Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • State bill could be reintroduced next year
     Supporters of the United To House L.A. initiative gather to deliver signatures for their proposed November ballot measure.
    Supporters of the United to House L.A. initiative gathered to deliver boxes full of signatures for the November 2022 ballot measure that passed the city's "mansion tax."

    Topline:

    Less than two days after state lawmakers unveiled plans to put new limits on a controversial real estate tax in the city of Los Angeles, they have now withdrawn the bill. The decision means that efforts in Sacramento to reform L.A.’s voter-approved “mansion tax” will not advance by the end of the state legislative session Friday.

    Why reforms are failing to advance: State senators Lena Gonzalez and Tina McKinnor released a joint news statement Thursday saying their bill “required additional clarifying amendments that were not possible due to end-of-session deadlines.” They said the city’s tax “is an important tool to address Los Angeles’ housing and homelessness crisis.” But they vowed to re-introduce legislation in January to rein in parts of the policy critics say are causing development to plummet at a time when the city is falling far short of its housing production goals.

    How the tax works: Over nearly 2 1/2 years, the policy has collected $830 million by taxing the sale of real estate priced at $5 million or more. The tax rate tops out at 5.5%. It applies not just to palatial single-family homes but also to apartment buildings and other commercial properties. The bill introduced this week would have capped the tax rate at 1.5% for apartment buildings and other commercial properties built within the last 15 years. It also would have also included carve-outs for single-family homes being rebuilt within five years of natural disasters such as January’s Palisades Fire.

    Read on … to learn why L.A. Mayor Karen Bass asked California lawmakers to hold off on passing the bill.

    Less than two days after state lawmakers unveiled plans to put new limits on a controversial real estate tax in the city of Los Angeles, they now have withdrawn the bill.

    The decision means efforts in Sacramento to reform L.A.’s voter-approved “mansion tax” will not advance by the end of the state legislative session Friday.

    California senators Lena Gonzalez and Tina McKinnor released a joint news statement Thursday saying their bill “required additional clarifying amendments that were not possible due to end of session deadlines.”

    They said the city’s tax “is an important tool to address Los Angeles’ housing and homelessness crisis.” But they vowed to re-introduce legislation in January to rein in parts of the policy critics say are causing development to plummet at a time when the city is falling far short of its housing production goals.

    Mayor Karen Bass, who until now has avoided commenting on efforts to alter the tax, said she had asked lawmakers to delay passage of the bill, leaving time for more technical changes.

    “My goal is to build more housing and make it more affordable while fixing unintended consequences of policies impacting families trying to rebuild after January’s fires. … I look forward to collaborating with local and state partners to continue this momentum,” Bass said in a statement to LAist.

    Supporters of the city’s policy, which puts tax revenue toward tenant aid programs and affordable housing construction, said the bill’s proposals should be permanently dismissed.

    “The voters have made themselves clear, and they should not lose their voice,” said tax supporters with the group United to House L.A. in a news release Thursday. “Tens of millions of dollars to fight displacement and homelessness must not be erased.”

    What was in the now-stalled bill 

    Often referred to as the city’s “mansion tax,” Measure ULA was enacted in April 2023 after nearly 58% of city voters approved it in November 2022.

    Over nearly 2 1/2 years, the policy has collected $830 million by taxing the sale of real estate priced at $5 million or more. The tax rate tops out at 5.5%. It applies not just to palatial single-family homes but also to apartment buildings and other commercial properties.

    Listen 0:45
    State lawmakers pull last-minute effort to reform LA’s ‘mansion tax’

    Several recent economic studies have concluded the tax is decreasing development activity in the city relative to other parts of L.A. County, including the development of many affordable apartments.

    A competing group of researchers has argued those conclusions are premature.

    The bill introduced this week would have capped the tax rate at 1.5% for apartment buildings and other commercial properties built within the last 15 years. It also would have included carve-outs for single-family homes being rebuilt within five years of natural disasters such as January’s Palisades Fire.

    Another part of the bill would have loosened financing restrictions that critics say make ULA-funded projects too risky to attract investment from banks and other lenders.

    Advocates for increased housing development were frustrated with the bill’s failure to advance.

    Dave Rand, a land-use attorney with Rand Paster & Nelson LLP., said the kinds of housing developers he works with will likely remain on the sidelines until the tax is reformed.

    He said the policy “has been simply catastrophic for the production of new housing.”

    “We're left with a lot of uncertainty about whether there's a fix in the future,” Rand said. “But it desperately needs to happen. Because until it does, we will not be achieving the level and degree of housing production that everybody in the city — regardless of their view about Measure ULA — believes is needed.”

