The Brief

The nation’s largest housing assistance program, Section 8, is a lifeline for tenants across the nation who would otherwise be priced out of expensive housing markets.

Under the program, tenants pay about a third of their income in rent, and the government subsidizes the rest. That’s life-changing in Los Angeles, where a one-bedroom apartment costs about $2,200 per month on average, and rent increases have outpaced wage growth, fueling an affordability crisis.

About 85,000 L.A. County residents rely on the Housing Choice Voucher program, as Section 8 is officially known, to afford their rent. Participants are allowed to live anywhere they choose, provided rents fall within limits set by local housing authorities.

Yet many tenants have difficulty finding landlords who will accept vouchers, even though in California and nearly two dozen other states, it’s illegal for landlords to reject Section 8 applicants solely because they pay rent with government aid. Under a California law that took effect last year, landlords also aren’t allowed to reject voucher holders based solely on their credit history. Instead, they must give them a chance to show pay stubs or other “lawful verifiable alternative evidence” they can pay their share of rent.

But some of the biggest landlords in the Los Angeles area are skirting anti-discrimination laws and turning away people seeking housing under the Section 8 program, a Capital & Main investigation found.

The yearlong investigation used public records, interviews and fair housing tests that included hundreds of inquiries to examine Section 8 voucher acceptance by some of the Los Angeles area’s largest landlords: Equity Residential, AvalonBay Communities, Essex Property Trust, Greystar, Prime Residential, G.H. Palmer Associates and Jamison Properties. While many of these landlords have national footprints, Capital & Main focused its investigation on their Los Angeles County operations.

As part of its reporting, Capital & Main hired and trained testers, who posed as Section 8 voucher holders and contacted leasing agents to ask about apartments listed on company websites.

Agents’ responses to testers’ questions suggested widespread violations of California housing law that would exclude many Section 8 voucher holders. Only one company — Jamison — categorically rejected Section 8 vouchers in many of its buildings.

In a statement, a Jamison spokesperson wrote “the management companies overseeing Jamison’s portfolio accept and welcome tenants utilizing Section 8 vouchers.”

Capital & Main based some of its findings on data collected by hired testers who called, emailed and exchanged text messages with leasing agents at 65 buildings across Los Angeles County in late 2024 and early 2025.

The U.S. Department of Justice, the California Civil Rights Department and nonprofit fair housing organizations have used such testing to ferret out evidence of illegal discrimination, and courts have held that the value the evidence testers provide outweighs the necessary deception in discovering it. Journalism organizations don’t often employ such testing, but when they have, as in a 2019 Newsday investigation of real estate agents, they have brought to light evidence of discrimination that would have otherwise remained unknown to the public. Marin County-based Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California provided training and materials for Capital & Main’s tests.

Capital & Main tested at six to nine buildings owned by each company. Then, after several Jamison agents said their buildings could not accept vouchers, Capital & Main conducted additional tests of its properties to determine how widespread such rejections were. The news organization tested only buildings with rental units priced within the limits set by the housing authorities in their areas. Testers made repeated attempts to understand leasing policies and practices at each building, sometimes reaching out several times to ensure accuracy.

The findings are also drawn from public records requests to local housing authorities for data on how many Section 8 tenants each company had. In all, the news organization reviewed documents obtained under the California Public Records Act from the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Development Authority, which covers unincorporated L.A. County and 62 cities within the county. Housing authorities in Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, Santa Monica, Norwalk, Torrance and Long Beach also provided records. Several local housing authorities, including those in Inglewood, Compton, Culver City, Pomona, Hawthorne, Baldwin Park and South Gate declined to provide records, citing privacy concerns, or failed to respond to Capital & Main’s requests.

Capital & Main contacted each company several times to share test results and give each an opportunity to respond to its findings and answer specific questions about its policies.

Here are the results for each company.

The Roya Apartments in Koreatown is one of more than a dozen Jamison-owned properties where agents said they were not accepting Section 8 tenants. Photo by Barbara Davidson.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Jamison

Jamison, a group of family-run real estate companies based in L.A.’s Koreatown, was the only landlord whose leasing agents turned away testers posing as Section 8 renters, saying they could not accept their vouchers.

