The Brief

There’s no question people in L.A. County consume a lot of pot — nearly a million pounds of cannabis each year according to official reports. While the demand is clearly there, legal cannabis businesses in the city of Los Angeles say they are struggling just to stay open.

Cannabis business owners told LAist they struggle to pay high taxes and fees while they watch illegal operations go unchecked. They say when they’ve tried to talk to city officials, they’ve been stonewalled and shut out.

Some licensed cannabis business owners have had to close. Others say they are months — if not weeks — from having to shut their doors, leading to lawsuits and a rowdy, confetti-filled confrontation at a public meeting.

Many of these business owners are part of L.A.’s Social Equity Program, which was supposed to provide a boost to Black and Brown communities disproportionately targeted by previous criminalization of pot. Instead of a leg up, the business owners told LAist the program has led to a cycle of stress, debts and broken promises.

They’re not the only ones with debts to pay.

One state audit found that grant funds meant to help cannabis businesses may not have been spent as intended. The L.A. Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) estimated the city may need to return up to $10 million they received from that grant to the state.

An audit of another grant found that $1.8 million meant to go directly to social equity businesses was also not used according to grant agreements, according to email correspondence LAist acquired through a public records request.

In emailed responses to LAist questions, Jennifer Marroquin, a spokesperson for DCR, said a resolution was made with the state on the $1.8 million figure and that the department has returned nearly $48,000 in grant money that was not spent during the grant term. Marroquin said the state recently granted another $3.5 million to support L.A.’s Social Equity Program.

Marroquin said the program provides “free and low cost legal assistance” to applicants and business owners. The department is a permitting agency, Marroquin said, and “does not get involved in private business disputes, business decisions, collect taxes or engage law enforcement for unremitted taxes.” LAist has reached out to Mayor Karen Bass, who did not respond prior to publication.

Whitney Beatty told LAist that she was promised grants, technical assistance and legal services through the Social Equity Program to help run her dispensary, Josephine & Billie’s in Exposition Park. She’s one of about 240 current cannabis business owners licensed through the program — among about 700 total legal shops in the city.

“ I'm spending tens of thousands of dollars just to stay licensed and compliant, in a system that charges my customers over 40% in taxes while they can walk across the street to an unlicensed shop and buy untaxed, untested product for half the price,” Beatty said at a Cannabis Regulation Commission meeting on July 2.

“This isn't just bad policy, it's a betrayal of the equity promise.”

The high price of cannabis business

Los Angeles created the Social Equity Program in 2019 “to promote equitable ownership and employment opportunities in the cannabis industry, with the purpose of decreasing disparities in life outcomes for marginalized communities directly impacted by the War on Drugs,” according to the city’s website.

Since then, the program has provided about $13 million in grants directly to business owners, according to an LAist analysis of DCR data. In all, the 271 applicants who got grant funding received an average of around $48,000.

Even some business owners who received the maximum total grant amount — about $93,000 — told LAist that the money didn’t go far to cover taxes, fees and other costs they say were imposed on them by DCR.

Business owners have to pay a variety of fees, costing tens of thousands a year.

Taxes on cannabis products in the city of L.A. are significantly higher than those on other products.

In addition to the standard 9.75% city sales tax, cannabis businesses pay another 10% in business tax, and a state cannabis excise tax of 19%. That brings the total tax rate on legal cannabis in L.A. to a staggering 39.75%, according to an L.A. City Council motion presented by Councilmember Imelda Padilla in July.

Padilla’s motion called for an analysis of the potential effects of lowering the city’s cannabis tax in an effort to make L.A.’s shops more competitive — both with unlicensed shops and with neighboring cities that have lower base tax rates like Long Beach (8%) and Pasadena (4%).

Many L.A. business owners like Brandon Brinson say they simply can’t afford to pay all of their taxes in the current market. While Padilla’s motion is still making its way through committees at the City Hall, he and others say they’re running out of time.

Brinson and his wife, Evelyn, opened their business in 2022. Just three years later, Brinson is closing up The Green Paradise shop in Mid-Wilshire. He said the high taxes, fees and rent are to blame.

Brinson spoke with LAist at his cannabis dispensary storefront on July 25, the day before he had to turn over his keys to his landlord. His shop’s shelves were bare.

Brinson said his experience with the social equity program has been frustrating from the start and has “ led to nothing but complete debt and devastation.”

He first applied for the social equity program in 2019, and it took a lawsuit for him to be able to apply for a license.

