The Brief

The formula that determines how much landlords can increase rents in most Los Angeles apartments hasn’t been updated in 40 years. After long delays, City Council members began discussions this week to change those rules.

The new effort at reform has the potential to significantly lower the yearly increases paid by most tenants in a city where housing affordability has long been a top concern.

Currently, the city’s rules allow annual increases of up to 10%, depending on inflation and whether a landlord covers a renter’s gas and electricity bills. Rent hikes can be even higher in cases where tenants add new occupants to their households.

A proposal from the L.A. Housing Department would instead cap increases at 5%. Meanwhile, tenant advocates continue pushing city leaders to pass an even lower limit of 3%.

In Wednesday’s meeting of the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, chair Nithya Raman said changes are “sorely needed.” She said under state law, increases of more than 10% are considered rent gouging — but the city’s rules technically allow much higher increases in certain situations.

“You could get an 8% rent increase, a 2% charge for utilities, and if you happen to have a second kid, your rent would go up by another 10% over that,” Raman said, arguing such provisions don’t maintain fairness between landlord and tenants. “Our structure right now is not designed to do what it was supposed to do.”

But Raman said the rules must be carefully crafted not to harm smaller landlords or their long-term tenants.

“We do not want to have unintended consequences here that incentivize landlords to kick out the oldest, most vulnerable, most income-insecure tenants in our entire ecosystem,” Raman said. “The policy choices we have ahead of us are incredibly important and complex.”

LA rent control lore

Created during a period of very high inflation, the city’s rent control formula first took effect in 1979 and was last updated in 1985.

The limits generally apply to rental units constructed before October 1978. Because the city’s housing stock consists largely of older buildings, rent control applies to around three-quarters of L.A. apartments. About 42% of all city residents are covered by the annual rent caps.

Previous efforts to overhaul the rules, such as the City Council’s last reform attempt in 2009, have faltered. The current push for reform dates back to the waning days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when City Council members passed new eviction protections and asked for an independent economic analysis of the city’s rent control formula.

The committee did not vote on any new formula on Wednesday. They instead watched presentations by representatives from the city’s Housing Department and from the Economic Roundtable, which was contracted by the city to study the existing rules.

Searing debate comes to City Hall

Despite the lack of any firm decisions, tenants packed the council chambers to give public comment on what they see as an urgent need for lower allowable rent hikes.

Elizabeth Hernández, a tenant in South L.A., said she favored the lower 3% cap proposed by a group of tenant advocacy groups called Keep L.A. Housed.

“Our money is just going to rent,” Hernández said. “We work daily, and half of our money goes to rent. Having the cap at 3% could help.”

The Economic Roundtable study, which was first published by LAist after we obtained it from the city through a public records request, found that most renters are paying more than 30% of their income on rent, qualifying them as “rent burdened” by federal standards.

The city’s poorest renters are spending far more, with more than half of those falling below the federal poverty line spending 90% of their income or more on rent, according to the report.

“This is a city of renters who are struggling,” Christina Boyar, an attorney with Public Counsel, told LAist. Public Counsel is a member of the Keep L.A. Housed coalition.

“We are seeing evictions as high as they were before the pandemic, there are federal social safety nets being cut left and right, there are seniors on fixed income,” Boyar said. “While a small change in the percentage — three to five percent — may seem small, perhaps trivial, that translates into real dollars that tenants cannot afford.”

Keep L.A. Housed is asking for rent hikes to be based on 60% of the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation, with allowable increases falling within a range of 0% in times of very low or no inflation to 3% in times of higher inflation. The Housing Department’s recommendation would include a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 5%.

But many economists think rent control has proven to be an ineffective tool for tackling these issues. The firm Beacon Economics prepared a report critiquing the Economic Roundtable analysis and disagreeing with many of its recommendations.

Chris Thornberg, Beacon’s founding partner, said rent control policies tend to help some tenants while harming others. For example, he said, when cities lower annual increases for existing tenants, landlords will raise rents on vacant units, passing higher costs on to new tenants.

“The city is spending a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of political capital to do something that doesn't really change the broader situation,” Thornberg said. “It simply creates some winners and losers, and in the end, on net, very little has changed.”

Thornberg thinks the council should instead focus on creating more housing, which would give tenants more bargaining power in the market to seek lower rents.

