The Brief

This story is part of The Disaster Economy, a Grist series exploring the often chaotic, lucrative world of disaster response and recovery. It was produced by Grist and co-published with LAist. It is published with support from the CO2 Foundation.

Last January, a series of massive wildfires broke out across the Los Angeles area, fueled by high winds and dry temperatures. The fires raged for weeks, incinerating entire neighborhoods in the wealthy Pacific Palisades and in middle-class Altadena. They killed at least 30 people and destroyed at least 10,000 homes.

As the embers cooled, thousands of displaced Angelenos scrambled to find new housing in a rental market that was already among the nation’s toughest. They scoured Zillow and Airbnb for units they could afford on short notice. What they found were sky-high prices gouged by property owners and real estate agents rushing to capitalize on the surge in demand.

Dawn Smith and her family had rented in Altadena for nine years. After their home burned in the Eaton Fire, she combed through online listings for a similar alternative. But options were $10,000 a month or more, triple what she had been paying before the fire.

Eventually, she found a smaller place in Sherman Oaks, more than an hour away, for a still-astonishing $7,800. Her renter’s insurance would cover the difference for a few months, but not for the whole term of the lease. Now, as her insurance comes close to expiring, she and her husband are trying to figure out where to go next.

“The prices were insane,” she told Grist, “but because we had to find somewhere, we rented.”

Controversies over price-gouging play out all over the country in the wake of natural disasters as victims scramble for essential goods. Officials in New Jersey went after price-gouging gas stations after Hurricane Sandy; officials in North Carolina went after scam contractors after Hurricane Florence; and Florida prosecutors said they received more than 100 complaints after last year’s Hurricane Milton.

Most states have laws that prohibit such behavior, but they are difficult to enforce in the chaos of disaster, and some economists contend that they can backfire and cause shortages or hoarding.

But housing is a special case. Overpaying for water or gasoline might be difficult, but overpaying for a rental apartment is a long-term commitment that can lead to bankruptcy or eviction down the road. Concerns about price-gouging of rental apartments have appeared after numerous recent wildfires, including the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise and the 2021 Marshall Fire in Boulder. But prosecutors and public officials have largely failed to deter or punish this illegal behavior.

Two days after wildfires broke out in Los Angeles last January, tech founder Edward Kushins and real estate agent Willie Baronet-Israel hiked the price of a home they were renting out in the waterfront city of Hermosa Beach by 36 percent, likely an increase of more than $1,000. The city is about 15 miles from the Palisades burn zone.

A month later, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the two, citing a state law that makes it a crime to raise prices for food and shelter during an emergency by more than 10%. If found guilty, Kushins and Baronet-Israel would face fines of up to $10,000 and as much as a year in prison.

But the Hermosa Beach listing was just one of thousands that were spiking in price. According to a Washington Post analysis of listings data from the firm RentCast, the average rent in the L.A. area rose by 20% in the two weeks after the fire — double the maximum allowable increase under California law. The home-rental company Airbnb also allowed users to raise prices above legal limits on more than 2,000 properties, despite its assurances that it would block such behavior, according to prosecutors.

The burnt remnants of an apartment building in Altadena, California, following the Eaton Fire in January. Many fire victims struggled to find housing as rents skyrocketed.

(

Keith Birmingham

/

MediaNews Group/Pasadena Star-News via Getty Images via Grist

)

This lack of enforcement is common after disasters. But this time, it triggered an unprecedented campaign for stricter regulation of housing prices — and one that got results.

“The minimal enforcement that has happened has totally sent a signal,” said Chelsea Kirk, a tenant advocate who organized against price-gouging after the L.A. wildfires. “Landlords expect that enforcement does not exist.”

Three dozen states and the District of Columbia have laws that prohibit merchants from price-gouging during an emergency, but unlike California, which prohibits hikes of more than 10%, many of these laws are vague, prohibiting “excessive” or “unconscionable” increases without specifying what that means or what goods are covered.

“The laws are all over the place,” said Teresa Murray, the lead consumer advocate at the Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit that focuses on consumer protection. Furthermore, enforcement of these laws is minimal — the government can’t be everywhere all at once after a hurricane or flood, and most disaster victims aren’t aware of their rights and don’t track or call out violators.

