The Brief

Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday in favor of creating a plan to provide free attorneys to low income renters facing eviction.

The policy — which still needs a final vote before it is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025 — would be the first of its kind in Southern California.

It comes at a time when lapsed pandemic renter protections have caused a spike in eviction filings leading to thousands losing housing.

“Housing is a fundamental human right,” said Sup. Holly Mitchell, who first introduced the idea for a “Right To Counsel” program last year. “I believe that our county’s Right To Counsel ordinance is an important part of fulfilling that vision. And we’ll have an L.A. County where, regardless of income, every Angeleno will have access to affordable, accessible legal services.”

Who would be eligible for a lawyer? 

The program will only serve renters in unincorporated parts of L.A. County. That includes areas such as East Los Angeles, City Terrace and South L.A. neighborhoods like Florence-Graham.

Why just the unincorporated areas?

Supervisors have limited influence over the 88 incorporated cities within L.A. County. But if you live in an unincorporated part of Los Angeles County, such as Altadena, Castaic, East L.A., Ladera Heights, Rowland Heights, South San Gabriel or Willowbrook, the Board of Supervisors is basically your city council.

• You can find a list of all 125 unincorporated communities here.

The plan also sets income limits on who can receive an attorney. Tenants will need to have a household income of 80% or less of the area’s median income. Under current guidelines, that comes out to $77,700 for an individual or $110,950 for a family of four.

County officials estimate it will cost $24.5 million to launch the program. Initially, the legal aid will be funded using federal pandemic relief money. But when that dries up, the county will need to find a new funding stream.

Pablo Estupiñan, director of the Right To Counsel campaign with Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, said future funding could come from a November ballot measure to raise sales tax for homelessness and housing programs. If L.A. County voters approve the measure, he said, some of the revenue could be set aside for the county’s Right To Counsel program.

“Studies that have been done have shown that Right To Counsel saves money, because there's less of a burden on the county to pay for homeless services,” Estupiñan said, pointing to results showing cost savings from a similar program in Cleveland.

What landlords think of the plan

Landlord groups have opposed plans to pay for tenant-side lawyers, saying that money would be better spent providing rental subsidies to struggling renters.

“When permanent funding is identified, we urge the county to use the funds to pay the rent for low-income renters to completely avoid eviction, rather than attorneys’ fees to merely delay eviction,” said Janet Gagnon with the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles.

Data from inside L.A. courtrooms show that the vast majority of landlords have attorneys, but the vast majority of tenants do not. Unlike in criminal court, defendants don’t have the right to an attorney in civil eviction proceedings if they can’t afford one on their own.

A 2019 report by the consulting firm Stout found that 97% of L.A. County renters lacked an attorney in unsealed eviction proceedings, while 88% of landlords had legal representation. The report was commissioned by the L.A. Right To Counsel Coalition.

Why tenants say the playing field is uneven

Tenants who’ve represented themselves in court describe feeling like they’re fighting on an uneven playing field.

At a rally ahead of Tuesday’s vote, a tenant who goes by Nela said she was evicted from her apartment in Highland Park over a dispute with her landlord over how much rent she owed. She said she is now unhoused and does not want to use her full name because it could jeopardize her search for new housing.

Nela alleges that her landlord illegally raised her rent multiple times despite the city’s ban on increases in rent-controlled apartments during the pandemic. She said she tried to find a pro bono attorney, but none were available. She felt confident in her case, but said the judge kept telling her to get a lawyer.

“The court rules are very esoteric, and they're hidden on purpose,” Nela said. “You can be very smart. You can be highly intellectual. When you walk into that courthouse, you're not an equal to someone who's that familiar with the court rules.”

L.A. would follow in other cities’ footsteps

Right to counsel programs already exist in cities such as San Francisco, Philadelphia and New York. Advocates point to results from New York showing that since the policy took effect, eviction filings have dropped and the vast majority of tenants connected with an attorney stay housed. However, the city has also struggled to connect tenants with attorneys because demand often exceeds the number of lawyers available.

L.A. County’s ordinance states qualified tenants would receive help “subject to the availability of funding.” If demand outstrips resources, the L.A. County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs would have the authority to prioritize legal aid based on criteria such as a tenant’s income level and whether they live in a neighborhood with higher risk of displacement.

Currently, tenants needing legal assistance with an eviction can reach out to Stay Housed L.A., a consortium of legal aid providers funded by the county and city of L.A. Due to limited resources, that program primarily serves tenants within certain priority zip codes.

