The Brief

Survey after survey shows that the cost of housing is a top concern for Los Angeles voters. And the issue sharply divides candidates vying for mayor in the June 2 primary.

Mayor Karen Bass says her efforts to fast-track affordable housing are working. But few apartments have been built so far. She has fought to keep new apartments out of most of the city’s residential neighborhoods, pleasing homeowners but angering some housing advocates.

City Councilmember Nithya Raman has said her different vision for tackling housing affordability was pivotal in her decision to run against Bass. Citing unaffordable rents and home prices, Raman has promised to accelerate building in more parts of the city.

Raman’s housing platform has won her the backing of many in the Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) movement. But critics say her support of density could drastically transform some single-family neighborhoods.

Political outsider Spencer Pratt has promised a downtown L.A. housing boom once he “gets rid of” tens of thousands of unhoused people. But he has been called out for spreading false information about state housing legislation.

Other candidates have presented their own ideas about the city’s housing affordability issues, but they’re behind in the polls.

Here are where the top three candidates stand on housing in L.A.

What Bass says she’s accomplished so far

When asked what she has done to bring down rents, Bass has pointed to a program she created in her first week in office: Executive Directive One. It speeds up city approvals of 100% affordable apartment projects.

By some metrics, ED1 has been a major success. After the program launched, developers flooded the city with applications.

L.A.’s Planning Department has received plans for 43,360 apartments since ED1 launched in December 2022 and has approved 34,298 of them. Under the directive, developers must agree to keep all units in these buildings affordable to low and moderate-income Angelenos.

Karen Bass

(

Courtesy of the campaign

)

But few of those units are actually getting built. The city’s Building and Safety Department says 8,058 apartments have been issued building permits. Only 298 have received certificates of occupancy, the last step in getting an apartment ready to rent to tenants.

In a recent mayoral debate, Bass said some variables are out of her control.

“Some of the factors are the price of construction materials, just the general economy,” Bass said. “We are doing everything we can to make sure we are able to fast-track that housing.”

Bass has also said the city’s adaptive reuse program, which allows office buildings to be converted into housing, has enabled the creation of more than 43,000 potential units.

The Building and Safety Department told LAist it could only find two units that have received certificates of occupancy since she took office. However, the city-wide expansion of this program, building off an older program limited to downtown L.A. and some other urban cores, only took effect in February 2026.

Do apartments belong in single-family neighborhoods?

Bass has scaled back ED1 from its original design. She banned projects in historic zones and on many lots with existing rent-controlled apartments. She also blocked projects in the nearly three-quarters of residential land reserved for single-family homes.

Bass says new housing belongs on commercial main streets, so homeowners in single-family zones don’t have to see apartments going up next to their lots. That’s one of the reasons she asked Governor Gavin Newsom to veto Senate Bill 79, a major new state housing law allowing taller, denser apartment buildings near transit stops, including in some single-family zones.

Raman has said she views this issue differently. She has said all kinds of neighborhoods need to accept denser housing. She defended an ED1 project in a single-family neighborhood in her district, even as city leaders tried to kill it. Courts eventually ruled the city fought that project illegally.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman announced Saturday that she is running for mayor.

(

Raman Campaign

)

Joining a minority of City Council members, Raman voted not to oppose SB 79. She has said young families are leaving L.A. because they can’t afford housing, and the city should do more to plan for increased density throughout the city, including in some single-family neighborhoods.

“We desperately need this housing,” Raman said in a recent debate. “What I want to do is go out here and not lie to you that we can keep everything the same, and Sacramento will not intervene. That is not possible.”

Raman has said that as mayor, she’ll make departments respond to zoning-compliant housing applications within 60 days.

Pratt’s plan for a downtown building boom

On his Substack, Pratt has said that L.A.’s housing supply shortage is “a myth.” But the former reality TV star also promised on a recent podcast to “speed up building” and work with architects to “bring Art Deco back.”

In a recent debate, Pratt said as mayor he’d get up to 20,000 apartments built in downtown L.A. by removing unhoused people.

“I’m gonna have 40 blocks when I get rid of all the drug addicts that are sleeping on the sides of all these empty buildings,” Pratt said. “We will have so much high-density… We have plenty of places to build. We don’t need to put a seven-story cement structure in a single-family neighborhood with no parking.”

