CBS by saying it "agreed to return to more fact-based, unbiased reporting."
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Sponsored message
  • How to see a gorgeous vista in Riverside County
    A close up of a dense outdoor area with orange and purple native flowers. In the background is the lake water.
    California poppies and other wildflowers blanket the hills surrounding Diamond Valley Lake in 2019.

    Topline:

    Calling all people who love to snap pictures of nature: this year’s wildflower bloom at Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County is starting a little early.

    What’s there? The ecological reserve around the lake grows a lot of colorful native flowers, like California poppies and red bush monkeyflowers. The 1.3-mile trail loop takes you through the wildflower bloom and gives you a peek at the drinking water reservoir.

    How can I see it? The wildflower trail at the lake reopens Friday, Feb. 27. You can visit it Wednesdays through Sundays, from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Hours will be extended in about a week.

    Know before you go: You will have to pay to use the wildflower trail. Access is $4 per person. If you drive, parking costs $11 (or $5 if you meet certain requirements).

    Read on…. to learn about etiquette practices to keep the flowers safe.

    Each spring, the land around Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County bursts into a vibrant array of native wildflowers. This year, it’s happening earlier than expected because of the recent rains.

    The lake’s wildflower trail is scheduled to reopen this Friday, Feb. 27. Here’s what you should know before you go.

    What the trail has to offer

    The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which manages the body of water in Hemet, says wildflower blooms are already dotting the hillsides around the ecological reserve at Diamond Valley Lake.

    Think of a bright color wheel — that’s the kind of colorful blooms you’ll see. The hills grow orange California poppies, baby blue eyes, red bush monkeyflower and yellow tidy tips, to name a few. You’ll also get a peek at SoCal’s largest drinking water reservoir.

    Known as the Judy Abdo Wildflower Trail, the 1.3 mile loop extends from the Lakeview Trail, close to the trail head and parking area. You can see a map here. The hike has some rugged terrain, but it’s rated as easy-to-moderate.

    • Address: 2615 Angler Ave., Hemet
    • Hours: Wednesdays through Sundays, 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    When you visit, don’t go too late! No entry is allowed after 3:30 p.m. Starting March 8, it’ll be open until 5:30 p.m. (with no entry after 4:30 p.m.).

    You’ll have to pay $4 per person to use the wildflower trail. Parking costs $11 (or $5 if you’re: 62 years and older, a military member or a veteran).

    Observe safely

    Wildflower blooms are very popular in Southern California because of how beautiful (and Instaworthy) the scenery is, but you should tread cautiously.

    About 10 years ago, Diamond Valley Lake’s trail had to be closed because crowds of visitors trampled the wildflowers. So when you visit, make sure to follow these etiquette tips so the bloom can be enjoyed by everyone.

    Best practices

    Here's guidance from the California Botanic Garden on how to responsibly view the state's spectacular flower blooms:

    • Stay on designated trails: real trails — not those newly blazed by the person before you.
    • Take photos only; leave wildflowers where they are.
    • Plant your own super bloom by sowing seeds from reputable nurseries such as the Grow Native Nursery at CalBG or Theodore Payne Foundation.
    • Volunteer with organizations to help maintain native ecosystems.
    • Avoid visiting the most vulnerable parks with high visitation (i.e., those that you may be hearing about on the news or social media). Instead, spread out to other areas. There is a lot to see in California!
    • Share these guidelines with others: your friends, family, people you see violating them.

  • Farmers back major project in central CA

    Topline:

    A mammoth solar farm is moving forward in the heart of California. If built, which seems increasingly likely, it would cover 200 square miles of land and generate 21,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power entire cities.

    Farmers back the project: Farmers don't have enough water to grow crops on big chunks of their land, and they're looking for new uses for it. Westlands Water District, a farmer-run organization, is a key player in this effort, negotiating with solar companies and government regulators on behalf of its members.

    About the solar farm: A solar developer called Golden State Clean Energy presented Westlands Water District with a master plan for a collection of vast solar projects. Patrick Mealoy, a partner at Golden State Clean Energy, says they had to propose a solar farm that would generate an enormous amount of power to make the case for new multibillion-dollar power lines to carry electricity from the San Joaquin Valley to Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. Mealoy says smaller proposed projects have stalled because they weren't big enough to justify building those power lines.

    What's next: Getting the managers of California's electrical grid to approve construction of those transmission lines could be the project's biggest remaining hurdle. If built, the cost of those power lines, along with the benefits of greater electricity supply, eventually will show up in consumers' electricity bills.

