The Brief

For almost four years, the city of Los Angeles has prohibited landlords from increasing rent on most tenants. But starting Thursday, rent hikes are back.

As of Feb. 1, the city allows landlords to raise rents up to 6% annually in rent-controlled housing, which makes up about three-quarters of the city’s total apartment stock.

The increases arrive on the same day the city is requiring an estimated 93,000 households to pay back their remaining pandemic rent debts — or face potential eviction.

Landlords have lobbied against the city’s rent freeze for years, saying it prevented them from keeping up with rising property ownership and maintenance costs during a time of soaring inflation.

Tenant advocates and some elected officials have pushed for lower increases. U.S. Census Bureau data estimates that 54% of L.A. County tenants already pay rents considered unaffordable by federal government standards.

“This rent increase is set to go the same day that back rent is due from COVID-19,” said City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez before a vote that reduced the maximum allowable increases from 9% to 6%.

“We cannot keep up with the number of people falling into homelessness,” Hernandez said at the time.

Federal researchers have estimated that when cities see their median rents rise by $100 per month, homelessness tends to rise by about 9%. Homelessness in the city of L.A. increased 10% in last year’s count.

Who is affected by the increase? 

Tenants covered by the city’s rent control rules can now see rent increases. Those rules generally apply to tenants living in rental housing built before October 1978.

Increases have already been allowed for L.A. tenants living in housing not covered by the city’s rent control ordinance.

Those living in apartments built more than 15 years ago, but after 1978, are covered by a state law that currently bans rent increases above 8.8%.

Tenants in more recently constructed housing, as well as many single-family homes, have no protections against large increases.

Landlords must first give renters a 30-day notice before rent increases can go into effect.

To check if your housing is covered by the city’s rent control rules, visit this city website.

Can my rent go up 6%? Or only 4%? 

The city of L.A.’s rules allow landlords to increase rents up to 6%, but only if they cover both a tenant’s gas and electricity bills. Landlords who do not pay for either of those utilities can only raise rents up to 4%.

In years leading up to the pandemic, and before inflation took off, the city of L.A.’s allowable annual increases in rent-controlled housing rarely rose above 3% (or 5% in units where landlords cover utilities).

Allowable increases for the city’s rent-controlled units are currently capped at 4 to 6%, but future increases could rise as high as 8 to 10%, depending on inflation figures.

The city’s rules differ from regulations in many other parts of Southern California, where local rent hike limits currently tend to be around 3% or less, with no provision for further increases due to utility costs.

Landlords say ‘everything has gone up’ 

Fred Sutton, a spokesperson for a landlord advocacy group called the California Apartment Association, said no other city has banned rent increases due to COVID-19 as long as L.A.

“The city of Los Angeles has been unique in extending this far, far longer than anywhere else,” Sutton said.

During the pandemic, Sutton said, landlords have seen repair costs, insurance premiums and city trash hauling fees soar.

Many L.A. apartment buildings “need a lot of work and maintenance,” Sutton said. “The cost of everything has gone up. And in order for housing to be provided as a service, operators need to be able to account for those financial changes.”

Sutton said he expects the vast majority of landlords in the city to raise rents by at least 4%.

“When there have been four years of no rent increases, that's 1% per year,” he said. “In no world is that outrageous. It's outrageous that people are upset about it.”

Many L.A. tenants spend more than half their paycheck on rent

For L.A. tenants already putting most of their income toward rent, even a 4% increase could mean having to further cut back on other necessities like food, health care and transportation costs.

Researchers with the UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Institute published a study this week using U.S. Census Bureau data to explore how many L.A. tenants are burdened by high rents.

They found that at least half of L.A. County renters in every ethnic group are paying more than 30% of their income on rent, a level the federal government defines as “rent burdened.” Some groups are more likely to be rent burdened, particularly Black and Latino renters.

The researchers found that 28% of Latino renters, and 35% of Black renters, are "severely rent burdened," meaning they spend more than half their income on rent and utilities.

“If you factor in other living cost increases, it's just not survivable,” said UCLA research analyst Jie Zong, a co-author of the study. “It might lead to some significant impacts on housing security.”

When rents rise and tenants can’t move

Sherry Gertz, a 76-year-old renter in Valley Glen, received notice she’ll need to pay a 4% rent increase on Feb. 1. She was surprised that her landlord also required her to increase her security deposit by 4%, a practice the city’s housing department allows.

“It doesn't really make sense to me, but they're trying to get money from everybody,” Gertz said.

Gertz relies mainly on Social Security to fund her retirement. She said rent takes up more than 40% of her budget, making it hard to keep up with rising prices in other areas of the economy.

“I can't go to work now, I'm too old,” Gertz said. After living in her current apartment for 13 years, she said finding cheaper housing in L.A. would be impossible. “There's nowhere to move. I don't even make enough to move,” she said.

Some tenants feel the city’s enforcement of the rent freeze has been spotty.

Previous LAist reporting found that L.A.’s housing department has allowed landlords to charge large rent hikes during the pandemic based on “discount” clauses buried in leases (a practice other cities prohibit). Complaints to the city about illegal rent increases have risen in recent years, despite the ban.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

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