The Brief

East Palo Alto, like cities across California, has a law on the books that forces developers of new housing projects to foot the bill for the state’s shortage of affordable homes.

New residential projects need to set aside a share of the units they plan to build for lower-income renters and homeowners under the terms of the city’s “inclusionary zoning” ordinance. Builders who refuse have to instead pay a fee, ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

An East Palo Alto homeowner filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday challenging the constitutionality of that law, likening it to “extortion” — and he had a little help from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The implications of the lawsuit range far beyond the Bay Area. A 2017 report estimated that 149 cities and counties across California have some form of inclusionary zoning rule, though the specific terms vary. That makes it one of the most commonly used affordable housing programs both in California and in the country.

Now all that may be on the constitutional chopping block.

The case was filed in federal court in San Francisco by Wesley Yu, a husband and father between jobs, who was planning to build a home and backyard guest cottage for himself and his extended family on a neighboring parcel.

Because Yu was planning to construct two new structures, the city’s inclusionary zoning rules kicked in, requiring him to either sell or rent out one of the units at “affordable” rates or to pay a one-time fee of $54,891 to be deposited in the city’s affordable housing subsidy fund.

The core of Yu’s lawsuit, which was filed by the libertarian-oriented Pacific Legal Foundation, draws on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year that also emerged from a heated California housing dispute.

That case was brought by Placerville septuagenarian, George Sheetz, who contested that the government of El Dorado County had not done enough to justify the $23,420 traffic fee it placed on his home construction project.

Sheetz’s case drew on the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which puts limits on when the government can take private property. Decades of court rulings have said that if a local government wants to base approval of a construction permit on certain conditions, those conditions have to directly relate to the costs associated with the development. A city, for example, might be able to hold off on approving a new dump until a developer pays an environmental clean up fee, but not a fee to fund local arts and recreation.

Courts have also ruled that such “exactions” on private development should be “roughly proportionate” to their cost. That is, the $23,420 that El Dorado County wanted to impose on Sheetz should match the cost of fixing the wear and tear his new home would leave on local roads.

The Supreme Court agreed that these standards ought to apply to the impact fee.

Now Yu and his legal team are asking a federal judge to apply that same rule to inclusionary zoning. For East Palo Alto’s program to pass constitutional muster, the city would have to show that the $54,891 fee or the requirement to set aside new units at a discount relates to and matches the cost that Yu’s development would impose upon the city.

The city won’t be able to show that, said David Deerson, the lead lawyer representing Yu.

“New residential development doesn’t have a negative impact on housing affordability. If anything, it has a positive impact,” he said.

A growing body of economic research has indeed found that local market-rate development puts downward pressure on neighborhood and city-wide rents.

Affordable housing in California zoning

In the past, California courts have ruled that the high constitutional bar set by the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply to inclusionary zoning programs like the one in East Palo Alto. Requiring private developers to toss in some added affordable housing isn’t an “exaction,” the courts have found, but a standard land-use restriction akin to any other zoning rule.

Whether a city decides it needs more schools, apartment buildings, businesses or, in the case of inclusionary zoning, affordable housing, it has broad power under the constitution to “decide, for the good of the general welfare, that we’re going to require this,” said Mike Rawson, director of litigation at the Public Interest Law Project.

The state Supreme Court ruled as such most recently in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh in, a tacit approval.

“They can always change their mind,” said Rawson. “I don’t see a basis for it, though obviously that doesn’t necessarily stop them.”

The composition of the court has changed since 2015, veering sharply to the right. The Sheetz decision from last year has offered new fodder for legal challenges to inclusionary zoning.

“Sheetz really helps out here a lot” in that campaign, said Deerson. He pointed to other challenges in Denver and Teton County, Wyoming. “I would expect them to keep coming.”

Tradeoffs in housing policy

If and when the nation’s highest court takes up the issue of inclusionary zoning, it will be wading into one of the more politically charged debates in housing policy.

Evidence on the impact of these laws is mixed. Requiring private developers to build affordable units can and regularly does result in more local housing options for lower income tenants at no additional cost to taxpayers. By putting affordable and market-rate units side-by-side, they also promote economic and racial integration, supporters argue.

But inclusionary requirements can also make any given housing project less profitable, meaning that fewer units get built, leading to higher prices and rents overall. In housing markets, like California’s, that see relatively little new development, the rate at which these programs add designated affordable units to the housing stock is also quite slow.

That policy debate isn’t relevant to the legal case, which will be fought and won over abstract constitutional principles. But for libertarian-leaning groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation, building industry groups and many “Yes In My Backyard” housing development advocates, an end to inclusionary zoning would be a win on both fronts.

“In addition to being illegal, I think that these inclusionary zoning policies are also frankly stupid,” said Deerson.

More Californians filed claims for paid family leave last year than ever before since the state started offering the benefits two decades ago.

In 2025, more than 355,600 workers in the state took time to care for a sick family member or bond with a new child, up 16% from the year before, according to data LAist requested from the California Employment Development Department.