The lawsuit, filed by social equity applicants against the city in 2020, claimed that some were given an unfair advantage by being allowed to access the application portal before it officially opened. Every second was crucial, they said, in a race that only gave the first 100 applicants an opportunity to open a licensed business. As a result of the lawsuit, the city issued additional licenses to entrepreneurs including Brinson.

“ They just painted this grand opportunity to rebuild the Black community . . .  to help rebuild or restore the harm done from the War on Drugs,” he said. “ So we jumped in. It was a no-brainer at that time.”

Three years after opening, he said social equity applicants like himself received “crumbs” compared to what they were promised in support from the city.

Instead, Brinson said he found himself paying high taxes, fees and rent that pushed him out of business.

To make matters worse, he said he had to compete with an unlicensed shop right next door.

LAist has confirmed that the shop next door is not licensed with the city and sells cannabis.

LAPD Captain Ahmad Zarekani, who heads the department’s Gang and Narcotics Division, told city officials at a committee meeting in February that enforcing cannabis laws is “not the priority” for his department after legalization.

Zarekani said that proactively policing illegal cannabis businesses takes resources away from other priorities. Even when his division makes arrests and shuts down a business, Zarekani said there are rarely consequences for those cases.

“The people basically just move, move to another location, open the business, and they're back making money,” Zarekani told members of the Government Operations Committee, adding that he believes licensed businesses are “victimized” by illegal cannabis shops.

Brinson said that even though he is licensed and the shop next door is not, he is the one who has to deal with law enforcement.

“ The police have come and raided me,” Brinson recounted to LAist before sharing videos of California Highway Patrol officers pulling up to his store and moving his employees away from the cash register.

Kika Keith, owner of the dispensary Gorilla RX in South L.A., said she has had similar experiences with law enforcement.

She told LAist in May that officers had come to her store four times in eight months to collect taxes for the state.

“They come with 20 officers,” Keith said. “They disarmed the security guard.  I mean, you would think that there was an armed killer inside of my store with the level of force and presence that they show, yet they don't go right down the street and shut down those [illicit] stores.”

Kika Keith poses for a photo at her dispensary, Gorilla RX, in South L.A. on May 1, 2025.

(

Jordan Rynning

/

LAist

)

Brinson and Keith both emphasized that as licensed businesses, they sell tested and regulated products. They say there is no way to know what is in the products at the unlicensed shops.

Other licensed cannabis distributors have decided they will no longer pay the city’s taxes.

“Until we get services, Catalyst Cannabis Co. and a bunch of others . . . are withholding our tax money from the city of L.A.,” Elliot Lewis of Catalyst Cannabis Co. announced at a City Council meeting in April.

Councilmember Padilla, who chairs the city’s Government Operations Committee, said at a June meeting that 700 cannabis businesses had fallen behind on their taxes.

An LAist analysis found there are currently only about 700 cannabis businesses with active licenses. And business owners told LAist their mounting tax bills don’t just go away when they’re forced to close.

Cancelled committee hearings

Kika Keith told LAist that the Cannabis Regulation Commission has for months denied cannabis business owners the opportunity to discuss the effect state and local taxes have had on their businesses.

Thryeris Mason, president of the commission, set aside time ahead of their March meeting for that discussion. Then it was removed from the agenda without explanation.

“At the Feb. 6, 2025, meeting, I did request that taxation be on this agenda,” Mason said at a commission meeting on March 20. “For reasons unknown to me and other members of this commission, that did not happen, so I am going to again request that taxation be placed on a future agenda within the next 30 days.”

Mason added that, as president of the commission, she is responsible for setting the agenda, according to the commission rules and operating procedures.

A discussion of taxation was on the agenda released ahead of a May 15 commission meeting, but was placed last, after eight other items. Business owners told LAist they had been promised a special meeting on the topic, and were concerned there would be too little time to address their concerns.

Keith told LAist that she and other business owners believed control of the commission had been “subverted” by department administrators.

Business owners spoke during the public comments portion of the May meeting. Brinson called the commission a “circus” before showering the podium with confetti.

Brandon Brinson shoots confetti into the air while giving public comments at a Cannabis Regulation Commission meeting on May 15, 2025.

(

Jordan Rynning

/

LAist

)

When it was clear to the business owners that the commission was not going to discuss tax issues, some in the crowd began yelling at the commission members who then called the meeting to a close.

