The Brief

The seven-story apartment building planned for West Court Street on the south side of Los Angeles’s Echo Park neighborhood doesn’t make sense, not if you know anything about affordable housing in California.

All 190 of the proposed units will be reserved for people making under $100,000, which in Los Angeles makes this an “affordable housing” project.

But unlike the vast majority of affordable developments that have been proposed in California in recent memory, no taxpayer dollars are allotted to build the thing. Especially in the state’s expensive coastal cities, the term “unsubsidized 100% affordable project” is an oxymoron, but Los Angeles is now approving them by the hundreds.

That’s thanks to an executive order Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, signed in December 2022, shortly after being sworn into office. In the year and change since, the city’s planning department has received plans for more than 16,150 affordable units, according to filings gathered by the real estate data company, ATC Research, and analyzed by CalMatters. That’s more than the total number of approved affordable units in Los Angeles in 2020, 2021 and 2022 combined.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attends the 2023 Milken Institute Global Conference at The Beverly Hilton on May 01, 2023 in Beverly Hills, California.

(

Jerod Harris

/

Getty Images

)

The city has also been the subject of at least two lawsuits and a multi-front political battle over whether and how to turn the mayoral decree — which is only in effect as long as Bass wants it to be and barring a court’s decision to end it — into a permanent fixture of Los Angeles housing policy.

The policy was designed to fast-track the approval process for 100% affordable projects. What it perhaps was not designed to do — but has done at a scale that few anticipated — is allow private developers, who rarely dabble in affordable housing and simply look to make as much money as humanly possible from building new homes, to take a second look at a set of state laws that give added benefits to entirely affordable projects.

Throw those two policies together and building new apartments for working class Angelenos is suddenly a booming business.

A ‘monumental shift’ in affordable housing policy

Andrew Slocum and Terry Harris, the developer pair behind the seven-story project on West Court Street, represent the type of developer suddenly wading into Los Angeles’ affordable housing market. They aren’t leading nonprofits or charities. They don’t run websites with feel-good mission statements. Both come from the proudly profit-seeking world of “luxury” housing development.

“We are mission driven in the sense that we want to provide housing,” said Slocum. But he’s pursuing this affordable project, along with two others, because it “made more financial sense.”

Harris, a former college basketball player pursuing a post-athletic career in Southern California real estate, put it more bluntly.

“I’m just trying to be as greedy as possible,” he said.

Though publicly available data on financing is sparse, an early analysis of the program by the pro-housing advocacy group Abundant Housing LA estimated that roughly three-fourths of affordable units proposed through the policy are doing so without any public money. In some cases, developers, including Harris, are opting to scrap proposed “luxury” apartment projects entirely, re-submitting those plans as 100% affordable.

It’s hard to overstate just how weird all of this is.

“I don’t think anybody saw this coming,” said Scott Epstein, policy director at Abundant Housing LA and one of the authors of that analysis. “When it comes to 100% privately invested projects…I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything close to the magnitude that that has been unleashed.”

Between the extraordinary cost of building new apartment buildings in coastal California and the money that a developer can recoup through legally capped rents, traditional affordable housing projects almost inevitably run a sizable financing gap. That gap is almost always filled by public subsidy. A large project might require half a dozen loans, grants and tax bill write-offs from local, state and federal housing agencies. Most of these sources of public finance come with strings attached, which can saddle projects with yet higher costs and further delays.

Los Angeles’ new breed of affordable housing circumvents all of that — at least on paper. None of these units have actually been built yet. But talk to supportive policy advocates and industry players in Los Angeles and you quickly run out of new synonyms for “unprecedented.”

“This is clearly a monumental shift in how affordable housing is developed in the state,” said Mahdi Manji, policy director at Inner City Law Center, a legal service provider and affordable housing advocacy group in Los Angeles’ Skid Row. “We just haven’t seen this before.”

Building affordable housing in two steps

Privately funded developers hoping to crack Los Angeles’ affordable housing market tend to follow a familiar pattern.

First, they evoke Bass’ order — “Executive Directive 1” — to guarantee and speed up the process.