Only one Section 8 tenant moved into a Jamison building between 2021 and 2024, according to documents Capital & Main obtained from the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles through a public records request.

Jamison entered the multifamily residential market in 2013 and has since built more than 6,000 residential units with at least 2,500 planned or under construction.

Last fall, leasing agents at some Jamison buildings told testers working for Capital & Main that they were not accepting Section 8 vouchers until they received city approvals. For example, in September 2024 notes taken by a tester show that when she called to ask if the Sienna on Serrano apartments in L.A.’s Koreatown accepted Section 8 vouchers, a leasing agent said:

(

Capital & Main

)

The leasing agent’s statement was misleading: L.A. housing authority officials said no inspection process is required before a building can accept Section 8 tenants. Housing authorities inspect individual apartments once a Section 8 tenant has selected a unit.

In March 2025, a Capital & Main-hired tester did another round of inquiries about available apartments at 15 Jamison properties. Again, a leasing agent said the company was awaiting city approvals before it could accept Section 8 tenants.

Five other Jamison leasing representatives initially said they accepted vouchers, but two of them didn’t return calls requesting information about income and credit requirements. At three of the those buildings, agents said they would reject Section 8 applicants for poor credit history, even though that’s prohibited under California law. Landlords are required to consider a Section 8 applicant’s pay stubs or proof of government benefits in lieu of credit reports to evaluate their ability to pay.

For instance, a tester who inquired by phone about rentals at the Arden and Sawyer apartments noted the following exchange with a leasing agent:

(

Capital & Main

)

At the Westmore in L.A.’s Koreatown, a tester uncovered another apparent violation of California’s fair housing law. In an April 2025 phone call, a tester’s notes show that a leasing agent described minimum income requirements for Section 8 voucher holders that would be impossible for a Section 8 tenant to meet:

(

Capital & Main

)

A Jamison spokesperson wrote in a statement that the management companies overseeing the company’s portfolio “take proactive steps, including engaging a broker and nonprofits, to help identify individuals and families who hold vouchers or qualify for income-restricted Affordable Housing units.”

The spokesperson said “It also appears that the tester misunderstood the income requirement stated for Section 8 tenants. The law permits an income requirement based on the tenant’s portion of the rent, not the full rental amount. All property managers overseeing these buildings have rules and procedures in place to comply with all applicable laws.”

Vantage Hollywood Apartments was one of six Equity Residential buildings where an agents said they would reject Section 8 tenants based on credit history alone.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Equity Residential

Chicago-based Equity Residential owns nearly 15,000 apartments in about 60 properties in the Los Angeles area, its largest market. Its representatives — at eight buildings — said they accept Section 8 vouchers.

But at six of the buildings, agents told testers they wouldn’t consider alternative proof of creditworthiness in lieu of credit checks. For example, in response to a query about the Vantage Hollywood Apartments in Hollywood last September, a leasing representative said in this email exchange with a tester posing as a voucher holder that pay stubs would not be accepted as proof of creditworthiness:

(

Capital & Main

)

The Vantage Hollywood Apartments agent and five others at Equity misstated the company’s written policy. Its online rental application says the company accepts Section 8 applicants’ pay stubs, proof of government benefits or bank statements to show ability to pay rent. “If you provide us with that documentation, we will use that documentation instead of credit history,” the application says. But even though Equity’s policy is lawful, its agents’ misstatements would violate fair housing law, said Caroline Peattie, executive director of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California. She noted that prospective renters would likely be deterred from applying after being told their applications would almost certainly be rejected.

Equity first vice president Marty McKenna said in a statement, “We are proud of our record of providing homes for our residents who qualify for Section 8 vouchers in a region where there is a shortage of affordable housing.” McKenna didn’t respond to an interview request or comment on specific test results Capital & Main shared with the company. “We are confident that we are operating by applicable regulations regarding Section 8 vouchers,” McKenna wrote.

A leasing agent for Santee Court in downtown Los Angeles said they would reject Section 8 tenants based on credit history alone.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Essex Property Trust

The California-based company, whose board of directors includes former California first lady Anne Gust Brown, appeared to comply with fair housing law at five of nine buildings testers queried.

