The Brief

The Los Angeles city council voted Tuesday to let landlords increase rents in the city’s rent-controlled apartments up to 6% for the first time since March 2020.

The proposal will allow rent hikes of 4% beginning on Feb. 1 with additional 2% increases permitted for landlords who cover their tenants’ gas and electricity costs.

The 10-2 decision came after fierce debate among council members, caught between pleas from tenants to keep low-income residents housed by continuing the pandemic-era ban on rent hikes and demands from landlords to end a nearly four-year rent freeze that blocked increased maintenance costs from being passed on to renters.

If the council hadn’t taken action, the city’s existing rules would have allowed landlords with rent-controlled properties to increase rents by 7% to 9% starting on Feb. 1.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who voted in support of the lower limits, said, “If we increase rent, people are going to get evicted, and we’re not going to stop this eviction-to-homelessness pipeline.”

Traci Park, one of the council members who voted against lowering the rent increases allowed on Feb. 1, said, “We’ve already asked an awful lot of our mom-and-pop landlords, and I just can’t imagine how much more we’re going to continue to expect them to give.”

Councilmember John Lee joined Park in voting no. Councilmembers Paul Krekorian and Curren Price recused themselves from the vote because they are landlords. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavksy was absent from the vote.

The proposal will now move to the city attorney’s office for drafting and return to the council for another vote before it is finalized.

The backstory to L.A.’s rent freeze

By the time increases resume in February, L.A. will have banned rent hikes in most of the city’s apartments for just shy of four years, far longer than other parts of the country.

The ongoing rent freeze started when COVID-19 public health restrictions first began. City lawmakers saw the ban as a way to protect renters facing financial and personal hardships caused by the pandemic.

The policy applies to nearly 600,000 apartments covered by the city’s rent control law, which generally includes apartment buildings built before October 1978. These older buildings make up nearly three-quarters of the city’s apartment stock. Newer buildings are subject to state law, which currently allows rent increases in L.A. and Orange counties of up to 8.8% annually.

The city’s rent freeze has helped many L.A. tenants — who tend to pay rents that exceed 30% of their income — balance their household budgets during a period when inflation surged. Housing researchers say even small rent increases have been shown to increase homelessness among the lowest-income renters.

The ongoing ban on rent hikes has enraged many of the city’s landlords, who think it should have ended years ago. They’ve long said that rising utility and maintenance costs, coupled with the inability to raise rents, have created financial hardships.

How the council came to this decision 

Last month, councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Eunisses Hernandez moved to extend the rent freeze until August 2024. Landlords quickly mobilized to strike down that proposal.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield instead suggested allowing rent hikes to return on Feb. 1 as planned, but at increases of 4% to 6%. His proposal cleared the council’s housing committee, but a vote scheduled last week in the full city council was delayed in his absence.

During Tuesday’s meeting, council members proposed dueling amendments to alter the rules on rent hikes moving forward.

• Councilmember Tim McOsker moved to allow small landlords with 12 units or fewer to raise rents 7% to 9%, while preserving the lower 4% to 6% limit for larger landlords. 
• Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez moved to keep the 4% limit in place for all landlords, with no additional 2% for landlords who cover utilities. 

Neither amendment received enough votes to pass.

Landlords say repairs will have to wait

Landlords were happy to see the six-month rent freeze extension rejected, but many had hoped for higher allowable increases.

Daniel Bleiberg with L.A. property management company G-B Investment Services said that by not allowing landlords to keep up with rising costs for years through modest rent increases, city leaders have worked against their own affordable housing goals.

“Rental property needs to be a viable business or it’s only going to get worse,” Bleiberg said, adding that some owners have already asked him if they’d be better off selling their property to a developer. “The more [city council members] don't make it a viable business, they're just going to lose more and more of this housing.”

Geza Tokes owns and manages 18 rent-controlled apartments in the city of L.A.

“When the rent freeze started, we had no problem with that,” Tokes said. “It was shaky times and it made sense.”

But Tokes questioned the city’s decision to keep the ban on rent hikes in place for years. He said stagnant rents make it difficult to keep up with rising maintenance costs for gardening, pest control and plumbing. Until the rent freeze lifts in February, he said larger repairs are on hold.