The order sets a shot-clock of 60 days for the city’s planning department to approve or reject a submitted project. As long as that project meets a basic set of criteria, it must be approved. That means no city council hearings, no neighborhood outreach meetings and no environmental impact studies required.

It also means less time getting a project green-lit.

“To go from acquiring a lot to putting a shovel in the ground in less than a year is kind of unheard of,” said Steven Scheibe, a small-scale developer working on his first entirely affordable project through Executive Directive 1.

Less time spent paying off debt, making payroll and ensuring skittish investors that the project is a sure thing saves projects on the front end.

Another key detail: Unlike most recent statewide laws aimed at speeding up the approval of new housing, the Los Angeles law doesn’t require developers to pay construction workers heightened “prevailing wages” — roughly equal to what unionized construction workers earn on a public infrastructure projects. Muhammad Alameldin, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, said that makes Executive Directive 1 a kind of alternate reality for housing policy in California.

“It shows what is the minimum that could be built in California, without (environmental review) and prevailing wage, like a real world example of that,” he said. “I don’t think any other big city in the country has taken this sort of initiative to build housing.”

Then comes the next step. Most so-called “ED1 projects” also make use of a hodgepodge of statewide “density bonus” laws that allow developers of 100% affordable housing projects to pack far more units and floors onto a given lot than would otherwise be allowed under local zoning rules. These laws also let affordable developers pick and choose from a wide range of goodies and freebies that cut costs further and allow for yet denser development. That means no parking spots, limited open space, smaller rooms and fewer trees.

All those added units mean developers can set the rents lower and still pay themselves back for the cost of construction and then some.

Together the executive directive and the density bonus form a necessary “one-two punch” to make these projects work, said Charly Ligety, a director of research and development at Housing On Merit, a nonprofit that invests in affordable housing projects. “It’s, one, ‘Oh, I can put 80 units on a single family plot…’ and then, two, ‘…and I can get it approved quickly.”

And while Bass’ order and the state’s density bonus laws are pulling privately funded developers into the suddenly profitable world of affordable housing development, other economic forces are pushing them out of the high-end luxury market: High interest rates have made waiting around on municipal approvals that may never come an especially costly proposition. Los Angeles’ recently enacted tax on multimillion-dollar real estate transactions, the so-called mansion tax, has also slowed the fancy apartment building business, said Ligety.

As a result, he said, “market rate developers are discovering affordable housing for the first time.”

How affordable is affordable housing?

Just because something is “affordable” in Los Angeles doesn’t mean it’s cheap.

To qualify as a 100% affordable housing project under the city of Los Angeles’ streamlined treatment, a studio can go for roughly $1,800. Compare that to a traditional publicly subsidized project which could charge as little at $650 for the same unit.

And you can bet this studio doesn’t have a parking spot.

Developers flocking to the city’s new program are essentially “making a bet,” said Gary Benjamin, a land-use consultant who advises developers on how to navigate the city’s planning and permitting bureaucracies. The bet is that housing costs are so astronomically out of reach in Los Angeles that even someone making north of $70,000 per year would jump at the chance to rent “a more bare bones product without all the bells and whistles” for what could amount to a modest rent reduction.

That bet is still very much in play. It will be months before the first of the apartments approved under Executive Directive 1 are tenant-ready.

“This is just a whole new product specifically catering to the middle-lower end of the market. That just wasn’t a thing that people were doing before,” said Benjamin.

In the meantime, the rush of planned development has promised the demolition of existing buildings across the city. In many cases, those are commercial buildings or unoccupied single family homes and both city and state law require developers to pay displaced tenants’ relocation costs and to offer them a right to return to the new building. Even so, the planning blitz has at least some low-income Angelenos worried that they will be evicted to make way for “affordable” units that they themselves might not be able to easily afford.

In many parts of the country — and even once upon a time in Los Angeles — the mere fact that a developer could successfully build an apartment building within the price range of someone earning just under the area’s typical income would not be cause for celebration — and wouldn’t need an emergency declaration to bring about.

