The Brief

Last month, the Los Angeles City Council voted to crack down on a practice that councilmembers say is adding to the strain on the city’s housing supply: landlords turning homes — including rent-controlled apartments — into illegal tourist accommodations or party houses.

The move comes in the wake of the devastating Eaton and Palisades fires that destroyed thousands of homes and thrust fire victims into an already tight rental market in search of affordable accommodations.

The city is seeking to beef up enforcement of a 2018 law that prohibits turning such housing into tourist rentals. Thus far, enforcement of the so-called Home Sharing Ordinance has been spotty. Last year, an investigation by Capital & Main and ProPublica found dozens of rent-controlled buildings, some of which operated as hotels, offered vacation rentals on Booking.com and Hotels.com; many more such properties are likely listed on Airbnb and other platforms that don’t publish their listings’ addresses. City officials have estimated that about 60% of short-term rentals in multifamily buildings are illegal.

“Because of poor communication between city departments and weak guardrails against bad actors, we have simply made no progress on this issue,” Councilmember Nithya Raman said, as she urged colleagues to support new enforcement measures.

The City Council action comes as demand for short-term rentals is expected to spike during the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympic Games. The recent wildfires destroyed nearly 800 rent-controlled apartments in the city, further constricting the housing supply.

Capital & Main spoke to Murray Cox, the founder of Inside Airbnb, which tracks the company’s business in more than a hundred cities from Barcelona to Buenos Aires to Bozeman, Montana, using publicly available data. Cox was among the advocates who pushed to enact the tough 2022 law that has sharply reduced short-term rentals in New York City. He argues that despite years of lackluster enforcement, Los Angeles can effectively rein in short-term rentals and shore up its housing supply.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Capital & Main: Inside Airbnb has an eye on the industry across the planet: What is at stake for the city of L.A. as it tries to tighten its regulations ahead of the 2028 Olympics?

Murray Cox: I know that anecdotally, the number of listings on Airbnb in Paris and even the region surrounding Paris went up in a big way last year. But the big question is, did they come down? Do they increase the cost of housing? Were there illegal conversions?

It’s not just about people maybe making a few bucks during the Olympics, but also, will it incentivize people to realize, I can do this the whole year, even if it’s illegal?

Even without the Olympics, [Los Angeles city officials are] not enforcing their current regulations that they need to make the platforms accountable, that they need to make sure that people are not taking rent-regulated properties out of the market.

The wildfires destroyed thousands of Los Angeles-area homes. What are the implications for short-term rental regulation as the city rebuilds?

L.A. might want to think about what type of housing is going to be built. Are people going to build housing that might be purposely built for short-term rentals? Often when people get displaced, they can’t come back. And short-term rentals is one of those drivers. People might be thinking of rebuilding, but maybe not [homes] for people to live in, but for tourists.

L.A. plans to require Airbnb, Booking.com and other platforms to verify listings electronically, a system similar to New York’s. How does it work there, and is it effective?

[In New York], we’ve gone from 50,000 [short-term rentals during the pandemic] to 5,000 short term rentals. So, you know, I think it’s been really effective because of the type of regulation and the verification system [currently in place].

If you try to register a rent-regulated property [in New York City], you’ll be denied. If I knew your registration number, I couldn’t steal it and put it on my own listing. If I have two listings, I can’t use the same [registration] number on both. Those are some of the things I believe Los Angeles hosts have been doing.

Can the city of L.A. get its verification system up and running ahead of the Olympics?

I think Airbnb [and other platforms] relies on these things taking a long time, and they insert doubt into the process. They threaten to sue. They even sometimes volunteer to self-regulate, and it just kind of helps to kick the can down the road.

[Los Angeles] is three years away from the Olympics. I don’t see why you couldn’t optimistically change your ordinance, get it through quickly, prioritize it [and] have a tight timeline for implementation.

[A spokesperson for Expedia, which owns and operates Vrbo and Hotels.com, wrote in an email that it “is committed to continuing our work with the City of Los Angeles as it considers changes to local regulations on vacation rentals.” Airbnb public policy senior manager Justin Wesson noted in an emailed statement that the company has signed a voluntary “platform agreement” with the city to remove illegal listings, adding, “We continue to work closely with city staff to support their compliance efforts and encourage more platforms to enter into a platform agreement with the City.” Booking.com did not respond to Capital & Main’s emailed questions, including whether they would oppose a requirement to use electronic verification in Los Angeles and if they would take legal action to block or delay such a mandate.]

