Sponsored message
Logged in as
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
  • Newsom promised them, but where are they?
    Rows upon rows of small white houses that look nearly identical to each other.
    An emergency non-congregate housing site in Chico on Sept. 6, 2023.

    Topline:

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said he’d send tiny homes to San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Diego County. Why haven’t any materialized yet?

    Why it matters: The move was part of Newsom’s push to improve the homelessness crisis by quickly moving people out of encampments and into more stable environments. But more than a year later, none of those tiny homes have welcomed a single resident. Only about 150 have even been purchased.

    Read more ... to see why this tiny home movement has fallen flat thus far.

    Lea esta historia en Español

    In March 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom stood before a crowd in Sacramento’s Cal Expo event center and made a promise: He’d send 1,200 tiny homes to shelter homeless residents in the capital city and three other places throughout the state.

    The move was part of Newsom’s push to improve the homelessness crisis by quickly moving people out of encampments and into more stable environments. But more than a year later, none of those tiny homes have welcomed a single resident. Only about 150 have even been purchased.

    Irontown Modular, one of six vendors the state chose to supply the tiny homes in Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego County, is “absolutely shocked” that they’ve received no orders, said Kam Valgardson, general manager of the Utah-based company.

    “The big problem is that the homeless people aren’t getting served,” Valgardson said. “I can complain as a business, but these homeless people are getting no support, no relief. The money’s been promised, but something’s broken in the process and nobody’s placing orders.”

    There have been multiple delays and about-faces, over everything from the way the state is funding the units to the ability of local cities and counties to find places to put them. The state has suggested the delays are the fault of local governments. But tiny homes have failed to materialize even when local leaders moved quickly to approve a project site.

    In some cases, it’s difficult to know exactly what’s holding up these projects. Communications involving the governor’s office are exempt from the California Public Records Act. Multiple requests by CalMatters for emails between the governor’s office and the cities and counties slated to receive the tiny homes were denied.

    The state has started construction at the Sacramento tiny home site, and has made funding available to the other three cities and counties to buy their own tiny homes — delivering on its promise, Monica Hassan, deputy director of the state’s Department of General Services, said in an email to CalMatters. That bolsters the state’s “already substantial efforts to help tackle the homelessness crisis,” she said.

    “Focusing solely on timelines diminishes the hard work of numerous individuals dedicated to providing much-needed housing,” she said.

    Bringing tiny homes to California

    The governor set up a big to-do when he made his tiny home promise in March of last year. He had sample tiny homes set up in the Cal Expo event center to use as a backdrop as he spoke. Local officials, including Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, flanked him to show their support and gratitude.

    The venue also was strategically chosen — Sacramento planned to set up its allotted 350 tiny homes right there, at Cal Expo.

    The plan was simple: The state would buy the tiny homes. The California National Guard would help prepare and deliver them, “free of charge and ready for occupancy.” Los Angeles was promised 500 tiny homes, Sacramento 350, San Jose 200 and San Diego County 150.

    In October 2023, Newsom’s office gave its first concrete update: It revealed the six companies it contracted with to supply the tiny homes. They ranged from Pallet, a Washington-based company that specializes in sheltering unhoused people and already has multiple sites up and running in California; to AMEG, a company based outside of Sacramento that does disaster recovery and modular home building, but hasn’t built a community for homeless residents before.

    But the project’s parameters changed. Instead of buying and delivering the units, the state decided to send several of the cities cash grants and let them order the tiny homes themselves. In San Jose, this left the city on the hook for more money than anticipated. The state awarded the city $13.3 million. Building the planned tiny homes for 200 people will cost $22.7 million, according to Mayor Mahan.

    Focusing solely on timelines diminishes the hard work of numerous individuals dedicated to providing much-needed housing.
    — Monica Hassan, deputy director, Department of General Services

    The mayor said San Jose told the state it would rather get tiny homes with en suite bathrooms, which are more expensive. But, Mahan said, San Jose was willing to cover the cost difference.

    Instead, Newsom’s administration decided to provide cash grants in place of fully built tiny homes. It’s more efficient, Hassan said.

    San Jose plans to open its tiny home site by July 2025.

    “This is a solution that even under this timeframe is significantly faster and lower cost than many alternatives,” Mahan said. “And we’re grateful for the support, and when unexpected things come up, we just roll with the punches.”