The stakes are even higher when it comes to housing, which is already in shortage across the country. Around half the nation’s tenants are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Wildfires and hurricanes often destroy thousands of homes in quick succession, exacerbating supply crunch in local housing stock.

Research from across the country shows that landlords often hike prices after major fires and floods. Asking prices for rental apartments increased by 25% after the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California, for instance, and by 44% in Lahaina following the 2023 Maui wildfires in Hawaiʻi. The increases even hit existing renters: More than a quarter of renters in Boulder said they saw hikes of more than 10% after the 2021 Marshall Fire, and a study of multiple flood events found that inexpensive apartments see hikes of 5% on average after a flood. These hikes hit low-income households hardest, forcing them to relocate or cut down on other expenses.

This same dynamic was on display in Los Angeles earlier this year following the Palisades and Eaton fires. One of the people who tested this market was Blanca, a woman who lived in an apartment building in Altadena, and who declined to give her last name because of her immigration status. The Eaton Fire destroyed her business and caused significant damage to the apartment complex where she and her husband lived. Even though their unit was intact, the building lacked water, gas, and electricity.

An aerial view of burned properties in Altadena, taken in July. Many of the homes destroyed in the January fires have not been rebuilt.

(

Allen J. Schaben

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images via Grist

)

Blanca and her husband looked for other apartments, but all the available units they found were far too expensive, some thousands of dollars above what they had paid in Altadena for the same amount of space. They couldn’t afford anything like what landlords were asking, so after a few weeks, they moved back to their unit in the damaged complex and lived there paying rent in unsafe conditions for months.

“The place has not even been inspected, and many people have returned since February,” said Blanca in Spanish. “But there was nowhere else to go.”

In the first days after the fire, California attorney general Bonta trumpeted the state’s price-gouging ban several times — not only could landlords not raise prices by more than 10%, they also couldn’t list new units for more than 160% of typical market value. But property owners seemed either not to know about the law, or not to care.

Bonta, the attorney general, has sent more than 750 warning letters since the fire to property owners who may have price gouged, but has initiated only four lawsuits, and so far not obtained a conviction. The city attorney of Los Angeles has filed a few of its own lawsuits, including against Airbnb, but the district attorney for much larger Los Angeles County has not filed a single price-gouging case. Legal nonprofits say they can’t pick up the slack because they need a named victim in order to sue a landlord, and most disaster victims don’t have the knowledge or resources to pursue litigation.

“We have been a little bit disappointed, I will say,” said Rodney Leggett, the director of litigation at the Housing Rights Center in Los Angeles, which has sued a few property owners over the post-fire price gouging, including the company that owns the historic Villa Carlotta apartments in Hollywood. “We have gotten complaints of people seeing price gouging, [but] we have gotten relatively few … people saying, ‘I am actively being price gouged.’ I think a big part of that is it's really hard for people to track, and to know, the sort of price changes that have occurred.”

But the epidemic of price-gouging in L.A. after the fires has also triggered new progress on the difficult issue of enforcement. As Zillow flooded with overpriced homes, a group of tenant advocates began an unprecedented crowdsourcing campaign to track and shame price-gougers. Kirk, a policy advocate at the progressive nonprofit Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, was seeing numerous instances of price hikes, but she knew that Bonta’s office and local prosecutors lacked the capacity to track and sue every landlord who was posting high-priced units.

Kirk partnered with Lauren Harper, a data analyst and fellow tenant advocate, and together they took enforcement into their own hands. Forming a new organization called The Rent Brigade, they created a spreadsheet that scraped Zillow for apartment listings that violated the price-gouging laws, and also encouraged fire victims and volunteers to submit proof of gouging. In the first few weeks after the fire, volunteers submitted more than 1,500 examples.

Mike Nemeth, the head of communications for the California Apartment Association, the state’s biggest landlord lobby, told Grist that most landlords tried their best to comply with the law.

“The California Apartment Association takes seriously the legal and ethical obligations of rental housing providers during declared emergencies,” he said. “Most housing providers want to do the right thing, and our role is to help them navigate complex rules when it matters most.”

