The Brief

Three candidates for the job of leading Los Angeles laid out competing visions this week for how they would handle the city’s homelessness crisis and disagreed about Inside Safe — Mayor Karen Bass' program for moving people off the streets.

During part of a two-day forum Monday, Bass defended her signature program, which clears tent encampments by offering motels rooms and other temporary shelter, as well as her administration's record on homelessness.

She promised, if she won a second term, to build a larger temporary shelter system and to fix problems that have slowed payments from the city to nonprofit organizations.

“L.A. has decreased street homelessness two years in a row, 17.5%,” Bass said, speaking to a gathering of homeless-service providers. “The only reason that happened is because of everybody in this room.”

A day later, Councilmember Nithya Raman and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller suggested alternatives to Inside Safe, noting its cost.

Raman said she would scale up a different city program — Time Limited Subsidies, sometimes referred to as rapid rehousing. The program provides temporary rental assistance at about one-third the cost of Inside Safe, according to the city administrative officer.

Miller said he would phase out Inside Safe entirely and replace it with tiny-home villages at a fraction of the price of Bass' program.

Homelessness is a major issue for voters in the June primary. More than 43,000 people remain unhoused in the city of L.A. despite years of record city spending — about $1 billion annually in recent years, according to the City Controller’s Office.

Fourteen candidates are running for L.A. mayor. The top five leading contenders were invited to the forum held in downtown L.A. and hosted by homeless shelter operator Hope the Mission.

Candidates Spencer Pratt and the Rev. Rae Huang declined to participate.

Mayor Karen Bass spoke Monday at the Original Pantry Cafe in downtown L.A. at at event hosted by homeless shelter Hope The Mission.

(

Aaron Schrank

/

LAist

)

Housing First?

The candidates disagreed on “housing first,” an approach to homelessness assistance that prioritizes getting unhoused people into permanent housing without first requiring them to be sober, employed or meet other conditions.

Bass said she believes in the policy but argued the city has applied it too rigidly for decades, leaving people unsheltered while they wait years for permanent housing to be built.

“I agree with the notion of housing first, but I don't think people should be on the street waiting for you to build something,” Bass said.

Raman, an L.A. City Council member since December 2020, said the question isn't what comes first but what each person needs. The biggest gap right now is mental health resources, she said.

“When I see someone who's on the street who has deep mental health challenges, I can't get any help for them,” Raman said. “I can't get somebody out there to help them.”

Miller, who is CEO of homelessness nonprofit Better Angels, said L.A. needs to move away from housing-first policies in favor of more temporary shelters coupled with treatment and other support.

“Housing first doesn't work,” Miller said. “We have to stabilize them in interim housing first with services and then move them to permanent housing.

"That's the only way we're gonna keep people off the street.”

L.A. City Council member Nithya Raman spoke Tuesday at the Original Pantry Cafe downtown.

(

Aaron Schrank

/

LAist

)

Inside Safe

Since late 2022, the city has spent more than $390 million on Inside Safe to clear 121 homeless encampments and place about 5,800 people into interim housing, according to the regional Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA.

About 25% of those people are currently living in permanent housing, according to LAHSA. About 30% of them reside in temporary shelters. About 40% have returned to homelessness.

According to a February report by Los Angeles' city administrative officer, the average nightly cost of an Inside Safe motel room is about $225.81, or roughly $82,420 a year. That’s compared to $86.37 per night for other shelter options.

Bass defended the program but said it needs to bring down costs. She said she’s exploring the possibility of building and operating shelter sites on city-owned land to reduce leasing costs.

Raman said people are staying in temporary shelter for more than a year — comparing it to being left in an emergency room.

“I believe in encampment resolution,” she said. “What I don't believe in is bringing people indoors and then just leaving them there with no support and no resources.”

Miller said he would try a different approach, tiny-home villages, but acknowledged that ending Inside Safe would take time.

“You can't turn it off Day 1 because we’d have too many people that are back on the street,” he said.

The average construction cost of a tiny-home village is about $42,000 per unit, according to the nonprofit A-Mark Foundation.

Adam Miller, CEO of homelessness nonprofit Better Angels, argues L.A. needs a political outsider to get the homelessness crisis under control.

(

Aaron Schrank

/

LAist

)

Ending homelessness 

Each of the candidates expressed a desire to make big reductions in the city's unhoused population over the next few years, and perhaps eliminate it entirely.

Bass pointed to a 17.5% reduction in street homelessness over two years and said her goal for a second term is to end unsheltered homelessness — meaning those living on the streets — not just manage it.

“There's no reason for us to have street homelessness by the end of the next four years,” she said. “There just really isn't.”

Raman said she shares that ambition. She had already pledged to reduce street homelessness by at least 50% before the 2028 Olympics and "eliminate long-term encampments."

“I think we can end street homelessness in this city," she said, "but we cannot just pay lip service to it.”

Miller’s campaign platform includes a goal to reduce street homelessness by 60% and reduce homeless encampments by 80%. Miller has not previously held an elected government office, but he argued the city needs fresh leadership more than it needs political experience.

“L.A. has lost hope,” he said. "We need to have the belief that this is a problem that can and should be solved.”

The primary is June 2. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the top two vote-getters will advance to face each other in a November runoff.

The Los Angeles City Council decided Tuesday to put off the full effects of a major new state housing law by allowing low-rise apartment buildings in some neighborhoods where such housing has long been banned.

All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting.

California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1. The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops.

However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.

Why it matters

L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes.

Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.