“I’ve got to put a roof on a property in Echo Park — it's $14,000,” Tokes said. “Last winter's rains got us. It's leaking, and we put a Band-Aid on that … I want to take the roof off and get permits and do it legit. But I can't throw $14,000 down right now.”

Tenants say they’re already living on the edge

Many tenants say they can’t afford to see L.A.’s already high rents climb even higher.

Studio City renter Cindy Sanders said, as a retiree, Social Security is her main source of income, and there isn’t much left after she pays rent. She said an increase of up to 6% could spell the difference between staying in her apartment of nearly 30 years, or having to move out.

“With Social Security raises not being high … it's going to really have an effect,” Sanders said. She said she could not afford a similarly sized apartment in L.A. if she’s forced to move.

Delia Cardona said most of her income from cleaning homes and offices goes straight to rent for the Koreatown studio apartment she shares with her two sons. With her budget already strained, she said any increase will force her to cut back on basic necessities.

“Obviously it would affect me and make it harder to buy food and pay my bills,” Cardona said through a Spanish interpreter. She has organized with the Los Angeles Tenants Union to advocate for continuing the city’s rent freeze.

What comes next 

Now, city officials will have to spread the word about the new rent increase rules. The L.A. Housing Department has already told landlords that rent increases of 7% to 9% will be allowed on Feb. 1. Officials will now have to contact them again to note the change to lower limits.

During the pandemic, tenants experienced confusion over the rent freeze, as well as a lack of compliance from some landlords. By early 2023, illegal rent increase complaints had eclipsed pre-pandemic levels. Some tenants also reported that “discount” rent clauses buried in their leases allowed landlords to pass on large rent increases.

With allowable increases of up to 6%, the city of L.A. will have some of the highest permissible rent hikes among all of the cities in Southern California that have local rent control. Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Santa Ana have all set allowable increases below 3%. The L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted last week to approve allowable rent increases of up to 4% in rent-controlled housing starting next year in unincorporated areas.

Los Angeles Unified School District’s cell phone ban turns 1 year old today.

The state’s largest district announced a “bell to bell” cellphone and social media ban in June 2024, which expanded the district’s existing phone ban to include lunch and passing periods. The policy took effect Feb. 18, 2025. District officials cited rising concerns about the effects of phones and social media on youth mental health, bullying and distraction from classroom instruction.

How well did the ban go at the beginning?

Over the first semester, we heard from educators and students who had mixed opinions. Some teachers reported positive results, while others said that passing periods remained a challenge. Some students found the ban stifled their ability to get important things done, and some also said their screentime stayed the same or increased while at home. We made a whole episode of our Imperfect Paradise podcast about it:

Listen 46:11

Apple

Spotify

On February 18th, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. We headed to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

Did the cellphone ban in high schools work?

On February 18th, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. We headed to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

What don't we know?

Since LAUSD’s proposal went into effect, other districts have also rolled out changes to cellphone policies in advance of a July 2026 state deadline. The long-term effects are unclear, although more researchers are investigating.

How’s it going?

You tell us! Has it improved your educational experience? (Whether you’re a teacher, student, parent or caregiver.) Here’s a quick survey you can use to share your thoughts.

Los Angeles remains on shaky financial ground with increased liability costs, overspending by city departments and revenue shortfalls forcing it to dip into its reserves, according to a financial report released Wednesday.

The annual report for the fiscal year that ended in June, from Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia, said the culmination of decades of “unstable budgeting” is seen and felt by Angelenos across the city “in crumbling infrastructure and deteriorating services.”

Additionally, short-term budget balancing over the past two years resulted in unpaid furlough days for city employees and the elimination of thousands of unfilled positions.

“The service impacts of those cuts are still hitting departments as they struggle to address growing needs with severely diminished capacities,” the report read.

Key takeaways

Here are some of the major points made in the report:

• The top area of overspending continued to be liability payments. Liability claims exceeded the budget by $199 million or 228%, totaling a record of $287 million for the year. The top three areas include police at $152 million, street services at $44 million and transportation at $20 million. 

• The top area of underspending was capital improvement projects. The city only spent $25 million (19%) of the $131 million budget.