The crowd was guided into an adjacent room.

Soon, more than a dozen officers began pouring out of elevator doors to see a raucous crowd.

Someone in the crowd yelled out, “Hey, bring it in!”

Another called, “Kika, we need you in the group photo!”

One of the cannabis business owners counted down and snapped pictures on a cell phone, before they turned their attention to the police officers.

“I didn’t know you all responded this fast!” A business owner yelled to the officers, “It takes an hour and a half to get to my South L.A. store!”

The next two scheduled meetings were cancelled after the disruption.

Cannabis business owners disrupt the Cannabis Regulation Commission meeting on May 15, 2025, after discussions on tax rates were removed from the agenda.

(

Jordan Rynning

/

LAist

)

“We’re being abused”

The Social Equity Program is managed by the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR), a full cost-recovery department that is primarily funded through fees on licensed cannabis businesses. Unlike most other departments, it does not receive money from the city’s general fund. Cannabis business owners like Madison Shockley say they believe this incentivizes the department to charge businesses more in fees, and then waive some of those fees using grant funds from the state, which the department can then keep to pay for department expenses.

“ So they say this fee would've cost $9,000,” Shockley told LAist, “but look, we waived it for you, so we saved you some money. But that was money they were supposed to give to me to spend on what I needed to spend.”

Update: Hours after dispensary owner talked to LAist, state seizes over $10,000 in back taxes from his legal cannabis business

From 2019 through last year, the Department of Cannabis Regulation has received more than $44 million from the state as part of two grants according to agreement records — about $22 million meant to help social equity program applicants and an additional $22 million for the city from transition provisional cannabis licenses to annual licenses.

Business owners aren’t the only ones with questions about where that money went. State officials also say some of those funds were not properly distributed by the city.

The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, or GO-Biz, conducted an audit of the Department of Cannabis Regulation’s grant spending and found issues with how some funds were spent.

In emails obtained by LAist through a public records request, officials for GO-Biz called for $1.8 million of the funds meant for social equity applicants to be returned to the state.

LA’s social equity program director Imani Brown told GO-Biz that, instead of going directly to equity business owners the money in question was used by the city to waive licensing fees of social equity applicants and pay contracted vendors.

The city argued that this use of the funds was approved by the state. William Koch, a deputy director at GO-Biz disagreed, replying that the city department failed to show that the funds were used in line with grant agreements.

What's next

Jason Killeen, an assistant executive director in the department who spoke at a City Council budget hearing on May 2, said the state could make L.A. return up to $10 million of the funds provided from the two grants.

Shockley told LAist that he thinks the department is charging business owners like him more than city policy requires.

He filed a lawsuit against the city last month, claiming DCR is requiring him to pay more than $15,000 in fees for an annual licensing process he says he never applied for.

Shockley said that paying the additional fees, about half of which were set to be due on July 31, would put him out of business. On the other hand, he said, not paying the fees after DCR started the process on his behalf would mean he would become ineligible for a license in 2026, also putting him out of business.

Unable to find a lawyer in time for the hearing, Shockley represented himself in a hearing before Judge Theresa M. Traber on July 25.

Shockley called the hearing a “Hail Mary effort” to keep his business alive.

When Judge Traber considered issuing a temporary restraining order on the city, deputy city attorney Patrick Hagan said the city would agree to put a hold on Shockley’s fees until further hearings could be held.

Shockley said this victory in court saved his business, but that similar situations have forced other business owners to close their doors.

While cannabis businesses struggle, the Department of Cannabis Regulation has been growing.

A report presented to the City Council in April on proposed fee increases found that the department’s staff had grown 73 percent and salary rates had increased 18 percent since fiscal year 2021, when the fees were last updated.

The report recommended that fees be increased to cover the additional costs, but Shockley says business owners haven’t received any noticeable increase in services from the larger department staff.

 ”We've been at every commission meeting, every council meeting,” Shockley told LAist, adding that he has met with the Mayor Karen Bass four times in the past month.

“At the last [Cannabis regulation] Commission meeting, I told the commissioners that we are being retaliated against,” he said, “we're being abused by the leadership of this department . . . and you guys aren't doing a thing about it.”

Caption for lead image: Brandon Brinson poses for a photo in late July next to cleared shelves at his shuttered L.A. cannabis dispensary. Brinson started the business with his wife, Evelyn, as part of the city's Social Equity Program.