LA differs from other rent control cities

Among California cities with rent control, L.A. stands out for having high allowable increases (the city-commissioned report found that caps of 3% to 5% are far more common) and for letting landlords who cover gas and electricity costs increase rents an additional 1% for each utility per year.

Dan Flaming, the Economic Roundtable's president emeritus and co-author of the report, told the Housing and Homelessness Committee during his presentation that the utility bump over time results in tenants paying more than what the utility costs landlords to provide.

“Rents over a five-year period could be $150 to $240 higher for each service,” Flaming said.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost of operating rental housing has grown substantially. Expenses such as building maintenance, insurance premiums and repair costs have grown faster than overall inflation, according to the Economic Roundtable.

These costs have risen during a period when the L.A. City Council gave tenants eviction protections for deferred rent payments and imposed a nearly four-year freeze on rent hikes in rent-controlled buildings.

Landlords see a pivotal moment

Landlords who own a small number of units have said further restrictions could push them to exit the city’s rental housing market altogether. Some have already sold their buildings.

Jan Mills sold a rent-controlled four-unit property in Echo Park last year.

“Having real estate felt concrete, something we can rely on,” she said. “But you can't rely on it in the city of Los Angeles.”

Mills said she evicted one of her tenants who continued not to pay rent after the city lifted COVID-19 eviction protections. She said it took about 10 months and tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees and lost rent before she could finally get the tenant locked out.

She said she believes now is the wrong time to pass further restrictions on annual rent increases.

“I would just feel like it was one more nail in the coffin of being a landlord,” Mills said. “I think it's important to have programs for people who are living on the edge. But the landlords, unlike the city of Los Angeles, don't have the resources to be that program.”

Moving forward, many unanswered questions 

During Wednesday’s committee meeting, some council members sounded unsure of how to proceed with rules that would offer relief to struggling tenants without causing more frustration to small landlords.

Committee members raised other thorny questions, such as whether the Consumer Price Index released by the federal government will still provide a reliable basis for rent increases, given President Donald Trump’s politicized firings within the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

When economists told Councilmember Heather Hutt that good alternatives to that measure don’t exist, she said: “That’s not promising.”

Councilmembers also raised the question of which specific index to use.

The Economic Roundtable report recommended using a measure of inflation that includes all consumer goods except housing. The authors said this would prevent already high housing costs from allowing even higher rent increases.

The Beacon Economics report dissented, saying that housing-related policies such as rent control should be based on an index that captures what’s going on in the housing market.

“This whole issue is about how do we keep it even-steven?” Councilmember Bob Blumenfield said.

Topline:

Key topics: The candidates each had about 45 minutes to individually answer questions from Erin Stone, an LAist senior reporter focused on climate and environment.

Here are some of the topics they covered:

• Extreme heat
• Emergency preparedness and recovery
• Protecting communities from pollution
• Water
• Public transit

About the organizers: The event is organized by a coalition of local environmental and environmental justice groups including: Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters, SCOPE-LA, Sierra Club, Clean and Healthy California, Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance and Communities for a Better Environment

LAist will have more coverage and analysis of the conversations Friday morning.

The Trump administration is taking steps to advance a mysterious and unprecedented project to compile state-by-state lists of people it has decided are eligible citizens over the age of 18 who can vote in the upcoming midterm election. But it will no longer meet its own deadline to publish that information on a portal on Friday, which is 60 days before Election Day.

Department of Justice attorneys told opposing counsel in two separate lawsuits that instead of meeting the Sept. 4 deadline, they would give 48-hours notice to plaintiffs' counsel before the state citizenship portal was launched, according to recent court filings.

The U.S. has never attempted to create a comprehensive list of American citizens before this administration. Maintaining voter lists is the responsibility of states, not the federal government, as the Constitution dictates that states control elections. But President Trump has repeatedly taken steps to try to exert executive control over elections.

The basis for the federal government creating state citizenship lists is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. A lower court had blocked implementation of key parts of that executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., but the Supreme Court stayed that injunction late last month, opening the door for the plan to be implemented after all.

The March 31 executive order directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create "State Citizenship Lists" of individuals the agencies believe are citizens in each state, and send those lists to state officials "no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election."

The next section of the executive order says the U.S. attorney general will prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to anyone not eligible to vote.

"States here have a strong incentive to actually use these lists to try to avoid federal investigation," said Jules Torti, counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, in an interview with NPR. "But we know that these lists are going to be based on really inaccurate data. So the risk of disenfranchisement here is really, really palpable."

The privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center, along with individual voters, filed a motion Thursday asking a federal judge in Maryland to block the administration from creating the citizenship lists and publishing them on a portal. Specifically, they seek to block a June 8 implementation memo authored by USCIS director Joseph Edlow that outlines the plan.

The motion, which was brought by Protect Democracy, along with another nonprofit legal group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues the administration's plans to share Americans' personal data between agencies and then disseminate the data to states violates multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Under the Privacy Act, federal agencies must give the public 30 days notice and the opportunity to comment before they collect and disseminate Americans' personal data for a new purpose.

The EPIC lawsuit also argues the government does not have access to accurate, up-to-date information on American citizens, especially those who move frequently, have changed their names, or are foreign-born. For example, Social Security's citizenship data often isn't updated when people naturalize, and the SAVE data system, operated by USCIS, frequently doesn't include records for people who became citizens as minors when their parents naturalized.

Torti said it is "deeply concerning" that the administration is still planning to go ahead with the creation of citizenship lists but is no longer going to meet the deadline, since that means the lists will be completed even closer to Election Day.

"It means additional chaos, additional confusion for the state election officials and just for voters," Torti said. "And I think that's the point. The point here is to create chaos in advance of the election."

Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Homeland Security, which is tasked with compiling the citizenship lists, responded to NPR's request for comment.

The June 8 implementation memo stated that the portal for state election officials would be available around June 30 and a second portal where citizens could check their information would be available at a later date – but that deadline passed without further updates.

The federal government has secured a domain for the state citizenship lists portal. While the portal is not currently online, it was briefly live in recent days with a landing page that said "Coming Soon," according to court filings.

Lawyers representing Democratic party groups that had challenged the March 31 executive order in a separate lawsuit filed in April, accused the administration in a recent filing of failing to notify the court or the parties about its plans to move forward with the state citizenship portal. They asked the judge to require the federal government to give immediate updates about their plans to implement the executive order.

This latest legal battle over the administration's plans to compile state citizenship lists comes as the Department of Homeland Security is ramping up its efforts to analyze state voter rolls with the goal of identifying potential noncitizens who are registered to vote. Previous audits have found instances of noncitizens casting ballots to be incredibly rare. 

Additionally, last week, ICE published a request for information on a federal procurement site seeking vendors who can compile public voter rolls and voter history files from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, "to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities."

NPR's Hansi Lo Wang contributed reporting to this story. 
Copyright 2026 NPR

A group of California lawmakers called on federal officials to halt and reject a proposed land exchange in Yosemite National Park that would allow a private developer to take control of a strip of land in the park for an access road to the park’s main attractions.

The letter to Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday was signed by a bipartisan group of 61 state legislators led by Assemblymember Greg Wallis, a Republican who represents Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“Republicans and Democrats from both houses of the Legislature are standing together because some things are bigger than politics,” Wallis said in a statement. “Yosemite is not a subdivision. It is not a bargaining chip. And it is not for sale. Secretary Burgum and the administration should put an end to this proposal.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (center) visited the Tunnel Tops in San Francisco in 2025 after he and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi toured Alcatraz ahead of their announcement to reopen the former federal prison.

(

Katie DeBenedetti

/

KQED

)

The group argued that the proposed land exchange is counter to the mission of the National Park Service and the founding of Yosemite in 1864, which set aside the start of the park for public use and protection for the first time in the history of the federal government.

“What is being proposed now runs directly against that founding principle, more than a century and a half later,” the letter states.

It continues later: “Our national parks belong equally to every American. They are not the Department’s to trade away, and they are not for sale.”

The proposal was first reported by news outlet NOTUS, which published a story last week alleging that members of the Trump administration were meeting with representatives of Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a private equity group that owns an 83-acre parcel next to the park. In an email to KQED, Kingsbarn’s lawyer Lanny J. Davis confirmed the group is pursuing the land exchange to build a new access road from its property to the park.

Previous owners have pushed for the same deal since the early 2000s and failed in court.

State Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who signed on to the letter, called the proposal “indefensible,” and said he’s looking at state laws to ensure a similar proposal could never slip through.

“If the Trump administration can’t defend this publicly in broad daylight, then they shouldn’t be doing it,” he said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Marin) told KQED’s Forum on Wednesday that he’s worried there isn’t enough opposition among his Republican colleagues in Congress to stop the Trump administration’s efforts.