“It shouldn’t be odd” that a developer might choose to build an $1,800 per month studio without taxpayer support, said Manji with the Inner City Law Center. “It’s only odd because we’ve made it odd.”

Though his organization principally advocates for unhoused Angelenos, Manji said he supports the policy, even if units being proposed are “not housing for homeless folks.”

Allowing private developers to serve lower- to middle-income renters frees up scant financial subsidies and rental vouchers for people who most desperately need the help, he said. That’s especially important this year when the governor is proposing cuts in state affordable housing funding.

Affordable housing incentives

Los Angeles’ city council is currently mulling a permanent ordinance that would codify the mayor’s signature affordable housing policy and put it on a firmer legal footing. The council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee is expected to take it up in the coming weeks.

Timing may be of the essence.

Bass’ order is the target of two lawsuits from Fix The City, a local nonprofit that has regularly contested the city’s land use decisions going on two decades. In both suits, the group disputes the legal validity of a sweeping 13-month-long housing policy passed by mayoral edict.

“To give emergency powers reserved for earthquakes and horrible storms and true catastrophic emergencies to apply that to housing to override community plans and zoning for an indefinite period of time — it’s just not good government and it decimates due process,” said Michael Everoff, one of the group’s co-founders.

Translating the mayor’s order into permanent city law and ending the emergency declaration could weaken Fix The City’s legal challenge, at least as it applies to future projects, though Everoff disputed that point. But whether a majority on the city’s council will agree to do so — and how much of the mayor’s original policy they will opt to rewrite, soften or jettison in the process — is an open question.

Still up for debate: Just how many incentives and waivers the city is willing to grant 100% affordable developers as they make use of the state’s density bonus program. So far that decision has been left to the planning department’s discretion. That unlimited economizing and supersizing has resulted in projects that are “substantially out of scale” with their surrounding neighborhoods, according to a planning department assessment. The most recent version of the ordinance caps the number of developer freebies at five.

Slocum, the developer of the proposed Echo Park apartment building, said most of his projects would “no longer work” if subject to such a cap. He said he needs eleven or twelve.

‘A declaration of war on single family neighborhoods'

’But the biggest debate over the breadth of the city policy may have already come and gone. Though the first version of the executive order seemed to apply to all housing sites in the city, Bass later came back with an amended order to exempt all of the city’s single family neighborhoods. That clarification cut out more than 70% of the city’s residentially zoned land and the lion’s share of its well-to-do neighborhoods, but not before a handful of projects were approved.

The city has since tried to revoke the approvals of some of those projects. Their fate is now the subject of yet another series of lawsuits, these brought by the pro-housing development legal group YIMBY Law, who argue that the city has to let those developments go ahead. In its first suit on behalf of a proposed 7-story project in the west San Fernando Valley, the group denounced the city for having “buckled to political pressure from ‘Not In My Back Yard’ constituents.”

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, whose district includes the southwest San Fernando Valley and who opposed approving these under-the-wire affordable projects in single family areas said there’s virtually no chance that the council will decide to re-expand the policy to every part of the city. Doing so might have a limited effect anyway: The number of single family parcels that can be turbo-developed under the state’s density bonus law is limited.

“While that may be something for the future, right now we’re piloting (Executive Directive 1) the way it is,” he said. “And as it is, it’s a major step forward. To go that extra step…would be a declaration of war with our single family neighborhoods.”

That war may be coming to Los Angeles before long. Just as cities across the San Francisco Bay Area were required by state law to redraw their zoning maps to accommodate a massive increase in allowable housing development, the City of Los Angeles has until mid-October to plan for 250,000 new homes.

A criminal investigation is underway Tuesday at the burned Lineage Logistics warehouse in Boyle Heights.

Agents with California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control Criminal Investigations Bureau, a law-enforcement unit that investigates potential violations of the state’s hazardous-waste laws, are serving a search warrant at the site. Surveillance video showed law enforcement arriving around 7:30 a.m., and some remained on scene as of midday Tuesday.