That change coincided with increased payments for workers who use paid leave. Workers in California can get up to eight weeks of paid leave — and now recoup 70–90% of their regular wages, up from 60–70% the year prior.

“The program continues to grow,” said Anne Chapuis, a spokesperson for EDD. While she said 2025 represents their largest year to date, the rise or fall of claims “can sometimes be attributed to a combination of factors including awareness, demand, and eligibility.”

California became the first state to enact a paid family leave program in 2004. At the time, workers only got 55% of their wages and six weeks of paid leave.

Jenya Cassidy, executive director of the advocacy group California Work & Family Coalition, said her organization is still working to understand why there’s a rise in claims, but have anecdotally heard of people taking it because of the increase. The group co-sponsored the 2022 legislation that increase payments, after hearing that many low-income earners couldn’t afford to take leave. Research has shown that paid family leave benefits help a mother and baby’s health.

“Sixty percent of their income wasn't enough to pay their bills, and so many people are living on the edge in this state especially,” Cassidy said.

She said there was also more publicity about the paid family leave program last year because of the payment increase.

“There was a little bit of hubbub about this wage replacement [increase], so I do think raising awareness about the affordability of taking it is a key thing,” she said. “People hearing it anecdotally, seeing it in the news, I think that kind of has an impact.”

The state Employment Development Department says the paid family leave program, which started in 2004, continues to grow.

(

EDD

)

There are also cultural and general shifts around family leave, said Jessica Mason, senior policy analyst for economic justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

“For millennials and Gen Z, there's a little bit more of an assumption that everybody's going to be doing caregiving, everybody's going to be involved in parenting, and those norms do kind of shift over time,” she said.

For example, more dads in California are taking paid leave time, recent state data show.

Mason recently worked on a report that found 1 in 3 private sector workers nationwide now have access to a paid family leave program, with 14 states having paid family leave laws. But because California is such a big state, it plays a huge role in that statistic, she said. The program covers more than 18 million residents.

“In California, about 97% of the private sector workforce is potentially eligible for paid leave … that's really at the top end of all of the states,” she said.

How the state's paid family leave program works

The family leave program in California is paid through the State Disability Insurance program. Workers pay into the program through a deduction on their paycheck usually labeled as “CADSI.”

To be eligible for paid family leave in California, a worker needs to have earned at least $300 in wages in a “base period” (5-18 months before a claim).

Eligible workers who make less than about $66,000 a year can get 90% of their wages, and workers who make above that recieve 70% while on leave.

For the first time since Los Angeles County began tracking the data, fewer unhoused residents died on the streets in 2024, according to a report released Tuesday.

About 2,208 people experiencing homelessness died in the county that year, 300 fewer than the previous year, according to the report from the county Department of Public Health.

The report also showed the mortality rate — which is the number of deaths per 100,000 unhoused residents — decreased by 10%.

Health officials credit drug overdose prevention efforts for some of that decline, including greater distribution of naloxone, a medication that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose.

There was a 21% decrease in the drug overdose death rate among unhoused residents, according to the report.

Still, an average of six people experiencing homelessness died each day in L.A. County throughout 2024. People without stable housing face mortality rates over four times higher than the general population.

Authorities note that number is still too high.

"These disparities reflect systemic barriers — lack of safe housing, limited access to culturally responsive healthcare, unsafe environments, and the ongoing effects of trauma, discrimination, and social inequities," Barbara Ferrer, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health, wrote in the report.

She said she expects the work to get harder, with major state and regional funding reductions to some homeless services this year.

“Just as we are beginning to see positive momentum on homeless mortality reduction, we are at risk of losing precious ground,” Ferrer continued.

County health officials made several recommendations in the report, including providing more access to shelter and housing, mental health and substance use treatment services.

Drug overdose deaths 

The annual report relies on state death records, county medical examiner data and population estimates from the region’s annual point-in-time homeless count.

More than 75,000 people were estimated to be experiencing homelessness in L.A. County in 2024, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s official count that year.

Despite some decreases, drug overdose remained the leading cause of death among people experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County and accounted for 40% of all deaths among that population.

In 2024, 884 unhoused people died of drug overdoses in L.A. County. That was down from 1,140 deaths in 2023, according to the report.

Unhoused residents were 46 times more likely to die of drug overdose than the general population. The report notes the overdose death rate is still about twice as high as it was in 2019.

Many of the deaths involved fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, but for the first time they accounted for a lower percentage than in the previous year — 59% in 2024 and 70% in 2023, according to the data.

Most overdose deaths involve multiple drugs, according to the county. The percentage of deaths in which methamphetamine was a factor remained relatively steady — 80% in 2024 and 79% in 2023.

Overdose deaths involving only methamphetamine rose from 19% in 2023 to 27% in 2024.

Other causes of death

The Public Health Department is tracking other leading causes of death for unhoused residents. In 2024, the rates for coronary heart disease and homicide among unhoused Angelenos went down, while transportation-related deaths and suicides went up.

