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

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • City wants a larger cut as budget woes persist
    Aerial photo of a small island off a coastline populated with various buildings. The is ringed with palm trees and four tall structures. In the middle of the island are several round buildings. To the left of the island, six small boats are pictured, in a cluster
    The island Grissom is one of four oil islands in Long Beach.

    Topline:

    As the California legislative cycle ends next week, the Long Beach City Council is in a mad dash to bring the state to the negotiating table over a decades-old contract that establishes the revenue split from the Wilmington Oil Field in and around the coastline, saying the current agreement has been a cash gusher for the state.


    The current contract: Since 1991, the city has received 8.5% of revenues earned through oil and dry gas production in the tidelands area, pulling from the Long Beach section of the Wilmington Oil Field. Another 49% goes to the oil operator while the state takes 42.5%. A new contract would restructure how much the city receives for its guardianship over what’s known as its tidelands area, a 24-square-mile swath of ocean and coastline from the Orange County line through downtown Long Beach to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

    Why it matters: The city is under mounting pressure to transition its economy away from a reliance on local oil production, which is set for a dramatic decline — $300 million over the next 10 years, according to City Auditor Laura Doud. Meanwhile, the city has $1 billion in outstanding coastal projects, from a deteriorating Naples Island seawall to costly upgrades at the Convention Center.

    Facing the rising cost of upkeep along the coastline, the city is expected to spend more than it earns to oversee the tidelands for the first time in 2026. Officials project future deficits through 2035 will range between $6.2 million and $10 million.

    An answer to Long Beach’s ongoing budget woes may be buried under dust in Sacramento.

    The Long Beach City Council is in a mad dash to bring the state to the negotiating table over a decades-old contract that establishes the revenue split from the Wilmington Oil Field in and around the coastline, saying the current agreement has been a cash gusher for the state.

    City officials say time is of the essence, as the legislative cycle ends next week and any items not brought forward could be tabled until at least January.

    It’s an item that would restructure how much the city receives for its guardianship over what’s known as its tidelands area, a 24-square-mile swath of ocean and coastline from the Orange County line through downtown Long Beach to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The field goes about as far north as Ocean Boulevard, almost reaching the breakwater to the south, and encompasses some of Long Beach’s most precious assets: the beaches, marinas, and Convention Center.

    Since 1991, the city has received 8.5% of revenues earned through oil and dry gas production in the tidelands area, pulling from the Long Beach section of the Wilmington Oil Field. Another 49% goes to the oil operator while the state takes 42.5%.

    But it’s a deal that no longer makes sense, according to Long Beach Councilmember Kristina Duggan, who said Friday a reasonable city share rests between 20% and 30% of the revenue.

    The city is under mounting pressure to transition its economy away from a reliance on local oil production, which is set for a dramatic decline — $300 million over the next 10 years, according to City Auditor Laura Doud. Meanwhile, the city has $1 billion in outstanding coastal projects, from a deteriorating Naples Island seawall to costly upgrades at the Convention Center.

    Facing the rising cost of upkeep along the coastline, the city is expected to spend more than it earns to oversee the tidelands for the first time in 2026. Officials project future deficits through 2035 will range between $6.2 million and $10 million.

    As a result, city leaders may have to divert money from other core programs and services.

    “What are we going to take away? Are we going to take away our libraries? Are we going to take away our staffing at parks? Where are we going to get the money when we are using funds from the general fund to take care of every district?” Duggan said.

    Meanwhile, the state expects to reap $271 million from the tidelands through 2035, according to Duggan’s office.

    Oil in Long Beach has a long, intricate history, pieced together through multi-party contracts and court hearings over who is most deserving of the gushing revenues and by how much.

    Oil was discovered in 1932 and was estimated to total 9.5 billion gallons' worth. In the years prior to 1955, Long Beach was awash in cash, keeping most of the oil revenue for its general fund.

    Citing a trust arrangement set in 1911, the California Supreme Court in 1955 named the state as the main beneficiary, since the oil was extracted from state land beneath the water. The state declared most of the money generated from oil production as surplus and began redirecting it to Sacramento, based on the conditions when the coast had fewer needs and oil production was much higher.

    Under the expectation that oil would either soon dry up or be phased out, the city agreed to a funding formula in 1964 that fixed its revenue at $1 million a year. The change in 1991 bumped the city’s yield to its current rate, which now brings in around $50 million annually. The city receives tax revenue from 2,762 active and idle oil wells that are managed by 14 oil operators.