Copyright Capital & Main 2025

Former state Controller Betty Yee dropped out from the governor’s race on Monday, saying she couldn’t see a path to get donors and additional support from undecided voters with six weeks left before the primary.

“It was becoming clear that the donors were not going to be there,” she said. “Even some of my former supporters just felt like they needed to move on as well.”

She did not immediately endorse another candidate, but said she would do so in the next few days.

Yee was one of the earliest to enter the race, announcing her candidacy more than two years ago. She ran on her experience handling the state budget and her family’s middle-class, immigrant background.

A progressive who supported continuing the state’s greenhouse gas reduction mandates, Yee also emphasized her ability to balance the budget and spoke often about the importance of growing the state’s economy and auditing state programs for fraud. In recent days, she had begun styling herself as “Boring Betty,” promising drama-free state government experience.

But pragmatism never translated into star power. Yee has stayed at or near the bottom of the polls, never garnering more than about 3% of likely voters, and consistently lagged in fundraising.

That made her one of California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks’ unnamed targets of a public campaign to pressure lower-polling Democrats to drop out of the race. With many Democrats in the race potentially splitting the liberal vote, Democrats were concerned two Republicans could possibly win the top-two primary election in June.

Yee, the former vice chair of the party, insisted she had grassroots support and wouldn’t be forced out of the race by a slate of wealthy, male candidates. She and the other candidates of color banded together to denounce their exclusion from a USC candidate debate last month after the university used a formula based on polling and fundraising to decide who to invite. The debate was ultimately canceled.

“This has been my life story, frankly, as a woman of color,” she told reporters in March. “I’ve been overlooked, I’ve been underestimated and pushed aside.”

The chances of Democrats getting locked out of the general election have gone down since former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out over a week ago over sexual assault allegations and after President Donald Trump endorsed Steve Hilton on the Republican side.

But Yee has little cash on hand to continue, and the race is entering its most expensive phase yet with multiple candidates launching television ads last week.

Her exit leaves only one woman in the race, former Rep. Katie Porter.

Like Swalwell, Yee dropped out after a March state deadline to file or withdraw for the race, so her name will remain on the ballot in June.

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

April 30 is your last chance to claim any cash you qualify for with California’s Middle Class Tax Refund — a one-time payment approved by state lawmakers back in 2022.

According to the Franchise Tax Board — the California agency responsible for these funds — 32 million residents received a total of $9.2 billion in payments.

MCTR payments ranged from $200 to $1,050, and what you got depended on how you filed your 2020 tax return. For example, if you listed yourself as a single filer and made less than $75,000, you qualified for $350. If you filed jointly with your spouse and listed a dependent, and made less than $150,000, you were eligible for $1,050. The program even included taxpayers making up to $500,000 if they filed jointly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators approved MCTR payments as a response to the jump in gasoline prices that came after the United States banned Russian oil imports at the start of 2022.

More than 7 million Californians received the funds through direct deposit — but another 9.6 million people received the rebate through a debit card that was mailed to the address listed on their 2020 tax return.

Recent data from the FTB shows that 90% of cards have been activated over the last four years. But around 57% of these activated cards still have some balance on them — meaning around $2.95 billion in total funds have yet to be used by Californians.

If you’ve ever received a MCTR card in the mail, you have till April 30 before the card expires — and you lose the funds it contains.

Keep reading for what to know about claiming your possible MCTR cash before the end of the month.

How do I know if I qualified for this money?

If you can find them, check your 2020 tax returns — because while the MCTR program began in 2022, what taxpayers received was based on how they filed back in 2020.

April 30 is the deadline to claim any remaining funds from California’s 2022 Middle Class Tax Refund. The state’s Franchise Tax Board said 32 million residents have already received $9.2 billion in payments.

