The Brief

L.A. city officials have for months kept from the public a damning report, ordered by the council, that found a major homelessness enforcement policy championed by several council members has failed in key goals to keep areas clear of encampments and get people housed.

The report looks at one of the city’s most controversial enforcement laws, a rule known as 41.18 zones. Under changes approved in 2021, council members can designate areas in their district where unhoused people cannot sit, lie down, sleep, or keep belongings on sidewalks or other public areas. People are supposed to receive advanced warning and get help finding shelter before encampments are cleared.

The camping ban was viewed by some council members and housing activists as a cruel crackdown that criminalized poverty and put public spaces off limits for people unable to access shelter that’s in short supply. Supporters cheered the change as a step to make schools and other places safer by removing encampments and argued that shelter beds are available.

Nearly a year ago, council members unanimously ordered a report about 41.18, including assessing whether 41.18 was effective at housing people and preventing encampments from returning.

The answer: No.

That was the conclusion of officials at the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) who analyzed the data in a report sent to the council’s legislative analyst in November. It was meant to feed into a broader report to the council about 41.18 that is now eight months overdue.

LAHSA’s November report was not shared with several council members — including Nithya Raman, who chairs the housing and homelessness committee — until this week. It still has not been provided to Curren Price, one of the two council members who co-signed the council’s April 2023 directive to generate the report, according to his spokesperson.

Its findings have not been reported publicly until now.

The report, obtained by LAist from a person with access to the document and verified by others with knowledge of it, found that 41.18 failed to keep the vast majority of its areas clear of encampments and was “generally ineffective” at helping people get into housing.

LAist reached out to Mayor Karen Bass’ office and all 15 City Council members for comment.

In a statement Saturday responding to LAist's reporting, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez called 41.18 a "complete and total failure."

"Our office still has not officially received this report, but we know that encampments swept with 41.18 nearly always return, and we spend millions of dollars every year on this ineffective criminalization of homelessness," he said.

"The city is facing a budget deficit, and we can’t keep lying to the public while spending millions criminalizing homelessness and pushing people from block to block," he added, saying the city needs to invest in housing.

A spokesperson for Raman said the council’s homelessness committee chair first received a copy of the November report on Wednesday.

“Our team is still going through the data and is not prepared to comment at this time,” Raman’s spokesperson, Stella Stahl, said in a statement.

What the analysis found

The analysis by LAHSA looked at 41.18 operations from December 2021 to November 2023, totaling 174 encampment clear-outs.

Among the report’s key findings, the vast majority of encampments came back:

• Unhoused people came back at high rates — 81% of encampments had people return who had been there before the clear-out.
• And nearly all encampments reemerged post clearing, when including people who hadn’t been there before.
• 94% of people at encampments targeted for removal under 41.18 wanted shelter. Of those, only 18% were able to get it.

For example, at Venice Boulevard and Tuller Avenue, the data show an encampment of 54 people before the operation. Among them, 52 people wanted shelter — but only two people got it, according to the data.

And after the 41.18 operation, 122 people came back at various points, the data show.

“In general, the framework of 41.18 falls short of more effective encampment resolution efforts, such as Inside Safe or other Encampment-to-Home initiatives,” states the report, dated Nov. 28. Inside Safe expands bed capacity so everyone at a particular encampment being cleared has a place to come indoors.

The encampment clearings also can disrupt people’s ability to get shelter, the report adds.

Unhoused people “may move away from the location and providers may lose contact after clients are displaced,” the report states. “Clients may also become distrustful of providers and refuse services after being forced to move from their current location. Encampment clearings can lead to a loss of ID and documentation that are crucial for ongoing services and eventual housing.”

Current and former homelessness officials told LAist the report’s findings underscore that the shortage of shelter and housing is driving the homelessness crisis, and unless that’s dealt with, encampments will keep coming back.

Report was kept in the shadows

The effectiveness report has been kept under wraps from the public for months, until now. One person familiar with the report said there was widespread anxiety and fear about releasing the findings due to concerns it would highlight a lack of progress addressing homelessness.