In his final year in office, Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to go after large investors buying and owning California housing — in the same week that President Donald Trump also took rhetorical aim at Big Landlord.

It’s an unlikely meeting of the minds of two political foes who, in a race to head off the electorate's concerns about affordability, have landed upon the same populist message: Blame Wall Street.

Newsom plans to say during his State of the State address to lawmakers on Thursday that he wants to work with them to regulate the practice of investors buying up large stocks of housing to rent out, forcing California residents to compete with them to afford buying a home, according to the governor’s office.

Proposals could include “enhanced state oversight and enforcement and potential changes to the state tax code,” according to the governor’s office.

“When housing is treated primarily as a corporate investment strategy, Californians feel the impact,” a source in the office said. “Prices go up, rents rise, and fewer people have a chance to buy a home.”

That sounds similar to a proposal Trump made on his social media platform Truth Social on Wednesday. The two previously closely aligned on policy related to clearing of homeless encampments.

“I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes,” the president wrote, sending stock prices of major publicly traded residential investment firms plummeting. He urged Congress to put the proposal into law and promised to unveil additional housing policy proposals at the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland later this month.

Newsom is stopping short of calling for an outright ban on institutional investors’ ownership, though the source said he will seek to “curb” it with the goal of making home ownership more affordable for California residents.

He hasn’t yet proposed anything concrete. Whatever Newsom seeks to do, he’ll need the approval of the state Legislature.

Trump, for his part, did not offer any details about his proposal, such as how institutional investors would be defined under the proposed law or why he targeted single-family homes in particular. The White House’s press office did not respond to an email with those questions.

The twin announcements come after years of long-shot efforts by California progressives to address a surge in companies buying up single-family housing stock in the wake of the Great Recession. The issue has been the subject of renewed anxiety in post-fire Los Angeles, where a recent report by RedFin showed investors (loosely defined as any buyer with a name that includes “LLC,” “Inc” or “Corp”) have purchased 27 of 61 burned vacant lots that sold in Altadena — more than 40%.

Asked about that report in an interview on MS Now this week, Newsom said he had signed an executive order last year seeking to protect homeowners who find it too expensive to rebuild from falling for “predatory” lowball offers for their properties. But he acknowledged “the broader market conditions are challenging.”

The proposals mark new territory for Newsom’s housing affordability platform. The governor, now in his final year in office, has spent most of the past seven years focused on boosting construction. It’s a pivot toward populism for the governor, who is widely expected to run for president in 2028.

Blaming deep-pocketed investors for the nation’s housing woes has become an increasingly ideological-spanning exercise in recent years, with politicians as diverse as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vice President J.D. Vance championing the cause.

Shortly after Trump’s post, Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, an enthusiastic supporter of the president, promised to introduce legislation in his own post on X.

Is this actually a problem in California?

Many housing industry professionals, economists and policy researchers are skeptical.

“It’s really hard to buy a house right now so people are looking for someone to blame for that, but I think (institutional investors) are more of a symptom of the affordability crisis than they are a perpetuator of it,” said Caitlin Gorback, a University of Texas at Austin economist who has studied investors’ effect on local real estate markets.

Research on the topic is mixed, though most analyses have found that by taking owner-occupied homes and converting them into rentals, these companies tend to increase the supply of rentals. That puts downward pressure on rents, while taking away purchasable homes, leading to higher prices.

Fewer than 3% of all single-family homes in the state are owned by companies that own at least 10 properties.That also takes away opportunities for would-be homeowners to buy a coveted single-family home. But even that comes with an under-appreciated upside, said Gorback: They provide more priced-out renters the opportunity to live in single-family homes — typically in wealthier, whiter and higher-resourced neighborhoods — something historically reserved for those who can afford to buy.

While apartment buildings are commonly owned and managed by large financial companies, single-family rentals weren’t seen as Wall Street-worthy money-making opportunities until the aftermath of the Great Recession. Since then, companies like Invitation Homes, Blackstone, Progress Residential and AMH Homes have typically focused on markets with relatively low prices and rapidly growing populations.

That doesn’t describe California. As a result, larger investors — however defined — make up a relatively small share of single-family landlords in the state. Fewer than 3% of all single-family homes in the state are owned by companies that own at least 10 properties, according to an analysis by the California Research Bureau, which conducts research for state lawmakers. A mere 20,066 are owned by firms with portfolios of 1,000 units or more. The largest of those owners is Invitation Homes, which owns over 11,000 homes in the state and reached a settlement with Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office last year over allegations it price-gouged tenants and illegally raised rents on more than 1,900 properties.

