The Brief

Thousands of homes have been lost in the Los Angeles fires. More have been damaged or coated in soot and ash.

Many of those who lost homes — temporarily, or permanently — are renters. What comes next for those tenant households has generated a lot of confusion. Other L.A. renters outside the burn areas are also worried about new rent increases or pressure to move out.

“We were already in a shortage of units, and now that shortage has just gotten even greater,” said Matthew Calcanas, an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. “There's a lot of tenants who are concerned.”

LAist reporters spoke with housing rights experts to produce this guide for tenants and landlords about the legal protections, responsibilities and next steps involved in recovering from the fires.

We are not lawyers, and this guide will inevitably miss some of the specific problems you may be encountering. If you need further help, tenant rights experts recommend you reach out to StayHousedLA.org, a publicly funded coalition of local legal aid organizations.

Rent and deposits

If I paid January rent, will I get it back? 

This will depend on the extent of the damage to your unit.

If your home was destroyed, California law says your lease is canceled. Your landlord can keep the portion of rent you paid for the days you were able to live in your unit. But the landlord must give back the rest of this month’s payment. The same applies if your unit was damaged to the point of uninhabitability, and you choose to terminate your lease rather than wait for repairs.

However, if your home suffered minor damage, you still owe rent. The L.A. County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs says you should push your landlord to make necessary repairs. But as long as the unit is livable, your obligation to pay rent stands.

Will I get back my security deposit? 

If your rental unit was destroyed in the fires, the rental contract is no longer valid and your landlord must give back your deposit.

“ Within 21 days of a tenant moving out, the landlord has to get the security deposit back to you,” said Abid Aziz, a tenants' rights attorney with the Aziz Yellin law firm. A landlord cannot reduce your deposit if the unit was destroyed, he added.

Aziz said if the landlord refuses to give back your deposit, you can sue them in small claims court.

Damage and relocation costs

Can I get help with relocation costs? 

This depends on many factors, such as your insurance coverage, your eligibility for federal aid, and any potential obligations your landlord may have.

If you have renters insurance, check your policy for what’s covered under loss of use and additional living expenses. Then file a claim to get what you're owed.

If you don’t have renters insurance, you can apply for federal aid through FEMA.

If neither of those options work, it's possible that your landlord may be required to cover your relocation expenses, but only in certain circumstances.

If your unit was completely destroyed, your landlord does not need to pay relocation assistance, according to the county Department of Consumer and Business Affairs.

If your unit was damaged, but able to be occupied after necessary repairs, your landlord may be on the hook for your temporary relocation costs.

Part of this depends on where you live. The city of L.A.’s rent control program exempts landlords from the obligation to pay relocation assistance in the event of a natural disaster.

Alisa Randel, an attorney with Public Counsel who works on housing issues, said it’s possible that in other areas, such as Pasadena and Altadena, landlords of certain properties may be legally obligated to cover a tenant’s relocation expenses while repairs are carried out.

“It's complicated,” Randell said. “All of these jurisdictions have similar, but different wording in important ways.”

Whatever situation you fall into, tenant attorneys say you should be keeping receipts for any temporary lodging and other additional expenses you incur as a result of being displaced.

What about damage?

If my home was damaged, who is responsible for repairs?  

Your landlord owns the property and is responsible for fixing damage to that property.

If your possessions — like your furniture, clothing, artwork or other personal items — were damaged, you’ll have to deal with those losses yourself. But damage to the building, and any issues from the fires that affect the home’s habitability, are up to the landlord to fix.

“Landlords are required to maintain their rental properties in habitable conditions,” said Amy Tannenbaum, an attorney with Public Counsel. “One of the requirements of the law is that the building grounds have to be kept clean, sanitary, free from accumulations of debris, filth, etc. We read that to cover things like ash and soot.”

If your landlord is telling you they don’t want to file a claim with their insurance company to fix smoke damage in your unit or clean up common areas full of soot — maybe because they’re afraid of their policy getting dropped in the future — that does not absolve them of their responsibility to maintain a clean, livable home in exchange for your rent.

“Insurance or pay out of pocket, that's on them,” Randell said. “That's a you problem for the landlord.”

Evictions

Are eviction cases on hold because of the wildfires?

No. The L.A. City Council has delayed voting on a proposed eviction moratorium connected to the fires. That proposal now faces an uncertain future at City Hall.