The city of L.A. is also considering a right to counsel ordinance, potentially funded by the ULA tax on real estate selling for more than $5 million. That proposal has yet to be scheduled for a vote.

Resources for renters facing eviction

Tenants who need help or advice can contact local legal aid organizations through StayHousedLA.org. However, local eviction attorneys say they’re being inundated with requests. If you can’t find an attorney, there are other resources that may help.

• TenantPowerToolkit.org can help you quickly respond to a filing in eviction court, as described earlier in this guide.
• L.A. County runs Self-Help Legal Access Centers, where tenants representing themselves in eviction court can seek legal information from trained attorneys.
• The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles hosts regular eviction trial workshops. You can sign up through StayHousedLA.org/workshops or by calling 888-694-0040.
• The Eviction Defense Network also holds workshops regularly. You can join those workshops via Zoom or by calling 214-485-8112.

In Kimberley Kausen’s home, a passed “sell by” date on a jug of milk means different things to different family members. For her daughter, it means the jug belongs in the trash. For her husband, it means the milk is still good for a few more days.

Kausen, a chef and cooking teacher in Irvine, California, is more discerning and often uses her sense of smell before deciding what to do with the milk.

“I’ll put some thought into it, and if we’re talking about meat and poultry, I’m very cautious about that and for sure will do the smell test and the touch test,” she said.

The debate playing out in Kausen’s kitchen is repeated in homes across California and the country, where varying phrases on food packaging have long left shoppers unsure whether food is simply past its peak quality or unsafe to eat. The state is aiming to cut down on confusion — and the food waste it creates when people throw away food early — with a new food labeling law starting Wednesday.

It bans the use of “sell by” labels on food packaging, which experts say act as a guide for retailers on how long to display products on the shelves but are not an indicator of whether they are still safe to consume. Now, manufacturers selling food in California must use two standardized labels — a “Best if Used By” label for peak quality and “Use By” label for product safety.

Food manufacturers can choose to use either label or both, said Democratic Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, the author of the bill.

California became the first state in the U.S. to standardize food labels when it approved the law in 2024 that seeks to reduce food waste and the state’s climate-warming emissions. New York state lawmakers recently approved a similar law that’s awaiting Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature.

Legislation addressing food labeling also has been proposed in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and South Carolina, though it has not passed in those states.

Nick Lapis, director of advocacy at Californians Against Waste, which co-sponsored the bill, said food labels are the leading cause of household food waste. The “sell by” date labels have also been a problem for food banks in California because people consider those dates as meaning the food has expired, he said.

“We don’t need to build some kind of huge infrastructure and invest tons of money to solve this. We just need companies to use the same words across brands,” he said.

There are more than 50 different date labels on packaged food sold in stores, according to a 2022 report on food waste published by the University of Maryland. The information in the labels is largely unregulated and often does not relate to food safety.

“Consumers get confused and they just default to assuming that whatever date is on the package means ‘don’t eat it and throw it away’,” said Kumar Chandran, policy director at ReFED, a nonprofit focused on reducing food waste.

Chandran said California and New York’s approval of food-labeling laws has added momentum to the push for a national standard. A bipartisan bill that would establish uniform food labels is pending in Congress. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommended a decade ago that food sellers should switch to “Best if Used By” labeling.

Currently, the only product that is regulated federally with date labels is infant formula.

With no federal regulations dictating what information labels should include, the stamps have led to consumer confusion — and nearly 20% of the nation’s food waste, according to the Food and Drug Administration. In California, that’s about 6 million tons of unexpired food that’s tossed in the trash each year.

Nate Rose, a spokesperson for the California Grocers Association, said some grocers have had to overhaul their labeling systems, but as a whole, the association has been supportive of the change.

The new labels will result in “a win-win where we can reduce food waste and consumers will find these decisions a little bit simpler,” he said, adding that shoppers will still find old labels in stores for months to come as grocers sell through the products that already have them.

$3.3 million.

That’s how much May Sung estimates it’ll cost to rebuild her Pacific Palisades home.

With her two-bedroom house atop a hillside abutting the Pacific Ocean, she had what she considered a quaint dwelling since 2005.

She doesn’t know if she’ll rebuild it on the empty lot there now.

“Because of all the expenses with building on the hillsides, on the coast, I don’t know if I’m going to rebuild or not,” she said. “I may have to sell.”