Spencer Pratt

(

Courtesy of the campaign

)

Last year, Pratt drew attention on social media for opposing SB 79. He said the law would bring high-rises to the Pacific Palisades, where his home burned down.

Critics pointed out that was never true, because there are no qualifying transit stops in the Palisades.

What about the city’s controversial 'mansion tax'? 

In 2022, L.A. voters passed Measure ULA, perhaps better known as the city’s “mansion tax.” It has taxed the sale of real estate valued at $5 million or more. It applies not just to single-family mansions, but also to apartment buildings and other commercial real estate.

Economists argue the tax has led to a slow-down in apartment construction at a time when L.A. needs more housing. Defenders say it has raised more than $1 billion for affordable housing construction and tenant aid programs.

Raman surprised many of her colleagues earlier this year when she proposed putting a measure on the June ballot to ask voters to exempt apartments built within the last 15 years. That effort failed, but Raman has continued to push for changes to Measure ULA.

Last year, Bass asked state lawmakers to pull a last-minute bill aimed at similar reforms, saying more tweaks were needed to get the policy right.

Pratt has said he would push for a full repeal of Measure ULA. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has qualified a measure for the November ballot that, if passed, would do just that.

Where do the candidates stand on rent hikes and tenant protections? 

As housing committee chair, Raman has said she pushed the council to pass the first update to the city’s rent control limits in 40 years. She has also said her efforts to pass new tenant eviction protections and legal aid programs are helping keep vulnerable renters housed.

Bass also supported the city’s new, lower rent hike limits. She says she’s been working with the Mayors Fund, an outside nonprofit, to provide eviction defense services to many tenants.

Pratt has said that state and city tenant protections amount to “squatter’s rights.” He has said he will work with the city attorney to streamline evictions and remove tenants within 72 hours.

California lawmakers are cracking down on expensive concert experiences by targeting “ghost tickets” — so called because the person selling access to the show doesn’t actually own the ticket yet. It’s an issue that has stumped regulators who are combating deceptive e-commerce fueled by artificial intelligence.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday signed a bipartisan bill meant to rein in that market by banning the sale of tickets that are not yet owned by the people who advertise them and prohibiting the use of software to manipulate a venue’s purchasing restrictions.

“Buying a ticket shouldn’t come with hidden risks or unfair practices,” he wrote on social media after signing the measure, Assembly Bill 1349.

The bill requires ticket resellers to “implement reasonable measures” to prevent speculative tickets. Sellers found in violation could face misdemeanor charges and penalties.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, cited an incident in which he and his friend searched for tickets for a concert at the Hollywood Bowl. The tickets listed online were expensive and were posted before actual tickets went on sale.

“Many fans buy these tickets not knowing that they are listed at a price greater than they would actually be when they eventually go on sale,” said the Culver City Democrat during a June hearing. “In the worst instances, fans never actually acquire the ticket that they paid for, leaving our small venues in California ultimately on the hook.”

What the major vendors are saying

The measure changed dramatically in the final days of the legislative session and Newsom in a signing statement asked lawmakers to revisit it because it may exempt marketplaces that he suggested should be regulated. He did not name them, but critics of the law pointed to Stubhub as a platform that appeared to be exempt from the law.

Initially, the bill moved forward with support from Live Nation, the entertainment behemoth that owns Ticketmaster. In a January statement, the company argued “no one should be able to scam fans by listing tickets they don’t have”.

Live Nation’s backing of the bill fueled skepticism from critics, who feared it would ultimately help the company squash its competitors.

Ticket reseller Stubhub lobbied heavily against the bill, spending $4.4 million in the two-year legislative session to influence the measure and several others.

In a surprise, Stubhub supported the final version of the bill, which is less favorable to Live Nation. Live Nation has not yet responded to a request for comment about the law from CalMatters.

The National Independent Venue Association, which supported the original version of the bill, argues the version Newsom signed creates liabilities for music venues and festivals while exempting Stubhub. Its leaders worry that independent venues and event promoters will break the law if they sell presale, VIP or waitlisted tickets.

