The Brief

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office has filed a lawsuit against a man who describes himself on social media as an “Airbnb business coach” for allegedly renting out more than 30 properties illegally on vacation rental platforms.

The lawsuit claims Vladyslav Yurov and his alleged associates earned more than $4 million by listing properties they didn’t own on Airbnb in violation of local regulations.

“As renters battle a severe housing shortage and sky high rent, these defendants exacerbated our housing crisis,” City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said in a news release Wednesday announcing the lawsuit.

How L.A. regulates Airbnb listings 

The city has had a home-sharing ordinance on the books since 2019. Under that law, hosts are:

• required to register with the city
• only allowed to rent out their primary residence
• barred from listing rent-controlled properties, which the city wants to reserve for long-term tenants who actually live in L.A.

The lawsuit alleges Yurov, Anastasiia Medvedeva and Mari Meladze Nagi used various business entities to rent properties from landlords and then illegally sublet those properties on short-term rental platforms including Airbnb.

The properties listed in the complaint include rent-controlled apartments in Venice and other apartments near LAX and the Crypto.com arena.

The city claims the defendants used fake host names on Airbnb and falsely advertised that properties were located outside the city of L.A., in places like West Hollywood and Culver City. Officials say the defendants violated the law because they didn’t live in any of these properties, and at least 10 of the units were covered by the city’s rent control protections.

How to make money “using other people’s properties”

A portion of a post from the @vladbnb Instagram account promises to guide investors to earn profits on Airbnb "with properties they don't even own." Vladyslav Yurov responded to an LAist inquiry through the account saying his “legitimate business was no longer welcome in the city of Los Angeles and it was closed.”

(

Screenshot via Instagram

)

LAist reached out to Yurov through his Instagram account, where he replied that his “legitimate business was no longer welcome in the city of Los Angeles and it was closed. So it’s not operating anymore.” He declined to comment further.

Through his various social media accounts, Yurov promoted himself as an entrepreneurship guru teaching followers how to hustle to their first $1 million through Airbnb. His Instagram account (@vladbnb) openly stated that he did not personally own the properties he rented out.

“Give me a follow if you want to learn how to make money on Airbnb using other people’s properties,” Yurov said in one post.

In other posts he gave his 10,000-plus followers tips on copying his business model, and offered general advice such as, “You don’t get rich because your money chakra is blocked.”

Housing advocates say enforcement has been anemic

Previous research has found that vacation rental law-breaking in L.A. is fairly common. For one study in 2022, a McGill University urban planning professor estimated that nearly half of all Airbnb and Vrbo listings in the city of L.A. were likely illegal.

Randy Renick is the executive director of the group Better Neighbors L.A., which advocates for tougher crackdowns on illegal activity.

“The city has not taken enforcement seriously,” Renick told LAist. “As a result, unscrupulous hosts — like Yurov here — are fearless. And they think there are no risks to taking rent-controlled properties and illegally renting them out for profit.”

Renick said this lawsuit is a step in the right direction, but the city needs further action to deter other hosts.

This isn’t the first time the city has taken on vacation rental violations. L.A.’s previous city attorney, Mike Feuer, got the platform Vrbo to pay penalties and step up compliance as part of an earlier settlement. And the current city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, filed a lawsuit last year against an alleged party house operator based in Beverly Hills.

Who was allegedly harmed? 

The city’s lawsuit identifies many alleged victims. Guests were allegedly deceived about the location of their rentals. In one case a family allegedly booked a rental they thought was in Burbank, but later found it was actually in a part of North Hollywood where they felt unsafe.

In some cases, the lawsuit claims landlords did not give consent to have their properties rented out on Airbnb.

The city attorney’s lawsuit seeks up to $15 million in civil penalties.

Housing advocates say illegal vacation rentals also harm L.A. residents by lowering the stock of housing available to buy or rent and driving up the price of the city’s remaining options. The 2022 McGill University study estimated that illegal short-term rentals have increased rents for the average L.A. tenant household by about $800 per year.

LAist reached out to Airbnb to ask what action the company took in response to these particular listings, but has not yet received a response.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a new law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks during immigration sweeps.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the state could not enforce the facial-covering provision of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, while a legal challenge brought by the federal government moved forward. That lawsuit argued that SB 627 conflicted with federal authority and would improperly limit how federal agents could do their jobs.

The backstory

The law banning facial coverings took effect Jan. 1 and had already sparked confusion and backlash in Los Angeles after Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said officers would not enforce the ban. McDonnell called the law bad policy and said enforcing it could put officers and the public at risk.

McDonnell’s statements drew sharp criticism from local elected officials, the authors of the laws, and immigration law attorneys and advocates.

The federal government sued California last year, arguing that SB 627 and a second law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. SB 627 sought, in part, to make it illegal for most officers, including federal agents, to conduct law enforcement operations while wearing masks. SB 805, in part, required agents to identify themselves.

About the ruling

Snyder ruled that the mask ban inconsistently applied to some law enforcement officers and not others, which is one of the reasons why the judge temporarily blocked it.

Federal attorneys had argued that agents should be allowed to wear masks for their safety against harassment and assault, such as doxxing. Snyder disagreed, writing that while federal agents and other public figures face security risks, masks were not essential for performing their duties.

“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks,” Snyder wrote. “If anything, the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Reaction to the ruling

One of the law’s authors, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, announced Monday afternoon that he would be introducing new legislation aimed at revising the original law to apply to state officers it previously exempted. He characterized the ruling as a win and vowed to continue efforts to unmask federal agents.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said in a prepared statement, adding: “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”

What's next

Monday’s ruling still required enforcement of SB 627 and SB 805’s remaining provisions, including that officers identify themselves. It also protected the pathway for civilians to directly sue agents for misconduct.