(

Zoe Myers

/

AFP via Getty Images via Grist

)

Thanks in part to the Rent Brigade’s pressure, local officials in Los Angeles are now trying to step up enforcement. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted in July to create a new system for penalizing price spike activity. Instead of waiting for a prosecutor or a legal nonprofit to file a court complaint against a landlord, the local government could slap the landlord with an administrative fine, the same way it would punish a restaurant with cockroaches in its kitchen or a driver who parked near a fire hydrant. The fines could reach up to $1000 per violation per day, with an additional $500 per day for failing to cooperate with county investigations.

Jamie Court, president of the advocacy firm Consumer Watchdog, says this kind of ordinance could be a model for how to enforce price-gouging laws.

“This is desperately needed as a deterrent and to let people know that price gouging is not up to prosecutorial discretion,” he told Grist. “People need to know every violation could result in a fine, not just the few prosecutors choose to prosecute.”

Los Angeles County’s price-gouging will lapse at the end of August when the fire emergency ended, so the new rules will only apply the next time California declares an emergency for a fire, flood, or other calamity. But during the last months of the ban, Kirk and other advocates noticed something unexpected — and concerning. The rush of new housing demand from the fire had ended, but many landlords were still listing new units well above fair market rate.

The L.A. housing supply, Kirk and Harper concluded, was so limited that price gouging had become a normal part of the market. Even in the absence of a major shock like the fire, landlords were still asking for exorbitant rents, and tenants were still paying them. The emergency declaration was only going to last for an arbitrary period of a few months, but the overall housing picture was as bad as ever.

“When the fire started, we were seeing a lot of these units coming online for absurd prices from people who don't usually rent, maybe knowing that people coming from the Palisades would be able to afford those kinds of things,” said Harper. “But the further that we get from the fires…I think it's reflective of just high rents.”

If you're online, anywhere adjacent to the World Cup, you'll see that the Argentina team, which will play England in the semifinals Wednesday, is attracting a lot of criticism.

It can be largely grouped into two categories: soccer and culture. In soccer, Argentina’s comeback win against Egypt last week prompted accusations, including from Egypt’s head coach, that the FIFA referees in that match favored Argentina.

Meanwhile, cultural clichés online accuse Argentines of being arrogant and looking down on other Latin Americans.

“I get sad,  I must say, that when I see that, it hurts me a little bit, to be honest,” said San Fernando Valley resident Roxana Lissa. She was born and raised in Argentina and moved to the U.S. more than 30 years ago.

But she's used to it.

“The thing about Argentines is we have such thick skin,” Lissa said.

California’s Argentine population has grown in the past couple of decades. The state is now home to the second-largest concentration of Argentines in the U.S. after Florida.

Exclusion by other Latinos

The negative comments are not new, but social media has fueled them into a firestorm.

Some Argentines in Southern California say they’ve not seen negativity this bad against their culture before.

Mariana Ferrero, who moved to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 13 years old, said the comments are opening old wounds of exclusion by other Latino immigrants in Southern California.

“What bothers me is [the criticism] goes beyond soccer. It's more of saying, "Oh, you're Argentinian. You're not a real Latina,'” Ferrero said.

She says many Latinos assume she’s privileged because she’s lighter skinned.

But Ferrero says her background is not like that at all. Argentina’s struggling economy led Ferrero’s parents to leave their home, their language and their country.

“We packed up. We came here. We lived with nothing in a tiny one-bedroom apartment, worked really hard, odd jobs,” she said.

Ferrero has some explanation for the hostility, however.

“I think some of it is just a perception that we come from a country that tends to be proud and tends to be loud and tends to be boisterous about our wins and about our accomplishments. And let me tell you, there's not many of them,” Ferrero said.

Since soccer prowess is one of those few wins, she says she and other Argentines are going to take this World Cup as an opportunity to be loud and proud.

IRL people love Argentines

Ferrero and Lissa say people who’ve visited Argentina gush to them about the warmth and hospitality of its people and the country’s beauty. And few people question that Argentina soccer star Lionel Messi is one of the greatest soccer players of all time.

“I was wearing my Argentina jersey,” Lissa said of a visit during the World Cup to L.A.’s Guelaguetza Oaxacan restaurant to watch Mexico play.

“People were coming to me and saying, 'I love Messi. I love Messi.' And I felt for the first time, 'Damn, I'm not being criticized,'” she said.