    But the current formula is out of step with reality, Duggan said, adding that the state has taken $5.75 billion from Long Beach under this formula as “surplus.”

    “Our increase in responsibilities and costs is escalating far, far greater than what we can keep up with,” she said.

    It’s the “No. 1 priority this next year” in state lobbying, said Mayor Rex Richardson on Tuesday. The mayor has for years lobbied the state to allow Long Beach to divert interest from a fund meant to cover the costs of decommissioning defunct oil wells, of which the city has invested millions.

    “We’re going to go back to Sacramento and put options on the table,” Richardson said. “But the reality is … doing nothing is not an option for us.”

    In a joint call with the governor’s office last week, Richardson reiterated his request for diverting interest from the oil decommissioning fund, while Duggan spoke on renegotiating the funding formula.

    While Newsom’s office seemed open to both ideas, according to Duggan, each needed to be championed by Long Beach’s state representatives — state Sen. Lena Gonzalez and Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal.

    “We need them to carry this,” Duggan said. “And we have two weeks to get some sort of traction with legislation. That’s the only way to make it happen.”

    In a statement Friday, a spokesperson from Lowenthal’s office said the assemblyman looks forward to “discussing potential ideas with the city of Long Beach and the Long Beach legislative delegation.”

    “With California now facing a major budget shortfall, we’ve had to make tough choices to protect vital services while keeping the budget balanced,” the statement read. “Any sudden changes to that balance could have real consequences here at home. While the city has and continues to be a good steward of the state’s tidelands — any discussions surrounding the fund’s future must be well informed, conducted responsibly, and be in the best interests of the entire state of California and the residents of the city of Long Beach in order to uphold the public trust.”

  • Trump admin loses initial court ruling in case
    President Donald Trump listens to a reporter's question in the Oval Office of the White House on Friday.

    Topline:

    A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from following through on plans to freeze billions of dollars in childcare and welfare funding to California and four other Democrat-led states. Friday’s ruling came less than a day after the states filed suit.

    What’s next: The temporary order expires in 14 days. The court battle will continue to play out, with further decisions by the judge expected in the coming weeks, after more arguments from both sides.

    The context: In halting childcare and welfare benefits to hundreds of thousands of low-income Californians, the Trump administration wrote that “recent federal prosecutions” are driving concerns about “systemic fraud.” But an LAist review found fraud in the targeted programs appears to be a tiny fraction of the total spending. Prosecutions that have been brought around child care benefits amount to a small fraction of 1% of the federal childcare funding California has received, according to a search of all case announcements in the state. When pressed for details about what specific prosecutions justify the freeze in California, administration officials have offered few specifics.

  • Sponsored message
  • Federal judge orders LA to pay $1.8M in settlement
    A tall, white building is surrounded by shorter buildings and trees during the day.
    A view of L.A. City Hall in downtown.

    Topline:

    A federal judge has ordered Los Angeles to pay more than $1.8 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights and other organizations that sued the city over what it deemed an inadequate response to the homelessness crisis.

    The details: In addition to $1.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $5,000 in costs to L.A. Alliance, the judge awarded about $200,000 in fees and $160 in costs to the Los Angeles Catholic Worker and Los Angeles Community Action Network.

    Why now: The city is appealing the decision.

    Why it matters: In his order, released Tuesday, the judge compared the recent award to the millions of taxpayer dollars city officials agreed to pay an outside law firm representing L.A.in the settlement.

    Read on ... for more about this week's order.

    A federal judge has ordered Los Angeles to pay more than $1.8 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights and other organizations that sued the city over what it deemed an inadequate response to the homelessness crisis.

    The city is appealing the decision.

    The details

    L.A. Alliance is a group of business owners and residents who sued the city and county of Los Angeles in 2020 in an effort to push both governments to provide more shelter to unhoused people in the region.

    The city of L.A. settled with the plaintiffs in 2022, and U.S. District Judge David O. Carter is overseeing the city’s progress in keeping up with the terms of that agreement. The judge found the city breached its agreement in multiple ways in a ruling last summer.

    Specifically, the judge found that the city did not provide a plan for how it intends to create 12,915 shelter beds, as promised, by 2027. The court also found the city “flouted” its responsibilities by failing to provide accurate, comprehensive data when requested and did not provide evidence to support the numbers it was reporting, according to court documents.

    In addition to $1.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $5,000 in costs to L.A. Alliance, Carter awarded about $200,000 in fees and $160 in costs to the Los Angeles Catholic Worker and Los Angeles Community Action Network.