For now, if a landlord files an eviction lawsuit against you, including for unpaid rent during the wildfires, and you fail to respond to the filing or show up for hearings, your landlord could win the eviction by default.

“If there is an eviction case that a tenant is currently part of, they still do need to go to court,” Kaimi Wenger, an attorney with the Inner City Law Center, said. “If a tenant has been subject to an evacuation order, they could petition the court for a continuance.”

Tenant advocates say an online resource called the Tenant Power Toolkit can help you draft a response to any eviction filed against you.

Can I be evicted if I let new people and pets into my home?

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order Friday to temporarily prohibit L.A. County landlords from filing evictions against renters who take in new roommates who were displaced by the fires, even if their leases would normally ban those additional occupants. Newsom’s order will remain in effect until March 8, 2025. 

 The L.A. City Council also voted this week to draft a new ordinance that would enact new protections against eviction for renters who take in unauthorized roommates and pets who were displaced by the fires.

 Even with those protections, Wenger said, some landlords could try to serve you with a notice, which is why it’s critical to know your rights.

“ There are definitely unscrupulous landlords who have dollar signs in their eyes and who are thinking, 'If I can evict my existing tenant for any particular reason that I can find, then I can jack up the rent and rent to one of these new displaced people for a larger amount of money,'” Wenger said.

Can my landlord evict me to rent to someone willing to pay more? 

No, they cannot. Under various state and local tenant protections, landlords need “just cause” to evict you, Aziz said.

“ They can't just evict you just because somebody's willing to pay more,” he said. “That's not a just cause.”

Landlords can always begin eviction proceedings against you if you do not pay rent, violate your lease agreement or use the unit for illegal activity.

Can my landlord evict me to bring in someone displaced by the fires? 

This is one possibility that tenant rights attorneys are anticipating. Landlords generally have the ability to evict existing tenants when they intend to move into a unit themselves, or to move in a relative. If the landlord, or one of their family members, was displaced by the fires and now wants to occupy your unit, this does generally constitute a “just cause” for eviction.

However, your landlord most likely cannot demand that you leave immediately. Local tenant protection laws, and the state’s Tenant Protection Act, provide timelines for owner move-ins. Under the state law, tenants who have lived in their units for at least one year must be given at least 60 days’ notice of any owner move-in.

In this situation, your landlord will also likely owe you some amount of relocation assistance. Under the state law, you’re entitled to one month’s rent. Under local rent control laws, that amount can be much higher — as high as $25,700 in the city of L.A.

Be sure to get the name of the person your landlord plans to give your unit. If the landlord or their relative doesn’t move into your unit within 90 days of you leaving, and stay there for at least one year, the eviction is illegal under the state law and you are entitled to return at your previous rent.

Rental rates and rights

Can my landlord raise my rent because of the fires?

The short answer is no — your landlord cannot massively jack up your rent because of the fires. Under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency declaration, any rent increase of more than 10% from pre-disaster levels constitutes illegal price gouging.

However, your landlord can still raise your rent by smaller amounts, as they normally would be allowed to do in any given year — at least for now (more on that below).

How much your landlord can raise your rent depends on whether you’re covered by local rent control, a state tenant protection law or other legal limits. Read LAist’s guide to local rent hikes to find out what rules apply in your home.

The L.A. City Council recently delayed voting on a proposal to freeze rent increases for the next year because of the impacts of the fires. It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that in the near future, state or local lawmakers could pass further restrictions on rent increases.

What are my rights as I look for new housing? 

There’s no way to sugar coat this: Your search for new housing will likely be difficult.

Landlords are allowed to ask for market rate rents on vacant units under the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. If you haven’t had to search for a new rental home in a long time, those market rates may appear shockingly high.

Then there’s the issue of rampant spikes in asking rents — well above typical market rates — despite the ban on price gouging that was triggered by Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency around the Palisades Fire.

To be clear, it is illegal for landlords to be demanding double-digit increases from the rents they were asking before the fires. Under the governor’s emergency declaration, any price increase of more than 10% compared to pre-disaster prices is illegal price gouging.

Tenant rights advocates have been collecting hundreds of examples of listings with massive post-fire jumps in asking rent.

The state attorney general says he is preparing cases against landlords who are allegedly breaking the law. If you see instances of suspected rent gouging in your search for a new home, read this LAist story to learn how to report it to prosecutors.