Pablo Baler, a professor of Latin American literature at CSU L.A., says the disconnect during this World Cup may be that people don’t believe Argentina represents the underdog soccer nations of Latin America anymore.

“At times, [the team] can feel more like a corporation than a national team, but the country it represents was in many ways the victim of the same imperial powers now competing for the title: France, England and Spain,” he said.

Baler grew up in Argentina and has many Latin American friends. He doesn’t believe the negativity against his homeland will tarnish its reputation. He said a Nicaraguan friend said to him this week that he’s proud Argentina made it to the World Cup semifinals because the team is “one of us.”

Topline

The background: In June, the City Council voted to establish the moratorium as city staff drafted a proposal for a permanent citywide ban. At the time, the moratorium was authorized for 45 days.

The issue first made its way to city hall earlier this year after a group of neighbors raised concerns that a proposed new In-N-Out in Culver City could hurt air quality and create safety issues for pedestrians.

Status of the proposed ban: Culver City staff wrote in a report to City Council this week that they’ve begun drafting a potential permanent ban on new drive-thrus citywide.

The proposal will first go to the city’s planning commission, a five-person body that makes recommendations to the City Council on development and zoning matters in the city, then head to the City Council for a final vote. Those dates have not yet been set.

One councilmember left door open for a different approach: At Monday’s meeting, Councilmember Albert Vera, who was among the four votes supporting the moratorium extension, said he would be open to seeing recommendations from the planning commission that don’t ban drive-thrus citywide outright.

The contractor building the long-awaited LAX People Mover project has filed a lawsuit alleging the city of L.A. breached its contract in several disputes.

In the suit, filed with the L.A. County Superior Court on July 9, LINXS alleges the city is misplacing blame in construction-related disputes and refusing to extend contract deadlines. LINXS also alleges it’s owed additional payment for the work as a result of the delays.

The project, a 2.25-mile-long elevated train designed to transport riders between airport terminals and local transit, is currently undergoing testing. Work on the train is scheduled to be complete “in a few months,” according to a June interview with Los Angeles World Airports CEO John Ackerman on the L.A. in a Minute podcast.

Chief among the disputes detailed in the lawsuit is one involving repairs to faulty electrical equipment in the system that powers the train, resulting in testing delays last year. LAist reported on this dispute last November and in April.

A spokesperson for LINXS said it has attempted to engage in “extensive good-faith efforts over the past two years” to resolve the ongoing contractual disputes.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that manages LAX, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. They added that the agency remains committed to “delivering a safe, durable and reliable” train as soon as possible.

The L.A. City Attorney’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In its lawsuit, LINXS said that by not granting the contractor’s compensation and time-extension requests, the city is attempting to evade accountability for the delayed train, which was once expected to open in 2023 and is nearly a billion dollars over budget.

The contractor warned in its lawsuit that without an extension of contract deadlines, it might be forced to repay lenders who financed the project as soon as this fall. In that case, the contractor said in its lawsuit that it could become “insolvent and unable to perform,” adding that possibility would have “catastrophic consequences.”

Dispute over metering cabinet

Last February, staff from Los Angeles World Airports and the city’s Department of Water and Power directed LINXS to repair equipment in a metering cabinet that had degraded due to moisture and debris, as LAist previously reported.

LINXS completed the repair work, which required power to be partially shut down between February and July 2025. That temporary power disruption delayed critical testing of the technology that allows for central control of the People Mover’s systems.

LINXS said last year, and also in the current lawsuit, that the repair work is not in its scope of work. As a result, the contractor has said it's owed compensation and a minimum of a 141-day extension to complete construction.

“Since then, [Los Angeles World Airports] has stonewalled the discussions of [LINXS’] compensation and a time extension,” the contractor alleges in its lawsuit.

LINXS, citing information it received from a public records request, alleges the issue stemmed from an instance where LADWP opened the metering cabinet in September 2024 to rectify design issues with the equipment contained in it.

Whereas past disputes between LINXS and the airport were resolved through settlements that have so far totaled hundreds of millions of dollars and resulted in schedule extensions, the dispute over maintaining electrical equipment has been uniquely contentious.

