Protect local news!

Be one of 5,000 supporters to make a monthly gift during our fall member drive and help strengthen our nonprofit newsroom.
Logged in as
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
  • Company pushes for change to LA ordinance
    A woman browses the site of US home sharing giant Airbnb on a tablet.

    Topline:

    Canvassers have been flooding L.A. neighborhoods with fliers advertising a proposed solution to the city’s $1 billion budget deficit. The “Save Our Services” coalition says permitting more short-term rentals will generate tens of millions in tax revenue from tourists. The campaign was organized by Airbnb.

    Who's in the coalition?: Members of the coalition include chambers of commerce, labor unions and community groups, according to the campaign’s website. Airbnb says they've knocked on 200,000 doors so far and spoken with 50,000 people.

    Home sharing rules: L.A.’s current home-sharing ordinance, approved in 2019, allows people to rent out only their primary residences as short-term rentals. The Airbnb-backed coalition’s “vacation rental revenue plan” calls for changing the law to allow second homes to be rented as well. It’s something the company has been pushing for years — unsuccessfully. The coalition says the change in local law would generate nearly $80 million annually in tax revenue from tourists.

    Pushback: Critics, including some L.A. City Councilmembers, say permitting more short-term rentals will only worsen the housing crisis. There's also questions about Airbnb's compliance with existing laws. The L.A. Housing Department estimated last year that 7,500, or about 60% of the city’s short-term rentals in apartment buildings, are illegal.

    What's next? Airbnb declined to tell LAist how much the company has spent supporting the campaign. To move its effort forward, the Save Our Services coalition will need support from the L.A. City Council. It’s unclear whether any council members currently support Airbnb’s proposal.

    For the past few weeks, canvassers have been flooding L.A. neighborhoods with fliers and signage advertising a proposed solution to the city’s $1 billion budget deficit.

    The so-called “Save Our Services” coalition argues that permitting more short-term rentals in the city will generate tens of millions in annual local tax revenue from tourists.

    Members of the coalition include chambers of commerce, labor unions and community groups, according to the campaign’s website. Missing from that literature is the name of the company organizing and funding the campaign: Airbnb.

    The company, which operates the world’s largest platform for short-term rentals, confirmed its involvement to LAist Wednesday, after it was first reported by the L.A. Times.

    “It’s pretty simple: new tax revenue from tourists can give Los Angeles much-needed funding for city services and union jobs that are at risk,” said Justin Wesson, Airbnb’s senior public policy manager and son of former L.A. City Councilman Herb Wesson, in a statement.

    L.A.’s current home-sharing ordinance, approved in 2019, allows people to rent out only their primary residences as short-term rentals. The Airbnb-backed coalition’s “vacation rental revenue plan” calls for changing the law to allow second homes to be rented as well.

    It’s something the company has been pushing for years — unsuccessfully.

    Listen 0:45
    Airbnb pushes ‘Save Our Services’ campaign for more short-term rentals in LA

    Coalition members say it’s an important step as thousands of tourists are expected to visit the city for the 2026 World Cup, 2027 Super Bowl and 2028 Olympics. They estimate the plan would generate $41 million in additional transient occupancy tax revenue and $38 million in additional sales tax revenue from tourists.

    “At the end of the day, we do have to address the deficit,” said Robert Sausedo, president of Community Build, a South L.A.-based community organization and coalition partner. “But it's not always about cutting. Sometimes, it's finding new ways to pay for things, and I think this is the best solution that I've seen in a while.”

    Some L.A. City Council members are pushing back against the campaign and Airbnb’s involvement.

    “ I think it's clear they have motivation for their purposes,” Councilmember Monica Rodriguez told LAist. “But allowing people to use a secondary property would incentivize the further privatization of our very limited and precious housing stock at a time when we're already facing an affordability crisis.”

    Critics push back

    Critics say the campaign is a ruse to deregulate short-term rentals. They also question the coalition’s revenue estimates.

    “This plan does not have merit as a way of raising funds,” said Noah Suarez-Sikes, an organizer with Better Neighbors LA, a coalition of tenant advocates, housing nonprofits and a local hotel workers union.