It opposed the final version of the bill and urged Newsom to veto it.

AB 1349 “puts the small businesses and nonprofits that put on shows every night at risk,” Stephen Parker, the association’s executive director, said in a written statement after lawmakers passed the bill.

The association also argued that the amendments protects ticket resellers, such as StubHub, by exempting resale marketplaces from being classified as speculative ticket sellers, “even though every speculative sale happens on their platforms.”

Where things stand now

Newsom in his signing statement wrote, “While there may be good reasons for exempting certain sellers from the bill’s provisions, such a carve-out deserves further discussion, and I encourage the author to work with stakeholders to refine this policy.”

The Legislature had also considered another related bill that would have put a 10% markup cap on resale tickets. But it stalled in August in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

CalMatters Deputy Editor Adam Ashton contributed to this story.

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

This story first appeared first on LA Local.

Cory Joseph still remembers the last day he rolled across the rink at Word on Wheels. 

The beloved skating rink shuttered in 2021 as part of a downward trend in places where you can groove on four wheels under luminescent disco balls and hot tunes. 

“I also was at Skate Land in Northridge on its last day, and I went to Skate Depot in Cerritos on its last day,” Joseph told The LA Local. 

The closing of these skate hubs struck a nerve for Joseph, who grew up in San Diego and is the son of two professional skaters — Maureen Joseph and Timothy Carter — from the disco skating heyday in the 1970s and 1980s. 

It’s no wonder he felt a desire to open the Sunshine Skate Center in Inglewood to fill this void. His journey to open Sunshine, named after his parents’ old skating team, took three long years of hurdles and obstacles until finally opened on Sept. 4, 2025. 

A year of serving Inglewood

Cory Joseph still remembers the last day he rolled across the rink at Word on Wheels.

(

Jennifer Stavros

/

The LA Local

)

The rink celebrated its one-year anniversary this month.

 “Skating for a lot of people is their therapy. It’s their way that they cope with things. It’s the way that they navigate through things,” Joseph said, adding that he understood how these places once served as third spaces for Black L.A.

“I think it’s more than just skating,” he said. “I really understand skating as a place for community.”

Cory Joseph still remembers the last day he rolled across the rink at Word on Wheels.

(

Jennifer Stavros

/

The LA Local

)

On a Friday night this past summer, Joseph’s ethos was seen in action. 

Looking around the rink, the range of skaters varied widely in ability — from folks dance-skating to rolling backward, along with beginners using tools to help them on their first journey on wheels. Some were there with their families. Others were there with their friends. Spectators were delighted as they watched from outside the rink and the surrounding seating. 

The unapologetic free flow of joy was palpable. Joseph said that when he sees the impact on Inglewood’s youngest residents, the three years it took him to open the rink feels worth it.

“You have a lot of kids that are not physically active,” he explained. “We’re able to engage kids [to] have them off their phones for certain periods of time when they’re skating.”

The debate over the potential benefits and safety risks of accelerating artificial intelligence development reached a crescendo this month, as supporters and critics of the technology clashed over warnings that increasingly powerful AI could pose existential risks to humanity.

On September 8, Jacob Coxon, a researcher-turned-whistleblower, publicly resigned from major AI firm Anthropic after a previous stint at OpenAI, accusing the companies of "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives."

Coxon's claims supercharged an ongoing debate over the potential damage AI could wreak on society and prompted Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and other AI CEOs to call for a slowdown in AI development.

Over the past two months, companies including OpenAI and Anthropic disclosed multiple incidents in which their AI agents accessed the internet when they weren't supposed to and carried out unapproved activities. In OpenAI's case, swarms of agents worked together to hack the open-source software platform Hugging Face and OpenAI itself, without alerting humans.

The debate over the safety of AI and whether and how it should be regulated is not a simple clash between two opposing sides. There are multiple factions with a variety of goals and assessments about the technology's promise, dangers and how it should be governed. Here are the main arguments shaping that debate.

Effective accelerationists and the tech right

Those who have an aggressively optimistic worldview of AI are often referred to as effective accelerationists (sometimes shortened to e/acc) — a term reflecting their belief that AI should be rapidly advanced.