Capital & Main testers contacted leasing representatives at nine Essex properties, all of whom said they accept Section 8 vouchers. But four of them refused to consider Section 8 voucher holders’ pay stubs or other proof of creditworthiness, even though Essex official policy is to accept such evidence in lieu of credit history. At Essex’s Santee Court in downtown Los Angeles, a leasing representative insisted that a tenant would have to pass a credit check nonetheless, according to a tester’s notes:

(

Capital & Main

)

At the Fountain Park at Playa Vista, an agent said the building would “look at pay stubs and bank statements.” But poor credit, the agent said, would require a “guarantor” — an individual who would take legal responsibility for any unpaid rent.

Essex Property Trust representatives didn’t answer Capital & Main’s questions about their agents’ reliance on credit scores to vet applicants. But a company spokesperson said in a statement, “We have reviewed both our written policy and application process and we are in compliance with the law: all Section 8 applicants are approved based on their ability to pay their portion of the rent, not based on credit score.”

A leasing agent at AVA Toluca Hills said a Section 8 tenant would have to meet the building’s credit score requirements in order to rent an apartment.

A leasing agent at AVA Toluca Hills said a Section 8 tenant would have to meet the building’s credit score requirements in order to rent an apartment.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

AvalonBay Communities

At AvalonBay Communities properties, agents said they accepted Section 8 vouchers, but some representatives of the Arlington, Virginia-based company provided incorrect information about how the program works and described credit requirements that are now prohibited by California law.

At four of the six AvalonBay Communities properties queried, agents said they would reject Section 8 applicants based on credit history. And at one property, representatives didn’t return follow-up calls about credit and income criteria.

Several AvalonBay leasing agents showed a shaky understanding of the Section 8 program, suggesting they have little experience with it. When a tester asked in a phone call last October if there was any alternative way to prove their ability to pay if they failed a credit check, an agent at eaves Los Feliz said no. The credit check was “something we can’t override,” and proving with pay stubs was not an option, the agent said.

In response to a question in a September 2024 phone call about minimum income requirements, an agent at AVA Toluca Hills erroneously responded, “Normally when you have a voucher it’s because you have no income.” (Most Section 8 voucher holders who are able to work do so.) The tester followed up with an email asking “If I failed the credit check, would I be able to prove my ability to pay another way, for example, by showing my check stubs?” The agent responded:

(

Capital & Main

)

AvalonBay representatives didn’t respond to Capital & Main’s interview requests or written questions.

A Leasing agent for Park La Brea, a Los Angeles landmark, said that a credit check was required for Section 8 tenants, an apparent violation of state law.

A Leasing agent for Park La Brea, a Los Angeles landmark, said that a credit check was required for Section 8 tenants, an apparent violation of state law.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Prime Residential

The San Francisco-based company owns and operates some 20,000 housing units on the West Coast, including the Park La Brea apartments in L.A.’s Miracle Mile, the largest apartment complex west of the Mississippi, with more than 4,000 apartments.

Capital & Main’s hired testers contacted leasing agents at five Prime Residential complexes. All said they accept Section 8 vouchers. At Park La Brea, an agent said in a September 2024 text message that they relied on credit history to screen all applicants:

(

Capital & Main

)

At four other Prime buildings, leasing agents said they didn’t know if credit history would disqualify Section 8 applicants until after credit and background checks were completed.

Prime Residential declined an interview request, but said in a statement, “We work hard to comply with all applicable state and federal fair housing laws, including seeking alternative evidence of ability to pay rent and never denying Section 8 voucher holders based on credit. As part of our efforts to help people take advantage of rental assistance programs, leasing agents and other staff at our properties receive annual training on relevant laws and Prime policies.”