    The organizations are considered “intervenors” in the suit, representing people experiencing homelessness on Skid Row. Their attorneys include those from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

    Why it matters

    In his order, released Tuesday, Carter compared the recent award to the millions of taxpayer dollars city officials agreed to pay an outside law firm representing L.A. in the settlement.

    Carter wrote in the order that the attorneys' fees and costs to L.A. Alliance and others “is reasonable, especially in light of the approximately $5.9 million that the City’s outside counsel is charging.”

    LAist’s housing and homelessness coverage was cited several times in the order.

    “It has fallen to plaintiff, intervenors, and journalists to point out the deficiencies in the city’s reporting,” Carter wrote, referring to data the city is required to report to the court as part of the settlement.

    “Plaintiff and intervenors must be compensated for this,” he said.

    The city’s response 

    Attorneys representing the city filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Thursday.

    L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment by phone or email.

    Shayla Myers, senior attorney with the Unhoused People's Justice Project at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist the intervenors participated in the case without compensation “because it's incredibly important given what is at stake in these proceedings that unhoused folks have a voice.”

    Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance, told LAist he’s thrilled the court is imposing accountability on the city, including sanctions for violating the settlement agreement. But Umhofer said he’s saddened that L.A. Alliance is going to have to keep fighting to hold the city to its promises.

    “The obvious city strategy here is hire a big, good law firm to fight on absolutely every front in hopes that the plaintiffs, the intervenors or the court will ultimately give up trying to hold the city accountable,” he said.

    What's next

    The parties are scheduled to appear in federal court in downtown L.A. on Monday, when a hearing will resume to determine whether the judge will hold the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court.

    Carter has said in documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations with court orders under the settlement and that the “delay continues to this day.”

  • DTLA food fair has 13 new vendors this weekend
    A woman with dark skin smiling in a bold red chef’s jacket and patterned headscarf stands proudly in front of her “Hot Grease” stall,  with her arms outstretched, framed by sizzling menu boards and the hum of the street market behind her.
    Asha Stark's Hot Grease specializes in Black fish fry with a side of social justice.

    Topline:

     Smorgasburg L.A. reopens this Sunday with 13 new food vendors joining the downtown market's annual grand reopening at the Row.

    Why now: The January grand reopening with new vendors is a longstanding tradition that kicks off the year ahead. Vendors apply through Smorgasburg's website, and the team meets with every applicant to taste their food before acceptance. Competition remains fierce, with many more applicants than available spots. This year marks the market's 10th anniversary celebration in June.

    Why it matters: The new vendor class demonstrates the resilience of L.A.'s independent food scene, following a challenging year for the restaurant industry, with concepts ranging from a Grammy-nominated producer's Persian-influenced pizza to Southern fried fish honoring Black migration history.

    Every January, the open-air downtown food fair reopens after its winter break and announces new additions to its carefully selected group of regular vendors.

    This year’s new vendor class demonstrates the resilience of L.A.'s independent food scene, ranging from a Grammy-nominated producer's Persian-influenced pizza to Southern fried fish celebrating Black American culinary traditions, to an LAist 2025 Tournament of Cheeseburger heavyweight contender.

    The reopening also marks the start of Smorgasburg LA's 10th anniversary year, and will feature 41 returning vendors, who've helped build the regular event into a fun, family-friendly opportunity to try new, often cutting-edge food you may not be familiar with.

    Doors open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at DTLA’s The Row, with free entry and free parking for the first two hours.

    A new year

    General manager Zach Brooks said this is his favorite time of year. "We add the new vendors at the beginning of the new year, everyone's excited."

    Vendors apply through Smorgasburg's website, and the team meets with every applicant to taste their food before acceptance. Brooks said it's not a vetting process like "Shark Tank" but rather a matter of seeing if it's a good fit. Competition remains fierce, with many more applicants than available spots.

    "I think it's just a testament to L.A. and the resilience of people who love this business and have a passion for it, and are going to continue to persevere and start their businesses and want to be out there selling food," Brooks said.

    Here are a few highlights:

    Viral orange chicken sandwich 

    Long Beach-based Terrible Burger becomes Smorgasburg's new permanent burger vendor after standout appearances at LAist's Tournament of Cheeseburgers and the market's rotating Smorgasburger Stand. The smashburger pop-up, run by husband-and-wife team Nicole and Ryan Ramirez, specializes in burgers that draw from pop culture and global influences. They've made waves with a Korean barbecue burger topped with bulgogi barbecue sauce and a viral orange chicken sandwich, previously available only at their Tuesday night residency at Long Beach's Midnight Oil, making its L.A. debut Sunday.