An agent with the department confirmed that the Office of Criminal Investigations is the lead agency but declined to comment further. Several investigators with badges from the LA County District Attorney’s office were also present. The office later confirmed it assisted DTSC in serving the search warrant and is supporting the department’s ongoing investigation.

In a statement, Lineage — which operates cold-storage facilities around the world — said that it works collaboratively with various regulatory agencies.

“To be clear, we do not store hazardous chemicals or products in this facility. We store food. Further, the facility’s ammonia refrigeration system was safely pumped out shortly after the fire began and before the fire reached the refrigeration system. The ammonia was subsequently removed from the site. The Los Angeles Fire Department reported no ammonia was detected during its response, and subsequent environmental monitoring has consistently shown results within normal levels for the neighborhood and no ammonia concentrations above health-based action levels. We have shared relevant testing and monitoring information on our website and with regulatory agencies and will continue to do so,” the statement said.

In the weeks after the fire, community testing as well as data from Lineage and the South Coast Air Quality Management District showed elevated levels of ammonia near the warehouse. Community members found the results alarming, though Lineage and regulators stressed the levels didn’t meet the threshold to take action to protect public health.

Last week, Eastside Padres held a press conference outside the warehouse,calling on the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office to open a criminal investigation of the warehouse fire after the Los Angeles Fire Department reported that the cause of the fire could not be determined.

A person who works at the facility said the operation started earlier Tuesday morning. Employees initially believed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were involved, but soon found they were not.

Anna Rivas works at Ciclon Pallets across the street from the Lineage parking lot where agents served the search warrant. A man driving a truck and a large trailer had to expertly back into her garage to pick up a load of pallets, dodging the law enforcement vehicles parked nearby.

The business’s surveillance cameras captured a police vehicle with lights and siren pulling up to the facility at about 7:30 a.m., with about 20 unmarked vehicles approaching soon after and entering the parking lot or stopping to block the entrance.

Rivas said the pallet company had to shut down for about a month and a half around the time of the fire, citing respiratory problems for workers and a loss of business.

“We thought we finally had our space back to do our work,” Rivas said. “But no, here we go again.”

She said the police did not question her or her colleagues, and she added she hopes the neighborhood gets the justice it deserves after months of disruption related to the fire.

In a statement, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said she welcomed the investigation “as a positive step toward the transparency and answers Boyle Heights residents deserve.”

“This community has lived with the consequences of the Lineage warehouse fire for months. Residents deserve to know what happened, what risks remain, and who must be held accountable.”

“Investigators must be able to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and their findings should help give residents the information they need about their health, safety, and the future of this site. I will continue pushing for those answers, a safe and complete cleanup, and accountability for any violations uncovered. Boyle Heights should not be left to shoulder the consequences of this disaster.”

The office of Mayor Karen Bass also acknowledged the investigation, stating:

“The residents of Boyle Heights and East L.A. deserve environmental justice and corporate accountability. Mayor Bass has been working with many agencies to protect this community. In her emergency executive order, Mayor Bass called for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to investigate and pursue enforcement action at the Lineage warehouse.”

The fire at the cold storage warehouse broke out on June 17 and burned for eight days. The fire and cleanup of millions of pounds of rotting food caused a flood of issues for residents living in Boyle Heights, East LA and surrounding communities, including an infestation of flies and pests, nausea and headaches, higher utility bills and other health concerns.

The Los Angeles Fire Department could not determine the cause of the fire but said solar panels could not be ruled out as an ignition and fuel source.

Boyle Heights Beat reporter Laura Anaya-Morga contributed to this report.

Eva Marie Saint, the pale, willowy actor who won an Academy Award for her first movie, “On the Waterfront,” and starred opposite Cary Grant in the Alfred Hitchcock thriller “North by Northwest,” has died. She was 102.

Saint, whose acting work lasted well into her 90s, died at her home in Los Angeles on Tuesday, confirmed family representative Jeff Sanderson.

Saint had one of the most spectacular debuts in Hollywood history, as the love interest of Marlon Brando’s tormented Terry Malloy in “On the Waterfront,” and her first trip to the Academy Awards was memorable too. Pregnant with her first child, Saint accepted her Oscar from Frank Sinatra and smilingly murmured a unique winner’s speech: “I think I may have the baby right here.” (Her son, Darrell, was born two days later.)