(

Diego Cervo

/

Getty Images

)

State officials set up several tiers that decide how much taxpayers get from MCTR, based on their income:

• Tier 1: If you filed single in 2020 and made up to $75,000, you qualified for $350 of MCTR money, plus an additional $350 if you had at least one dependent. If you filed jointly and made up to $150,000 together, you qualified for $700 and an additional $350 if you had at least one dependent.
• Tier 2: If you filed single in 2020 and made up to $125,000, you qualified for $250, plus an additional $250 if you had at least one dependent. If you filed jointly and made up to $250,000 together, you qualified for $500 and an additional $250 if you had at least one dependent.
• Tier 3: If you filed single in 2020 and made up to $250,000, you qualified for $200, plus an additional $200 if you had at least one dependent. If you filed jointly and made up to $500,000 together, you qualified for $200 and an additional $400 if you had at least one dependent.

If I qualified for an MCTR debit card, when did I receive it?

The FTB said it mailed out all debit cards between October 2022 and January 2023 — and that it then sent reminder letters in spring 2023 and spring 2024 to taxpayers who had not activated their cards yet.

After April 30, your card will no longer work anywhere, and you will no longer have access to this money.

(

Courtesy of Money Network

)

Each card came in its own window envelope with “California Middle Class Tax Refund” printed on the return address.

The state flag’s grizzly bear and the state seal are printed on the front side of all MCTR cards, and all have the same expiration date: “04/26”

“Cardholders are urged to spend their funds or transfer them to a bank account by April 30, 2026,” a spokesperson for the FTB told KQED in an emailed statement.

After April 30, your card will no longer work anywhere, and you will no longer have access to this money.

How do I know how much money I have left on my card?

The MCTR cards are administered by a private company called Money Network. You can either call Money Network’s customer service line at 1-800-240-0223 or create an account at the MCTR website set up by the company.

Keep in mind that you will be asked to confirm the number on your card and your entire Social Security number. You can also register your debit card on Money Network’s app.

If there are two names printed on your card — which usually happens for taxpayers who filed jointly — you can register your card using the name that appears above the other.

I found my MCTR card, but I’m having trouble using it

While the FTB tracks MCTR funds, Money Network — the private company that made the cards — is now responsible for helping cardholders. If you have never used your card, it’s possible that the security controls on the card placed it on hold.

“This is a standard fraud-prevention measure and does not mean the funds are unavailable,” the FTB said.

To get rid of the hold and start using your card, you’ll have to contact Money Network’s customer service at 800-240-0223. Customer service representatives are available on weekdays 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

“Callers should have their personal information available to verify their identity,” the FTB wrote. “We advise people to call the Money Network Customer service line as early in the day as possible.”

There have been reported cases of cardholders calling Money Network and not getting a hold of anyone. State officials did not provide specific information on what other options taxpayers have if they cannot reach Money Network staff. KQED also reached out to Fiserv, the parent company of Money Network, which declined an interview.

I lost my MCTR debit card. Can I request a replacement?

Unfortunately, not any more, as April 8 was the last day to request a replacement card. State officials say this last day was chosen to ensure recipients would definitely get their new card before the program ends on April 30.

If you do know where your card is, but want to temporarily lock it to prevent anyone else from using it, you can prevent unauthorized transactions by logging into your card’s account at the MCTR website.

And if you just never got a card, it’s possible that you received this money via direct deposit to the bank account you listed when filing your 2020 taxes.

What will happen to all the money that’s not claimed?

State law requires that all unused funds still remaining on expired credit cards be transferred to the state’s General Fund, where the money for these payments originally came from.

This will affect both activated and unactivated cards.

Unions representing private security guards would gain a new advantage in organizing under California legislation that would compel companies to reach labor contracts if the firms want to provide use-of-force training.

State Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas’ Senate Bill 1203 also seeks to raise pay for security guards and it would require their companies to offer more rigorous training.

Smallwood-Cuevas, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said guards on average make around $44,000 a year, the state poverty line, despite their companies generating an estimated $34 billion in revenue. She said guards also are being asked to take on increasingly dangerous roles without enough training.

“This bill asks us to stand up with these officers to strengthen and improve these working conditions and to ensure that across California that we are not only improving safety, but we're also helping to build a safety pathway for workers in this sector,” Smallwood-Cuevas told the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee last week.

The committee voted to advance her bill to the Senate Public Safety Committee which is scheduled to discuss the measure Tuesday.

Security companies say the measure would add at least $1 billion to their costs each year and lead to fewer guards protecting the public.