People belonging to the faction are emphatically optimistic about AI and its future benefits to society. They believe that the technology can propel medical advancements, boost economic productivity, increase living standards and automate dangerous or undesirable work. To achieve this, they argue that AI development should be accelerated, not restricted.

Effective accelerationists' ideology overlaps with that of the "tech right" in that both camps wholeheartedly believe in accelerating AI development and deployment and minimize critics' concerns over safety and security.

However, the tech right takes a more nationalistic stance, championing U.S. dominance in the global AI race. Like effective accelerationists, they believe that AI research and deployment should be unencumbered by regulation, arguing that could slow innovation or allow adversarial governments such as China to overtake the U.S. in the AI race.

Venture capitalist David Sacks is one of the leading accelerationist voices in the AI safety debate and was President Trump's AI and cryptocurrency advisor.

(

Ian Maule

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The tech right's philosophy is represented by figures such as former White House AI and cryptocurrency advisor David Sacks, whose views remain influential with the Trump administration. Other significant players include venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, and OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman. The three founded the Leading the Future super PAC to support pro-AI political candidates, and campaign against those who advocate for regulation.

Andreessen also penned a 2023 widely-read blog post titled "Why AI Will Save the World," in which he claimed that fears of AI triggering mass unemployment are overstated. He argued that previous waves of automation ultimately created more jobs and economic activity than they eliminated, and the fears of existential risk are overblown.

Recently, Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, whose chips are used by most AI companies, has emerged as one of the industry's leading voices pushing back against calls for a slowdown and urging a light regulatory approach.

Populist right

AI has exposed an ideological split within President Trump's political coalition. While Trump and his advisers overwhelmingly favor accelerating AI, parts of his MAGA base believe the powerful corporations he has aligned himself with could undermine the U.S. economy.

Figures including former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson have been vocal about potential job losses, the tech industry's political power, child safety and threats to traditional social and religious values.

This month, Bannon formed an unlikely partnership with independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a socialist, to call for significant restrictions on AI development, government oversight and corporate accountability at the Pro-Human Assembly conference in Washington, D.C.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has sharply broken with the Trump administration around AI policy.

(

Saul Loeb

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Still, the two have differing stances on what any of those measures should look like. Sanders called for an immediate pause on AI development until clear safety rules are established by scientists, a permanent ban on the development of artificial "superintelligence" (AI systems that are more intelligent than humans in all domains), and an international treaty with China in an effort to avoid an AI arms race. Bannon, meanwhile, argued for slowing the pace of AI development, the formation of a national regulatory organization and cutting off China from U.S. AI technology.

"So why are we letting the Chinese Communist Party drive us? Oh, we have to do this or China wins," said Bannon in his speech at the event in Washington. "We should quarantine now every aspect of the ecosystem of artificial intelligence away from the Chinese Communist Party today. We should cut them off."

Safetyists

Safetyists are primarily concerned with the potential risks of the rapid advancement of AI. Their worries center on the possibility of catastrophic or existential outcomes, such as the death of humanity at the hands of autonomous machines.

High-profile members of the safetyist community include Geoffrey Hinton, who is commonly referred to as the "Godfather of AI" because of his pioneering work in deep learning that helped launch the modern era of AI. In recent years, Hinton, who previously worked at Google, has issued a series of warnings about existential risks associated with AI, particularly if an AI model surpasses human intelligence and becomes autonomous.

Another vocal AI safetyist is Daniel Kokotajlo, a former researcher at OpenAI and co-author of AI 2027, a paper published last year that discusses how super-intelligent AI could lead to human extinction by the mid-2030s.

Effective altruists

Effective altruists (often shortened to "EA") generally believe in maximizing humanity's long-term welfare. The movement originally focused on material ways to reduce global poverty. But more recently, many EA thinkers have focused their concerns on the possibility of existential risks from advanced AI and other potential societal-scale disasters such as nuclear war, climate change and pandemics. They particularly worry about the consequences for future generations. People from the EA camp prioritize AI safety, alignment — which is the science of making sure AI systems behave in a way that is reflective of human values and in line with safety rules — and reducing the probability of catastrophic outcomes.