    Finding space to put these tiny homes — which is the responsibility of local cities and counties — also proved challenging. Plans to place Sacramento’s tiny homes at Cal Expo, where Newsom made his splashy announcement last year, fell apart. Instead, the state intends to set up 175 tiny homes on Stockton Boulevard. The county plans to install the remaining 175 on Watt Avenue.

    In March, a year after Newsom named San Diego County as one of the tiny home recipients, the County Board of Supervisors finally approved a location for the project in Spring Valley. But there’s still a lot to do. The county has to test the soil and make sure the site is safe. After that, officials plan to start getting community feedback on the planned project. The county has not yet bought the tiny homes or set an opening date.

    “Like every other homelessness policy solution, local governments are fundamentally the drivers and fundamentally the implementers,” said Jason Elliott, Newsom’s deputy chief of staff. “What the state has done is provide billions of dollars in new investment, dozens and dozens of bills to cut red tape and a policy framework that pushes for faster action to resolve unsheltered encampments. But as we have seen time and time again in California, local commitment and partnership is the other side of that coin.”

    San Jose, in contrast to San Diego County, approved plans to set up tiny homes at the Cerone bus yard back in October. Even so, the state didn’t send San Jose a grant agreement until March, Mahan said.

    Of the four communities promised tiny homes, the state has made the most progress in Sacramento. In late January and early February, the state bought 155 units from BOSS, a tiny home company based in Montebello in Southern California. Those units, most of which are 70 square feet, have been built and are ready to ship to Stockton Avenue, said Kris Van Giesen, senior vice president of community development.

    After a brief delay due to rain, a contractor hired by the state has started building out the infrastructure at the Stockton Avenue site, Hassan said. It’s slated to open this fall.

    In Los Angeles, city officials still haven’t finalized locations for their tiny homes.

    “The city has been working diligently to evaluate potential sites, coordinate relevant departments and prepare plans that will be submitted to the state by the end of May,” Gabby Maarse, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office, said in an email.

    No one is ordering tiny homes

    Another big selling point of Newsom’s plan: His administration opened up the contracts so that other cities and counties (in addition to the chosen four) could use their own money to buy tiny homes from the six approved vendors, without going through a time-consuming and bureaucratic request for proposal process.

    That move was supposed to help get more tiny homes deployed quickly, and therefore, move more people out of encampments. But CalMatters spoke with all six approved vendors, and none have received any orders through that process.

    Several companies said a handful of cities have reached out and expressed interest. But without cash from the state, many are finding it hard to pull the trigger.

    In Los Angeles, city officials still haven’t finalized locations for their tiny homes.

    “A lot of these cities are struggling to find the funding they need,” said Amy King, founder and CEO of Pallet.

    The cheapest Pallet tiny home approved by the state contract sells for $18,900. Add an en suite bathroom, and the price jumps to $55,350. That’s still considerably cheaper than other housing options.

    Other companies said the state hasn’t done as much as it could to promote the effort. There’s no website that lists the vendors covered by the state contracts, the available models and price comparisons, said Anmol Mehra, co-founder of Plugin House, an Austin-based modular home company and one of the six approved vendors.

    And the state insists on approving any promotional materials the vendors put out on their own, Valgardson said. After his company, Irontown Modular, accidentally posted marketing materials online prematurely, the state made them take the materials down and get approval. It took almost two months to get the green light, Valgardson said.

    The tiny home companies said they had to jump through myriad hoops to secure the state contracts. Several said they had to design new products specifically to meet the state’s strict requirements for everything from vapor-resistant light fixtures to emergency exit lighting. It took months and cost tens of thousands of dollars, Valgardson said.

    David Baldwin, owner of AMEG, expected orders to start rolling in by December of last year. It’s “a little bit frustrating,” he said.

    “We’re ready to go,” he said. “We have people chomping at the bit that want to go help.”

  • LA beats Braves to clinch NLDS
    A baseball player for the Dodgers wearing number 44 celebrating on the field.
    Dodgers center fielder Andy Pages celebrates after hitting a two run RIB-single during the seventh inning in Game 4 of the National League Division Series against the Atlanta Braves.

    Topline:

    The Dodgers beat the Atlanta Braves 4-1 on Wednesday night to clinch their NL Division Series, as they seek to become the first NL team to win three straight World Series.


    What happened: Andy Pages drove in two runs with a bases-loaded single in the seventh inning to give Los Angeles the lead.

    What's next: The Dodgers will face Milwaukee or San Diego in Game 1 of the NLCS on Sunday.

    Andy Pages drove in two runs with a bases-loaded single in the seventh inning to give Los Angeles the lead, and the Dodgers beat the Atlanta Braves 4-1 on Wednesday night to clinch their NL Division Series.