There are more than 16 million rental units across the state, according to Census data.

Though attacking big monied investors for the high cost of housing is a “huge distraction,” it has obvious political appeal, said Stan Oklobdzija, a UC Riverside public policy professor. “Attacking institutional investors is the latest iteration of appearing to do something without actually doing anything. …It's just kind of archetypical cheap talk.”

For nearly a decade, Democrats in the state Legislature have proposed bills to track or ban the practice. Former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018 vetoed a bill to create a registry of institutional investors that own 100 or more single-family homes, noting that “collecting the data would not stop the purchase of these homes by private investors.”

In 2024, lawmakers proposed banning investors that own at least 1,000 single-family homes from buying more houses and renting them out, prohibiting institutional investors from buying single-family homes for any reason and banning developers from selling entire new single-family subdivisions to investors to rent. All three bills died in committees.

Assemblymember Alex Lee, author of the first proposal, revived the bill last year. It passed the Assembly and awaits a hearing in a Senate committee.

Lee, a Democratic Socialist who has long critiqued the role of big money in the state's real estate market, said he was "flabbergasted" to find himself on the same page with Trump, whom he described as a "far-right fascist." Though he expressed doubts that the Trump administration would follow through with the promises the president made in his social media post, he said that "Democrats need to wake up to this populist, but righteous, position."

"We can’t let the far-right capture the housing positions that the people care about," Lee said.

Newsom evidently agrees.

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

Once upon a time, we lived in a world where the “cool” kids were the ones up drinking until 5 a.m., weekend warriors who relished the pursuit of pleasure no matter the unsavory cost.

In today’s post-COVID world, however, things have gotten a little topsy-turvy. Nowadays, the cool kids are in bed by 9 p.m. so they can be up at 5 a.m., in time to slam down a shot of matcha and head to a day rave where all the attendees are — believe it or not — shockingly, sober.

The thing is, to the undiscerning eye, the crowd at a Daybreaker rave looks exactly the same as its typically drug-fueled nighttime counterpart: buoyant, animated and so very alive with its sea of thrashing bodies, quivering booties and smiling faces.

It’s a testament to a new paradigm shift, one in which adults are increasingly turning away from the hard stuff in favor of celebrating without alcohol. Nurtured by the desire for vitality, the small flame of “Dry January” has taken shape into something much greater — a whole new world of non-alcoholic gatherings.

From coffee raves to tea speakeasies and beyond, the world of adult beverages as we know it is rapidly changing. Whether you’re a social butterfly looking for a new scene or a homebody hoping to finally venture off the couch, we’ve featured three of our favorite non-alcoholic gatherings in L.A. Check ‘em out below in all their glory.

Bar Nuda (pop up locations)

Founded by Morris Ellis, a creative director and branding expert, and Pablo Murillo, a storyteller and entrepreneur, Bar Nuda is a pop up “bar” experience designed for those in mind who want to indulge in the social aspects of the barfly life without any of the lingering regrets the next morning.

“We've been on a mission to redefine a night out,” says Murillo, smiling as he places a drink in front of me. “Our slogan is ‘Drinks to Remember’, because we want you to go out and celebrate life.”

Bar Nuda helps you indulge in the social aspects of the barfly life without any of the lingering regrets

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

It’s a mission that’s more personal than professional — Murillo’s experience of losing his father to alcohol-related illness inspired him to redefine the narrative of what a night out could look like. His goal was a surprisingly simple concept: to create a warm, welcoming community where people could mingle without the standard social lubricant of booze.

“We wanted to really hold space for people like myself, you know?” Murillo continues. “When we started Bar Nuda, I was not sober, but I am now. Bar Nuda got me sober. We wanted to change the narrative for my family, but also be there for others to do the same and to say, hey, look, you can go out and have a really good time without drinking booze.”

Bar Nuda's slogan is “Drinks to Remember"

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

Bar Nuda partners up with local bars, neighborhood coffee shops and other venues around Los Angeles to create unique non-alcoholic based events for patrons; check out their Instagram for the details. Trivia Night, for instance, is a regular staple in their event roster, with most events starting at 7 or 8 p.m. Other events include benefit concerts (to raise money for CHIRLA, The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights), Alcohol Free Game Night and even courses dedicated to making your own non-alcoholic based drinks.

