The Brief

Lawmakers’ efforts to free up state money for sober homeless housing have been thwarted for a second year in a row, after Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that had sailed to his desk with few “no” votes.

Assembly Bill 255 would have allowed cities and counties to spend up to 10% of their state funding on “recovery housing,” where people live in a sober environment and work on overcoming an addiction. The move would have tweaked California’s “housing first” strategy, which generally frowns on programs that put up barriers to housing — such as requiring people to stay clean or participate in treatment.

“It’s disappointing that the Governor vetoed AB 255,” the bill’s author, Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, said in a statement. “This bill was about giving people in recovery a real choice to have safe, sober housing when they need it. Californians who are working hard to stay sober are often forced into housing where drug use is allowed, and that puts their recovery and their lives at risk.”

The governor said the bill was unnecessary and would have created a “duplicative and costly new statutory category” for recovery housing. “Recent guidance” already allows cities and counties to spend state homelessness funds on sober housing, Newsom said in his veto message.

That was news to Haney.

“Unfortunately that is not the understanding shared by housing providers themselves, the legislature, the cities, counties and their attorneys, or people seeking recovery housing,” he said in a text to CalMatters.

In response to CalMatters' request for more detail on the state’s policies for funding sober housing, the governor's office sent a link to a draft policy document dated January, 2025, but then followed up with a final version dated July, 2025. The document says state money can fund sober housing as long as the people in that housing are sober by choice.

Haney's office had not seen the document until it was sent by a CalMatters reporter, said spokesperson Nate Allbee.

In his veto message for AB 255, Newsom said any future changes to the state's recovery housing policy should be considered through the annual budget process.

“California remains committed to advancing recovery housing within Housing First,” he said. “I encourage the author and stakeholders to continue working with my Administration to strengthen these options in ways that complement, rather than complicate, the state’s approach.”

Haney's bill would have set up a new system for the state’s housing department to regulate recovery housing, which would have cost an estimated $4.12 million in the first year, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s analysis. Recovery programs would have paid a fee for state certification. But those fees, likely amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, would not entirely offset the state’s costs, according to the analysis.

“I was a little surprised,” Sharon Rapport, California state policy director for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said of the governor’s veto. “But when I thought about it, I thought it probably did make sense, because part of the bill does require a certification program to be created, and there wasn’t funding for that.”

Flyers with information on the floor of the new detox center at the St. Vincent De Paul Village Family Health Center of Father Joe’s Villages in San Diego on Jan. 31, 2025.

(

Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters

)

Rapport’s organization worked with Haney’s office on some amendments to the bill, including reducing the percentage of state funding that can go to sober housing from 25% down to 10%.

Newsom’s veto message referenced the original 25% version of the bill. His office did not respond to an email asking why he used the old number.

In an effort to adhere to housing first principles, Haney’s bill specified that recovery housing residents wouldn’t be evicted just for relapsing. If they no longer wanted to participate in recovery, they could have continued living onsite until the program operator found them a new place to live.

This was Haney’s second attempt to funnel state money into recovery housing. His first, Assembly Bill 2479, died last year amid worries that it would siphon too much money away from low-barrier housing, and that people might lose their placement if they relapsed.

Since 2016, California has required housing providers to adopt a “housing first” model, which emphasizes getting people into housing even if they are addicted to drugs or alcohol, or struggling with a mental illness. Instead of requiring people to participate in treatment programs as a condition of getting housing, providers offer voluntary services. The idea is to get people housed as quickly and easily as possible, because it’s much easier to tackle someone’s other problems – such as their drug addiction – once the person has a roof over their head.

While both Haney and the governor are attempting to work sober housing into California’s existing housing first strategy, the federal administration, meanwhile, is attempting to blow up the entire policy.

President Donald Trump this summer issued an executive order directing federal agencies to end support for ‘housing first’ policies that “deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.” It directs those agencies to require people participating in federally-funded housing programs to participate in addiction and mental health treatment.

Haney said he remains a firm believer in housing first.

“I don’t think it is at all intended to help us be more responsive and effective,” he said of the federal policy change. “It’s intended to undermine responses to homelessness and affordable housing.”

This story has been updated to include a response from Gov. Gavin Newsom's office.

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

A brothel operating from more than 30 locations in residences and hotels across California has been shut down, according to authorities.

On Friday, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office announced the arrest of two Hacienda Heights residents, Kebin Dong and Wei Nie, on charges of pimping, pandering and conspiracy.

The two allegedly owned and operated a website offering sex services. The investigation found more than 60 profiles of women posted on the site.

Earlier this week, law enforcement officials from multiple agencies searched several suspected brothel sites in both Ventura and Los Angeles counties.

Bail for the two suspects is set at $200,000 each.

Topline:

Why it matters: Wasserman has been under fire for racy emails he exchanged decades ago with Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted sex trafficker and the ex-girlfriend of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The emails were made public as part of the release of millions of documents related to Epstein by the Justice Department in January.