    A mammoth solar farm is moving forward in the heart of California. If built, which seems increasingly likely, it would cover 200 square miles of land and generate 21,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power entire cities. Huge batteries will store some of that power until it's needed most.

    Farmers are among the project's backers. They don't have enough water to grow crops on big chunks of their land, and they're looking for new uses for it.

    "We're farmers, and we would rather farm the ground," says Ross Franson, president of Woolf Farming and Processing, his family's business. "If we had the water to do it, we would farm it. But the reality is, you don't. You have to deal with the cards you're dealt."

    Franson is on the board of the Westlands Water District, a farmer-run organization that's a key player in this effort, negotiating with solar companies and government regulators on behalf of its members. Westlands is an agricultural power and has long represented the interests of farmers in a large swath of land on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, between the towns of Firebaugh and Huron. Decades ago, it helped persuade the federal government to build a giant canal to deliver irrigation water to this area from rivers far away in Northern California.

    A man with a beard wearing eyeglasses, a white baseball cap and a dark vest and shirt underneath stands in the middle of a green field
    Jose Gutierrez, assistant general manager of Westlands Water District, on land that could become a solar farm.
    (
    Dan Charles
    )

    Yet these farmers are now facing a new water crisis. The canal has been delivering less water in recent years because of droughts and competing claims on that water. Until recently, the farmers had a backup water supply: They could pump water from aquifers a thousand feet underground. Now, though, a new state law is coming into force that bans overpumping from the aquifer.

    So farmers in Westlands have been leaving large chunks of land unplanted. Another large piece of land, now owned by the Westlands Water District itself, has been fallowed because irrigating it could release high levels of a mineral called selenium that can poison wildlife or people. The farmers, and the district, have been looking for new ways to put that land to use.

    A solar developer called Golden State Clean Energy seized the opportunity. Several years ago, it presented Westlands Water District with a master plan for a collection of vast solar projects.

    Developers say scale will justify new power lines 

    Patrick Mealoy, a partner at Golden State Clean Energy, says they had to propose a solar farm that would generate an enormous amount of power to make the case for new multibillion-dollar power lines to carry electricity from the San Joaquin Valley to Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. Mealoy says smaller proposed projects have stalled because they weren't big enough to justify building those power lines.

    "In order to actually have solar be productive, you need size and scale, a mass of projects that support the necessary investment in high voltage transmission lines to collect the electrons and move them," Mealoy says.

    Getting the managers of California's electrical grid to approve construction of those transmission lines could be the project's biggest remaining hurdle. If built, the cost of those power lines, along with the benefits of greater electricity supply, eventually will show up in consumers' electricity bills.

    Franson says his immediate reaction to the proposal was "Yes, we need to do this." Negotiating the details and completing an environmental review took several years, but in December, the Westlands Water District's board voted to move ahead.

    Golden State is the plan's architect, but other solar developers will build sections of it. Construction could take a decade. Even though the Trump administration has abolished some financial incentives for solar projects, Mealoy says it's still a solid business opportunity.

    "The state needs it. It's permitted. It's the right place for it. I'm excited about this," he says.

    Grace Wu, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says "this is a fantastic place for solar" because the fallowed farmland isn't high-value habitat for wildlife.

    Farmworkers wonder if they will also benefit

    About 150 farmers within the Westlands Water District, including Jeremy Hughes, have signed up to put solar on some of their land. "We look at it as a new crop. We're harvesting electricity," Hughes says. The guaranteed income from those acres makes it possible to keep farming the rest of his land.

    "Because of solar, we can continue farming in Westlands. It'll keep the farming community alive," says Jose Gutierrez, assistant general manager of Westlands Water District.

    In the small towns nearby where many farmworkers live, however, there are worries that local residents won't see many benefits from the project. Among those towns is Huron, home to about 6,000 people. Rey León grew up here, working in his family's restaurant. Now he's the town's mayor.

    A man wearing a beige fedora hat and black long sleeved shirt stands in front of a car with the driver's side door opened.
    Rey León is the mayor of Huron, Calif., home to many farmworkers who aren't yet sure what they will get out of solar coming to the region.
    (
    Dan Charles
    )

    "I'm worried about Huron," he says. This solar deal may be great for the landowners of Westlands, he says, but less farming means fewer jobs for people who worked in the fields and orchards. León wants some of the solar revenue to flow to this community for education and training, to help people find jobs in this new solar industry.