A report was ordered by the council on April 12 last year after public pressure on the council to study whether 41.18 is working. It was required to be provided to the council within 60 days, by mid-June.

Three hundred twenty four days later, there still is no official report to the council compiling all of the data they requested, including about the financial costs of 41.18.

Key info requested by the council — the LAHSA data analysis — was sent to the council’s legislative analyst, Sharon Tso, in late November. That was over five months after the deadline.

But three months later, there is still no compiled report to the council, which is 264 days overdue. And there’s been no update in the public agenda file about the delay.

Efforts to keep it hidden have reportedly sparked an uproar within city hall.

About the delay

In an interview Friday evening after this article was published, Tso said she didn’t know of any effort to withhold the information the council had requested, which is now over eight months overdue.

She said the information hasn’t been provided because she’s still trying to get questions answered about how LAHSA calculated and portrayed the numbers. But she wouldn’t say what those questions are, nor provide a timeline for when her long-overdue report would be provided to the full council or the public.

She also would not answer repeated questions from LAist about whether some council members asked her to do things that delay the release of this information.

“I am being diligent…That’s all I can tell you,” Tso said. “My conversations with my council members are my conversations.”

Council members haven’t been demanding the information be disclosed immediately, she added.

“There hasn’t been this screaming demand that we need to have something now,” Tso said.

After obtaining a leaked copy of the report, LAist also requested the report directly from LAHSA officials. LAHSA spokespeople, including its head of external relations Paul Rubenstein, did not immediately provide it — despite state law requiring public records be disclosed upon request without delay. Rubenstein is the person listed on the “From” line at the top of the report.

Big enforcement differences among council members

An analysis released last fall by L.A. City Controller Kenneth Mejia’s office found a wide disparity in how much 41.18 enforcement council members were doing in their districts.

At the top of the list was Councilmember John Lee, who is running for reelection in District 12. Nearly half the 2023 arrests through mid-September were in Lee’s northwest San Fernando Valley district, while it had one the smallest unsheltered populations.

His district had 836 arrests, which is more than three times as many as the second-highest district, Council District 1, represented by Eunisses Hernandez.

A plea months ago for public disclosure

In October, activists with one of L.A.’s leading unhoused advocacy groups filed a written comment with the council wondering why the report was taking so long.

“While this report back is well over 100 days past due, we hope that the City will present their findings soon,” wrote Adam Smith of the LA Community Action Network.

He asked for a special public City Council hearing about the report when it’s turned in.

“Our request,” Smith wrote, “is rooted in a long-standing City Hall precedent for holding hearings that include presentation of data by stakeholders impacted directly by City policy.”

Queer Mercado started as a monthly pop-up event at the East L.A. Civic Center in the summer of 2021. Now, the community marketplace is launching a new residency at the historic Olvera Street plaza in downtown L.A.

The event will feature local queer-owned businesses, makeup tutorials, live artist paintings, drag performers and a fashion show.

Queer Mercado's founder, Diana Diaz, said the goal is to promote culture and inclusivity, and to empower marginalized communities in the area.

“ You're gonna see a lot of culture, fashion, a wide range of ages and genders, and performers that really reflect the landscape of LA,” she said.

Diaz is a handbag designer and high school counselor based out of East L.A. She’s been vending with her family since she was a young girl and started a community marketplace called the Goddess Mercado in 2021 to reconnect with friends and other local vendors after the pandemic. One of her students gave her the idea to create a similar space for the queer community.

“He told me, 'Miss, this is great that you're doing for the women of East L.A., but what about the queer community? I'm tired of going to the West Side. I don't fit in,'” she said.

Diaz has her own kiosk at Olvera Street and said foot traffic has been down in recent months, in part due to fears of immigration raids. But she said the event is a chance to create a more inclusive space and to reflect more of the diverse, cultural fabric that exists within Los Angeles.