“We do a ton of work with hospitality groups, venues and music festivals who are looking to build out their non-alcoholic programs,” says Brianda Gonzalez, founder of the non-alcoholic shop The New Bar, who partners with Bar Nuda. “Consumers are increasingly looking for other options when they go out and don't want to drink quite as much.”

Ellis and Murillo are certainly doing something right: to walk into one of their events is to feel like you’re, well, inside of a bar, filled with the sounds of warm laughter, buzzing conversations and the inevitable chaotic din of the trivia crowd. Drinks are prepared with a level of craftsmanship that might have you second guessing as to whether or not you’re drinking alcohol. The menu rotates seasonally, with many of the drink ingredients sourced directly from Mexico. The house favorite is the “Rosa Nuda”, made with tantalizingly tangy, fresh bougainvillea sourced by Bar Nuda’s Beverage Director Bryant J. Orozco.

As the guests at the bar form a small crowd, giggling about events to come, I take a sip of the Rosa Nuda before a huge smile spreads across my face.

The bartender laughs at me, pleased.

“Not bad, eh?”

Grab tickets here.

Daybreaker (rotating locations)

A recent Daybreaker event in Venice giving good vibes

(

Courtesy Daybreaker

)

The first time I attended a Daybreaker event was in Portland several years ago. I attended because friends of mine had told me there was a new, sober day rave spreading across town, and I simply didn’t believe them.

How very wrong I was. It may have been 9 a.m., but this crowd seemed just as rowdy, if not rowdier, than its nighttime counterpart. The only difference between the two was this crowd seemed decked out in yoga pants rather than rave gear.

Bubbling with energy at Daybreaker Venice

(

Bailey Templeton

/

Courtesy Daybreaker

)

“I wanted to have fun while still being able to function,” said Nemo, a DJ I met there. “At some point my body was not able to handle the disrupted sleep cycles and booze anymore, but I still wanted to be able to go to events and enjoy myself.”

To my great surprise, I discovered raving sober had its own unique appeal. The lack of alcohol kept me light and energetic rather than clouded in a drunken haze. I was able to dance for much longer than usual, and felt a familiar euphoric high similar to a runner’s high the longer I danced.

Daybreaker throws day raves in a number of different cities: Los Angeles, Seattle, Atlanta, New York. The next event in L.A. is Saturday Jan. 24 from 9 a.m. - 12 noon, to be held in a secret venue. Given it’s described as “dry January, wet with endorphins”, there’s a good chance it’s in a sauna, where Daybreaker is known to throw dance parties.

Celebrating life at 9am in Venice

(

Bailey Templeton

/

Courtesy Daybreaker

)

“We’re living in a cultural moment where people are craving clarity, connection, and control over their wellbeing — and ultimately belonging,” says Daybreaker founder Radha Agrawal.

“Post-pandemic, there’s been a mass re-evaluation of what we put into our bodies and how we spend our time. Gen Z in particular is leading the charge — they’re drinking nearly 30% less than millennials did at their age — and they’re looking for ways to connect without sacrificing health or mental clarity," he says.

"People want to wake up feeling good, not hungover, and they’re realizing that social connection can actually feel better without alcohol.”

Snag tickets here.

Bu Tea Den (DTLA)

In true speakeasy style, I reached Bu Tea Den through an inconspicuous metal door in a back alley downtown. Once inside, however, the vibe quickly shifted. A curious video was projected onto a wall by the entrance, lit up by colorful, digital Paisley shapes swimming about. Each Paisley had a customer’s name plastered above it, giving the surreal sensation that I was watching some sort of digital city like a god from up above on high. ‘PAISLEY ID’ read across the top of the screen.

Nearby, what I initially thought was an ATM was actually marked "AFTM: automated fortune telling machine". Patrons can take a quiz and receive a spiritual fortune of sorts, printed out neatly onto a slip of paper like an ATM receipt, along with a corresponding Paisley.

(According to the machine, my life path number is seven, my soul age is baby, and my chakral focus is sacral. "Trust what steadies you, even if it changes tomorrow.")

Writer Janelle Lassalle experiencing Bu Tu Den's AFTM — an automated fortune telling machine

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

Inspired by time spent in the Burning Man community, co-founders Severin Sauliere and Natalie Tran created the art installation to help inspire a sense of community at Bu Tea Den.