    "We are shareholders," he says. "We kept these communities alive, these economies robust. There's no excuse to leave us out."

    Westlands and Golden State Clean Energy have been discussing what they call a community benefits package, but officials haven't released any details.

    A possible model for other parts of California

    Caity Peterson, at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), says other farming communities in California may try to imitate what Westlands is doing. Because they, too, will have to stop pumping so much water from the ground as the new state law comes into force. "There's going to be some kind of right-sizing of agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley," she says.

    According to a study that PPIC carried out, farmers in the valley will have to stop growing crops on between 500,000 and 1 million acres. There will be a lot of dry, sunny land in California, just waiting for a solar developer.

    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • How you can help decide in a March Madness twist
    An intersection in Hollywood, California packed with cars at various stop lights. A man wearing a light blue baseball cap and t-shirt is walking through the cars to cross the street.
    A pedestrian is surrounded by traffic at Sunset Blvd and Highland Avenue in Hollywood on February 24, 2026.

    Topline:

    A truly Los Angeles twist on March Madness is back, but this year, Angelenos are invited to weigh in on the worst intersections in greater L.A.

    Why it matters: Whether you feel personally victimized by the Virgil Avenue, Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards intersection by the Los Feliz border, which a city official called a “‘nightmare,” or break into anxious sweats every time you get in line for the Burbank Boulevard Costco — you can soon channel some of that frustration into a social media match-up.

    The backstory: After Koreatown was voted as having the city’s worst parking last year, the latest competition run by Americana at Brand Memes on Instagram is upping the stakes with infamous intersections.

    Why now: The anonymous account holder, who goes by Mr. Glen Dale, told LAist that the “One Bad Intersection After Another” bracket is designed to be a democratic process for people to collectively crown the worst in L.A. once and for all.

    What's next: “No matter who wins, it's all bad,” Mr. Glen Dale said.

    Read on ... for more on the March Madness-style bracket.

    A truly Los Angeles twist on March Madness is back, but this year, Angelenos are invited to weigh in on the worst intersections in greater L.A.

    Whether you feel personally victimized by the Virgil Avenue, Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards intersection by the Los Feliz border, which a city official called a “‘nightmare,” or break into anxious sweats every time you get in line for the Burbank Boulevard Costco — you can soon channel some of that frustration into a social media match-up.

    After Koreatown was voted as having the city’s worst parking last year, the latest competition run by Americana at Brand Memes on Instagram is upping the stakes with infamous intersections.

    The anonymous account holder, who goes by Mr. Glen Dale, told LAist the “One Bad Intersection After Another” bracket is designed to be a democratic process for people to collectively crown the worst in L.A. once and for all.

    “No matter who wins, it's all bad,” Mr. Glen Dale said.

    Voting kicks off this weekend, and the winner will be crowned by April.

    How it works

    The competition is divided into four rounds based on the general geographic area, with nine intersections in each round.

    Starting Sunday, @americanaatbrandmemes will post the competitors on Instagram with a poll attached around 11 a.m. each day throughout March.

    The polls will be open for 24 hours, and the intersection with the most votes will move on to the next round to face off against the others.

    To complete this year’s lineup, Mr. Glen Dale again started with a list of his personal worst before turning to his followers for some suggestions.

    The intersection of Harvey Drive and East Broadway toward the Glendale In-N-Out was a popular proposal, for example, but Mr. Glen Dale said he felt that may be too niche for the bracket.

    “I tried not to narrow in too much on one area,” he said. “And then tried to use my own experience to be like, ‘Oh yes, these ones feel like hallmarks.’”

    If your personal worst isn’t in the competition, you can also suggest an intersection in the comments by writing “WILDCARD: (your suggestion).” The suggestions with the most likes will be added to the competition, with a wildcard slot in each of the four rounds.

    Some popular wildcard suggestions include the Cypress Park roundabout at Riverside Drive and San Fernando Road, the Glendale Boulevard and Riverside Drive intersection with the wonky left-turn lanes in Silver Lake, and for another year in a row — all of Koreatown.

    “I always put [wildcards] in there because I'm always like there's something I'm not thinking of that someone's going to suggest,” Mr. Glen Dale said. “This is a fluid list, we could change it.”

    The intersection voted as L.A.’s worst of the worst will be crowned on Americana At Brand Meme’s account by April 1.

    The East Side-ish Round

    The first round focuses on the “East Side-ish” of L.A., including Silver Lake, Highland Park, East L.A., Echo Park and Eagle Rock.