• Salaries and employee benefits increased by $162.6 million (4.7%) compared to previous  years, primarily because of cost-of-living adjustments associated with labor agreements with civilian and sworn employee unions, sworn employee hiring, increased overtime usage and higher benefit and insurance premium costs. Property taxes, which represent 40.6% of general fund revenues, increased by 4.3%. Business tax revenue increased by 8.6%, while sales tax revenues declined by 2.2%

• The city had to make up $160 million in revenue shortfall by tapping the reserve fund, which dropped from $648 million two fiscal years ago to $402 million for fiscal year 2024-25. The reserve fund currently sits at 5.06% of the total general fund budget, according to a December financial status report from the city administrative officer — barely above the 5% minimum set by the City Council.

• Four ratings agencies, including S&P, Fitch, Moody’s and Kroll, have given the city a “negative outlook” over a variety of concerns including liability payments and damages from the Palisades Fire. A negative outlook indicates a heightened risk that a city’s credit rating may be downgraded within the next 12 to 18 months. L.A. still holds an Aa2 rating from Moody’s, which is considered a high grade.

The controller issued a series of recommendations, including shifting to a two-year instead of one-year budgeting process, more realistic revenue projections, and more revenue generation by growing the tax base (for example: implementing a vacancy tax or taxing rideshare/autonomous vehicles, not just raising the sales tax).

General fund challenges

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, a member of the city’s Budget and Finance Committee, said in the report that the city can’t keep relying on short-term fixes, while “structural deficits,” like ongoing budget shortfalls, grow.

She added that “years of draining reserves, soaring liability payouts, and underinvestment in infrastructure have left us in a perilous financial position that our communities are now forced to absorb.”

“We need transparent, multi-year budgeting rooted in long-term planning and fiscal responsibility,” Hernandez said.

Mejia said that although the city is halfway through its fiscal year, it continues to have general fund budget challenges.

“The current fiscal year’s budget assumes moderate revenue growth, however, the long-term impact of current economic activities on revenue growth remains unknown and revenue has been stable during the first half of the year.”

LA’s demographics

In addition to providing a financial picture, the report provided a demographic look at the city. L.A.’s population is 3.84 million, the average age is 37.5, the total school enrollment is 409,108 and the unemployment rate is 6%.

The city employs more than 50,000 workers, the metro L.A.’s GDP is $1.3 trillion (among the top 20 economies in the world), and LAX has 75 million passengers a year.

Erroneous and politically charged statements by Trump administration officials, as well as the district attorney for San Bernardino County, have complicated the prosecution of a truck driver charged with vehicular manslaughter in a crash on the 10 Freeway last year.

The statements highlighted the national origin of the driver, 21-year-old Jashanpreet Singh, who was born in India, contained false information on his immigration status and made unfounded allegations that he was driving under the influence.

It’s the latest in a series of instances where federal officials have injected politics into developing events. In some cases, statements by federal officials later turn out to be false and detrimental to prosecutions, as the New York Times recently found in at least four instances. Here in Southern California, statements by federal officials have ended up in court documents where Singh’s defense argues his prosecution has been tainted by anti-immigrant bias.

Statements by the Department of Homeland Security labeled Singh a “criminal illegal alien” who was driving under the influence. Singh was seeking asylum and authorized to work in the U.S. by the federal government. Toxicology tests taken after the crash came back negative for all substances.

“It is a terrible tragedy three innocent people lost their lives due to the reckless open border policies that allowed an illegal alien to be released into the U.S. and drive an 18-wheeler on America’s highways,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an Oct. 23 statement.

Arjun Sethi, a racial justice advocate, civil rights lawyer and adjunct professor at Georgetown University said these statements have compromised Singh’s ability to receive a fair trial.

“When you think of the variety of federal statements in this case, you see blatant racial and xenophobic rhetoric that is highly prejudicial,” Sethi said. “How can any juror set aside that rhetoric … and be able to ascertain the truth?”

Public defenders representing Singh argue similar statements by San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson, a deputy in Anderson’s office and the California Highway Patrol violate California's Racial Justice Act, a 2020 law prohibiting prosecutions influenced by racial bias.

Hearings on the Racial Justice Act claims will continue March 10. Singh's trial will commence after a judge rules on those claims. Preet has pleaded not guilty to the felony charges against him.

“I think authorities made statements infused by racial bias in this case,” Sethi, who has served as an expert in Racial Justice Act litigation, told LAist. “Bottom line, California authorities in this case mirror the racist political rhetoric we are hearing from the federal government.”