Why now: In a memo obtained by the Wall Street Journal, Wasserman told his staff that he had "become a distraction" to the work of the high-profile talent agency that he founded more than two decades ago.

In recent days, a number of artists — including musician Chappell Roan — have said they are cutting ties with the Wasserman agency.

Background: Critics have also called for Wasserman to resign as head of LA28, the nonprofit and organizing body behind the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028.

Earlier this week, the board of LA28 expressed support for Wasserman.

.

The Los Angeles Unified School Board will vote Tuesday on a plan to eliminate jobs as the district contends with several years of spending more money than it brings in.

The reduction in force (RIF) vote is the first step in a monthslong process that could result in layoffs at the district’s central office and schools.

In meeting materials posted late Friday night, the district proposed issuing notices to thousands of employees and closing hundreds of additional positions at the central office.

The move would save approximately $250 million, part of an overall $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.”

“Even with approval,” the plan states, “with available reserves already being fully utilized, further reductions will be necessary based on the multi-year projections.”

Why is the board voting on potential job cuts?

For the past two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That deficit comes as enrollment has declined steeply but expenses have not.

There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s. At the same time, as costs have increased, the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

What’s in the plan?

Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff and at schools that support higher needs students.

The RIF proposal would:

• Authorize notices to about 2,600 certificated and classified contract management employees and certificated administrators (e.g. teachers, counselors, etc.).
• Close 657 central office and centrally funded classified positions. More than a third of these are IT technicians, by far the largest group.
• Reduce hours for 52 positions.
• Reduce pay for 22 positions.

“In total this represents less than 1% of the total Los Angeles Unified workforce,” the materials note.

It is unclear how many positions included in the proposed reduction in force will ultimately result in people being laid off. Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said in a previous board meeting that a RIF did not guarantee layoffs, as staff could be reassigned to other positions or given the opportunity to transfer schools.

The district's budget outlook could also change as employees retire or move to jobs elsewhere, etc.

What happens now? 

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off. Decisions have to be finalized by the end of June.

In a letter sent earlier this month, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

United Teachers Los Angeles members recently gave their leadership the power to call a strike if the union can’t reach a contract deal with the district.

How can I weigh in?

The board meets Tuesday at 10 a.m. Registration for public comment opens Monday at 9 a.m. Speakers can comment by phone or in person and are generally limited to two minutes.

You can also email all board members here or find your individual representative below or leave a voicemail message at (213) 443-4472, by 5 p.m. the day before the meeting .

In case you haven’t heard, a 3-year-old, female gray wolf was found last week near Lancaster.

Experts say it's the first time we’ve seen one of these carnivores in L.A. County in a century.

The young gray wolf is officially tagged as BEY03F. But Paula Ficara, executive director of the Apex Protection Project, has a better name.

“Everyone has decided to call her bae, which is really cute because that’s her number: B-E-Y. So for Valentines she can be your Bae: B-A-E,” Ficara said with a chuckle.

Ficara’s nonprofit has the mission of protecting captive-born wolves and wolf dogs, as well as wolves in the wild. They have a sanctuary in Acton, where 23 wolves live.

She said people have had a lot of questions about BEY: Is she sick? Is she a lone wolf?

“The truth is that ... the wolves are coming down. They’re migrating naturally back to their original habitat. ... She’s a young adult and she’s decided to go off in the hopes of starting her own family,” Ficara said.

It’s not impossible but unlikely that she’ll find a mate this far south. Ficara said she’s likely to go back home to Northern California if she can’t spot a partner within a couple weeks or so.

Steve Wastell, Ficara’s husband of 30 years and director of operations at Apex, explained their biggest concern while the wolf is in L.A. County.

“The last wolf that came down, almost this far, on his way back up, ended up being hit by a car. So that’s one of the biggest things that could happen to her,” Wastell said.

A male gray wolf, OR93, traveled as far down as Ventura County in 2021. But sadly, the wolf was hit by a vehicle and killed along Interstate 5 in Kern County.

It's part of the reason why Ficara and Wastell started the "Wolf Crossing" campaign. They’re encouraging people to post homemade wolf crossing signs at wildlife corridors, trailheads and other places where roads meet wild.

“Obviously, not everyone is going to slow down on the highway. But just to bring a little more awareness that there may be a wolf crossing,” Wastell said.

One of their first wolf crossing participants? A group of school-age kids who stopped by the sanctuary recently to learn about wolves and make a sign of their own to post in their area.

“They had just met most of our wolves here, face to face. And they were super excited about protecting and super excited about this wolf being down here. So they were like, 'Yeah, let's do it!'” Wastell said.

Wastell and Ficara are encouraging everyone to make a sign and post to social media in the hopes it will make L.A. a little more hospitable for our visitor from the north.