    Effort to kill every CA ‘mansion tax’ still looms

    The state bill was introduced just as Measure ULA opponents had begun gathering signatures to put a measure on the November 2026 ballot asking voters to invalidate the city’s “mansion tax” and other, similar policies across California.

    Gonzalez and McKinnor’s bill would have provisioned changes on the 2026 initiative being withdrawn, or failing to qualify for the ballot. The initiative’s backers, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, vowed to move ahead with their efforts regardless of legislative actions.

    Susan Shelley, a spokesperson for the taxpayers association, said the group is still working to collect the 875,000 signatures they’ll need by late February 2026 to qualify for the ballot.

    She said of the now-stalled state bill: “Tying Pacific Palisades tax relief to the failure of this initiative was depraved.”

  • Deal would drop affordable housing requirements
    Development in a planned city. The homes are painted white with gray roofing.
    Irvine's Great Park area.

    Topline:

    The Irvine City Council on Tuesday is set to vote on a land swap deal that will waive affordable housing requirements for one of the biggest developers in Orange County.

    About the land swap: If the council approves the land swap with FivePoint, the city will give 26.4 acres of land in exchange for 35 acres dubbed the Crescent site. The city will then greenlight FivePoint’s development of 1,300 market rate housing in an area where the median price for a home is around $1.5 million.

    Why it matters: The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting does not include land appraisals or a financial analysis of the land swap and the financial impact of waiving affordable housing requirements for FivePoint within the Great Park. LAist has requested those documents from the city and will update the story if we hear back. However, in a staff report, officials say Irvine can use the land in the deal to build more affordable housing than would otherwise be built in the commercial market.

    The Irvine City Council on Tuesday is set to vote on a land swap deal that will waive affordable housing requirements for one of the biggest developers in Orange County.

    If the council approves the land swap with FivePoint, the city will give 26.4 acres of land in exchange for 35 acres dubbed the Crescent site. The city will then greenlight FivePoint’s development of 1,300 market rate housing in an area where the median price for a home is around $1.5 million.

    The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting does not include land appraisals or a financial analysis of the land swap and the financial impact of waiving affordable housing requirements for FivePoint within the Great Park. LAist has requested those documents from the city and will update the story if we hear back.

    However, in a staff report, officials say Irvine can use the land in the deal to build more affordable housing than would otherwise be built in the commercial market.

    The breakdown of the land swap

    Heritage Fields El Toro, part of the FivePoint umbrella, owns the land adjacent to the Irvine Transportation Center, a transit station that falls in the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route, as well as Metrolink train and Orange County Transportation Authority bus routes. That 35-acre area is dubbed the “Crescent Site.” City officials want that land to build a “transit oriented development” connecting the Great Park and Irvine Spectrum areas.

    According to the city, “The area is particularly well suited for higher-density residential and mixed-use formats, sidewalk-activated retail and creative commercial spaces, walkable urban blocks, and a lifestyle environment attractive to young professionals and knowledge-sector employees.”

    Irvine has not included plans on how they will achieve state affordable housing requirements in the staff report.

    LAist has reached out to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for comment.

    What does California law require?

    • California’s Housing Element Law sets housing targets for local governments to meet, including for affordable units. 
    • It allows the state to intervene every eight years to let cities know how much housing they must plan for. 
    • The law also requires cities to put together a housing element showcasing how they will achieve the state’s plan. 
    • The state then approves of the element or sends it back to cities to reconfigure according to the requirements. 

    Will veterans finally get a resting place in Irvine?

    In the land swap, FivePoint will also give the city $15 million to use toward the construction of a columbarium for cremated remains, a new public library and other amenities on a 125-acre plot of land within Great Park — a project that may go to voters in 2026.

    For years, plans to build a final resting place for veterans in Irvine has stalled due to debates over politics, a property developer, site options and ballot measures. Fed-up veterans finally took their plans to Anaheim’s Gypsum Canyon, where they received the backing of the state. Irvine Mayor Larry Agran tried to revive talks of a veterans cemetery in Irvine in May, but that was quickly shut down.

    How to watchdog Great Park board meetings

    One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.

    Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

    • Read tips on how to get involved.
    • The next scheduled Great Park board meeting is 4 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 9. You can find meeting agendas and upcoming dates here
    • And submit a comment on the agenda here
  • Sponsored message
  • Fennessy to lead new federal agency
    A group of firefighters and highway officials stand behind a podium at a news conference.
    Orange County Fire Chief Brian Fennessy at a news conference Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Brian Fennessy is retiring as head of the Orange County Fire Authority in January to become the first director of the newly created United States Wildland Fire Service, according to a staff memo.
    OCFA Chief Fennessy retirement letter
    OCFA Chief Brian Fennessy announces his retirement to join new U.S. Wildland Fire Service

    Why it matters: The Trump administration announced the U.S. Wildland Fire Service in September to modernize wildfire management nationwide. It will be a joint effort between the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture.

    The context: The service's areas of focus will include strengthening response efforts among local, state and federal agencies, modernizing aviation and coordinating systems and improving technology that can help agencies respond to fires and protect personnel. In his retirement letter, Fennessy said the USWFS "represents a historic opportunity to strengthen interagency coordination, modernize capabilities, and elevate the profession of wildland firefighting."

    The backstory: Fennessy was OCFA fire chief for more than seven years. According to OCFA, his career began in 1978 as a hotshot crewmember with the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

    What's next: A new chief has not been announced yet. Fennessy said he would “work closely with Executive Management and our Board of Directors to support a smooth leadership transition.”

  • Republicans push plan, HSA

    Topline:

    Although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    Why it matters: In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    Some background: Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Read on... for what happened with a family who had high-deductible health plan.

    Sarah Monroe once had a relatively comfortable middle-class life.

    She and her family lived in a neatly landscaped neighborhood near Cleveland. They had a six-figure income and health insurance through her job. Then, four years ago, when Monroe was pregnant with twin girls, something started to feel off.

    "I kept having to come into the emergency room for fainting and other symptoms," recalled Monroe, 43, who works for an insurance company.

    The babies were fine. But after months of tests and hospital trips, Monroe was diagnosed with a potentially dangerous heart condition.

    It would be costly. Within a year, as she juggled a serious illness and a pair of newborns, Monroe was buried under more than $13,000 in medical debt.


    Part of the reason: Like tens of millions of Americans, she had a high-deductible health plan. People with these plans typically pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before coverage kicks in.

    The plans, which have become common over the past two decades, are getting renewed attention thanks to President Donald Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

    Many Republicans are reluctant to extend government subsidies that help cover patients' medical bills and insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act.

    And although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    "A patient makes the decision," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at a recent hearing. "It empowers the patient to lower the cost."

    In a post on Truth Social last month, Trump said: "The only healthcare I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people."

    "Skin in the game"

    Conservative economists and GOP lawmakers have been making similar arguments since high-deductible health plans started to catch on two decades ago.

    Back then, a backlash against the limitations of HMOs, or health maintenance organizations, propelled many employers to move workers into these plans, which were supposed to empower patients and control costs. A change in tax law allowed patients in these plans to put away money in tax-free health savings accounts to cover medical bills.

    "The notion was that if a consumer has 'skin in the game,' they will be more likely to seek higher-quality, lower-cost care," said Shawn Gremminger, who leads the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, a nonprofit that works with employers that offer their workers health benefits.

    "The unfortunate reality is that largely has not been the case," Gremminger said.

    Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Plans with deductibles that exceed $1,650 can be paired with a tax-free health savings account.

    But even as deductibles became widespread over the last 20 years, medical prices in the U.S. skyrocketed. The average price of a knee replacement, for example, increased 74% from 2003 to 2016, more than double the rate of overall inflation.

    At the same time, patients have been left with thousands of dollars of medical bills they can't pay, despite having health insurance.

    About 100 million people in the U.S. have some form of health care debt, a 2022 survey showed.

    Most, like Monroe, are insured.

    Medical price shopping isn't easy

    Although Monroe had a health savings account paired with her high-deductible plan, she was never able to save more than a few thousand dollars, she said. That wasn't nearly enough to cover the big bills when her twins were born and when she got really ill.

    "It's impossible, I will tell you, impossible to pay medical bills," she said.

    There was another problem with her high-deductible plan. Although these plans are supposed to encourage patients to shop around for medical care to find the lowest prices, Monroe found this impractical when she had a complex pregnancy and heart troubles.

    Instead, Monroe chose the largest health system in her area.

    "I went with that one as far as medical risk," she said. "If anything were to happen, I could then be transferred within that system."

    Federal rules that require hospitals to post more of their prices can make comparing institutions easier than it used to be.

    But unlike a car or a computer, most medical services remain difficult to shop for, in part because they stem from an emergency or are complex and can stretch over numerous years.

    Researchers at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, for example, estimated that just 7% of total health care spending for Americans with job-based coverage was for services that realistically could be shopped for.