The award for the 1954 classic made her an instant star, but she soon astonished Hollywood with a firm independence that would mark her career. She refused offers of studio contracts and declined chances to follow up on her great success, explaining that she was taking time off to become acquainted with her new son. (A daughter, Laurette, was born in 1958.)

A curated career

In her first decade in Hollywood, Saint appeared in a mere seven films. She declined such top-level productions as “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” with Gregory Peck, “Summer and Smoke” with Laurence Harvey and “The Rainmaker” with Burt Lancaster. She credited her husband, TV and stage director Jeffrey Hayden, with persuading her to star in Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest,” the classic 1959 thriller in which Saint plays a spy who seduces Grant, but ends up falling for him.

“I vividly remember him saying, ‘Honey, I think you should find a quiet spot. I’ll take care of the children and I want you to really think about this and reread this script,’” she told Vanity Fair in 2014. “He was so right. And that’s what husbands are for.”

Instead of being put off by her selectivity, studios continued offering her starring roles in such films as “Exodus” (with Newman), “Raintree County” (Elizabeth Taylor, Montgomery Clift) and “All Fall Down,” with Warren Beatty.

She turned more to television in the 1970s and enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1980s as the mother of Cybill Shepherd in the hit sitcom “Moonlighting” and as Tom Hanks’ mother in the film comedy “Nothing in Common.” She won an Emmy for the 1990 miniseries “People Like Us,” and had roles in such 21st century movies as “Because of Winn-Dixie,” “Superman Returns” and “Winter’s Tale,” adapted from Mark Helprin’s novel of the same name. In 2021, she played Marisa Tomei’s aunt in the brief audio play “The Bus Ride,” part of “The Pack Podcast.”

Saint was married to Hayden for 55 years, until his death in 2016.

That was her real name

When Saint emerged in the public consciousness, many believed her theatrical-sounding name must have been invented. She was born with it on July 4, 1924, in Newark, New Jersey. The family moved to Delmar, a small town near Albany, New York, where her father was a Goodrich Rubber Co. manager. Eva’s goal was to become a third-grade teacher like her mother, but at Bowling Green State University in Ohio she tried out for a play and won the leading role.

After graduation she lived with her parents in Flushing, Long Island, and began hunting for acting jobs in Manhattan. After a fruitless year, she landed a two-line role as a telephone operator on a radio drama and soon was working steadily on soap operas and nighttime dramas, appearing for two years as Claudia on “One Man’s Family.” Network television was booming in the early 1950s, and her looks and dramatic sense made her a favorite with casting people and producers.

She credited Lee Strasberg with helping her overcome shyness

A critical turn in Saint’s career came when she auditioned before Elia Kazan and was accepted into the Actors Studio, which shaped a generation of method-actor stars. She credited acting coach Lee Strasberg with helping her overcome her shyness.

“Lee Strasberg, when he got to know me a little bit, gave me a scene to do where I had to cry in front of my peers,” she told The Santa Barbara Independent in 2009. “I worried about it, I worked on it, I tried to use what I was learning at the studio. I finally did the scene, and I cried, and my peers were crying with me. It was just an incredible moment for me.”

Saint was rejected for the single female role in the play “Mister Roberts,” but was hired to understudy the actor chosen, Jocelyn Brando, Marlon’s sister. In six frustrating months Saint never got to substitute for Brando. She finally made it to Broadway in “A Trip to Bountiful,” which she had played on television.

Kazan invited her to try out for the female lead in “On the Waterfront” by improvising a scene with Brando. She was told to try to stop a young man from entering her apartment. She told the Los Angeles Times in 2001: “All I know is that Marlon got in the door and turned on the music. We started dancing. He flicked my skirt. Kazan saw the sparks fly, and that’s how I got the part.”

Thomas, a former Associated Press Hollywood correspondent who died in 2014, was the primary writer of this obituary.