“California has led the nation in training requirements, and we applaud that,” Dean Grafilo, a lobbyist for private security firm Allied Universal told the committee. “However, this bill goes much further than is necessary or reasonable, and we simply cannot ignore the staggering financial burden this bill will impose on our industry and, by extension, California.”

There are an estimated 330,000 private security personnel in California, making the industry one of the state’s largest workforces, Smallwood-Cuevas said. California businesses and local governments are increasingly hiring guards to protect them from smash-and-grab robberies and other crimes. Security firms also will be called upon at this year’s World Cup games in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, the 2027 Super Bowl in Inglewood and the 2028 Olympics in California.

The measure, according to the business committee’s analysis, would expand training standards, increase annual training for security guards and require companies to compensate guards for time spent training.

It would only allow companies to provide “power to arrest” and use-of-force training if agreed to in union contracts. Those agreements would require workers to earn at least 30% above California’s $16.90 minimum wage and get overtime.

The bill also would require state regulators to review and set minimum wages for security guards by 2028. Security industry officials say even a $1-an-hour raise for security workers would add $750 million to their costs each year.

“SB 1203 will eliminate jobs making companies that seek to automate security functions more competitive thereby displacing the very people the bill intends to help,” David Chandler, president of the California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards & Associates, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

Labor is a powerful Capitol force

The bill is the latest effort by labor unions to use the Legislature to pressure companies to allow unionization. The most notable recent effort was a multi-year legislative push that successfully got ride-share companies to back legislation that allowed their drivers to unionize.

About 20% of private security guards are unionized, according to the industry, slightly higher than the rest of the state’s workforce, in which about 15% of workers are unionized.

Unions have tremendous clout in the Legislature, due in large part to the money they spend on the political campaigns of Democratic lawmakers. Unions also deploy their networks of organizers to advocate for their chosen candidates.

Service Employees International Union, the bill’s sponsor, is arguably the most influential labor organization in the state. The union and its affiliates have donated at least $21.4 million to lawmakers’ campaigns since 2015, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Meanwhile, 33 of the 120 members of the Legislature are current or former union members, according to a California Labor Federation tally.

Some, like Smallwood-Cuevas, used to work for the unions that would benefit from their legislation.

Before entering politics, Smallwood-Cuevas once worked as an organizer for a local affiliate of SEIU that unionized security officers. Her campaigns have received at least $119,100 from SEIU and its affiliates since 2021, according to Digital Democracy.

Committee backs union bill

The union’s political clout as well as lawmakers’ sympathies for underpaid workers doing a dangerous job was on display last week at the business and professions committee. No committee members voted against the bill.

Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat representing Norwalk, asked Smallwood-Cuevas if he could be added to the bill as a symbolic co-author.

“We use the term ‘first responders,’” he told the committee. “Sometimes it is these individuals and individuals like them that are first responders.”

Archuleta, a former reserve officer at the Montebello Police Department, said he used to arrive at crime scenes and “sure enough, there was a security officer there,” telling police “I got your back.”

Archuleta’s campaign has received at least $79,600 from SEIU and its affiliates, according to Digital Democracy.

One Democrat on the business committee expressed concerns.

Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat representing the Van Nuys area, said she didn’t have a problem with the bill’s intent to raise wages for guards. After all, she said she worked for five years as a security guard.

But she said she felt the bill’s training requirements were duplicative or would override a law that the Legislature had passed last year on security personnel standards and training.

She said she also had concerns the requirements in the bill could end up preventing companies from hiring qualified training consultants due to restrictions limiting who’s authorized to do that work.

“Right now, there are certain retired police officers that are turned to by security companies to provide that training,” she said. “And they’re no longer going to be given that option.”

Despite her concerns, she did not vote on the bill instead of casting a formal “no” vote.

As CalMatters has reported, legislators regularly dodge tough votes instead of voting “no” to avoid angering influential lobbying organizations.

Menjivar’s campaign has received at least $16,900 from SEIU, according to secretary of state filings.

“There were provisions within SB 1203 that she liked and a hard ‘no’ vote would send the signal that there is nothing the author or sponsors can do to move her to an ‘aye’ vote down the line,” Menjivar’s spokesperson, Teodora Reyes, said in an email.

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

Eight months since it was supposed to open, Long Beach’s new youth homeless shelter is still empty, plagued by plumbing problems and a long-running legal conflict that’s just now being made public. The nonprofit originally selected to run the shelter says it’s on the verge of suing the city for pulling the plug on its contract and withholding hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments that have left it on the brink of collapse.

