The Brief

There’s not much left of 17126 Avenida de la Herradura in the Pacific Palisades' Highlands neighborhood. A charred file cabinet a few feet from where the front door probably was. Some blackened cans of paint strewn about what was likely the front yard. Five neighboring homes on the cul-de-sac look similarly obliterated.

But at the end of the street, there’s still an ocean view.

"This is the first publicly listed and closed property in the Palisades," said Richard Schulman, standing outside what used to be a 2,500 square foot ranch house. "This closed for $1.2 million."

Schulman listed the property Jan. 15, barely a week after the fires started. The sale closed in late February.

If you’re wondering how in the world a lot with 9,900 square feet of rubble fetches over a million dollars? It's the Palisades.

"This is one of the most beautiful places to live in the world," said Schulman. "You're in a totally secluded part of L.A., but you're still in the city."

Before the fires, Schulman estimates the property could have sold for upwards of $2.5 million. He listed the property for $999,000, based off a rough calculation of the value of the underlying land. But it’s not like there were other burned down comps he could find on Zillow.

"This hasn't been done before here, so we're trying to guess along the way and try to get the best answer," said Schulman, who has worked in West Los Angeles real estate for 21 years. While he's completed difficult sales before, including fire-damaged properties, he had never been involved in selling a property quite like this.

Schulman settled on a price he thought would drum up interest. But he wasn’t sure exactly how much demand there would actually be.

Terri Bromberg, the seller, also had her doubts.

"I couldn't imagine anybody wanting to buy a completely destroyed, burned up property," Bromberg said.

Bromberg, 69, is an artist and associate professor at Santa Monica College. She lived at the Herradura property for 20 years, the last few with her daughter Rosie Galanis and son-in-law Kenneth.

While Bromberg was at work when the fires came, Rosie and Kenneth had to wait hours to make their escape. Abandoned cars were blocking the only exit route.

At first, Bromberg wanted to rebuild. When she told her daughter she was looking into contractors, Rosie started crying.

"When she brought that up I just broke down, and I was like, 'We go back and rebuild for what? For this to happen again?'" said Galanis.

That $999,000 listing price meant Bromberg would likely be selling the home for less than the $1.5 million she and her late husband paid for it 20 years ago. Even with insurance, Bromberg would be taking a financial hit.

But she had made her mind up that she was going to relocate. Within a week, she had made a successful bid on a new home in Santa Monica. Selling the Palisades property for whatever it was worth would hopefully help restore some of the savings she had to deplete for the new house.

"Our decision was mostly an emotional one," said Bromberg. "We don’t want to live back there again, we want to relocate."

Realtor Richard Schulman posted 17126 Herradura on the MLS with pictures of the house before the fires. He knew the pool of buyers would be mostly wealthy developers and investors offering all cash, but didn't know how deep the pool would be.

"We had over 60 inquiries," said Schulman. "We had a stack of offers. I think we had six offers over the list price."

Because access to the Palisades was restricted, all of those offers came without buyers seeing the actual property.

Joe Solamany is the agent who represented the winning bidder, an L.A.-based investor who declined to be interviewed.

"We did a lot with Google Street view, we did a lot of other stuff," said Solamany.

There's no house on the lot that sold and no neighborhood to speak of around it. But the ocean views and the hope that Palisades will return attracted multiple offers.

(

Ted Soqui

/

CalMatters

)

Solomany's client was able to see the property during a 15-day escrow. The plan is to build a new house that the investor can either sell or eventually move into, although it may be a while before construction starts.

Investors like the one Solamany represents are betting that in five to seven years, demand to live in the Palisades will be stronger than before the fires. They believe new fire-hardened homes and infrastructure will convince potential buyers it’s less risky now.

"Because this risk was there before and if you even go back to other places, that in the past, they had fire or what have you, after a while, people start going back," said Solamany.

As a condition of the sale, Solamany's client has accepted responsibility for debris removal from the property. The seller Bromberg will also have a few weeks after the closing date to recover any personal items from the property that may still be there, although her visits so far haven't yielded much.

Schulman already has three other Palisades listings, including a townhome that was part of a larger complex completely destroyed by the fires. It looks like a bomb got dropped on the property.

The asking price: $750,000.

"It's a dream of what this will be in the future," said Schulman. "What you're buying is the view of this hillside here and the trees here, and how this is going to look when it's done."

Schulman said he’s already got plenty of interested buyers eager to get into the Palisades for less than a million.

The Southern California Muslim community during the early to mid-20th century became more diverse, but the visibility of Muslims in SoCal didn’t significantly increase until the creation of new Islamic institutions and hubs like the Islamic Society of Orange County.

Community pillars like the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), located in Garden Grove, allow Muslims in Southern Calfironia to connect with their faith and explore their religious identities in a rapidly changing society.

With the holy month of Ramadan underway, the Islamic Society of Orange County is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.

Muzammil Siddiqi, director and Islamic scholar for ISOC, who has served the community since 1981, recently joined LAist’s daily news program AirTalk with Larry Mantle, along with Deana Helmy, chair of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, to talk about the community center’s impact on the region over the past five decades.

How ISOC got its start

Muslims began arriving in Southern California as early as the 20th century, with roots primarily from South Asian Punjabi descent and the Middle East.

“It was a small number,” said Sidiqqi. “They started gathering at religious services and learning about the Quran within their families.”

As numbers continued to increase, particularly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Muslims in Southern California formed the basis of the ISOC, and in 1976, it became the first mosque in Orange County.

The Islamic Society of Orange county serves thousands of Muslims with prayer, educational, and counseling services, including a youth group.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

“At the time, when the community bought this place, they thought it was too big for them,” said Sidiqqi, adding, “Soon a large number of people started coming, and we had to buy neighboring properties.”