“ It's full of history and love and positivity, and it gave birth to a lot of businesses and movements,” Diaz said. “And it's a site of celebrations and rituals and protests.”

Event details: Queer Mercado will be held 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at Olvera Street every Saturday through at least June.

Secret menu: Stop by Juanita's Cafe, and ask for the “queer combo.” It’s not on the menu, but you’ll get a free drink.

For America’s 250th birthday this July 4, the Queen Mary in Long Beach is promising to pull out all the stops: a WW II aircraft flyover, buffet and music, all capped off with an extra-long fireworks display — 20 minutes of pyrotechnics exploding over the bay.

But just a few miles down the coast, the city’s Alamitos Bay will be quiet over the holiday weekend. The July 3 Big Bang on the Bay couldn’t get the OK from state regulators, so longtime organizer John Morris canceled it.

“I’m just fed up with everything,” Morris said in a phone call. “The bureaucracy just sucks.”

Both Morris and the Queen Mary got approval for their shows from the state’s Water Resources Control Board, which found no tangible rise in water pollution after previous shows, water board spokesperson Ailene Voisin said. But, unlike the Queen Mary, Morris also had to convince the Coastal Commission. That process has gotten significantly more difficult.

For years, Coastal Commission staff routinely approved Morris’ permit, but after complaints and a lawsuit alleging the fireworks polluted the water and harmed migratory birds nesting nearby, the statewide board has given him more scrutiny. In 2024, the Coastal Commission gave him an ultimatum: It was time to switch to drones, which they viewed as more environmentally friendly and less disorienting to the birds. They warned in 2025 that it was the last time they would approve fireworks over Alamitos Bay.

So why did the Big Bang need Coastal Commission approval, but the Queen Mary didn’t?

The commission has ceded its authority over the Queen Mary show to the Port of Long Beach, where it’s permanently docked, according to commission spokesperson Joshua Smith. Because the Coastal Commission previously approved a master plan from the port that defines what’s allowed in its boundaries and what isn’t, the commission doesn’t weigh in on individual events. Anything with potential environmental impacts falls under the port’s scope, Smith said.

The port, apparently, is fine with the fireworks. Spokesperson Lee Peterson said he could find no record of the port requiring any permitting or exercising any oversight of the Queen Mary show.

So with another fireworks show happening in Long Beach as well as others up and down the California coast, Morris tried to charge ahead with his show — even with the Coastal Commission’s previous warning. He asked for one more approval.

He told commissioners there was no safe way to launch the drones. Plus, he said, they were prohibitively expensive.

It wasn’t fair, he argued, to force him to abandon fireworks while other shows continued.

John Morris, owner of the Boathouse on the Bay restaurant and longtime Big Bang on the Bay organizer in Long Beach on May 14, 2025.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

Commissioners were unmoved. They denied his request for fireworks, saying he’d had ample warning, and Morris canceled his event altogether.

Last week, commission staff sent Morris a letter saying they were “disheartened” that he chose that route. They offered a compromise. They’d be willing to consider a fireworks show at an alternate location — just not over Alamitos Bay and its nesting birds.

In a phone call last week, Morris called their offer “a joke.”

Moving the show would ruin his chances of getting funding from residents whose homes ring the bay. They’ve gotten used to having the fireworks essentially in their backyards and have given generously to support the show in the past. Additional proceeds, nearly $2 million since the Big Bang began in 2011, go to charity, according to Morris.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office took notice of the cancellation, Morris hoped he would intervene. With no progress so far, Morris said he’s holding out hope a state bill — the so-called Fireworks for Freedom Act — will garner enough votes to pass the legislature. It was introduced April 30 by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-41) and would pave the way for any fireworks display “by temporarily suspending Federal and State regulatory restrictions” for this year only.

If it doesn’t pass, he’ll have to find something else to do with his fireworks barges.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Hardly a year after the city of Inglewood’s firework sales ban went into effect, city residents could vote to overturn it.

The initiative that will be in the June 2 special election looks to make firework use and sales legal again in the city.  Mail-in voting has already begun. 

