The Brief

Los Angeles officials are considering a pair of Airbnb-backed proposals that would temporarily loosen city regulations on short-term rentals and allow the company to pre-pay a portion of the lodging taxes it collects from tourists.

If approved by the City Council, the first proposal would allow Airbnb hosts to rent second homes and investment properties on the platform through 2028 — something the home-sharing giant has long sought, but the city of L.A. has prohibited since 2018.

The second proposal would involve Airbnb paying some portion of the transient occupancy tax it collects from tourists to the city of Los Angeles ahead of time to assist with the city’s budget troubles. That could generate tens of millions of dollars more for the city per year, according to the company.

"Airbnb is a committed partner to Los Angeles and its long-term prosperity with not just words, but with action,” said Justin Wesson, Airbnb’s senior public policy manager in California. “That’s why we have offered to provide tax revenue we already collect on behalf of hosts up front to help fund essential city programs millions of Angelenos rely on."

Both plans appeared in Mayor Karen Bass’ budget proposal for the next fiscal year, which starts in July, and were first reported by L.A. Material. Both were initially suggested by Airbnb, according to the company.

Bass’ budget proposal instructs the city’s Planning Department to develop a limited vacation rental program that would sunset by Dec. 31, 2028.

It also instructs city staff to report back with recommendations “to allow the pre-payment of transient occupancy tax in advance of the 2028 Olympics from any payer that wishes to assist the City in accelerating critical infrastructure projects.”

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who opposes expanding short-term rentals, told LAist she has concerns about the prepayment plan.

"I don’t know anyone in the country running to prepay their taxes, especially any corporations, and it begs the question as to why,” Rodriguez said.

Pre-paying TOT

Airbnb has discussed this pre-payment concept with city officials, but has not settled on specific terms, a company spokesperson confirmed to LAist.

The company told LAist it would work with city officials to come up with the amounts and timelines for any potential prepayment after the City Council approves the mayor’s budget.

Bass’ office did not respond Thursday to questions about the proposal.

In the current budget year, the city will collect about $297 million in transient occupancy taxes, including $34.5 million from short-term rentals and $262.9 million from hotels, according to the L.A. city controller’s revenue forecast.

The Hotel Association of Los Angeles told LAist that hotels, the main driver of bed-tax revenues, have not been part of any conversations about possible pre-payment.

“City leaders have not engaged hotels on the concept of pre-paying transient occupancy taxes in advance of the 2028 Olympics,” Jackie Filla, the association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “We learned of this issue for the first time while reviewing the proposed budget.”

The Mayor’s Office first briefed members of the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee shortly before the Monday release of Bass’ proposed budget, according to one member’s office.

According to the mayor’s budget proposal, the prepaid tax revenue would be used for curb and sidewalk repairs, park maintenance, street cleanliness and tree trimming.

Airbnb entered into an agreement with the city of L.A. in August 2016 allowing the company to collect and pay the transient occupancy tax on behalf of Airbnb hosts. The company said it has collected and paid more than $370 million in lodging tax to the city of Los Angeles between 2016 and the end of last year, for an average of about $39 million annually.

Before L.A.’s 2018 law restricting Airbnbs, there were nearly 29,000 estimated active short-term rental listings in the city of L.A., according to the city’s Planning Department. L.A.’s transient occupancy tax revenue totaled nearly $319 million in the 2018 budget year, according to the city administrative officer. That total includes tax remitted by hotels and it’s unclear how much was generated from short-term rentals specifically.

Last budget year, there were fewer than 5,000 homes officially listed on short-term rental platforms, according to the city. L.A. collected $305.8 million in transient occupancy tax. About $272 million of that came from hotels. The other roughly $33 million came from short-term rentals, according to the city controller.

Bass’ budget proposal projects $313.5 million in transient occupancy tax in 2026-2027.

More Airbnbs? 

Airbnb has long sought to change L.A.’s short-term rental rules to allow more homes on the platform.

Last year, Airbnb launched a public campaign for its "Vacation Rental Revenue Plan.” The company argues that increasing L.A.’s short-term rentals will generate more tax revenue from tourists and expand housing options during the Olympics.