    The Dodgers won back-to-back games in Atlanta to take the best-of-five matchup 3-1 and advance to the National League Championship Series as they seek to become the first NL team to win three straight World Series.

    Pages lined a 3-2 pitch from Robert Suarez up the middle to drive in Teoscar Hernández, who singled off starter Tyler Mahle, and pinch-runner Tommy Edman for a 3-1 lead. Didier Fuentes walked pinch-hitter Josue De Paula and Kyle Tucker to load the bases. Edman ran for De Paula.

    Max Muncy’s solo shot off Raisel Iglesias in the ninth padded the lead and gave the slugger 19 postseason homers with the Dodgers, extending his franchise record.

    Dodgers right-hander Tyler Glasnow, making his first start since Sept. 24, allowed only one hit but walked five batters in 4 2/3 innings. After he issued two walks in the fifth, left-hander Alex Vesia ended the inning on Matt Olson’s groundout to second base.

    The missed opportunity left the Braves with 18 walks in the series, and none scored.

    Glasnow and four relievers combined to give up just three hits. Tanner Scott pitched a perfect eighth before Edwin Díaz got three quick outs for the save.

    Mahle, a native of Newport Beach, California, who grew up a Dodgers fan, allowed two runs — one earned — in 6 1/3 innings.

    Michael Harris II hit Glasnow’s first pitch for a single before stealing second and eventually scoring from third on a wild pitch that bounced off catcher Will Smith’s chest protector.

    The Dodgers pulled even in the second with the help of two Atlanta errors. Shohei Ohtani walked, stole second and advanced to third on catcher Sean Murphy’s errant throw into center field. Muncy’s pop fly into shallow left field was dropped by shortstop Mauricio Dubón for another error, allowing Ohtani to score.

    Hernández crashed into the wall while attempting to catch Ozzie Albies’ double off Vesia leading off the sixth. Hernández pointed to his head and neck when talking to an athletic trainer but remained in the game.

    Edgardo Henriquez stranded Albies at second. Henriquez allowed one hit in 1 2/3 scoreless innings for the win.

    Injury report

    Dodgers second baseman Miguel Rojas was held out after leaving Tuesday night’s 3-1 win during an at-bat in the eighth inning with lower back soreness. Los Angeles manager Dave Roberts said Rojas would not be available off the bench.

    Ronald Acuña Jr. started in right field for Atlanta one day after being moved to designated hitter in a late lineup change due to right knee soreness.

    Up next

    The Dodgers will face Milwaukee or San Diego in Game 1 of the NLCS on Sunday.

  • Sponsored message
  • L.A. to limit sale of nitrous oxide
    A tall white building, Los Angeles City Hall, is poking out into a clear blue sky. A person walking on the sidewalk in front of the building is silhouetted by shadows.
    A pedestrian is walking past City Hall in Los Angeles on Tuesday, July 8, 2025.
    Listen 0:39
    LISTEN: LA joins other local governments that have banned nitrous oxide sales

    Topline:

    The L.A. City Council voted Wednesday to ban tobacco and cannabis shops from selling nitrous oxide, a drug often called laughing gas or whippits. The new city ordinance will add penalties that include up to a $1,000 fine or six months in county jail if approved by Mayor Karen Bass.

    Why it matters: The FDA warns that inhaling or misusing nitrous oxide, which is sometimes used by dentists and medical doctors to sedate patients, can lead to serious health problems or death. Many community members say they have seen the drug’s recreational use become normalized. Among those who advocated for the City Council to approve the ban were several students from Bert Corona High School in Pacoima.

    “  I want to grow up in a community that's drug-free, where we feel safe just walking around, where this isn't just accepted as a part of everyday life,”  Mayra Rodriguez said during public comment at the City Council meeting. “We shouldn't have to grow up around this.”

    Other laughing gas bans: Local governments have banned nitrous oxide in places like Rialto, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills last month that put statewide bans on nitrous oxide from being sold at retail locations, with added flavors or in containers larger than 8 grams.

    More context: It has been a misdemeanor under state law to knowingly sell or possess nitrous oxide for use as a recreational drug for more than a decade, but the state allows it to be used for things like medical care, vehicle performance and cooking.

    Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who introduced the motion that passed Wednesday, said the city ordinance will strengthen existing protections enacted by the state. She asked community members to report any cannabis or tobacco shops selling nitrous oxide to the City Attorney’s office at TEP@lacity.org.