How we got here 

Six months before the crash that led to the charges against Singh, President Donald Trump took steps to restrict states from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Transportation issued new emergency regulations in September that CalMatters reported could revoke the licenses of up to 61,000 immigrant truck drivers, amounting to 8% of the total commercial licenses in the state.

The department gave California 30 days to come into compliance with these new rules or risk losing millions of dollars in federal highway funds.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office disputed the Trump administration's claims, arguing that California’s licensed truck drivers had a lower fatal crash rate than the national average.

Then, in the early afternoon of Oct. 21, Singh’s semi-truck crashed on a crowded interstate.

Dashboard camera footage shows his truck colliding with passenger vehicles and another truck as one car went up in flames.

Singh was arrested and held without bail. Prosecutors charged him with vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving.

He was initially charged with driving under the influence, but the district attorney dropped those charges after toxicology reports came back negative for all substances.

As a deputy district attorney said in a filing, the crash immediately “generated high media interest and touched off a federal and state official-driven debate surrounding immigration policy and the state's issuance of commercial driver's licenses.”

Two days after the crash, the Department of Homeland Security published a news release arguing Singh, an asylum seeker, entered the country illegally in 2022 “and was RELEASED into the country under the Biden administration.”

DHS officials have not responded to LAist’s requests for comment. McLaughlin will reportedly leave the agency soon.

The U.S. Department of Transportation also issued a news release on Singh’s crash and California’s compliance with the new licensing rules. The release stated that Singh was operating his truck under the influence of drugs, despite a lack of evidence to support that claim.

In an email to LAist, a Department of Transportation spokesperson said California issued Singh’s Commercial Drivers License without properly vetting his qualifications.

Newsom’s press office directed LAist to the California Transportation Agency, which has yet to respond to emailed questions.

But in an earlier statement on social media, Newsom’s office stated that the federal government approved and renewed Singh’s federal employment authorization multiple times, and it was that approval that allowed him to obtain a commercial driver’s license in California.

Racial Justice Act claims

Public defender Jason Tucker argued in an Oct. 31 filing that Singh, his client, has faced multiple violations of the California Racial Justice Act, a law passed in 2020 that prohibits state authorities from seeking convictions or imposing sentences based on race, ethnicity or national origin.

Tucker has not responded to an emailed request for comment.

The filing highlights a motion to increase bail written by a California Highway Patrol officer shortly after the crash that claimed Singh was subject to deportation, despite being an asylum seeker who was authorized to work in the U.S. by the federal government, and a comment by a deputy district attorney about Singh’s use of an interpreter in court.

The primary violation, according to Tucker’s filing, occurred Oct. 23, when Anderson, the district attorney, issued a news release that tied the crash to state and federal policy.

“Had the rule of law been followed by state and federal officials the defendant should have never been in California at all,” Anderson’s statement said, before adding that Anderson’s office would “aggressively prosecute” the case.

According to the defense, this statement “injected Mr. Singh’s national origin, by way of his immigration status, into the criminal justice proceedings, despite evidence to the contrary.”

The DA’s reply

Deputy District Attorney Phillip Stemler, argued in a Nov. 10 court filing that the statements made by the office focus on policy without referencing or disparaging Singh’s identity, do not contain discriminatory language and do not meet the standards of a Racial Justice Act violation. Further, the district attorney is protected by the First Amendment, giving him latitude to speak on policy matters, according to the filing.

Stemler’s response stated that the Oct. 21 crash that killed three people and injured several others in Ontario “touched off a debate” about immigration and truck driving but that it was not Anderson’s office who politicized the case.

“It was federal officials who injected defendant’s immigration status into the media narrative on the defendant’s case,” reads the filing by Stemler, the Racial Justice Act coordinator for the office.

First, the filing references an Oct. 22 social media post by Duffy stating that his department was withholding $40 million from California because the state did not comply with the new federal rules.

“The following day, federal officials ramped up further,” the filing reads, pointing to the Oct. 23 DHS press release on the crash that referred to Singh as a “criminal illegal alien from India.”

Stemler’s filing says that the California Racial Justice Act does not apply to federal officials.

Sethi, the civil rights lawyer, said the statements by federal officials nevertheless compromise Singh’s ability to receive a fair trial.

“Long before Mr. Singh ever sets foot in a courtroom, there is a long shadow of political theater and xenophobic rhetoric that will be cast over him,” Sethi said, “and his case that is the fault of state and federal officials.”