More than a year after wildfires tore through Los Angeles, state lawmakers are weighing a new proposal that would give the powerful California Coastal Commission more oversight over homes destroyed by future natural disasters. New buyers would need approval from the commission to rebuild, a reversal from current state law that allows homes ruined by fires or other catastrophes to sidestep the controlling state agency.

Buyers today can rebuild homes without commission review as long as they are largely the same as before the disaster and are no more than 10% larger than the original home.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last year broadened these exemptions to include rebuilds that aren’t similar to their original design when he suspended the commission’s authority over rebuilding efforts in L.A. to speed up what so far has been a grueling slog for the city.

In Malibu and the Pacific Palisades, where many homes hug the Pacific Coast, dozens of parcels of land have been purchased by developers from owners who can’t afford to pay what could be millions of dollars to remake their houses from scratch.

More than 40% of homes sold in the Palisades last summer were bought by investors, according to real estate company Redfin, which defined investors as buyers with “LLC,” “Inc,” “Corp” or “Homes” in their names.

Some residents have questioned what expanses of investor-owned lots could mean for the character of fire-torn communities, said Sen. Ben Allen, who authored Senate Bill 1229 and represents the Palisades area.

The legislation is one of few bills this session that would broaden the authority of the commission rather than weaken it, bucking a trend of longstanding disdain among top state and federal leaders about how the agency has controlled development along California’s invaluable coastline.

The potential law would not apply to homes destroyed by last year’s fires.

Senate Democrats overwhelmingly supported the bill when it passed the chamber last month. San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener was the sole Democrat to join Republicans in voting against it in a 29-9 vote.

“It could set a troubling precedent that we’re more focused on only empowering the original owner to build,” Wiener said. “I thought it was a very, very dangerous precedent and that’s why I felt the need to vote ‘no.’”

A long road ahead

Rebuilding after disaster has never been easy in California.

Fewer than 40% of homes destroyed in the state’s most destructive fires from 2017 to 2020 have been rebuilt, according to a 2025 Los Angeles Times investigation. Low insurance payouts, rising construction costs and permitting requirements are some of the reasons.

For many in L.A., the decision not to rebuild comes down to affordability and practicality, between skyrocketing mortgage rates and a lack of stamina to endure what could be a monthslong, byzantine permitting process.

Before the fire, Sung’s property was valued at $2.5 million. She said she received $700,000 in Mercury insurance payments after the home was destroyed on Jan. 7, 2025. Although her land isn’t up for sale, nearby lots go for around $1 million. She’s considering selling it to a developer.

“There’s already so much burden for these properties,” Sung said of rebuilds. “People can’t afford to build because of all these requirements,” such as the higher fire safety and fire codes common in wildfire-prone areas, she said.

A muddy reputation on housing

Critics, including Newsom, accuse the commission of not permitting enough affordable housing or doing so too slowly for years, as lawmakers have gutted numerous housing laws to make it easier to build more apartments quickly.

In the Palisades, where affordable housing was already scant, affordability critiques carried a sharper edge. Just a few hundred units in a town of roughly 28,000 were deemed affordable and local mandates post-fire to build more have become their own flashpoint, separate from the coastal commission.

The 12 voting-member commission is governed by the California Coastal Act, a 50-year-old statute created in the wake of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill to protect the coast and its natural habitats.

It is one of California’s most scrutinized state agencies, as federal and local officials have questioned how it has used its authority over nearly 900 miles of coastline to block certain projects, such as rejecting billionaire Elon Musk’s request to increase the number of Space X rocket launches off the Santa Barbara coast.

Newsom and other top Democrats appointed three pro-development officials to the commission last year to help get more housing approved along the coast.

Wealthy Los Angeles real estate developer Jaime Lee was appointed by Newsom last October to replace Effie Turnbull Sanders, an attorney lauded by environmentalists for championing environmental justice issues at the agency.

Last May, Democratic Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas selected Chris Lopez, a Monterey County supervisor, and Chula Vista Councilmember Jose Preciado to the commission, both of whom are seen as pro-development.

Newsom and President Donald Trump have found common cause in attacking the commission. The governor has publicly chided the agency and issued a sharply worded mandate when suspending its authority over rebuilding efforts in the Palisades.

“The scope of destruction of these fires has created a need for immediate shelter and temporary housing that will require unlocking every available strategy to house displaced individuals,” he wrote.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the state Legislature have pushed to curb the commission’s authority, including an attempt to exempt the entire city of Santa Monica from the commission’s purview.

Last week, Newsom’s office briefly considered a proposal that would have exempted mixed-use and multi-family housing projects along Santa Monica’s coast from the Coastal Act.