The key difference between EAs and safetyists is that EAs generally provide funding for AI safety research and risk mitigation, whereas safetyists are researchers and advocates undertaking AI safety work and publicly calling for regulation.

Other AI factions often derisively describe effective altruists as so-called "AI Doomers." EA has also become a focus of criticism from the Trump administration since Coxon's resignation from Anthropic.

"Americanism, not effective altruism. The United States will continue to be AI DOMINANT!" said one Defense Department post this month.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is associated with the effective altruists and argues for stronger regulations on AI.

(

Benjamin Fanjoy

/

Getty Images

)

Well-known people in the EA movement include Eliezer Yudkowsky, co-founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), which focuses on mathematical approaches to making advanced AI systems safe. He is also the author of Harry Potter fan fiction that helped popularize ideas associated with EA. Holden Karnofsky, an American entrepreneur and philanthropist, founded Coefficient Giving (formerly Open Philanthropy), an organization that funds causes central to the EA mission, including AI and biosecurity. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is considered to be aligned with effective altruism. Karnofsky also works at Anthropic and is married to Daniela Amodei, who is a co-founder of Anthropic and the sister of Dario Amodei, the CEO.

Another high-profile supporter of the EA movement is Sam Bankman-Fried, who founded major cryptocurrency exchange FTX. In 2023, he was convicted of seven counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the misuse of customer and investor funds and is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence.

AI ethics

The AI ethics camp argues that society should focus on the harms AI is already causing, rather than on hypothetical existential risks. Some proponents contend that emphasizing existential threats from a hypothetical future superintelligence can serve as a distraction from the more immediate harms and accountability issues surrounding AI today.

AI ethicists' concerns include how AI systems can be biased due to the content of their training data, for example, the ways in which AI facial recognition or job application systems might perpetuate existing societal biases. They are also concerned with how AI could be used to exploit workers and to enable mass surveillance, as well as about the environmental costs of data centers, autonomous weapons and the concentration of power among technology companies.

A notable voice of the AI ethics faction is Timnit Gebru, a computer scientist and former co-lead of Google's Ethical AI team. Gebru left the company in 2020 because of a dispute with the company over a research paper she wrote exposing problems with large language models (LLMs), including their tendency to generate harmful or misleading language.

AI as a normal technology

People belonging to the "AI as a Normal Technology" group reject both the utopian and dystopian narratives about AI. Instead, this faction sees AI as a powerful but ultimately normal technology, comparable to the internet or electricity. They believe the focus should be on understanding and regulating specific applications and harms instead of treating AI as an unprecedented threat or as a path to inevitable superintelligence.

Fei-Fei Li is a computer scientist and co-director of the Stanford Human-Centered AI Institute. She and others in her faction argue that AI is more like a typical technology than others in the field believe.

(

Big Event Media

/

Getty Images

)

Notable people associated with this worldview include Fei-Fei Li, a computer scientist and co-director of the Stanford Human-Centered AI Institute. Li is famous for creating ImageNet, a vastly large dataset of images which provided the training data for large neural networks, which led to several major developments in AI.

Katie McQue's reporting is supported by the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism, which is a grantee of Coefficient Giving. Neither Tarbell nor Coefficient have any editorial input into her work.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Angelenos looking up Saturday may have noticed a particularly striking sight — a vibrant sunset framed by clouds.

Tropical moisture coming in from far off the coast could explain it.

“One thing that might have played a role in making it look awfully nice yesterday was those high clouds that were moving in,” Robert Munroe, meteorologist with the National Weather Service, said. “The way the sun was hitting the high clouds made some bright yellows and oranges in the sky. That moisture is actually related to probably mostly Odalys.”

An early sunset at yesterday's "Be The Light" 5K event in Valencia last night.

(

Jenn Baughman

/

Jenn Baughman

)

Odalys is the hurricane (since downgraded to a tropical storm) churning off the coast of Mexico, along with Hurricane Polo.

Neither is expected to make landfall here, but they're forecast to bring high surf, dangerous rip tides and potential flooding to coastlines already battered this month by Hurricane Marie.

The bright side is Munroe said those high clouds from yesterday will be sticking around through at least today, which could make for another pretty sunset this evening.