Housing vouchers and rent control

What if I’ve been using a housing voucher? 

Programs like the federal Housing Choice Voucher program (also known as Section 8) help low-income tenants cover the cost of housing they otherwise could not afford. If you’re a voucher holder and your rental home just burned down, the good news is that you should be able to use that voucher to pay for another unit elsewhere.

“They're what we call portable,” said Tannenbaum, the Public Counsel attorney. “You can take them to different landlords.”

However, finding a landlord who will take your voucher could be a drawn-out process. Because many landlords are hesitant to rent to voucher holders, tenants can search for months without success.

But you should know that discrimination against voucher holders is illegal in California. If landlords ever turn you away because of your voucher, or tell you they do not take Section 8, tenant rights advocates say you can file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department.

What if my home was rent controlled? 

Under various local rent control ordinances, specific protections against evictions and large rent increases apply to the unit — not to the tenant.

“Unfortunately, yes, if that unit is lost then you're also losing those protections that you had in that particular residence,” said Calcanas, the attorney from Legal Aid Foundation of L.A..

Housing policy experts in L.A. say tenants who lived in their units for many years, paying below market rates, are likely to struggle paying for the going rents in other units today.

“They may be looking at a possibly over $1,000 difference in the amount they're paying in rent now versus the amount they'll need to pay in the future,” Calcanas said.

The Warner Bros. Discovery board announced late Thursday afternoon that Paramount's sweetened bid to buy the entire company is "superior" to an $83 billion deal it had struck with Netflix for the purchase of its streaming services, studios, and intellectual property.

Netflix says it is pulling out of the contest rather than try to top Paramount's offer.

"We've always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance's latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid," the streaming giant said in a statement.

Warner had rejected so many offers from Paramount that it seemed as though it would be a fruitless endeavor. Speaking on the red carpet for the BAFTA film awards last weekend, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos dared Paramount to stop making its case publicly and start ponying up cash.

'If you wanna try and outbid our deal … just make a better deal. Just put a better deal on the table," Sarandos told the trade publication Deadline Hollywood.

Netflix promised that Warner Bros. would operate as an independent studio and keep showing its movies in theaters.

But the political realities, combined with Paramount's owners' relentless drive to expand their entertainment holdings, seem to have prevailed.

Paramount previously bid for all of Warner — including its cable channels such as CNN, TBS, and Discovery — in a deal valued at $108 billion. Earlier this week, Paramount unveiled a fresh proposal increasing its bid by a dollar a share.

On Thursday, hours before the Warner announcement, Sarandos headed to the White House to meet Trump administration officials to make his case for the deal.

The meetings, leaked Wednesday to political and entertainment media outlets, were confirmed by a White House official who spoke on condition he not be named, as he was not authorized to speak about them publicly.

President Trump was not among those who met with Sarandos, the official said.

While Netflix's courtship of Warner stirred antitrust concerns, the Paramount deal is likely to face a significant antitrust review from the U.S. Justice Department, given the combination of major entertainment assets. Paramount owns CBS and the streamer Paramount Plus, in addition to Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and other cable channels.

The offer from Paramount CEO David Ellison relies on the fortune of his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. And David Ellison has argued to shareholders that his company would have a smoother path to regulatory approval.

Not unnoticed: the Ellisons' warm ties to Trump world.

Larry Ellison is a financial backer of the president.

David Ellison was photographed offering a MAGA-friendly thumbs-up before the State of the Union address with one of the president's key Congressional allies: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican.

Trump has praised changes to CBS News made under David Ellison's pick for editor in chief, Bari Weiss.

The chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, told Semafor Wednesday that he was pleased by the news division's direction under Weiss. She has criticized much of the mainstream media as being too reflexively liberal and anti-Trump.

"I think they're doing a great job," Carr said at a Semafor conference on trust and the media Wednesday. As Semafor noted, Carr previously lauded CBS by saying it "agreed to return to more fact-based, unbiased reporting."
Copyright 2026 NPR

Each spring, the land around Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County bursts into a vibrant array of native wildflowers. This year, it’s happening earlier than expected because of the recent rains.

The lake’s wildflower trail is scheduled to reopen this Friday, Feb. 27. Here’s what you should know before you go.

What the trail has to offer

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which manages the body of water in Hemet, says wildflower blooms are already dotting the hillsides around the ecological reserve at Diamond Valley Lake.