The proposal would have assumed all those projects complied with the act unless the commission could prove otherwise within just 30 days, according to a copy of the plan obtained by CalMatters.

Trump has also repeatedly scolded the commission for blocking projects it views as environmentally dangerous. Longstanding tensions between the president and the commission have accelerated in the president’s pursuit to extract more oil from the coast. Those tensions accelerated last week when the federal government announced it was investigating the agency.

‘People are already stuck’

Allen, the bill’s author, said the governor’s orders created an opening that investors can misuse to circumvent coastal rules and build projects harmful to the environment.

“We just want to make sure that we’re not rolling back these important protections too far,” Allen, who is running for insurance commissioner, said about his legislation, and that it would not apply to homes destroyed by last year’s fires, but to future natural disasters.

The bill aims to filter out investors by only allowing the owner of a property before disaster struck to skirt the coastal commission approval.

Environmentalists who support the bill have said the governor’s actions put key issues the commission works to protect — natural habitats and public access to the beach — in jeopardy by allowing developers to take advantage of fewer rules.

"An outside developer who buys, say, a burned lot for the low market value, they get the same fast-tracking as a displaced family," said Jennifer Savage, associate policy director at Surfrider Foundation. “And that’s not what the law was designed for.”

The commission, which had briefly contested Newsom’s orders, supports the bill for similar reasons.

“It closes a loophole that could be misconstrued as allowing larger replacement structures to be located in hazardous or environmentally sensitive areas when rebuilding after disaster,” spokesperson Joshua Smith said in an emailed statement.

Neither the coastal commission nor Allen could provide examples of investor-owned projects that have misused the law.

“We don’t have any record or knowledge of this having happened, although since most disaster rebuilds are handled by local governments, we don’t know for certain the extent to which this has been going on,” Smith said.

California YIMBY, a pro-housing group, said legislation focused on rebuilding should address why so many fire survivors are opting to sell their land in the first place.

“I’m not sure the emphasis on the Coastal Act makes a ton of sense,” spokesperson Matthew Lewis said, saying the problem lies with insurance, construction and permitting costs that make it too expensive for most people to rebuild.

The group, which has endorsed Allen for commissioner, doesn’t have an official stance on the bill. Lewis said he doesn’t know enough about the issues Allen is trying to address to say if the legislation could make it harder for owners to rebuild.

Sung worries such changes would intimidate developers worried about falling under the commission’s authority, making it harder for her and her neighbors to sell.

“If anything, it just makes the landowner stuck. Because you can’t afford to sell, and you can’t afford to build. And so you’re stuck with this property that has absolutely no use to anybody.”

CalMatters reporter Yue Stella Yu contributed reporting.

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

SANTA CLARA — The U.S. men's national team's ambitions of a deep run at the FIFA World Cup hang on something they have not accomplished since 2021: Beating a team from Europe.

In Wednesday's must-win round of 32 match at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the Americans hope to finally climb that hill with a win over Bosnia and Herzegovina. A victory would mark the first World Cup knockout win for the U.S. since 2002.

Compared to powerhouses like France or Spain, Bosnia is a relative minnow of European soccer. Ranked No. 64 by FIFA ahead of the World Cup, the Bosnians fought their way into the tournament on an upset playoff win over Italy in March — then, they muscled into the knockout round after a 1-1 draw with Canada and a 3-1 win over Qatar.

The Americans are the favorites. But no knockout game is a sure thing, as Germany proved Monday when it fell to Paraguay on penalty kicks.

"For us, it's the final of the World Cup," said U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino on Tuesday. "If we don't think in this way, we are going to struggle."

The U.S. expects to field a fully healthy starting 11 for the first time in this World Cup, thanks to the return of star winger Christian Pulisic, who left the opening game against Paraguay at halftime after a calf injury was exacerbated when he was kicked by a defender. The U.S. went on to win that game 4-1 and their next one against Australia 2-0, with Pulisic sitting out.

U.S. fans have had many reasons to believe at this World Cup. The U.S. won its group and has moved on to the Round of 32.

(

Ted S. Warren

/

AP

)

Pulisic returned as a sub in the Americans' third group stage match against Turkey. "I felt great in the game against Turkey, so I'm feeling good this week," he told reporters on Tuesday. "I'm definitely ready to go for tomorrow."

