The Brief

Construction for affordable housing has started on a city-owned lot in Fullerton — six years after a previous housing proposal on the site for people experiencing homelessness and mental illness sparked intense controversy.

The months-long battle was the subject of the first season of LAist Studios' Imperfect Paradise podcast, "Home is Life" and an accompanying LAist story.

The backstory

In 2018, the local organization Pathways of Hope proposed building 60 to 80 units of permanent supportive housing — apartments with onsite social services — for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness and mental health issues at 1600 W. Commonwealth, a few miles from downtown Fullerton.

After failing to warm neighbors to the project, Pathways decided to pull it, citing lack of support from the community and the City Council.

Several years later, in 2021, a new City Council entered into an agreement with Meta Housing Corporation to build 65 units of affordable housing for families on the lot. The company held a groundbreaking ceremony for the development this week, although construction had already started.

Why there's less opposition now

The project faced much less public opposition this time around.

Elizabeth Hansburg, who heads the Orange County YIMBY organization People for Housing, said she thinks that's largely because of the change in the target population — from single men and women experiencing chronic homelessness, to low-income families.

"That's the difference," she said.

The county's latest homeless count taken in January tallied 208 people living on the streets in Fullerton. That's 100 fewer people than were counted in 2019.

Hansburg also said the pandemic and the accompanying employment plunge made people more sympathetic to the need for housing assistance.

Allison Levy, a project manager with Meta, said the developer considered the community's concerns in the design.

"Our goal was not just, 'OK, let's figure out what we want to do and then how to sell it,' It was, 'What do we actually think will work for the community?'" she said.

'A drop in the bucket'

The state of California wants Fullerton to plan for some 13,000 new housing units over the next five years — a 600% increase over the state's previous requirement for the city.

"Our city is still behind on affordable housing," said Fullerton City Councilmember Ahmad Zahra, who was at the groundbreaking ceremony. "So I hope this is also an encouragement for us to keep moving forward in this direction."

Construction is expected to take 18 months. Levy said Meta plans to hold workshops some six months before the apartments open to inform families on how to apply.

A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.

The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.

The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”

In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.

“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.

Two years ago, a judge freed Anthony Bailey after 27 years in the federal penitentiary, giving him a second chance at life.

And Bailey has been making the most of his early release. Between long hours driving a city bus in Indianapolis, attending barbecues and playing card games with family, Bailey has developed deep roots in his community.

Now, after a ruling from the Supreme Court and a legal move by the Justice Department, Bailey, 61, is facing a return to prison in a matter of weeks.

"I'm hoping and praying that everything turn out and I get my life back," Bailey said in an interview. "Today, right now, I'm a better person — I'm a productive citizen, I work hard."

Bailey's case is one of about a dozen that could be directly affected by a Supreme Court ruling in late May that limited how prisoners can use the compassionate release program to get out early.

The high court found that the compassionate release program, designed for extraordinary or compelling circumstances, is supposed to cover such things as severe illness or old age. The court majority said inmates serving much longer sentences than the punishments they would receive today were not automatically eligible for the program.

Retired federal Judge John Gleeson disagrees with that ruling.

"These are indefensibly long sentences, and they need to be corrected," he said. Gleeson launched a pro bono program that has helped more than 100 people in prison petition the courts for early release.

Most of those inmates are Black men who used a gun in connection with other crimes. Prosecutors added severe mandatory penalties to their cases, stacking those punishments, even if no shots were fired, to build prison terms of 50, 60 or even 100 years.

Anthony Bailey (left) poses with family members shortly after his release from prison in July 2024.

(

Via Anthony Bailey

)

"Productive member of society"

That's what happened in Bailey's case.

On Sept. 3, 1997, Bailey and two other men robbed a bank and then carried out two carjackings. Prosecutors said in court papers that his crimes were serious and put several people in danger, including a school-age girl.

"Something that I totally regrets — will never happen again, ever, in life," Bailey said.

He spent most of his time at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., where he worked as a barber — a job that gave him access to scissors and other sharp tools.

His record inside prison was clean for decades, with just one minor infraction mentioned in court filings.

Maryam Kanna is a pro bono lawyer for Bailey. She said he has already served more time than most people convicted of federal murder.

"He has a stable, happy life and is a really productive member of society, so I mean, the idea that he poses a danger is completely farcical," Kanna said.

Congress changed the law, but not retroactively

Prosecutors are now signaling that they could move soon to send Bailey back to serve the rest of his long sentence — one that would give him a release date in 2050, when he is nearly 86 years old.

Kelsie Clayton, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Indiana — where Bailey's case is pending — said the office speaks only through official court filings.

Congress has since lightened some of the harsh mandatory penalties that applied to Bailey and others convicted back in the 1990s. But lawmakers did not make that change retroactive, to apply to people already inside prison.

And the Supreme Court's ruling says that this means those people's punishments are not extraordinary or compelling, as the compassionate release program mandates.

Bailey said he would abide by the law. "OK, just got to keep fighting," he said.

He has been getting good marks from his probation officer, who told him before the Supreme Court decision that she'd recommend his early release from probation this fall.

Now, he's not sure where he'll be in September. He's making the most of his time, enjoying family barbecues and card games in the park and showing his 4-year-old grandson the ropes.