The new ballot initiative comes after the Inglewood City Council voted to ban fireworks outside of permitted shows in February 2025, delighting residents who worried about noise and safety, but frustrating some local nonprofits who rely on annual firework sales as a fundraiser. 

“They had just as much fireworks as they always had,” said D’Joy Robinson, whose family counseling nonprofit, All Families Matter, sold fireworks for several years before the ban.

Inglewood resident Mari Morales Rodriguez said she doesn’t mind small fireworks, but that she’s watched local fireworks get larger and more dangerous over the years. She wants to see the fireworks ban continue.

“They are out of control,” she said. “Nobody can control it.”

Fireworks manufacturers TNT Fireworks and Phantom Fireworks are the ballot initiative’s biggest backers — drafting the initiative and, according to state documents, funding  a campaign in support.

Inglewood Mayor James Butts said the city’s ban last year came after years of public feedback.

“We have received complaints for at least 12 years,” Butts said. “The council took action to outlaw them.”

Roughly two dozen cities in L.A. County permitted the sale and use of designated “safe and sane” fireworks last Fourth of July, according to the L.A. County Fire Department. Firework sales are only permitted June 27 through July 6 in California.

Here’s what would change under the proposed fireworks ordinance

Dennis Revell, a consultant for TNT Fireworks who drafted the initiative, said the new proposed ordinance would not be a return to the fireworks regulations Inglewood had in place before 2025.

“We felt that there were many deficiencies in the prior ordinance,” Revell said. “[This] is much more dynamic and should provide a level of confidence in public safety.”

The new rules would make it easier for the city to issue citations, Revell said, and expand who could be found responsible for violations. It would also put in place a mechanism for the city to recoup some of the costs of enforcement. 

Revell, who said he has drafted hundreds of local fireworks ordinances, said the proposed Inglewood rules are inspired by others put in place across California. 

“The trend is to take this seriously and protect the city but still allow for responsible people to celebrate the Fourth of July with fireworks,” Revell said. 

The LA Local reached out to Phantom Fireworks but did not receive a response.

Making fireworks legal again would allow nonprofits like All Families Matter to resume their annual firework sales. Robinson, the administrator of the nonprofit, said without the extra $5,000 boost the fireworks stand could provide each year,  the nonprofit has had to trim the free family counseling services it provides.

Robinson also said the stand helped the nonprofit stay in touch with the neighborhood.

“We had families that came back year after year,” she said. 

Revell argued that legalizing “safe and sane” fireworks would also help keep more dangerous, illegal fireworks off the street. 

Morales Rodriguez, the Inglewood local, said legalizing some fireworks would make it difficult to report and control illegal variants because firework users could simply claim they’d bought their own fireworks at a permitted stand. 

“It looks like a war zone,” she said. “It doesn’t feel like something happy.”

When you're leading the polls, everyone takes their shots. Xavier Becerra found that out Thursday night as six gubernatorial rivals ganged up on him in the final debate before California's primary — attacking everything from his ethics to his ideas to his choice of political consultants.

It was their last chance to make a personal appeal to California voters ahead of the June 2 election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

While the San Francisco debate was calmer than the brawls in the last few meet-ups, everyone’s target was the Democratic frontrunner Becerra.

These are five takeaways:

Becerra was the one to beat:

Opponents piled on with anything that might stick, from his acceptance of a campaign contribution from Chevron to his failure to answer questions at a housing forum last week to fraud in the hospice system while Becerra was secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration.

But the Becerra weakness du jour was the guilty plea earlier Thursday of his former political strategist Dana Williamson, who admitted to conspiring with Becerra’s former longtime chief of staff to steal money from his campaign account.

Opponents were unified in their skepticism about Becerra’s repeated claims that he wasn’t involved. Despite the plea deal that did not accuse him, Democratic rival Katie Porter went so far as to say he could still be implicated in the case.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate backed by tech leaders, went out of his way to call Becerra the “embodiment of the status quo” in Sacramento.