    The rounds are broken up by “side-ish” so people can focus their debates on the intersections, not the geographic boundaries of the bracket, according to Mr. Glen Dale.

    The options include:

    • Virgil Avenue / Sunset Boulevard / Hollywood Boulevard vs Sunset Boulevard / Sanborn Avenue / Santa Monica Boulevard
    • Stadium Way / Academy Road vs Glendale Boulevard / Fletcher Drive / Silver Ridge Avenue
    • Telegraph Road / Atlantic Boulevard / Triggs Street / Ferguson Drive vs wildcard vs Huntington Drive / Garfield Avenue / Atlantic Boulevard
    • York Boulevard / N Avenue 50 vs Glendale Boulevard / Alvarado Street vs Avenue 42 / Eagle Rock Boulevard

    Mr. Glen Dale said Avenue 50, which came up often in followers’ suggestions, could get its own bracket because the intersections in the area don’t seem to communicate with each other.

    “You'll be sitting at a red light and seeing a green in front of you and being like, oh, when I get to that one it's going to be red,” he said. “But, you know, I ended up with York and 50 … [it] felt like a good representation of that street as a whole.”

    The West Side-ish Round

    The competition heads to Beverly Hills, Culver City, Westchester, Venice, Westwood Village and Brentwood for the second, “West Side-ish” round.

    The options include:

    • Beverly Hills 6 way stop vs Pacific Coast Highway / Chautauqua Boulevard / West Channel Road
    • Washington Boulevard / Culver Boulevard vs Exposition / Robertson / Venice Boulevards
    • Sunset Boulevard / Bellagio Drive / Bellagio Road / Bellagio Way vs wildcard vs Abbot Kinney Boulevard / California Avenue
    • La Cienega Boulevard / Centinela Avenue / La Tijera Boulevard vs Wilshire / Westwood Boulevards vs San Vicente Boulevard / Montana Avenue

    “It will be the Beverly Hills 6 stop,” one Instagram commenter wrote. “It is known.”

    The Central LA-ish Round 

    The third, “Central LA-ish” round takes us into the heart of Hollywood, West Hollywood, the border of Miracle Mile and Carthay Circle as well as the border of Wilshire Center and the Dayton Heights neighborhood.

    The options include:

    • Hollywood Boulevard / Highland Avenue vs Highland / Franklin Avenues
    • Fairfax Avenue / La Cienega Boulevard vs Fairfax Avenue / Olympic / San Vincente Boulevards
    • Jefferson Boulevard / La Brea Avenue vs wildcard vs La Cienega / Sunset Boulevards
    • Franklin Avenue / Vine Street / 101 Freeway vs Virgil Avenue / Beverly Boulevard / Temple Street vs Santa Monica Boulevard / Western Avenue

    The Los Angeles Times released a report this week ranking L.A.’s worst intersections based on traffic data, with the troublesome top spot going to Highland and Sunset in Hollywood.

    The Valley-ish Round

    Last but not least, the “Valley-ish,” which includes intersections in North Hollywood, Burbank, Studio City and Sherman Oaks.

    This round also features my personal nemesis — Barham and Cahuenga boulevards.

    I take this route relatively often to get from Burbank to West Hollywood and have to give myself a pep talk every time. The seemingly-constant congestion over the hill, driver confusion about what lanes lead where and people cutting into lines of cars just before a turn makes the experience feel like it takes years off my life.

    The options include:

    • Lankershim Boulevard / Vineland Avenue / Camarillo Street vs Burbank / Lankershim Boulevards / Tujunga Avenue
    • Victory / Burbank Boulevards / Victory Place / 5 Freeway / Costco vs Ventura Place / Radford Avenue / Trader Joe’s / Sephora parking lots
    • Harvey / W Broadway vs wildcard vs Sepulveda / Burbank Boulevards
    • Mulholland Drive / Coldwater Canyon Avenue vs Barham / Cahuenga Boulevards vs Vineland Avenue / Magnolia Boulevard

    Mr. Glen Dale agreed with my assessment, describing the Barham Boulevard intersection as his “white whale.”

    “I hate going through that intersection, and it's not even that it's scary like other ones where you don't know what's happening,” Mr. Glen Dale said. “No matter which way you're going, everyone is converging onto Barham, and it just creates this madness.”

    But Lankershim / Vineland / Camarillo appears to be an early follower favorite, as one commenter wrote, it “takes 2-3 business days to get through” and another added, “I’m rioting if [the intersection] doesn’t win.”