    “In fact, the economic damage this could cause, especially with the Olympics coming up, with affordable housing on the line, is potentially catastrophic,” he said.

    More housing being used as short-term rentals mean fewer units available to permanent renters, driving up prices. A 2022 McGill University study found that short-term rentals in L.A. have increased overall rents by $810 a year for the average renter.

    Suarez-Sikes said the city is losing revenue by not enforcing its existing rules for short-term rentals. Many Airbnb hosts are not paying the transient occupancy tax, he said. If the city enforced applicable fines against these bad actors, it could generate hundreds of millions a year, he said.

    The L.A. Housing Department estimated last year that 7,500, or about 60% of the city’s short-term rentals in apartment buildings, are illegal, according to an agency memo.

    Some city leaders have been pushing for more enforcement of the city’s home-sharing ordinance.

    Last month, L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto filed a lawsuit against Airbnb in the wake of the wildfires. The lawsuit alleges that Airbnb illegally increased prices of between 2,000 and 3,000 properties following the January wildfires and misrepresented its listings with fake hosts and addresses.

    “It’s unconscionable that Airbnb permitted prices to be jacked up on thousands of rental properties at a time when so many people lost so much and needed a place to sleep," Feldstein Soto said in a statement.

    The company partnered with L.A. County to offer free emergency housing to evacuees. To date, Airbnb claims it has temporarily housed nearly 24,000 people affected by the fires. The company said it also invested nearly $30 million in local fire relief and recovery efforts.

    Who else is in the coalition? 

    An Airbnb representative told LAist that the campaign has knocked on more than 200,000 doors and made contact with more than 50,000 people so far.

    The company claims that 70% of the people contacted by canvassers support the effort. But it’s unclear how many of those people were familiar with the proposal or Airbnb’s involvement when they spoke with canvassers.

    “The flyers don't have Airbnb’s name on it, but this is a policy they've been pushing for years,” said Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez. “I think residents will see through the deception.”

    Airbnb representatives declined to say how much money the company has contributed to the Save Our Services campaign or further clarify its role as coordinator.

    The labor groups involved in the Save Our Services coalition include the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, the California IATSE Council, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18.

    Most of the unions did not respond to LAist’s questions about their involvement. The Teamsters provided LAist a statement through Airbnb.

    “Los Angeles cannot cut its way out of a $1 billion budget deficit at the expense of Angelenos,” said Eric Tate, executive secretary treasurer with Teamsters Joint Council 42. “We strongly urge the Los Angeles leaders to pass the Save Our Services proposal now.”

    Other coalition members include pro-business groups like the Central City Association of Los Angeles, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, the Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the CalAsian Chambers of Commerce.

    “By allowing a limited number of people to rent their second home to travelers, we can generate millions in new tourism revenue dedicated for the city’s long-term recovery — paid for by tourists, not taxpayers,” said Stuart Waldman, president of Valley Industry Commerce Association.

    Several community organizations have also signed on to the effort, including Community Build and the Brotherhood Crusade, both based in South L.A.

    Community Build, founded by Congresswoman Maxine Waters after the 1992 L.A. unrest, is focused mostly on gang intervention and workforce development programs today.

    Leaders from Community Build acknowledged that the proposal will line Airbnb’s pockets, but they argue it would also help L.A. residents.

    “ I don't see this as something that's only going to benefit Airbnb,” said Robert Sausedo. “This is the best of two worlds: government and business coming together for a solution.”

    Airbnb representatives did not respond to LAist’s questions about why the company did not previously disclose its involvement in the campaign.

    On social media yesterday, L.A. City Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez posed a question to the home sharing giant: “If it’s good policy, why hide from it @airbnb?”

    To move its effort forward, the campaign will need support from the L.A. City Council. It’s unclear whether any council members currently support Airbnb’s proposal.

    “ It's not my impression that this is something that would have legs with a majority of my colleagues,” said Monica Rodriguez. “I don’t see it. However, I'm often surprised by how easily people can be swayed when there's other interests involved.”

  • Bass calls for pause to utility shutoffs
    The sun sets and shows off the silhouettes of power lines.
    The sun sets behind power lines near homes during a heat wave in Los Angeles.