This temporary order will remain in effect until the federal case is resolved. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will update if it does.

A new report from L.A. County offers a closer look at the economic damage to the region caused by federal immigration enforcement — and at the neighborhoods most affected.

The analysis, compiled by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, identified the neighborhoods hardest hit by ICE, and found that they were more economically precarious.

Researchers determined that the most targeted ZIP code in the county is 91402, which spans Mission Hills, Panorama City and North Hills in the San Fernando Valley.

The report, which was commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors, also found that many small businesses county-wide have lost revenue and customers since ICE ramped up its presence in Los Angeles last year.

The Department of Homeland Security has detained more than 10,000 people in the L.A.-area since June, according to numbers released in December. Its aggressive deportation campaign has altered daily life in Los Angeles, where nearly one in five people is undocumented or lives with someone who is undocumented.

The report lays out the ripple effect of that campaign on communities, local businesses, and workers, and its uneven influence on the region as a whole.

Vulnerable neighborhoods

The report lays out the economic consequences for communities repeatedly hit by ICE sweeps.

The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit research group, used census data and reports on detentions from the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network to assess how vulnerable each L.A. County ZIP code was to immigration enforcement.

Researchers looked at four other factors for each ZIP code: shares of foreign-born population from Latin America, renter households, Spanish-speaking households and non-citizen workforce.

The 10 most vulnerable ZIP codes, they determined, are primarily in working class, immigrant neighborhoods including Bell, Pico Rivera and Southeast L.A.

Researchers used employment data for the county and found that those ZIP codes were over-represented in industries, including manufacturing and retail, which have a significant number of undocumented workers. Businesses in these neighborhoods also tended to have fewer employees on average compared to the rest of the county, and employees were paid less.

"Taken together, these exhibits show that areas facing heightened immigration enforcement differ from the rest of Los Angeles County and appear more economically vulnerable," the report states.

Declined revenue, less foot traffic

Researchers also distributed a survey to small businesses county-wide to assess how federal immigration enforcement has affected the communities they operate in and their bottom lines since summer.

More than 200 small businesses responded. Most reported having fewer than 10 employees, and the majority were in industries like restaurants, retail, professional or personal services and manufacturing.

The majority of respondents — 82% — reported being negatively affected by federal immigration enforcement. Around half reported lost regular customers, less foot traffic or reduced daily sales. Around a quarter reported temporary closures due to concerns from community members.

Many surveyed business owners reported a climate of fear that has led people to stay home and avoid certain places altogether.

"Businesses reported that customers expressed fear about their location, that customers asked about safety in the neighborhood, and that customers avoided shopping or dining in their neighborhood," the report states.

Undocumented workers generate 17% of county's economic activity

No corner of Los Angeles is exempt to the ongoing immigration sweeps that have become a new reality for the region. Nearly 950,000 undocumented immigrants live in L.A. County, according to recent estimates. That's more than 9% of people in the county who lack legal status.

Undocumented workers also play a huge role in many of L.A.'s key industries. Recent research from the USC Equity Research Institute estimates that 37% of cleaning and maintenance workers and 25% of food preparation and service workers in L.A. County are undocumented.

The industry with the highest percentage of undocumented workers is construction, at 40%.

The county's undocumented population together generates just under $240 billion in economic output, according to the county's report. That's around 17% of the county's total economic activity.

The Los Angeles Unified School District rescheduled a Tuesday meeting where the board was expected to vote on layoffs as part of a larger plan to cut spending.

“The district has adjusted the date of the upcoming board meeting to ensure adequate time for preparation, public engagement, and responsible deliberation on items of significant impact and interest to our workforce and community,” an LAUSD spokesperson wrote in a statement to LAist.

They wrote the proposed reduction in force would be presented at a “future meeting.” Tuesday’s meeting is currently re-scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 17.

In a Friday letter, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

“The notion that these are dark times for education requiring harmful cuts when there are record high state revenues is fearmongering,” the letter reads.

LAUSD's financial challenges

For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s and the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff as costs have increased. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, but the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

The layoff vote is part of a $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.” Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff, and at schools that support higher needs students.

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off.

 “It is not a foregone conclusion that people will lose jobs,” said Superintendent Alberto Carvalho at a Jan. 20 board meeting. For example, he said staff may be reassigned to vacant positions or given the opportunity to transfer to another school.

Where are the plan details?

Several board members pressed LAUSD staff for more details at the same meeting.

“When are we going to know the central office reductions? When are we going to know how many of those [there] are?” Board Member Karla Griego asked. “In a couple of weeks, I hope.”

“No, sooner,” responded Chief Financial Officer Saman Bravo-Karimi. Bravo-Karimi said the board would be provided with the number of positions impacted and their job classifications.

LAist requested information about the proposed layoffs last week and was told by a district spokesperson that the information would not be available until the board materials were publicly posted.

California’s Brown Act requires public agencies, including school districts, to post information about their regular meetings, including a description of each matter to be discussed, at least 72 hours in advance. Some agencies opt to publish the information even earlier.

No materials related to the Feb. 10 meeting were posted by that 72-hour deadline, and the meeting was rescheduled Sunday.

LAist reached out to Board President Scott Schmerelson to discuss the delayed meeting but has not received a response as of Monday evening.

Weigh in on LAUSD’s planned layoffs

The next meeting where the board could vote on the layoff proposal is Tuesday, Feb. 17. The agenda for the meeting must be publicly posted by Saturday, Feb. 14 at 10 a.m.— 72 hours before the start of the meeting. Sign up to get the agendas emailed here.