• Coronary heart disease: The second leading cause of death among L.A. County’s unhoused population continued to be coronary heart disease, which accounted for 14% of unhoused deaths in 2024. The previous year, it was 15%.
  
• Transportation-related deaths: Traffic-related injury remained the third leading cause of death among all unhoused L.A. County residents, accounting for 11% of those fatalities. That’s up from 8% the previous year. After a two-year plateau, the traffic injury mortality rate increased by 25% to 315 deaths per 100,000 unhoused people. About 230 unhoused pedestrians or cyclists were killed in traffic collisions in 2024. They were 24 times more likely to die from traffic-related injuries than the overall L.A. County population.
  
• Homicide: Homicide was the fourth leading cause of death among unhoused people in L.A. County in 2024. That year, 105 unhoused people were victims of homicide, according to county data. That’s compared to 124 the previous year. Unhoused Angelenos were 14 times more likely to die by homicide than the general population.
  
• Suicide: The suicide rate among L.A.’s homeless population increased by 21% in 2024. County data show 80 unhoused L.A. County residents died by suicide in 2024. That was 4% of all recorded deaths among unhoused residents, up from 3% the previous year. Unhoused residents were 13 times more likely to die by suicide than Angelenos in general.

Public Health recommendations

The Department of Public Health made several recommendations to prevent premature deaths and continue slowing the mortality rate among unhoused people in the region.

They included:

• Ensuring access to affordable housing and health insurance.
• Ensuring that housing options support harm reduction, overdose prevention and substance use treatment.
• Expanding comprehensive primary and preventive care services for unhoused people.
• Conducting a detailed analysis of 2024 traffic injury deaths among unhoused residents to inform policy interventions. 

Read the full report here. 

LAX officials are considering a proposal Tuesday to increase the fees rideshare companies are charged to access the airport.

Currently, rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft generally pass a $4 to $5 airport fee along to their customers. You might see this listed as a line item on your receipt as an “LAX Airport Surcharge.”

But the Los Angeles World Airports Board of Commissioners could vote to increase that fee by as much as $2 to $8 depending on where the rideshare picks you up or drops you off.

The idea behind the proposal is to encourage the use of the long-awaited, much-delayed and over-budget Automated People Mover once it opens and decrease congestion in the central terminal area, the area of the airport that’s also known as the horseshoe.

David Reich, a deputy executive director for the city agency that manages the airport, told LAist that if the proposal is approved, LAX doesn’t plan on increasing the fee until after the Automated People Mover opens, which could be later this year.

The proposed increases

When the Automated People Mover opens, there will be new curb space for drop-off and pick-up. Known as the “ground transport center,” this new curb space will be a 4-minute trip from the terminal area via the Automated People Mover, according to Reich.

LAX-it will shut down as a rideshare and taxi lot once the train opens, Reich said.

If the proposal is approved, getting an Uber or Lyft to and from the ground transport center will come with a $6 airport fee.

Even once the Automated People Mover opens, you will still be able to get rides directly to and from the curbs along the horseshoe, but they will come with a $12 fee.

The proposed increases would also apply to taxi and limousine services, which currently operate under a slightly different fee structure than rideshare companies.

The increased fees are expected to generate as much as $100 million in the first year the Automated People Mover is usable, according to a report to the board.

Why the different fees for the different locations?

In a report to the board, Reich said the Automated People Mover represents a "significant investment” that aims to “fundamentally reshape how vehicles move through the airport.”

The idea behind having a higher fee for direct access to the curbs along the horseshoe is to encourage “use of new, high-capacity infrastructure” and preserve central terminal access for trips “that most require it.”

Uber is trying to fight the increases

Uber is trying to mobilize the public to fight the proposed fee increases.

“Raising the LAX rideshare fee from $5 to $12 at the curb would punish travelers, working families, and seniors who depend on affordable, reliable transportation,” Danielle Lam, the head of local California policy for Uber, said in a statement.

On Monday, Uber sent an email to passengers who recently used the rideshare service, urging them to write to city officials to “stop this massive fee hike.”

Lyft has not responded to a request for comment.

Ten state lawmakers who are members of the L.A. County delegation sent a letter on Monday to the board expressing their “strong opposition” to the proposed increases.

“Many Angelenos rely on a mix of options, including rideshare services and friends or family dropping off loved ones,” the legislators wrote in the letter. “Managing congestion cannot realistically rely on steep fee increases for certain transportation options.”

Eight of the 10 legislators who signed the letter have received campaign contributions from Uber or Lyft, according to an LAist analysis of state campaign contribution data.

Other ways to access the airport

Now is probably a good time to remind folks that there are other ways to get to the airport that don’t involve rideshares, taxis or even lifts from families and friends.

The FlyAway bus offers regularly scheduled rides from the airport to Union Station in downtown L.A. and Van Nuys. You can see the schedules here. 

Last year, the countywide transportation agency unveiled the LAX/Metro Transit center, which is accessible from the C and K rail lines and several bus routes. For now, an LAX shuttle is bringing travelers from the station to the airport. It will be one of the stops on the Automated People Mover once it opens.