    Fumiko Chino, an oncologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said it makes no sense to expect patients with cancer or another chronic disease to go out and compare prices for complicated medical care such as surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy after they've been diagnosed with a potentially deadly illness.

    "You're not going be able to actually do that effectively," Chino said, "and certainly not within the time frame that you would need to when facing a cancer diagnosis and the imminent need to start treatment."

    Drowning in bills

    Chino said patients with high deductibles are often instead slammed with a flood of huge medical bills that lead to debt and a cascade of other problems.

    She and other researchers found in a study of more than 8,000 cancer patients presented last year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology that cancer patients who had high-deductible health insurance were more likely to die than similar patients without that kind of coverage.

    For her part, Monroe and her family were forced to move out of their house and into a 1,100-square-foot apartment.

    She drained her savings. Her credit score sank. And her car was repossessed.

    There have been other sacrifices, too. "When families get to have nice Christmases or get to go on spring break," Monroe said, hers often does not.

    She is thankful that her children are healthy. And she continues to have a job. But Monroe said she can't imagine why anyone would want to double down on the high-deductible model for health care.

    "We owe it to ourselves to do it a different way," she said. "We can't treat people like this."

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.
    Copyright 2025 KFF Health News

  • Paramount tries to beat Netflix with $108B offer

    Topline:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties. It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios.

    The backstory: The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block. In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Reaction: Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    The context: Combining with Warner would let the Ellisons create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    Get out your popcorn because there's more drama in the fight over the media powerhouse Warner Brothers Discovery:

    Paramount Global has sweetened its offer to acquire Warner by a bunch, offering an all-cash deal valued at $108 billion to take over the parent company of HBO, Warner Bros. Studios and CNN, among other notable properties.

    It would appear to significantly outstrip the deal worth $83 billion that Netflix and Warner announced just last Friday, although that agreement is solely for Warner's streaming service and studios. If that deal were to go through, CNN and other cable channels would be spun off.

    Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world's richest people, and his son David, the movie producer and founder of Skydance Media, took over Paramount this summer. It's the parent company of CBS, Paramount Studios, the Paramount+ streaming service and more.

    Combining with Warner would let them create a Hollywood behemoth to take on Netflix, already the world's largest streamer. The Ellisons are also mindful of other major movie and TV streamers, particularly Amazon, Apple, and Disney, which bulked up a few years ago by acquiring most of Fox's entertainment assets.

    The Ellisons started the ball rolling earlier this year, forcing the hand of Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav by making an unsolicited bid. He ultimately put the company on the chopping block.

    In remarks on a conference call Monday with investors and reporters, Paramount executives accused Warner of "never engaging meaningfully" with its six various proposals.

    Warner did not respond to a request for comment. Netflix is expected to hold a call with investors Monday afternoon.

    Despite Zaslav's reluctance to sell to the Ellisons, they thought they had a dominant hand to play: they were offering a premium for the company's value on the open market and they were bidding for the entire enterprise.

    What's more, they had built strong ties to President Trump, whose government regulators ultimately would have to approve any such acquisition by an already established major Hollywood player.

    Larry Ellison is a donor, informal adviser and friend of the president. David Ellison has made two key hires at CBS — specifically in its news division — to ensure it will be perceived as less adversarial to Trump. A conservative former think tank chief has become its new ombudsman to review complaints. And Bari Weiss, founder of the right-of-center Free Press, has taken over the news division as editor in chief. Paramount's previous leadership had paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump against CBS News that legal observers described as flimsy.

    Presidential preferences are supposed to be held at arm's length from such reviews by antitrust regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department. But that's not how Washington operates under Trump.

    Even so, Trump's approval is never a sure thing. The Netflix announcement stirred instant opposition from a handful of U.S. senators in both parties. Trump was noncommittal in remarks Sunday.

    "Netflix is a great company and they've done a phenomenal job," Trump said. "They have a very big market share, and when they have Warner Bros., you know, that share goes up a lot, so I don't know, that's going to be for some economists to tell and also, I'll be involved in that decision too."

    However, Monday morning, Trump lashed out at CBS News for a 60 Minutes interview with Trump ally-turned-critic U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican who has announced she is stepping down. Paramount came in for particular scorn.

    "My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air," Trump wrote Monday morning in a post on Truth Social — after the Ellisons announced their hostile bid for Warner. "THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE!"

    Editor's note: Warner Bros. Discovery is among NPR's financial supporters.
    Copyright 2025 NPR