Think of a bright color wheel — that’s the kind of colorful blooms you’ll see. The hills grow orange California poppies, baby blue eyes, red bush monkeyflower and yellow tidy tips, to name a few. You’ll also get a peek at SoCal’s largest drinking water reservoir.

Known as the Judy Abdo Wildflower Trail, the 1.3 mile loop extends from the Lakeview Trail, close to the trail head and parking area. You can see a map here. The hike has some rugged terrain, but it’s rated as easy-to-moderate.

• Address: 2615 Angler Ave., Hemet
• Hours: Wednesdays through Sundays, 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

When you visit, don’t go too late! No entry is allowed after 3:30 p.m. Starting March 8, it’ll be open until 5:30 p.m. (with no entry after 4:30 p.m.).

You’ll have to pay $4 per person to use the wildflower trail. Parking costs $11 (or $5 if you’re: 62 years and older, a military member or a veteran).

Observe safely

Wildflower blooms are very popular in Southern California because of how beautiful (and Instaworthy) the scenery is, but you should tread cautiously.

About 10 years ago, Diamond Valley Lake’s trail had to be closed because crowds of visitors trampled the wildflowers. So when you visit, make sure to follow these etiquette tips so the bloom can be enjoyed by everyone.

A mammoth solar farm is moving forward in the heart of California. If built, which seems increasingly likely, it would cover 200 square miles of land and generate 21,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power entire cities. Huge batteries will store some of that power until it's needed most.

Farmers are among the project's backers. They don't have enough water to grow crops on big chunks of their land, and they're looking for new uses for it.

"We're farmers, and we would rather farm the ground," says Ross Franson, president of Woolf Farming and Processing, his family's business. "If we had the water to do it, we would farm it. But the reality is, you don't. You have to deal with the cards you're dealt."

Franson is on the board of the Westlands Water District, a farmer-run organization that's a key player in this effort, negotiating with solar companies and government regulators on behalf of its members. Westlands is an agricultural power and has long represented the interests of farmers in a large swath of land on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, between the towns of Firebaugh and Huron. Decades ago, it helped persuade the federal government to build a giant canal to deliver irrigation water to this area from rivers far away in Northern California.

Jose Gutierrez, assistant general manager of Westlands Water District, on land that could become a solar farm.

(

Dan Charles

)

Yet these farmers are now facing a new water crisis. The canal has been delivering less water in recent years because of droughts and competing claims on that water. Until recently, the farmers had a backup water supply: They could pump water from aquifers a thousand feet underground. Now, though, a new state law is coming into force that bans overpumping from the aquifer.

So farmers in Westlands have been leaving large chunks of land unplanted. Another large piece of land, now owned by the Westlands Water District itself, has been fallowed because irrigating it could release high levels of a mineral called selenium that can poison wildlife or people. The farmers, and the district, have been looking for new ways to put that land to use.

A solar developer called Golden State Clean Energy seized the opportunity. Several years ago, it presented Westlands Water District with a master plan for a collection of vast solar projects.

Developers say scale will justify new power lines 

Patrick Mealoy, a partner at Golden State Clean Energy, says they had to propose a solar farm that would generate an enormous amount of power to make the case for new multibillion-dollar power lines to carry electricity from the San Joaquin Valley to Los Angeles and Silicon Valley. Mealoy says smaller proposed projects have stalled because they weren't big enough to justify building those power lines.

"In order to actually have solar be productive, you need size and scale, a mass of projects that support the necessary investment in high voltage transmission lines to collect the electrons and move them," Mealoy says.

Getting the managers of California's electrical grid to approve construction of those transmission lines could be the project's biggest remaining hurdle. If built, the cost of those power lines, along with the benefits of greater electricity supply, eventually will show up in consumers' electricity bills.

Franson says his immediate reaction to the proposal was "Yes, we need to do this." Negotiating the details and completing an environmental review took several years, but in December, the Westlands Water District's board voted to move ahead.

Golden State is the plan's architect, but other solar developers will build sections of it. Construction could take a decade. Even though the Trump administration has abolished some financial incentives for solar projects, Mealoy says it's still a solid business opportunity.

"The state needs it. It's permitted. It's the right place for it. I'm excited about this," he says.

Grace Wu, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says "this is a fantastic place for solar" because the fallowed farmland isn't high-value habitat for wildlife.