"He's a worker, you know. Everything I do — he sit there and just watch and then he [asks], 'We washing the car?' Or, 'We taking the trash out?' Like, yeah, c'mon."

He's teaching his grandson how to mow the lawn and, as a treat, taking him to enjoy the boy's favorite food: the french fries at McDonald's.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles Unified School Board unanimously approved a policy Tuesday to limit student screen time starting in August.

The decision follows a board vote in the spring that required the district to create a policy to set up guardrails on the amount of time students should spend in front of a digital device.

District officials said that since May they’ve received feedback from nearly 19,000 members in the community. “Student focus and attention were the most frequently cited concerns, along with mental health and wellbeing, online safety, and privacy,” they said.

What does the policy change?

The changes include eliminating use of district-issued digital devices, like tablets and laptops, in the early years, from preschool through 1st grade. And for every other grade level, there will be daily or weekly maximum screen time limits:

• Preschool to 1st grade: 0 minutes (beginning August 2026)
• 2nd to 3rd grade: 20 minutes per day or 100 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 4th to 5th grade: 30 minutes per day or 150 minutes per week, including homework (beginning November 2026)
• 6th to 8th grade: 60 minutes per subject, per week, including homework, not to exceed 360 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)
• 9th to 12th grade: 90 minutes per subject, per week, not to exceed 600 minutes per week (beginning January 2027)

The policy allows exceptions for subject areas that heavily rely on computers, like computer science, graphic design, and yearbook, and for district and state assessments. It also allows unrestricted use when necessary for students with disabilities.

Board Member Nick Melvoin proposed a successful amendment to reduce the screen time limits for several grades and break up the limitations by subject starting in middle school.

“[It’s] much harder for teachers in secondary to coordinate across five or six subjects,” Melvoin said in explaining the change.

The policy also:

• Bans elementary and middle school students from using devices during lunch or recess, except for school-approved work
• Blocks streaming services like YouTube and “non-approved gaming platforms”
• Allows parents to opt-out of their students taking home a district device
• Encourages laptop cart use for upper elementary school grades
• Will be updated annually 

Board Vice President Rocío Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

“Schools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,” Rivas said.

How much will this cost? 

The district says it’ll cost $4.25 million in one-time costs to buy laptop carts for elementary school classrooms, if each class opts in. And it’ll cost another $1 million annually for software that would track screen time and block content.

How is this different from the cellphone ban?

This policy is about school-issued devices, like laptops and iPads — not student cellphones.

During the pandemic, the district had moved to equip every student with a digital device in an effort to close digital equity gaps.

District officials noted that when adopting the policy, “caution is advised that efforts to close the digital divide for highest needs populations will be negatively impacted.”

Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

“I don’t want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,” Garcia said.

Board staff clarified the policy does not prevent students of any age from checking out a device for home use from their child’s school.

District analysts, however, also note research shows that device access alone doesn’t lead to better academic outcomes, but that it needs to be coupled with adult supervision and engagement.

“Because families vary widely in their ability to provide consistent supervision, unrestricted take-home devices raise equity concerns,” the district’s office of research and program evaluation wrote.

Some parents say the policy is not enough

Representatives for the parent advocacy group Schools Beyond Screens, which had advocated for the policy, say it’s a good step, but more needs to be done around artificial intelligence.

“We’re setting a new standard for the rest of the country,” said Lila Byock, who founded the group. “From Atlanta, to D.C., to Houston, they’re all trying to do what we’re doing here today.”

Byock and other LAUSD parents associated with Schools Beyond Screens called on the board to reduce the minute limits for students and to adopt a moratorium on AI use until there’s more guidance from the district’s ad hoc committee on the subject.

The Los Angeles City Council took a first step Tuesday to reinstate a law that bans new oil drilling and requires existing wells to be phased out over the next two decades.

The city’s first attempt to pass such a law was in 2022, but oil companies sued and the city had to repeal it. L.A. County has been going through a similar back-and-forth.

Now, with a new state law backing their authority, L.A. officials think they can cap the city’s more than 2,000 wells over the next 20 years — and end L.A.’s distinction as one of the largest urban oil fields in the nation.

“ In my district, we have hundreds of active wells, and our neighbors are ready to move into the next chapter,” District 5 Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said Tuesday at the council meeting approving the ordinance’s reintroduction. "We know the industry will continue to fight us at every turn.”

For more than 10 years, local groups have pushed for an end to oil drilling near homes, childcare centers, parks and schools.

“ Neighborhood oil drilling is fundamentally incompatible with protecting public health,” said Wendy Miranda with Esperanza Community Housing in Historic South-Central. "We carry this evidence in our bodies. We have experienced countless nosebleeds and headaches, asthma and even cancer.”

Research has shown living near oil infrastructure elevates the risk of such health issues.

In the city of L.A. alone, about 75% of active oil or gas wells are located within 1,700 feet of “sensitive locations,” such as homes and schools. About one-third of all L.A. County residents live less than 1 mile from an active drilling site.

The L.A. City Council will vote again later this summer to finalize its oil phaseout law.

In a document more than 100 pages long, lawyers representing oil companies vowed to fight the law again, saying it violates the companies’ private property and due process rights, among other things.

Culver City and Santa Barbara have passed similar ordinances.