    Topline:

    For the rest of the year, Los Angeles residents won't get their water and power shut off if they can’t pay their bills.

    The details: Mayor Karen Bass announced Tuesday that she asked the L.A. Department of Water and Power’s board to pause any residential shutoffs for nonpayment through the end of 2026. The request comes after a series of record-breaking heatwaves this summer and fall. A spokesperson for LADWP said the changes will be implemented immediately. The board is expected to formally vote to approve the ask at its next meeting, set for Oct. 27 at 10 a.m., according to a spokesperson for Bass. According to the LADWP spokesperson, customers who need assistance will get extra time to pay their bill by entering into a payment arrangement without any interest or late fees.

    Bill breakdown: DWP bills two months at a time, and right now, many customers are being hit with one of their highest bills of the year — from August and September. In those months, 2% of DWP's 1.6 million customers received a bill of over $3,000, the DWP said; 3% were between $2,000 and $3,000; 12% were between $1,000 and $2,000; and 18% were between $500 and $1,000. At least 60% were under $500, the DWP said. LADWP says customers can call 800-DIAL-DWP (342-5397) if they have questions about their bills.

    The backstory: As atmospheric pollution drives hotter, longer heat waves, utility bills are soaring too. That's why, in 2023, LADWP's board voted to end power shutoffs for all customers during extreme weather. Under that policy, LADWP will not shut a customer’s water and power off if they are delinquent on their bill when the National Weather Service has issued an extreme heat or cold weather advisory or warning. Outside of such weather advisories, however, customers can still face shutoffs. Under Bass’ request, shutoffs won’t occur through the rest of the year regardless of weather advisories.

    Other resources: Bass encouraged customers to sign up for LADWP’s Level Pay program, which allows customers to pay off past-due bills over time or even out the peaks of high-energy-use seasons across a longer term. You can sign up and find other bill assistance programs on the DWP website.

    Go deeper: Why is my LADWP bill so high?

  • Sponsored message
  • District prepares for El Niño
    A yellow school bus from Los Angeles Unified School District.
    District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors, in preparation for El Niño.

    Topline:

    The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

    What's being done: District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

    Guidance for families during this year's El Niño season: LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

    District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

    “Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

    The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

    LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

    “Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

    EdSource is an independent nonprofit organization that provides analysis on key education issues facing California and the nation. LAist republishes articles from EdSource with permission.

  • This will be the first cold storm of the season
    Two people in yellow rain ponchos walk toward a fog-shrouded downtown Los Angeles skyline on a rainy day.
    Rain is expected Wednesday night and Thursday morning across Southern California. It will be the first cold storm of the rainy season.

    Topline:

    Significant rain is in the forecast this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds fueled wildfires across Southern California

    The rain: The bulk of the rain is expected on Wednesday night and Thursday morning. Most of L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch, with more expected in the hills and mountains. There is also a chance of thunderstorms and hail.

    Flood risk: A National Weather Service flood watch is in effect for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities. The area includes burn scars from last week’s Bryson Fire and last year’s Palisades Fire. Wildfire burn scars are susceptible to landslides and flooding during heavy rain.

    Cooldown: Forecasters say the storm will bring cool air into southern California. Highs on Wednesday and Thursday will peak in the 60s and low 70s in most places. High elevations will likely be even cooler.

    Read on … for more on this week’s forecast.

    Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

    Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

    The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

    “We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

    The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

    The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

    This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

    Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

  • The bulk of the money could go to one institute
    Modern multistory building with dark metal facade and tiered terraces, set behind a green lawn and a wide wooden-and-concrete stepped seating area.
    Courtyard view of the UCLA Research Park under construction in the former Westside Pavilion shopping center in West Los Angeles on Aug. 19, 2024

    Topline:

    The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year. Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

    Why it matters: Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid. Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

    What opponents say: The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

    The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

    Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

    Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

    Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

    Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

    The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

    CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

    Far fewer employees than plan called for

    Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

    But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

    The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

    At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

    According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

    The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

    The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

    Institute facility will be built by 2028

    The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

    But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

    Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

    If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

    Institute would be exempt from public records act

    CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

    Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

    Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

    Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

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