“I have not seen a single Republican colleague willing to stand up to Donald Trump when he decides that he’s just going to do something,” Huffman said. “So that is my concern, that he just plows ahead with this — even if it has dubious legal authority, or even if it’s an open violation of the law. He’s doing stuff like that anyway. And in this Congress, there’s no one here to stop him.”

In a statement to KQED, state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto), whose district includes parts of Yosemite, said she will “keep pressing the Department [of the Interior] for a clear answer that this exchange will not proceed.”

Since the news of the deal broke late last week, it has sparked condemnation from a number of Democratic state leaders, including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, as well as Attorney General Rob Bonta and Bonta’s predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who leads the race for California governor.

“The secretive backroom land-exchange scheme has gotten everyone’s attention,” said Neal Desai, senior Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. “I can’t recall another issue — and I’ve been working in the conservation space for over a couple of decades — where the response has been this sharp and so one-sided that this is a terrible idea that should not happen.”

The backlash comes at a turbulent time for National Park Service employees, who have faced layoffs, staffing cuts and fear of retaliation for speaking up against Trump administration policies since the start of the second Trump administration.

Some former employees have also raised concerns about a potential reorganization of the National Park Service, according to a separate letter sent to Burgum’s office Wednesday. According to an email seen by KQED, park superintendents have been asked to attend in-person regional meetings in September — with no clear agenda beyond discussing “agency priorities, our FY 2026 outlook, and other matters important to the work ahead.”

The letter to Burgam, signed by 20 retired parks superintendents warns: “An ill-advised and hastily planned reorganization could dismantle that structure, putting our parks — and those who visit them — at great risk.”

Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which organized the letter, said the email about regional meetings “raises some alarm bells.”

“The Park Service is already operating from a difficult place, from a place of crisis,” she said. “And any additional cuts, any movements or actions that would further jeopardize the capacity of the folks that are left, that’s concerning. It’s worrying, and it’ll have a devastating impact on the Park Service.”

Among the letter’s signatories is Don Neubacher, retired Yosemite superintendent, who has been a vocal advocate for parks amid the Trump administration’s changes.

Thompson said she’s worried parks leaders will be stretched even further than they already are, and local decision-making over parks could be in jeopardy.

“Morale is low,” Thompson said. “It’s a hard time to be a federal employee. Anything that … contributes to this culture of fear, it’s just not acceptable.”

This story first appeared on Long Beach Post.

Long Beach is offering up to $1,500 for local business owners and landlords to equip their storefronts with safety measures like cameras, floodlights, alarms and point-of-sale systems.

The grant program is accepting online applications now. You can apply here.

Businesses with storefronts of 1,500 square feet or less may receive grants of up to $750, while businesses between 1,500 and 5,000 square feet are eligible for up to $1,500.

Nonprofit organizations are eligible as well, and landlords can apply on behalf of commercial storefronts that are vacant or occupied. Franchises can also receive the grant.

To qualify, a business must:

• Have an active business license for a storefront within the city
• Be independently owned and operated (franchises are eligible)
• Be currently open and active for business
• Earn no more than $5 million in annual gross revenue
• Hold “active” status with the California Secretary of State for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships

The funds will be provided as a reimbursement after eligible security improvements are installed. Grants will be given out until funds are exhausted.

It’s a great idea, according to Edwin Jara, who manages a pet store in Belmont Heights and was on the receiving end of a break-in earlier this year.

His store had security measures already in place — two cameras and an alarm system — but even that wasn’t enough to deter a masked burglar who grabbed $1,000 cash and a handful of dog treats.

Despite having footage of the burglar, Jara said police haven’t been able to catch the person and that a detective never responded after he filed a police report.

The grant program is being paid for with $350,000 from the city’s Redvelopment Agency along with $50,000 from Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s office.

“Our local small businesses are part of the fabric of our neighborhoods, and when business owners feel unsafe, the whole community feels it,” Hahn said in a statement.

In a statement, Mayor Rex Richardson said the program is a “direct investment in the hardworking business owners who make our commercial corridors vibrant and welcoming.”

Jara said he would consider applying for a grant if the city could send someone to help him and the store’s owner fill out the application.

He was offered a separate grant to replace a glass door the burglar smashed, but the store’s owner opted not to fill out the application.

“There was a lot of stuff that we needed to do, and I don’t have a lot of that information,” Jara said.