L.A.’s current short-term rental regulations allow homeowners to list only their primary residences on platforms like Airbnb. It also prohibits housing units protected by the city’s rent stabilization ordinance from being listed.

But existing Airbnb laws are rarely enforced. There were 7,500 properties illegally operating as short-term rentals in Los Angeles, according to the city’s Housing Department’s 2024 estimates. Since 2021, L.A. has issued an average of 125 home-sharing citations per year across all enforcement departments, according to city planning records.

Airbnb estimates that lifting restrictions on second homes could generate more than $100 million annually for the city in additional revenue from transient occupancy tax and other tourist spending. The company did not provide a further breakdown of those projections or indicate the exact number of new listings it expects would follow.

There are currently about 5,500 units already operating on home-sharing platforms under the existing rules and thousands more operating illegally, according to city officials.

On April 2, the city of L.A.’s Planning Department recommended in a report that the city reject the Airbnb proposal to allow second homes, finding it was unlikely to generate much revenue and likely to remove long-term housing from the market.

On April 15, the department released another report, reversing its earlier position. It clarified that the previous report had only only analyzed a permanent program but that a temporary program tied to the Olympics was worth considering.

Officials react

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, part of the Budget and Finance Committee, said Airbnb has been talking to members about vacation rentals for years. He said he opposes the company’s desired changes and wants to see more enforcement of illegal Airbnbs.

“I didn't support vacation rentals when it was before us years ago because I feared it would take long-term housing units off the market,” Blumenfield said. “I'm still concerned about it. I still haven't seen a proposal that I would support.”

Councilmember Tim McOsker, also on the budget committee, did not say whether he would support the Airbnb-backed proposals.

A spokesperson from his office said in a statement that Osker “will evaluate the entirety of the proposal, including the pre-payment mechanism, within the budget hearings process before taking a position.”

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running for L.A. mayor against Bass, said the city needs to properly consider the impact of the proposals from Airbnb.

“The idea that the City would entertain speculative tax prepayments tied to expanding short-term rentals, while we are in an acute housing affordability and availability crisis, needs to be properly vetted to consider its full ramifications,” Raman said in a statement.

Airbnb’s political opponents tied to the hotel industry, including hotel workers’ union UNITE HERE Local 11, have consistently fought against efforts to expand Airbnbs. Now they’re also crying foul on the company’s pre-payment plan.

“ This is just a ruse to to build a larger short-term market, which means less housing for Angelenos in our city,” said Kurt Petersen, co-president of UNITE HERE Local 11.

Noah Suarez-Sikes, an organizer with Better Neighbors L.A. — which advocates for stronger limits on short-term rentals — said even if the change is temporary, renters will be permanently displaced.

“ I would hope that council would see that this is a Trojan horse and take it out before it starts harming working class people,” he said.

Campaign contributions

Airbnb is the third biggest spender in L.A. city elections so far this year, after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents officers, and UNITE HERE Local 11.

A committee funded entirely by Airbnb spent nearly $300,000 in support of Jose Ugarte, a former aide to Councilmember Curren Price who is now one of six candidates running to replace him in District 9.

The committee paid $298,832.00 to a company called Street Level Strategy LLC for “canvassing, consulting, doorhangers, data, and office supplies,” according to records filed with the city.

"Across the country and at all levels of government, we back causes and candidates that champion home sharing and tourism and Los Angeles is a top focus for us," Justin Wesson of Airbnb told LAist.

Meanwhile, a committee sponsored by UNITE HERE Local 11 has raised $515,000 and spent more than $440,000 in independent expenditures opposing District 11 Councilmember Traci Park and supporting her challenger, civil rights attorney Faizah Malik.

“ We want to support candidates who want to raise wages so that people can live in Los Angeles and lower rents so that people can afford to live in Los Angeles,” said UNITE HERE 11 co-president Kurt Peterson.

What's next?

The City Council will begin budget hearings Friday. The panel is expected to hold its first vote on the budget May 21.

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.