A leasing agent at the Eden apartments in downtown Los Angeles said a Section 8 applicant who failed a credit check would be denied a rental at the building.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

Greystar

Charleston, South Carolina-based Greystar is the largest landlord in the U.S. Leasing agents at all nine Greystar buildings contacted by testers said they accepted Section 8 vouchers. But only two agents said they would consider pay stubs, proof of government benefits or other documents as evidence of a voucher holder’s ability to pay rent. Leasing agents at Desmond didn’t return follow-up calls from a tester inquiring about the building’s credit check requirement. The La Plaza Village, built in partnership with the Cesar Chavez Foundation and managed by Greystar, was built to bring homes to “residents who need them most,” according to a 2019 Chavez Foundation news release. A La Plaza agent said the building didn’t require a specific credit score and that applicants could fail credit checks if their records included evictions or money owed to previous landlords. However, the agent said they would not accept a Section 8 applicant’s alternative evidence of creditworthiness, as this tester’s notes of a September 2024 phone call with a leasing staffer show:

(

Capital & Main

)

At the Eden, in downtown Los Angeles, a leasing agent told a tester in a September 2024 phone call that there was a “waitlist” for Section 8 tenants. However the law prohibits landlords from limiting the number of Section 8 participants in a property. Here’s how the tester recorded it in their notes:

(

Capital & Main

)

A Greystar representative said in a statement, “We remain committed to fair housing practices and to ensuring that all applicants are evaluated consistently and in accordance with the law.” The company provided Capital & Main a copy of a Greystar rental policy document that it says is given to all applicants. The document explains that “in lieu of a credit report, prospective tenants who use housing subsidies in California can show evidence of ability to pay their portion of rent.” The company’s statement said, “While Section 8 vouchers are distinct from the many other affordable housing programs, we understand that depending on how questions are asked, these programs can sometimes be conflated.”

The Medici Apartments near downtown Los Angeles is one of several Palmer buildings where a leasing agents said Section 8 applicants were welcome.

(

Barbara Davidson

/

Capital & Main

)

G.H. Palmer Associates

Geoffrey Palmer, a competitive polo player and a major campaign donor to President Donald Trump, owns G.H. Palmer Associates, based in Beverly Hills. Palmer has built a reputation for hostility toward government housing programs. Nevertheless, his company appeared more welcoming than any other to Section 8 tenants, based on Capital & Main’s test results.

Leasing agents at all seven Palmer properties testers contacted said they accept Section 8 vouchers. They also showed familiarity with the program, and easily answered their questions about minimum income and credit requirements. Still, at one complex, the Riverpark Apartments, a leasing agent said Section 8 applicants could not provide pay stubs in lieu of passing a credit check. In a September 2024 phone call, according to a Capital & Main tester’s notes:

(

Capital & Main

)

Neither Palmer nor members of the company’s executive team responded to Capital & Main’s written questions or a request to discuss the company’s Section 8 policies.

This reporting was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Annakai Hayakawa Geshlider, Arlen Levy, Jeremy Lindenfeld, Maison Tran, Emily Elena Dugdale and Lita Martinez contributed to this story.

Copyright Capital & Main 2025

Something unusual is happening with only a few days remaining before the U.S. men's national team opens its World Cup campaign against Paraguay: Tickets for the match are not sold out.

Although numbers fluctuate regularly, FIFA's ticketing website still shows 132 tickets left to sell for a game that's set to take place in Los Angeles on Friday. Meanwhile, resale platforms such as StubHub and SeatGeek — and FIFA's own marketplace — also show thousands of tickets on sale.

The number is even higher for Canada's opening match against Bosnia Herzegovina in Toronto on the same day, with 226 tickets left in FIFA's website and a high number of tickets available in resale markets.

That's unusual for high-profile events such as the opening matches of the World Cup — traditionally among the hardest to get tickets in the tournament. This year will feature three hosts in the U.S., Canada and Mexico — but so far only Mexico's opening match against South Africa on Thursday looks to be virtually sold out.

Ticketing experts widely agree on the reason: the prices. FIFA dramatically jacked them up for the tournament — especially for high profile games. The most expensive regular seats for the U.S. opener against Paraguay are priced at $2,735 — more than the final cost for the 2022 World Cup final — while the cheapest are $1,120.

Even President Trump said he wouldn't pay those prices.

"I would certainly like to be there, but I wouldn't pay it either, to be honest with you," Trump told the New York Post in a recent interview.

The other two remaining games for the U.S. national have far fewer tickets available, given that prices are well below the ones for the opening match.