Farmworkers wonder if they will also benefit

About 150 farmers within the Westlands Water District, including Jeremy Hughes, have signed up to put solar on some of their land. "We look at it as a new crop. We're harvesting electricity," Hughes says. The guaranteed income from those acres makes it possible to keep farming the rest of his land.

"Because of solar, we can continue farming in Westlands. It'll keep the farming community alive," says Jose Gutierrez, assistant general manager of Westlands Water District.

In the small towns nearby where many farmworkers live, however, there are worries that local residents won't see many benefits from the project. Among those towns is Huron, home to about 6,000 people. Rey León grew up here, working in his family's restaurant. Now he's the town's mayor.

Rey León is the mayor of Huron, Calif., home to many farmworkers who aren't yet sure what they will get out of solar coming to the region.

(

Dan Charles

)

"I'm worried about Huron," he says. This solar deal may be great for the landowners of Westlands, he says, but less farming means fewer jobs for people who worked in the fields and orchards. León wants some of the solar revenue to flow to this community for education and training, to help people find jobs in this new solar industry.

"We are shareholders," he says. "We kept these communities alive, these economies robust. There's no excuse to leave us out."

Westlands and Golden State Clean Energy have been discussing what they call a community benefits package, but officials haven't released any details.

A possible model for other parts of California

Caity Peterson, at the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), says other farming communities in California may try to imitate what Westlands is doing. Because they, too, will have to stop pumping so much water from the ground as the new state law comes into force. "There's going to be some kind of right-sizing of agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley," she says.

According to a study that PPIC carried out, farmers in the valley will have to stop growing crops on between 500,000 and 1 million acres. There will be a lot of dry, sunny land in California, just waiting for a solar developer.

Copyright 2026 NPR

A truly Los Angeles twist on March Madness is back, but this year, Angelenos are invited to weigh in on the worst intersections in greater L.A.

Whether you feel personally victimized by the Virgil Avenue, Sunset and Hollywood Boulevards intersection by the Los Feliz border, which a city official called a “‘nightmare,” or break into anxious sweats every time you get in line for the Burbank Boulevard Costco — you can soon channel some of that frustration into a social media match-up.

After Koreatown was voted as having the city’s worst parking last year, the latest competition run by Americana at Brand Memes on Instagram is upping the stakes with infamous intersections.

The anonymous account holder, who goes by Mr. Glen Dale, told LAist the “One Bad Intersection After Another” bracket is designed to be a democratic process for people to collectively crown the worst in L.A. once and for all.

“No matter who wins, it's all bad,” Mr. Glen Dale said.

Voting kicks off this weekend, and the winner will be crowned by April.

How it works

The competition is divided into four rounds based on the general geographic area, with nine intersections in each round.

Starting Sunday, @americanaatbrandmemes will post the competitors on Instagram with a poll attached around 11 a.m. each day throughout March.

The polls will be open for 24 hours, and the intersection with the most votes will move on to the next round to face off against the others.

To complete this year’s lineup, Mr. Glen Dale again started with a list of his personal worst before turning to his followers for some suggestions.

The intersection of Harvey Drive and East Broadway toward the Glendale In-N-Out was a popular proposal, for example, but Mr. Glen Dale said he felt that may be too niche for the bracket.

“I tried not to narrow in too much on one area,” he said. “And then tried to use my own experience to be like, ‘Oh yes, these ones feel like hallmarks.’”

If your personal worst isn’t in the competition, you can also suggest an intersection in the comments by writing “WILDCARD: (your suggestion).” The suggestions with the most likes will be added to the competition, with a wildcard slot in each of the four rounds.

Some popular wildcard suggestions include the Cypress Park roundabout at Riverside Drive and San Fernando Road, the Glendale Boulevard and Riverside Drive intersection with the wonky left-turn lanes in Silver Lake, and for another year in a row — all of Koreatown.

“I always put [wildcards] in there because I'm always like there's something I'm not thinking of that someone's going to suggest,” Mr. Glen Dale said. “This is a fluid list, we could change it.”

The intersection voted as L.A.’s worst of the worst will be crowned on Americana At Brand Meme’s account by April 1.

The East Side-ish Round

The first round focuses on the “East Side-ish” of L.A., including Silver Lake, Highland Park, East L.A., Echo Park and Eagle Rock.