    A fried chicken sandwich on a toasted brioche bun features a large crispy chicken cutlet coated in orange glaze and sesame seeds, topped with shredded cabbage, scallions, and sauce, served on black and white checkered paper with the Terrible Burger logo in the background.
    Terrible Burger's viral orange chicken sandwich makes its LA debut at Smorgasburg after being available only in Long Beach.
    (
    Courtesy Terrible Burger
    )

    "We have been big Smorgasburg fans for a really long time before we even started Terrible Burger. We would go to Smorgasburg on dates, just eat and hang out. And it was just always a little dream of, "oh, what if we ever sold food here?" Nicole Ramirez said.

    Crispy fried snapper and thick-cut fries 

    Orange County-based Hot Grease, run by Asha Starks, is among four vendors graduating from residencies to permanent status. The Southern fried fish pop-up celebrates Black American history through food that honors Starks' family heritage.

    "Folks often forget that there are Black folks in Orange County. My family came to Orange County during the second wave of the Great Migration, and they settled in Santa Ana... my food is very cultural. And the story, I feel like, is just as important to highlight," Starks said.

    A basket lined with black and white checkered paper holds golden-brown fried fish filets, thick-cut French fries, a slice of white bread, a lemon wedge, fresh dill garnish, and two small containers of sauce
    Hot Grease's crispy buttermilk fried snapper with thick-cut fries and "Ill Dill" tartar sauce.
    (
    Courtesy Hot Grease
    )

    Hot Grease serves crispy buttermilk fried snapper with thick-cut fries and small-batch sauces like "Ill Dill" tartar. Honoring the fish fry's history as a site of mutual aid, Starks directs 3% of sales to the Potlikker Line, Hot Grease's reproductive justice mutual aid fund. For January, she's added fish and grits, black-eyed peas and collard greens.

    Pizza with a Persian twist

    A charred Neapolitan-style pizza on a wooden cutting board topped with melted mozzarella, green pesto or herb sauce drizzled in a pattern, and fresh basil leaves in the center
    Mamani Pizza brings studio-born energy to Smorgasburg LA with pies featuring Persian-inspired creativity.
    (
    Courtesy Mamani Pizza
    )

    Mamani Pizza, from the Grammy-nominated producer Farsi, part of the music production team Wallis Lane, started making Neapolitan-style pizzas at his West L.A. recording studio a year ago. What began as late-night pies for friends and artists became an underground hit. Most pizzas are traditional, but Farsi adds Persian touches like The Mamani, topped with ground wagyu koobideh, roasted Anaheim chilis, Persian herbs and pomegranate molasses.

    Other new vendors

    Banana Mama - Asian-inspired pudding
    Barranco's Yogurt - Oaxacan fruit yogurt
    Franzl's Franks - Austrian sausages
    Melnificent Wingz - Gourmet chicken wings
    Piruchi - Peruvian street food
    RuRu's Golden Tea - Karak chai
    Stick Talk - vegan corn dogs
    SouuLA - Taiwanese breakfast concept
    Unreal Poke - Hawaiian poke
    Zindrew Dumpling Shop - Spicy wontons

  • How to file a claim if your car gets damaged
    A close up of a street with a cracked pothole in the middle, which is full of rain water.
    Potholes pop up after rain because water seeps into the road's crevices and weakens the foundation. Cars driving over it exacerbates the damage, leading to more cracks.

    Topline:

    All that rain didn’t just flood L.A. County streets, it chewed up our roads. You’re likely driving over more potholes than usual, so what do you do if your car gets damaged from one? You could get the government to pay for it.

    How it works: You’ll want to take pictures of the pothole and your car. Then, submit a claim form. Personal property damage claims have a six-month filing period, and you’ll have to pay out-of-pocket first.

    Manage your expectations: Keep in mind, this isn’t a quick way to cash. Claims can take months. You’ll also have to prove the agency was aware of the problem before your incident, such as by looking at street maintenance records for your area. Here are tips from the now-defunct site LAPotholes.com.

    What’s next: Potholes continue to plague the city of L.A., and that’s probably not ending soon. In the next budget, StreetsLA (aka Bureau of Street Services) is proposing to prioritize funding for “large asphalt repair,” which means patching over sections rather than fully repaving streets, which some argue will lead to worse roads.