Prices have also fallen sharply

There are not only plenty of tickets left to sell — a number of them are also available below FIFA's face value. According to Ticketdata, which tracks prices across the resale platforms, the cheapest pair of tickets for the opening match for the U.S. and Canada was $951 as of Monday morning, while in FIFA's resale platform, tickets were available for as low as $690.

Other games across the 104-match tournament also still have many tickets left to sell — despite FIFA President Gianni Infantino's claim that every match is "already sold out." That's especially the case for lesser well known teams such as the Jordan against Algeria match, which still had hundreds of unsold seats in the FIFA's web site.

Demand for high-profile tickets such as Argentina and Portugal was far higher, however, with many of those games looking largely sold out.

Will the opening matches sell out?

Whether eventually the U.S. and Canada opening matches will sell out is hard to answer. Throughout the sales process, FIFA has closely guarded how many tickets it has actually sold and how many are left to sell, making it virtually impossible to gauge.

In addition, like other teams, FIFA could also sell tickets in other platforms including third-party ones such as SeatGeek, which can further obscure how many tickets are left to sell.

FIFA and organizers, however, are hoping for a surge in excitement that leads to a last-minute rush of sales for the opening matches as well as for those such as Jordan against Algeria that look far from being sold out.

Ben Shields, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, says perceptions so far of the tournament have been shaped by how expensive tickets and travel has been for a tournament taking place across an entire continent.

That, he says, "does not seem to sit well with many."

But that could change.

"The hope or bet — for FIFA is that once the matches start — and the greatest players in the world compete for the most prestigious prize of them all, the sport as business lens will fade into the background and the World Cup will be seen and experienced as the enduring global institution that it is," Shields says. "We shall see."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Orange County’s top elected leaders on Tuesday are set to discuss what to do with $3.7 million recovered from the Andrew Do corruption scheme.

Do is now serving a five-year sentence in federal prison after he admitted to accepting bribes in exchange for awarding millions in tax dollars meant to feed needy seniors and people with disabilities in his district.

As part of the plea deal, Do acknowledged taking more than $800,000 in bribes through his two daughters, including a down payment on the house his youngest daughter Rhiannon Do later forfeited to resolve the criminal case. The scheme was first uncovered by LAist.

Federal officials recovered money from seized bank accounts and two properties connected to Do’s scheme — including the Tustin house his daughter bought.

The county Board of Supervisors is expected to publicly discuss plans for the recovered funds as they make decisions on the overall county budget at their meeting Tuesday. Public comment will also be taken.

What to do with the money?

Ahead of Tuesday’s discussion, Do’s successor said the funds should support residents of his former district who were deprived by Do and his alleged co-conspirators.

“For the past five years, every other district in Orange County has benefitted from the same community funds to support their cities, nonprofits, civic projects which strengthens their communities,” Supervisor Janet Nguyen wrote in a mass email to constituents last week. “However, our district went without because Do stole what belonged to our residents.”

“This money was stolen from the First District, and it must come back to the First District,” Nguyen added.

Nguyen was Do’s mentor and former boss more than a decade ago, before the two had a bitter falling out by 2016.

She encouraged residents of her district to send letters to the board and to speak during public comments.

Several county supervisors told LAist they supported a similar approach, one in which the recovered money goes to support the original intended recipients: seniors and people with disabilities in Do’s former district. Some supervisors have since advocated a broader view of how they’d want to use the money, noting that it was meant to address disruptions caused by the pandemic. Now that years have passed since the initial COVID-19 outbreak and lockdowns, some supervisors argue community needs have changed.

“We are so many years on, and the problems that money originally was to address (mostly Covid impacts) are now behind us, that I think we should have a discussion about how and where to spend it,” Supervisor Don Wagner told LAist via text message in March. “The budget is so tight and the needs so great across the county.”

Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he’d work toward a fair distribution of the funds to best serve residents, with a focus on current needs.

“We will definitely consider what areas of the County were harmed by Do’s scheme, but we must also remember that the funds were intended for relief efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, a threat we are no longer facing,” he said in March. “We also need to consider addressing the current needs of residents with any dollars returned to the county.”