California’s school finance watchdog agency has found the Los Angeles Unified School District is at high risk of financial insolvency.

The Financial Crisis and Management Assistance Team presented its analysis at Tuesday’s school board meeting.

“FCMAT’s role is not to determine which programs the district should preserve, which reductions it should make or what agreements it should reach with the labor [unions],” Jennifer Noga, an intervention specialist with the agency, told the board. “That is 100% a local decision. Our goal is to help identify the fiscal risk and help the district understand what needs to be addressed to restore fiscal stability.”

How did the state make its determination?

The agency’s analysis of LAUSD is based on a series of questions the agency has identified as risk factors for insolvency.

The analysis found that LAUSD's deficit spending, declining enrollment and increasing costs of employee salaries and special education put the district at risk of exhausting its reserves by the end of next school year.

The analysis found LAUSD is at a “moderate” risk of insolvency, but ultimately received a “high” rating because a previous evaluation by the Los Angeles County Office of Education automatically triggered a more severe label. (That LACOE evaluation is also what triggered the state evaluation in the first place.)

Union pushback

United Teachers Los Angeles, the union that represents LAUSD educators, said in a memo to the board and in public comments that FCMAT’s analysis penalized the district for paying teachers more and overstated financial risk.

“There are different ways to tell a story with numbers and statistics and data, and we just think that FCMAT is presenting the most austere version of that and we have to fight back against that,” said Julie Van Winkle, the union's vice president. “There is declining enrollment in the district, and who is going to want to put their kids in schools if we keep cutting programs because of austerity?"

The district has a plan to cut spending, which includes eliminating thousands of jobs and funding for high-needs schools. The district must also bargain with employee unions before implementing furlough days planned for the 2027-28 school year.

More than 100 cannabis businesses in L.A. that were expected to lose their licenses at the end of the year may be able to stay open after a City Council vote Tuesday.

A city ordinance that took effect in August would only have allowed cannabis businesses to renew their licenses if they owed less than $1 million in unpaid city taxes and had been delinquent on their taxes for less than four years.

The limits were set to get more strict each year until 2030, when businesses would need to owe less than $100,000 in unpaid taxes.

The City Council voted to delay the restrictions for one year because a separate program intended to provide an exception to businesses who agreed to follow a tax payment plan could not begin on time.

There are more than 1,000 licensed cannabis businesses in the city of L.A., according to the Department of Cannabis Regulation, and 125 of those would not have been eligible to renew their licenses had Tuesday’s vote not passed.

In October 2025, City Treasurer Diana Mangioglu reported that 500 cannabis businesses owed a total of $500 million in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. Of those businesses, 48 owed more than $2 million.

Owners of many cannabis retailers, manufacturers and distributors have asked local government leaders for help as they face higher taxes than most industries and strong competition from unlicensed businesses — which pay no taxes and typically sell at a lower price in the illicit market.

Evelyn Scott gave public comment during the City Council meeting and said these challenges led her business to close.

“Losing our license will make it even harder to reopen, generate revenue, create jobs and meet our obligations to the city,” Scott said.

What is the tax amnesty program?

When the city enacted licensing restrictions based on cannabis businesses’ unpaid taxes, local officials also intended to make a pathway for delinquent businesses to come back into compliance.

The cannabis tax amnesty program allowed for some businesses that would otherwise be prevented from renewing their licenses to agree to a payment plan that could last up to five years. If the businesses kept to the agreement, they could continue to renew their licenses, would have penalties and interest on unpaid taxes forgiven and wouldn’t face criminal charges for not paying those taxes on time.

Could the agreements help the city?

L.A.’s Office of Finance, which is in charge of the program, estimates it could bring in $10 million in city tax revenue in the first year.

But it wasn’t possible to start the program for 2027 licenses, according to Matthew Crawford, assistant director of the finance office.

He told LAist in an email that the office wouldn’t be able to begin the program in time without exposing the city to “unacceptable levels of risk to both [a tax administration] system replacement project and the integrity of the amnesty program.”

Crawford said the finance office still expects the city to receive the same amount of revenue once the program begins.