  • The suit alleges they were illegal
    President Donald Trump speaks during an event on health care affordability in the Oval Office at the White House on Thursday in Washington.

    Topline:

    The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump’s administration for recent television advertisements that promoted his political message while costing taxpayers millions of dollars. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them.

    The backstory: The spots, which began airing in September, already have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact, and a total of $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped to pay for them. Responding Monday to the criticism, Trump defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he’d pay for them using his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward.

    What's next: The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them. Trump has faced bipartisan backlash for the ads, which glorify him and echo his campaign pitch as voters cast early ballots with the midterm elections less than a month away.

    The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump’s administration for recent television advertisements that promoted his political message while costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

    The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them.

    Trump has faced bipartisan backlash for the ads, which glorify him and echo his campaign pitch as voters cast early ballots with the midterm elections less than a month away.

    The spots, which began airing in September, already have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact, and a total of $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped to pay for them.

    Responding Monday to the criticism, Trump defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he’d pay for them using his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward.

    But on Tuesday, the fifth ad in the campaign began airing with the notice “paid for by the U.S. Government,” promoting Trump’s military actions in Venezuela earlier this year. The same day, Trump made it clear he hasn’t committed to reimbursing any money that has already been spent, telling reporters “we’ll decide.”

    DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Trump is misusing taxpayer dollars in “a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November.”

    “Americans deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump’s illegal schemes,” he added.

    Legal experts have suggested the ads run afoul of a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda,” and potentially other federal laws. The Homeland Security money tapped for the ads comes from a $175 million package Congress gave to the department as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

    The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. Legal experts have said the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

    The defendants in the lawsuit — Trump, the White House, DHS and the Office of Management and Budget — didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

  • Time to get your shot given 2026's trend

    Topline:

    The annual flu season usually starts in October or November. But this year, it looks like the flu started to pick up in early September.

    Why now: The timing of the flu season isn't the only thing that's odd. It's also unusual that flu activity seems to have started in Western states, such as California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska, experts say.

    The backstory: It's unclear why flu activity would have started so early, and in such an unusual part of the country. But one clue might be a new variant that evolved a mutation, which appears to make it better at evading existing immunity, especially among teenagers.

    What's next: Experts suggest scheduling your flu shot.

    Fall has only just begun, but it's already time to start thinking about the quintessential winter bug: the flu.

    The annual flu season usually starts in October or November. But this year, it looks like the flu started to pick up in early September.

    "There are enough signs pointing in the same direction to make me think, 'OK, yes. This is the start of flu season,'" says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    The percentage of people testing positive for the flu in the West has been rising steadily since around the beginning of September, she says. And the number of people showing up in emergency departments because of the flu has also been rising for weeks, she adds.


    "It's very uncommon to see flu activity rising this early. It's activity that we might normally see more like November or December," she says.

    The timing of the flu season isn't the only thing that's odd. It's also unusual that flu activity seems to have started in Western states, such as California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska.

    "It typically starts in the South and then expands from there," Rivers says. "So two uncommon developments there."

    Rivers stresses that the amount of flu activity is still very low in most parts of the country. But that's starting to change as the flu picks up nationwide.

    It's unclear why flu activity would have started so early, and in such an unusual part of the country. But one clue might be a new variant that evolved a mutation, which appears to make it better at evading existing immunity, especially among teenagers.

    "That's our best argument for what's going on right now in terms of this early flu season," says Dr. Alex Greninger, a virologist who heads infectious disease diagnostics at the University of Washington. Doctors there are seeing as much flu right now as they usually would around Christmas, and the mutated variant appears to be common, he says.

    So Greninger, Rivers and others are urging people to think about getting their flu shot earlier than usual.

    "It's crucial that people get an influenza vaccine," says Scott Hensley, a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania. "And this might be a year that people might want to get a vaccine early."

    But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn't been promoting flu shots as it usually does. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees the CDC, is a long-time vaccine skeptic.

    "It is disappointing that CDC is quiet given that flu kills of hundreds of kids a year and can result in tens of thousands of hospitalizations and tens of thousands of deaths," says Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned last year as the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protest what he called political interference at the agency.

    The CDC declined to make an official available to NPR for this story. In a statement, a CDC spokesperson said, "CDC is developing a communications strategy to provide clear, accessible information about influenza vaccination and other critical steps people can take to protect themselves during respiratory virus season. This includes information about the benefits and risks of vaccination to support informed decision-making."
    Copyright 2026 NPR