Sauliere and Tran are husband and wife: Sauliere is an artist/Creative Director, and Tran is Chief Steeping Officer in charge of tea operations. Their goal is to redefine happy hour by giving guests the opportunity to slow down and get social without the thundering din of techno music and flashy cocktails.

"It's not an upsell kind of thing," said Sauliere. "It's based on you chilling with your friends, having some tea together and talking. I'm not against alcohol, but it's everywhere. Having a space that doesn't have it challenges the dynamic a little bit."

Co-founder Natalie Tran, at Bu Tea Den “part tea lounge, part interactive art installation, and part intimate gathering space.”

(

Janelle Lassalle

/

LAist

)

The space is cultivated in the style of a tea lounge, with a number of booths scattered about facing the Paisley display. Guests can enjoy a unique tea experience at the bar in which they’re served several rounds of tea blends, along with snacks like Ube popcorn, Fridays - Sundays 5 - 9 p.m.

Billed as “part tea lounge, part interactive art installation, and part intimate gathering space,” Bu Tea Den isn’t just a place where you can come to enjoy a strong cup of jasmine tea: it’s also gearing up to become a community-oriented event space. Guests can come by for regular events like Mahjong at the Den, a Hong Kong style version of the popular game, or an upcoming "Tea and Tease" burlesque and comedy night on Saturday Jan. 17.

Get in on the fun here.

Homeownership has become increasingly out of reach for many young families, especially in pricey California. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said he plans to make housing affordable again by cutting deep-pocketed investors out of the single-family home market.

“I am immediately taking steps to ban large, institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it,” Trump said on the social media platform Truth Social. “People live in homes, not corporations.”

But in California, housing policy experts say Trump’s strategy might not move the needle on affordability much. That’s because institutional investors aren’t buying many single-family homes in the Golden State to begin with.

“It's kind of a red herring,” said Richard Green, director of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate. “Institutional ownership of single-family rentals is a very small share of all single-family rentals, let alone all of the housing stock in the United States.”

Less than 3% of CA homes 

Trump’s idea is not new. Democratic California lawmakers have also proposed limits on investor home-buying. To inform the legislative process, state researchers have looked into the question of how California homes are getting scooped up by institutional buyers.

The answer: Not many.

Statewide, 2.8% of single-family homes are owned by investors who own 10 properties or more. That’s according to the California Research Bureau, which produces nonpartisan policy research for the Governor’s Office and the state Legislature.

According to the Urban Institute, large investors own a much greater stock of single-family homes in cities including Jacksonville, Charlotte and Atlanta, where institutional investors own nearly 29% of single-family rentals.

Corporate ownership rates are much lower in California. In Los Angeles County, home to more than 10 million people, only about 72,474 homes are owned by large investors, according to the California Research Bureau. That number includes single-family homes as well as condos, townhomes and duplexes.

Would banning corporate owners reduce competition?

Invitation Homes is the largest owner of single-family homes in California, with more than 11,000 properties to its name statewide, including about 3,100 in Los Angeles County. Its business model involves buying single-family homes, updating them and then renting them out to tenants who may not otherwise be able to afford home-ownership.

LAist reached out to Invitation Homes for comment on Trump’s announcement. We were sent a statement from the National Rental Home Council.

“Housing affordability is a critical issue, and we appreciate the administration’s focus on ensuring Americans have access to a diverse mix of housing options,” the statement read.

The statement continued: “Professional single-family housing providers represent a small segment of the overall housing market, and the single-family rental industry remains focused on supporting renters while also supporting pathways to homeownership.”

David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, said getting rid of institutional investors probably wouldn’t do much to bring down home prices for young Californians.

“The vast, vast majority of homes that are purchased are by people who are generally going to live in them,” Garcia said. “So you're not really reducing the main competition for home buyers, which is other home buyers.”

Lack of supply, lots of demand fuel CA’s high prices

Garcia and USC’s Green both said California’s home prices are high because of lack of supply. Steady demand for California homes coupled with low building rates since the Great Recession have produced a market where the wealthiest buyers out-bid everyone else for the few homes coming up for sale.

Trump’s proposal echoes similar policy explorations from the L.A. City Council, which voted in 2021 to consider banning companies like Zillow and Redfin from buying homes within the city.

Details were scant in Trump’s post, but he said more information about his plans would be forthcoming.

In his Truth Social post, he said: “I will discuss this topic, including further Housing and Affordability proposals, and more, at my speech in Davos in two weeks.”