Millions more haven’t been recovered, at least yet

The amount of taxpayer money recovered so far is less than half of the $7.9 million Andrew Do admitted was diverted from specific meal contracts.

In a lawsuit seeking to recover funds, the county alleges the total amount lost in the scheme was even larger: $13.25 million. The county’s suit — scheduled for trial in November 2027 — covers all of the money Do gave to two nonprofits accused in the scheme, Viet America Society and Hand to Hand Relief Organization.

That leaves more than $4 million — and possibly much more — not yet recovered.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office noted they have an ongoing criminal case against Do’s alleged co-conspirator Peter Pham.

“Assuming we obtain a conviction in that matter, we would expect to seek restitution,” the spokesperson, Ciaran McEvoy, said.

Pham left the country on a flight to Taiwan in late 2024 and remains a fugitive, according to McEvoy. The case against him also includes charges against another alleged co-conspirator, Thanh Huong Nguyen, who led the Hand to Hand nonprofit.

Fans of the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team swelled the stadium at the Great Park in Irvine on Monday to watch players practice for the first time since arriving at the training facility they’ll call home for the first round of the 2026 World Cup.

“Seeing them play right now… it was really cool to see how they play and how they practice,” said Mila Ran, who came with her mother from nearby Mission Viejo.

“This whole time she’s saying, 'I want to go shoot, I want to go play,'” said Mila’s mother, Farah Ran.

They were among about 6,000 people who won free entry to the practice in a lottery that received more than 30,000 entries, according to Irvine officials.

Fans got to the venue early.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

The team’s biggest stars — Christian Pulisic, Antonee Robinson and others — showed off their ball handling skills, honed over years of play on U.S. youth fields and overseas in professional leagues. Fans yelled, waved U.S. flags, held up homemade signs, and did the wave several times.

The U.S. Men's National Team at their only open-to-the-public practice session in Irvine.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

After the roughly 45-minute practice, some players walked to the sidelines to take selfies with fans and sign autographs.

The players know it’s going to take more than this, however, to live up to expectations during the World Cup.

US men's national team player Tim Ream signs an autograph for a fan.

(

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

/

LAist

)

“To be in a position to train in front of these people today… is such a unique opportunity and one that none of us take for granted,” said backup goalie Matt Freese before the practice. “We’re working as hard as we can, as focused as we can to leave the next generation inspired."

The U.S. men’s team and their training staff will use the Great Park facility over the next several weeks as the team plays Paraguay on Friday, Australia on June 19, and Turkey on June 25 in group play at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

Jury selection began Monday for the trial of the man accused of igniting a fire that led to the deadly and destructive Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

Jonathan Rinderknecht is charged with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, one count of arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and one count of setting timber afire. He could face up to 45 years in federal prison.

How we got here

Prosecutors allege Rinderknecht set brush alight near a popular hiking trail in the Santa Monica Mountains on New Year’s Day, starting the Lachman Fire. Firefighters initially thought they put out the fire, but it remained smouldering underground for several days. High winds then brought the embers to the surface, sparking the Palisades Fire, which burned more than 23,000 acres.

What prosecutors say

In a court filing in April, prosecutors allege Rinderknecht displayed “extreme anger, indignation, and frustration” because he had to spend New Year's Eve alone. After driving around for Uber, Rinderknecht hiked up a popular trail and set chaparral alight in a clearing, according to prosecutors.

“He then started calling 911 multiple times, hiked down the hill, and fled the area in his car before firefighters arrived. Defendant returned to the area after he saw fire trucks arriving and then took videos of the firefighting efforts,” prosecutors wrote.

The filing also states that Rinderknecht threatened to burn down his sister’s home.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Rinderknecht started the smaller blaze knowing it could turn into a bigger inferno.

U.S. District Court Judge Anne Hwang has previously expressed the government’s position could confuse jurors.

What the defense says

Defense attorney Steve Haney previously told reporters that prosecutors were trying to blame Rinderknecht for a fire that started days before the Palisades Fire.

"Well what about what happened between Jan. 1 and Jan. 7?" he asked. "Jonathan wasn't out there with a fire hose putting that fire out at the Lachman location, the Fire Department was. So why are they blaming him for whatever the Fire Department didn't do?"