Today, the SoCal muslim community is diverse, as people from the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia, Latin America and descendants from Europe attend ISOC and share it as a community space.

“The Mother Mosque”

The Islamic Society of Orange County has grown to become the largest Muslim community center in Southern California, serving more than 10,000 followers throughout the area.

“That’s why we call it the mother mosque,” Sidiqqi said.

The mosque is more than just a place for worship for Muslims in SoCal; it's a community center.

“I actually attended the elementary school at ISOC called Orange Crescent School,” Helmy said.

Orange Crescent School is located within the Islamic Society of Orange County Masjid premises in Garden Grove. It currently offers full-time schooling from preschool to 8th grade, and intends to expand its reach and become the first Islamic High School in Orange County.

Children's backpacks hang outside of a classroom at the Orange Crescent School located on the grounds of the Garden Grove mosque.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

“All subjects that are taught in other schools are taught here. Aside from that, they learn the Arabic language and Islamic studies,” Sidiqqi said. “We emphasize very much the moral character of our students, according to Islamic traditions.”

AirTalk listeners also weighed in and shared the role ISOC plays in their lives.

Adis in the city of Orange told Larry, “My dad was the first president of the youth group organized in the masjid, and my mom was very involved in organizing as well,” adding, “that was the first place where they met, and it was history from there.”

“I just go to hang out with my daughter sometimes over the weekend,” said LAist reporter Yusra Farzan, adding, “They have cool Friday night programs for kids.”

Equality, leadership, and interfaith outreach

In addition to making inroads with the Muslim society-at-large, ISOC has also played a crucial role in acknowledging the need for women's representation in its organization.

“Leadership at the masjid has always elevated and highlighted women,” said Helmy, adding that ISOC has “really ensured that women have the space and place to belong, to be able to speak up and to be encouraged to take on leadership roles.”

ISOC offers a variety of services and programs that aim to educate people about Islam and debunk misconceptions and myths about the faith. Sidiqqi recalled being in the nation’s capital the day of the 9/11 attacks, telling Mantle that he was actually invited by President George W. Bush to participate in the interfaith service that was held at the Washington National Cathedral.

“This has been our work at the ISOC. Bringing understanding, reconciliation, peace, and harmony,” he said. “These have been the teachings of Islam, and so we invite people to come learn about the faith.”

You can listen to the full AirTalk SoCal History segment here.

President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision against his sweeping use of tariffs "deeply disappointing" and slammed the members of the court who ruled against him.

Trump called the justices who opposed his tariffs "fools" and "lapdogs," charging that they were acting because of liberal partisanship, though three of those ruling against him were appointed by Republican presidents and two were Trump appointees.

"I think it is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," he said.

The court — in a 6 to 3 decision —found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda.

The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.

Calling it his "favorite word in the dictionary," Trump has repeatedly credited his use of tariffs with helping him stop wars and pressure world leaders to bend to U.S. interests.

He boasted about the economic benefits. A recent Congressional Budget Office report found that tariffs were expected to help reduce the deficits by about $3 trillion over a decade. But that same report found that U.S. consumers - not foreign companies - were paying the vast majority of that money.

But while talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically.

"Their decision's incorrect. But it doesn't matter, because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision," he said.

Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."

He acknowledged that those processes may be more cumbersome, but had stronger legal standing. He also cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that allows the president to impose tariffs to address trade deficits. But those tariffs are limited to 15%, and only for 150 days, after which Congress would have to approve them.

"While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made the President's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don't think they meant that. I'm sure they didn't," Trump said.

And he said he would sign an executive order today to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities, including adding a "10% global tariff."

That rule would also eventually need approval from Congress, after 150 days, which could be difficult with an election approaching.

Republicans are facing pressure from constituents about high costs and the business community that is afraid to invest with all the economic uncertainty.

A recent NPR/Marist poll finds that a majority of Americans — 56% — feel tariffs or fees on imported products from other countries hurts the U.S. economy.

The former Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell praised the Supreme Court's decision.

"Congress' role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid," the Kentucky Republican said. "If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1" of the Constitution."

But Trump, who has expressed frustration with gridlock in Congress, expressed confidence that he would continue to be able to employ tariffs unilaterally.

"Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic," Trump said. They are so happy and they're dancing in the streets. But they won't be dancing for long. That I can assure you."
Copyright 2026 NPR

A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good.

But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs, according to court documents.

In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

The backstory

The ruling stems from a legal challenge by a coalition of housed and unhoused residents in West L.A. around the city’s implementation of Assembly Bill 630, which became law Jan. 1.

The L.A. City Council voted in December to approve a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the law.

The CD11 Coalition for Human Rights then asked a judge to intervene, claiming L.A. is “recklessly charging ahead” with a program it’s not authorized to execute, according to court documents.

What the officials say

Councilmember Traci Park, who introduced the council motion in October, told LAist previously that nuisance RVs create health and safety issues that put entire neighborhoods at risk. Park said residents want solutions, not frivolous lawsuits.

Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist after the ruling Thursday that the lawsuits aren’t frivolous when the petitioners keep winning.

“It is incredibly unclear why the city did not simply accept the plain language of AB 630 and instead forced our client to go to court, wasting court resources, city resources at a time when the city doesn't have resources to spare,” Myers said.

City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the city’s implementation of AB 630.

What’s next

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who introduced the California assembly bill. González said in a statement to LAist last month that his office is “working with our partners to clarify the law to ensure the City can fully implement AB 630."

González has introduced another bill, AB 647, that would expand the language of the law to include “any public agency” within L.A. County.

Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law