The reaction

Some local officials and homeowners have expressed frustration over new state limits on their ability to stop development in low-density zones. But advocates for more development said the council’s decision will help address high rents by allowing more housing in areas that have long been off-limits to new apartments.

“The City Council voted to open up high-resource single-family neighborhoods near transit stations,” said Scott Epstein, policy director with Abundant Housing L.A. “This reform is long overdue and will help build a future where Angelenos of all incomes can find homes in the neighborhoods of their choice.”

Where will the projects be allowed?

Officials with the city’s planning department said residents can see whether Low-Rise Ordinance projects will be allowed in their neighborhood by clicking on this interactive map and making two selections from the “layer list” menu: “Opportunity Station Sites Eligible for Low Rise” and “Sites Eligible for Low Rise Outside of Opportunity Station.”

The map shows that some of the areas eligible for new apartment buildings under this plan include Westside neighborhoods within a half-mile of the E Line’s Westwood/Rancho Park station, pockets of the San Fernando Valley near G Line stops, and parts of Eagle Rock along Colorado Boulevard’s planned North Hollywood to Pasadena rapid bus line.

Is this a done deal?

Both plans — the decision to delay full SB 79 implementation, and the new Low-Rise Ordinance — now go to Mayor Karen Bass for final approval. Council members are also considering some tweaks they say would help Low-Rise Ordinance projects get built.

Those changes would include letting developers build denser projects if they reserve more units for low-income renters, as well as rules that would let developers build ground-level parking instead of costlier underground parking. The council’s planning committee voted Tuesday to forward those suggestions to the full City Council for further debate.

There’s a new tool to fight illegal fireworks this Fourth of July: drones.

“A drone’s real-time aerial view can help officers assess situations faster, improve safety, support faster response times and ensure the right resources are sent where they’re needed most,” the Anaheim Police Department stated in an Instagram post.

Anaheim's department is the latest law enforcement agency using the technology to quickly identify illegal fireworks use. The Downey City Council is expected to vote Tuesday night on potential new fines and new rules that would allow local law enforcement to use drones to patrol neighborhoods for illegal fireworks usage.

How it works

Here's how the tech is put to use: Seconds after authorities receive a call reporting illegal fireworks activity, drones can take to the air, hovering above neighborhoods and businesses to find a specific location and an offender. The surveillance devices are equipped with night vision and zoom lenses that allow first responders to record high definition videos right from their Real Time Crime Center at the station.

Then, officers can determine whether to send out a patrol car or issue a citation for the incident.

Why it matters

The city’s drone usage comes as law enforcement agencies across Southern California brace for the annual flood of complaints about illegal firework use at this time of the year. Drones make the most effective use of time and resources, experts say.

“We'll typically see about 2,000 calls and about 300 related to fireworks,” Anaheim’s chief communications officer Mike Lyster explained about the Fourth of July. “It really is a better use of resources on what is always a very, very busy holiday for us.”

Drones allow officials to collect enough evidence to issue these citations. In Anaheim, the punishment starts at $1,000 and climbs to $3,000 by the third offense. But authorities say the goal is to curb illegal fireworks use altogether due to the risk of injury and wildfires.

Lyster hopes that people will think twice about using illegal fireworks this holiday — not just because of the fines — but because of its negative impact on local communities.

“The Palisades fire was ultimately started by illegal fireworks, and sadly, not in our city, but in our neighboring city, a young Anaheim girl died in an illegal fireworks incident last year,” Lyster said.

Where are drones already in use?

More cities are testing this method in order to crack down on illegal firework use. Sacramento, San Bernardino and Riverside are just a few of the other areas that have adopted this technology in recent years.

How do I know what's legal?

If you have any questions about what is legal or not in your community, a quick Google search can help.

Each county goes by different regulations for the types of fireworks you can use — if at all.

For example, parts of Anaheim allow “safe and sane” fireworks to be used only on the Fourth of July between 10 a.m and 10 p.m. This includes non-explosive, non-aerial devices like fountains, sparklers and smoke balls. State-approved fireworks will have a State Fire Marshal seal.

LAist staffer Anjanette Gile also contributed to this report.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet?

On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block … while drinking amazing coffee.

From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!

It’s part of Local News Day LA, a pop-up series organized by The LA Local that connects you with your local reporter and give you a chance to become the source instead of just the reader.

LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.

See below for the full list of participating media outlets and coffee shops — The LA Local and our media partners hope you’ll join us:

LAist will be joining The LA Local and other local media partners for Local News Day LA on June 27.

(

The LA Local

)

Where to find a journalist

1. The LA Local – Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake will be hosted by Open Market
2. The LA Local – Inglewood and South LA will be hosted by Asteroid Vinyl Cafe
3. Boyle Heights Beat will be hosted by Picaresca Cafe
4. CalMatters will be hosted by Yia Caffe 
5. Calo News will be hosted by Cruzita’s Deli and Cafe
6. The Eastsider will be hosted by Rosebud Coffee (Highland Park location)
7. LAist will be hosted by Cafe Calle
8. Los Angeles Radio Collective will be hosted by Spoke Bicycle Cafe
9. LA Sentinel will be hosted by Patria Coffee
10. LA Taco will be hosted by Cafecito Organico (Silverlake location)
11. LA Public Press will be hosted by Holy Grounds Coffee & Tea
12. Long Beach Post will be hosted by Wrigley Coffee
13. Q Voice News will be hosted by Hot Java
14. USC Annenberg Media will be hosted by South LA Cafe (Western location)

Come enjoy a cup of coffee (or tea) with us while supplies last. 

A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.

The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.

The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”

In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.

“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.