Several candidates attacked Becerra over his lack of a funding plan for his ideas, including Porter, who pulled out a makeshift whiteboard in a callback to her signature move in Congress.

“What is Mr. Becerra’s revenue plan?” she pressed.

The former health secretary took a page out of Newsom’s book, pointing to an idea to restrict some corporations’ use of tax credits.

Newsom proposed that earlier in the day as part of his state budget.

Once lagging in polls and fundraising, Becerra has surged since ex-Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in early April over sexual assault allegations, offering Democratic voters a familiar face who’s held public office for decades and who frequently talks about fighting with Trump.

And he made the most of it:

Becerra appeared pleased with the attention.

“This is what happens when you take the lead in the polls,” he said. “They all come at you.”

Republican frontrunner Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, quickly jumped in to correct him: Hilton is leading, per some polls. (Accounting for margins of error, both candidates are essentially tied.)

But Becerra used the moment to try to shut the door on the Williamson scandal, touting a statement from the prosecutor’s office Thursday saying that “no candidate running for governor has been implicated” in the case.

Former Becerra political strategist Dana Williamson arrives for a hearing in Sacramento on May 14, 2026.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Earlier in the week, he refused to answer when a reporter asked if he was sure Williamson couldn’t connect him to the case. Asked Thursday if he could guarantee the case wouldn’t be a “distraction” if he advances to November, he responded, “I can.”

Mahan looks to separate from Republicans:

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has made a name for himself as a moderate Democrat willing to take on his own party. That has included his early support for Prop. 36, the tough-on-crime ballot measure that Newsom and the party opposed in 2024 but which voters passed overwhelmingly, and his campaign proposals to tie pay to performance in the public sector that rankle organized labor.

But on TV in a state where Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and Trump is anathema, he sought to clarify that he’s not a Republican.

“I’m going to offer something different,” he said. “Not MAGA and not more of the same.”

Mahan appeared to relish his spats with Hilton, taking care to point out Hilton’s association with Trump and his former employer, Fox News. Mahan criticized the Republican’s plan to expand California suburbs by building on undeveloped land as likely to drive up carbon emissions, and attacked him over rumors he was pushed out of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s government.

“I attacked the extremes on both sides,” Mahan said after the debate.

Mahan was the only Democrat not to say on stage that he would support any of the other Democrats if they advanced to November and he didn’t, instead naming fellow moderate former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, because “mayors get things done.”

Later, he wavered, first saying “it depends” when asked if he would support another Democrat, clarifying, “I would vote for a fellow Democrat against a Republican.”

Everyone but Hilton would restrict chatbots:

When moderators asked a lightning-round “yes or no” question on whether the state should more strictly regulate artificial intelligence chatbots that interact with children, the candidates appeared united across party lines.

Democrats in the state Capitol this year are already pursuing stricter chatbot regulations after advocates decried a law Newsom signed last year as too weak. Steyer promoted his brother’s influential work on the topic.

In contrast, Hilton hesitated, then refused to answer yes or no, saying “it’s not as simple as that” and expressing a desire not to over-regulate the industry.

“It’s not the right way to discuss a very important and serious issue,” he said as opponents and moderators tried to pin him down. “It causes problems that are unintended.”

Hilton moved to California from the United Kingdom to Silicon Valley in 2012 to join his wife Rachel Whetstone, a prominent tech executive.

Republicans boost each other:

Even before the moderators asked the candidates who else they would support if they didn’t make it onto the November ballot, the two Republicans were already practically high-fiving.

In previous debates, interviews and TV ads the two have attacked each other, but by Thursday they were often referencing each other’s points.

“Only two of us actually represent real change,” Hilton said of himself and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

With numerous Democrats competing for liberal support, Hilton has consistently led in the polls. While he and Bianco have previously declined to specifically endorse the other, the only realistic way for a Republican to win in blue California is for both Republicans to come in Nos. 1 and 2 and shut Democrats out of the general election.

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