Playing for Bosnia is the American-born winger Esmir Bajraktarević, a 21-year-old native of Appleton, Wis., born to Bosnian parents who came to the U.S. in 2001 after fleeing conflict in their home country during the 1990s.

In Bosnia, Bajraktarević's parents and their families lived near Srebrenica, where some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed in July 1995 in one of the only events in history formally deemed a genocide by the International Court of Justice. Multiple members of their families were killed.

Bajraktarević grew up speaking Bosnian at home, he has said, and stayed close with relatives who remained in Bosnia. Although he came up through MLS academies and U.S. Soccer youth national teams, Bajraktarević formally switched his national team to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2024.

Bajraktarević scored the game-clinching penalty that sent Bosnia to the World Cup in its March upset of Italy, which was then ranked No. 13 in the world. After his kick found the net, Bajraktarević tore off his jersey and held up the back of it, with his family name across the top, to the fans and cameras.

"He can feel the jersey he's wearing. It means very much to him," said Bosnian coach Sergej Barbarez on Tuesday. "He knows where he belongs. He knows which team he plays for. He knows where his parents come from."

It is Bosnia's second World Cup appearance after being eliminated in the group stage in 2014.

Watch parties in L.A.

Here are some city sponsored watch locations:

Time: 5 p.m.

Locations:
Ken Malloy Harbor Regional Park
25820 Vermont Ave., Harbor City

Sheldon-Arleta Park
12455 Wicks St., Sun Valley

Taper Auditorium (Central Library)
630 W. Fifth St., Los Angeles

Copyright 2026 NPR

West Hollywood will allow law enforcement to deploy drones as first responders under a new pilot program. As part of an update to the City Council on Monday night, officials say the program will launch by the end of July.

Under the program, the drones will be sent out ahead of law enforcement officers and will be used to gather information, including whether a suspect is on the move, changes clothes, and other details that could aid in an investigation.

West Hollywood, which does not have its own police department and contracts with the L.A County Sheriff’s Department for police services, is the first and only city so far to contract with the county to use drones as first responders.

The Los Angeles Police Department launched their own program in the city of L.A. in 2025.

The backstory and timeline  

• In February 2023, the West Hollywood City Council directed staff to explore a partnership with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the development of an “advanced public safety technology” pilot program.

• In August 2023, the council and the city’s Public Safety Commission held a joint meeting where they reviewed different public safety technology options, including the potential use of drones as first responders.

• In July 2024, the council greenlit drone use for policing as a part of a $750,000, one-year pilot program, among other safety items aimed at faster response times and real-time crime detection.

• In June 2025, the council received an update from city staff regarding the need to pause the pilot program due to conflicts with L.A. County’s drone policy. The primary point of contention was that the city’s approved plan required West Hollywood personnel to record all missions, which contradicted the sheriff department’s existing policy. Council directed city staff to comply with the department's current policy while awaiting policy revisions.

• In April 2026, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department updated its drone policy to make exceptions for West Hollywood, including new recording procedures.

Now, West Hollywood is set to move ahead with its pilot program, which will launch at the end of July.

How the program will work

Under the latest approved policy, the drones will only respond to calls of service, where police presence is requested from a caller.

The drone will not record when flying to and from said location, but instead record from when it arrives to when it leaves, similar to body-worn cameras, according to Captain Fanny Lapkin of the West Hollywood Sheriff's Station.

The program will also have a public-facing dashboard where the public can see information including the number of calls for service and types of calls the drones responded to.

What the community says

Stephen Post, a resident and member of West Hollywood’s Public Safety Commission, spoke during public comment on Monday.

Post said he was concerned about the program’s use of data.

“In multiple cities, we have seen improper access and use of this data,” Post said. “In this moment of heightened ICE and DHS enforcement, we should not be a city leading the push for creating the digital infrastructure that an authoritarian leader could use to harm our communities.”

Steve Martin, member of the Eastside Neighborhood Watch, expressed support for the program during the meeting.

“As a person who does go out and exercises my first amendment rights freely, in some ways I would welcome having sheriff surveillance,” Martin said. “I think that we need to look at evaluating this as it goes and seeing how we can get the best possible benefit from it because I think we’re all just looking to make West Hollywood safer.”

How to keep tabs on the West Hollywood City Council

The West Hollywood City Council meets on scheduled Mondays. Meetings start at 6 p.m.
Here’s how you can follow along:

• Attend in person: The board meets at Council Chambers, 625 N. San Vicente Blvd., West Hollywood
• Watch the live broadcast
• Here’s how to submit a comment or contact the council