Mara Harris loads a box of produce into her car, along with canned food and boxed goods. It marks the second week in a row she will drive the groceries to families across Los Angeles who say immigration raids are keeping them inside their homes.

“I got involved because I live in Highland Park, which is a primarily Latinx neighborhood, and I was feeling really frustrated and angry about our neighbors being unfairly treated,” Harris said.

Harris is a member of Nefesh, a Jewish outreach community that has partnered with local faith leaders to deliver goods. Her role is straightforward: pick up the groceries, drive them to families who have requested help, and drop them off.

“My husband is an immigrant,” she said. “I just think about the anxiety that we have going through the process, even with the resources we have access to, and I think about how impossible it is for other people to navigate that.”

She added, “It’s just chance that some people were born in countries that are safe and that provide them with opportunities, and other people are not. And I think the U.S. has an obligation to extend that opportunity to those people.”

The grocery deliveries are being organized by a Koreatown church that has seen a decline in attendance at its regular food distribution program in recent months. At the request of church leadership, The LA Local is not naming the church or its congregants out of privacy concerns and to avoid drawing attention to their immigrant community. It’s just one of a network of faith-based organizations responding to the need, and as raids show no signs of slowing down anytime soon, the group is seeking to expand its delivery hubs to more church sites.

Before the recent enforcement activity, the Koreatown church’s regular food distribution served between 500 and 600 people, according to one church organizer. In early February, they saw around 350.

“People are afraid, and unfortunately don’t know about services like this,” she said.

Multiple families have said they’re just too afraid to go out into the neighborhood, according to church leadership.

Since last summer, federal agents have carried out workplace raids, targeted day labor sites and arrested people in public spaces across the region. The Department of Homeland Security reported in December that more than 10,000 people had been detained in the LA area since June.

“There are members of our congregation that have immigration concerns that have told me they’re afraid to go out,” the pastor of the Koreatown church said. “I’ve spoken to at least four different families that are just afraid to go get groceries, are afraid to take their kids or their grandkids to school, and are worried about ICE activity in the neighborhood that’s been happening over the past seven months or so.”

In response, the church began coordinating home grocery deliveries in partnership with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, or CLUE. The partnership started last summer after church staff noticed a drop in attendance at their weekly food distributions.

“A lot of people were afraid to go to the food bank at (the church), so they saw a big decline and understood that it was because people were afraid to come out, so CLUE partnered with them to do this delivery service,” said Liz Bar-El, a community liaison for CLUE.

Another staff member who has worked at the Koreatown church for six years said operations have been directly affected by enforcement activity in the area.

“I’ve been doing this for about six years. Last week, we had to stop at 11 a.m., and we used to close at 12, 12:30 because the ICE agents were around here,” he said. “And the number of people is decreasing because of ICE raids.”

The church pastor said families do not simply call and request food; there is a screening system to ensure that the program reaches those who are most concerned about leaving their homes.

CLUE has “folks that help call through the list of people that requested it to confirm for the day of their deliveries. They also have somebody that does a screening process to make sure that the people that are getting the deliveries qualify for the parameters of the program so that they’re not just getting people who are like ‘Yeah, you can deliver food to me’ but rather are really concerned about their status,” he said.

But Bar-El, the organizer with CLUE, said identifying families can be difficult.

“It’s likely due to fear of trusting somebody, they are hiding in their homes,” she said. “One way to reach them is through their pastors and the rapid response network that CLUE is a part of.”

Many of the requests stem from sudden changes in a family’s circumstances.

“This current situation with grocery delivery is mostly people who need help getting food because somebody got detained, deported and or the main breadwinner lost their job,” Bar-El said. “In one case, the husband was recently bonded out, and the wife was left home with three very small children.”

For Harris, the volunteer delivering food across multiple neighborhoods, the work is personal. She often thinks about her own family’s immigration status.

“My husband is British and he’s been working here off work visas for six years. He just applied for a non-conditional green card last year. So I take our anxiety and worries and extrapolate it,” she said.

Organizers don’t expect the need for this service to ease anytime soon. Bar-El said they plan to expand the effort to another church in Hollywood and are seeking more volunteers.

“I believe it’s my responsibility as someone who is one of the lucky ones and who does have resources and privilege to do what I can for my neighbors and for my city that I love that is so diverse and wonderful,” Harris said.