“Other relief events that we’ve dealt with up to this point … we could agree there were some things that were not totally within LINXS’ control,” Jake Adams, an airport executive who is overseeing $5.5 billion in LAX upgrades, said in an interview with LAist in April. “This relief event is very different. We believe there is absolutely no merit to this claim.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the contractor is owed additional time and money for several other ongoing disputes, including that Los Angeles World Airports is refusing to sign a power agreement with LADWP for solar panels installed as part of the People Mover project and that workers on separate airport projects have “demolished” work LINXS completed for the train.

What’s the status of the People Mover?

The People Mover is operating in a testing phase where it simulates how the train will operate when it begins shuttling travelers between airport terminals and the L.A. Metro system.

The testing of the train won’t be impacted by the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports told LAist.

A hearing on the case filed last week has been scheduled for December, according to the L.A. County Superior Court’s website.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will pause non-urgent vehicle stops after two deadly shootings in less than a week, Maine Sen. Angus King's office tells NPR.

King spokesman Matthew Felling says the Department of Homeland Security confirmed the policy shift. Maine Sen. Susan Collins also posted Tuesday on X that she had called for change.

"I spoke with DHS Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin last night and urged him to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops," she wrote.

DHS told NPR in a statement that it will not "disclose or discuss law enforcement tactics," and it's unclear what this change will look like in practice.

The most recent death happened Monday in Biddeford, Maine, where ICE agents tried to pull over the car of 26-year-old Joan Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national.

"The vehicle attempted to flee the scene, and fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon," DHS said in a statement. However, the agency has not provided any evidence to back the claims. The agents were not wearing body cameras.

Last week, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was shot by agents in Houston after they attempted to pull him over. The Department of Homeland Security says Salgado Araujo tried to use his van as a weapon, prompting an agent to fire their weapon. But passengers in the van have disputed this account.

Paul Hunker, the former chief counsel of ICE in Dallas, told NPR the standards and principles of when to discharge a firearm are clear.

"I was an attorney for the officers — the person has to pose an imminent threat of harm to use deadly force," Hunker said.

He said whether the person poses an imminent threat is always from the perspective of the officer.

DHS policy

The Department of Homeland Security's policy says deadly force cannot be used solely to prevent someone from fleeing … unless the person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the agent or others.

DHS accused Salgado Araujo of weaponizing his car against the ICE officer. In Maine, the agency said Durán Guerrero posed a public safety threat.

But in these cases, there hasn't been video evidence to back up those allegations.

The latest development has been welcomed by former DHS officials who said a reset is needed in order to regain the trust of the public and ensure no more lives are lost.

"That person could flee and present a big danger to people around them … that's one of the reasons I think there are few vehicle chases because of the danger and the harm that could happen if one of those goes bad." Hunker said.

He said in the past, ICE's preference has been to assume custody of the undocumented immigrants who were already in jails, making it safer for the agents.

Sarah Saldaña, a former ICE acting director under President Barack Obama, said the shift in policy is a good start.

"I think it's a very practical thing to do until the agency can get its officers more properly trained and attuned to what their effort is," Saldaña said. "Immigration enforcement should not be a deadly endeavor — it should be a method by which to make sure that people are complying with the law."

Despite the shift in policy, there are a lot of outstanding questions about what led to the fatal shootings of Salgado Araujo in Houston last week, and of Durán Guerrero in Maine this week.

None of the federal immigration agents were wearing body cameras, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

After the shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in January, DHS vowed to quickly deploy body cameras to federal immigration agents nationwide.

But that hasn't happened.

The agency is blaming Democrats in Congress and the partial government shutdowns for this. But it is, again, vowing to deploy body cameras for all agents in the next 60 days.

That footage would have been key to knowing whether the agents followed protocol or not, and to hold the agents accountable, said Lauren Bonds, the executive director of the nonprofit National Police Accountability Project.

"Luckily in both instances there were witnesses, independent witnesses, that observed some things and were able to share some information," Bonds said. "But it's really hard to be able to hold ICE agents accountable in any manner if all we're getting from DHS right now is kind of vague statements about the car being used in a way that was either threatening the ICE agents or, in the case of Maine, threatening the public."

Bonds said the public needs to keep demanding answers and independent investigations to create a change in policy — like the pause on traffic stops made public Tuesday.

NPR's Meg Anderson contributed reporting.