The rounds are broken up by “side-ish” so people can focus their debates on the intersections, not the geographic boundaries of the bracket, according to Mr. Glen Dale.

The options include:

• Virgil Avenue / Sunset Boulevard / Hollywood Boulevard vs Sunset Boulevard / Sanborn Avenue / Santa Monica Boulevard
• Stadium Way / Academy Road vs Glendale Boulevard / Fletcher Drive / Silver Ridge Avenue
• Telegraph Road / Atlantic Boulevard / Triggs Street / Ferguson Drive vs wildcard vs Huntington Drive / Garfield Avenue / Atlantic Boulevard
• York Boulevard / N Avenue 50 vs Glendale Boulevard / Alvarado Street vs Avenue 42 / Eagle Rock Boulevard

Mr. Glen Dale said Avenue 50, which came up often in followers’ suggestions, could get its own bracket because the intersections in the area don’t seem to communicate with each other.

“You'll be sitting at a red light and seeing a green in front of you and being like, oh, when I get to that one it's going to be red,” he said. “But, you know, I ended up with York and 50 … [it] felt like a good representation of that street as a whole.”

The West Side-ish Round

The competition heads to Beverly Hills, Culver City, Westchester, Venice, Westwood Village and Brentwood for the second, “West Side-ish” round.

The options include:

• Beverly Hills 6 way stop vs Pacific Coast Highway / Chautauqua Boulevard / West Channel Road
• Washington Boulevard / Culver Boulevard vs Exposition / Robertson / Venice Boulevards
• Sunset Boulevard / Bellagio Drive / Bellagio Road / Bellagio Way vs wildcard vs Abbot Kinney Boulevard / California Avenue
• La Cienega Boulevard / Centinela Avenue / La Tijera Boulevard vs Wilshire / Westwood Boulevards vs San Vicente Boulevard / Montana Avenue

“It will be the Beverly Hills 6 stop,” one Instagram commenter wrote. “It is known.”

The Central LA-ish Round 

The third, “Central LA-ish” round takes us into the heart of Hollywood, West Hollywood, the border of Miracle Mile and Carthay Circle as well as the border of Wilshire Center and the Dayton Heights neighborhood.

The options include:

• Hollywood Boulevard / Highland Avenue vs Highland / Franklin Avenues
• Fairfax Avenue / La Cienega Boulevard vs Fairfax Avenue / Olympic / San Vincente Boulevards
• Jefferson Boulevard / La Brea Avenue vs wildcard vs La Cienega / Sunset Boulevards
• Franklin Avenue / Vine Street / 101 Freeway vs Virgil Avenue / Beverly Boulevard / Temple Street vs Santa Monica Boulevard / Western Avenue

The Los Angeles Times released a report this week ranking L.A.’s worst intersections based on traffic data, with the troublesome top spot going to Highland and Sunset in Hollywood.

The Valley-ish Round

Last but not least, the “Valley-ish,” which includes intersections in North Hollywood, Burbank, Studio City and Sherman Oaks.

This round also features my personal nemesis — Barham and Cahuenga boulevards.

I take this route relatively often to get from Burbank to West Hollywood and have to give myself a pep talk every time. The seemingly-constant congestion over the hill, driver confusion about what lanes lead where and people cutting into lines of cars just before a turn makes the experience feel like it takes years off my life.

The options include:

• Lankershim Boulevard / Vineland Avenue / Camarillo Street vs Burbank / Lankershim Boulevards / Tujunga Avenue
• Victory / Burbank Boulevards / Victory Place / 5 Freeway / Costco vs Ventura Place / Radford Avenue / Trader Joe’s / Sephora parking lots
• Harvey / W Broadway vs wildcard vs Sepulveda / Burbank Boulevards
• Mulholland Drive / Coldwater Canyon Avenue vs Barham / Cahuenga Boulevards vs Vineland Avenue / Magnolia Boulevard

Mr. Glen Dale agreed with my assessment, describing the Barham Boulevard intersection as his “white whale.”

“I hate going through that intersection, and it's not even that it's scary like other ones where you don't know what's happening,” Mr. Glen Dale said. “No matter which way you're going, everyone is converging onto Barham, and it just creates this madness.”

But Lankershim / Vineland / Camarillo appears to be an early follower favorite, as one commenter wrote, it “takes 2-3 business days to get through” and another added, “I’m rioting if [the intersection] doesn’t win.”