It’s a dispute that has been unfolding for nearly a year, between the city and the nonprofit April Parker Foundation. But at the shelter’s premature grand opening in August, all seemed well.

Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson cut the ceremonial ribbon in front of a small crowd, including about 30 foundation employees.

The foundation, by this point, had been a local city contractor for years, doing youth intervention and homelessness work. It was poised to run the new shelter under a $500,000 contract the City Council unanimously approved in May.

The shelter had a dozen beds, meant for young adults at transitional age, who had recently exited the foster care system or juvenile justice and needed special help, like counseling, financial management, a schedule and a place to sleep. But that work never started.

In late October, the city says, it notified the April Parker Foundation that it wouldn’t be signing with them because of concerns about how the foundation billed for some of its prior work.

Since 2023, Long Beach had contracted the foundation to provide rapid rehousing services for homeless people. Then last summer, it stopped paying them. Officials later explained that invoices were coming in late, inadequately filled out or missing required documentation to justify the expense.

“We’re not making any accusations of fraud or even breach of contract,” Deputy City Attorney Nick Masero said, but the timing of the invoices “was not consistent with their contractual requirements, and the supporting documentation wasn’t provided to substantiate all the amounts on the invoices.”

Masero said the city has sought to resolve the issue with the April Parker Foundation, but added that “we’re not obligated under the contract to make payment until they’ve provided all the necessary information and documentation.”

April Parker, founder of the April Parker Foundation, alleges the city is manufacturing an excuse not to pay her. She said she has sent over hundreds of documents and receipts detailing every transaction tied to the program.

“We delivered binders to them, binders that contain 100% documentation on every invoice, every transaction, everything,” she said.

After providing those, Parker said communication with the city largely stopped, save for some correspondence through her attorneys. She remains unsure of what the city thinks her staff did wrong.

It’s the second time recently that Long Beach has cut off a homelessness contractor over billing concerns, as a long-running audit of the city’s homelessness programs inches closer to being finished. Parker said she was informed about the audit, but — despite her repeated texts and calls to city health officials — was never told if it found any problems within her organization.

Parker said she was blindsided by the city withholding payments across all its contracts with her, some as early as March 2025, as she was ramping up to run the new youth shelter.

The shelter is in West Long Beach, near the city’s Multi-Service Center in a warehouse district west of the Los Angeles River.

(

John Donegan

/

Long Beach Post

)

“I do not know what is wrong with anything I’ve ever submitted because they’ve never told me what’s actually wrong, nothing,” Parker said. “So how can I fix something that I don’t even know what’s wrong? I gave them everything, and they’ve never come back and said, ‘Well, this is wrong, or that is wrong.’”

On the city’s assurance that she would be running the shelter, she said, she hired staff, rewrote policies, updated insurance and hosted an open house at the facility. The foundation was even invited to the ribbon ceremony.

Then, in a reversal, she said, the city told her they planned to “take the shelter in-house.” Without any written notice or further explanation, city officials, she said, assumed control of the shelter and denied access to her staff.

Parker has since filed multiple legal claims against the city, alleging they improperly withheld payments for her nonprofit’s work on the youth shelter, rapid rehousing and gun violence intervention. They say the city owes Parker more than $1 million.

She said those costs have crippled her nonprofit, forcing it to cut its youth shelter staff, reduce its administrative team and close its 36-bed transitional shelter. Parker said she had to take out a line of credit and stop paying herself a salary to save her organization.

Her next step may be to sue. The city has denied the legal claims and sought to reopen the youth shelter with a new operator.

At a City Council meeting this week, Homeless Services Bureau Manager Paul Duncan blamed the delayed opening on faulty plumbing. In December, months after the decision to kick out the April Parker Foundation, crews discovered cracked, clogged and faulty underground pipes that were causing toilets to back up.

Renovations, which are under warranty, Duncan said, are expected to conclude soon. When the shelter opens next month, it will be run by Jovenes, Inc., an LA-based nonprofit. The City Council approved a one-year contract with the organization at its meeting Tuesday.

“Glad to hear we have a real opening date in early May, and I look forward to moving forward,” Mayor Rex Richardson said after the vote.

The April Parker Foundation’s name was not mentioned.