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.”

  • Judge rules city cannot rollout new law
    More than a half dozen recreational vehicles parked alongside a two-lane road on a clear, sunny day.
    RVs parked beside the Ballona Wetlands, a nature and wildlife area, in Council District 11, which is represented by Councilmember Traci Park.

    Topline:

    A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

    Why it matters: The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

    The arguments: Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good. But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs.

    Why now: In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

    Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law

    A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

    The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

    Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good.

    But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs, according to court documents.

    In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

    The backstory

    The ruling stems from a legal challenge by a coalition of housed and unhoused residents in West L.A. around the city’s implementation of Assembly Bill 630, which became law Jan. 1.

    The L.A. City Council voted in December to approve a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the law.

    The CD11 Coalition for Human Rights then asked a judge to intervene, claiming L.A. is “recklessly charging ahead” with a program it’s not authorized to execute, according to court documents.

    What the officials say

    Councilmember Traci Park, who introduced the council motion in October, told LAist previously that nuisance RVs create health and safety issues that put entire neighborhoods at risk. Park said residents want solutions, not frivolous lawsuits.

    Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist after the ruling Thursday that the lawsuits aren’t frivolous when the petitioners keep winning.

    “It is incredibly unclear why the city did not simply accept the plain language of AB 630 and instead forced our client to go to court, wasting court resources, city resources at a time when the city doesn't have resources to spare,” Myers said.

    City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the city’s implementation of AB 630.

    What’s next

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who introduced the California assembly bill. González said in a statement to LAist last month that his office is “working with our partners to clarify the law to ensure the City can fully implement AB 630."

    González has introduced another bill, AB 647, that would expand the language of the law to include “any public agency” within L.A. County.

    Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law

  • Sponsored message
  • Import uptick likely as Sup. Court tosses tariffs
    Stacks of shipping containers of various colors are seen under blue skies with a crane in the background.
    An electric top handler moves cargo off of semi-trucks at Yusen Terminals at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on Feb. 11, 2025.

    Topline:

    Los Angeles port leaders say they’re preparing for an increase in imports now that the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs.

    The reaction: On Friday’s episode of LAist’s AirTalk, Port of L.A. executive director Gene Seroka said he’s expecting “an uptick in cargo” following the court ruling. “Right now, American executives are telling me that they're on the phone and communicating with their counterparts representing manufacturers in Asia to see how much product they can get, how quickly it can be ready, and then when it can be shipped over to avoid these tariffs,” Seroka said.

    The context: U.S. importers have already paid about $133 billion under tariffs imposed by the Trump administration through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court ruled this act does not give Trump the authority to impose such broad tariffs. Since Trump put the tariffs in place last April, Seroka said the Port of L.A. has seen “a roller coaster of a year.”

    “When that policy was softened and tariffs came down, we had a record July, our best month in the history of the Port of Los Angeles,” Seroka said. “That set the tone for the balance of the year. It was ups and downs based on more than 110 announcements emanating from Washington on trade policy and tariffs.”

    What will this mean for consumers? It’s unclear if importers will ever be refunded the tariffs they’ve already paid. Kevin Klowden, chief global strategist for the Milken Institute, said there isn’t an obvious mechanism in place to get that money back to companies. As for consumers, the Tax Foundation estimates the average U.S. household has faced about $1,300 in increased costs due to the tariffs. Klowden says it’s unlikely consumers will ever get a direct refund. “If the tariffs come in at a lower threshold under the other agreements, under the other legislation that the government is using, then we might see some prices reduce,” he said.

  • A South LA lot is an effort to fight homelessness
    A man with light skin tone, wearing a yellow graphic t-shirt, sunglasses, and a beige LA hat, sits on steps at the doorway of an RV.
    Mikolaj Marciniak sits in the doorway of his RV, parked in L.A. County's RV safe parking lot. The transitional housing program has helped connect a dozen people to permanent housing.

    Topline:

    The 24-hour, 14-spot RV safe parking lot is a unique component of the county’s massive homeless service ecosystem, tailored specifically to RV dwellers who aren’t ready to relinquish their vehicles.

    More details: The RV safe parking lot program has guided a dozen RV dwellers to permanent housing in its nearly first year of operation, a result that’s convinced L.A. County officials to keep the program rolling at least another year.

    Some background: More than 72,000 people are homeless on a given night in L.A. County and RVs are the most common type of shelter for people living outdoors, according to the county’s 2025 count, with nearly 6,300 counted across the county last year.

    Read on... for more about the parking lot in South L.A.

    This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 20, 2026.

    In an old asphalt parking lot off of Crenshaw Boulevard, L.A. County homelessness officials have been testing out their first RV-based transitional housing program.

    For some of the residents of the 11 RVs parked in the South L.A. lot today, it’s the closest thing to stable housing they’ve had in years.

    The 24-hour, 14-spot RV safe parking lot is a unique, albeit tiny, component of the county’s massive homeless service ecosystem, tailored specifically to RV dwellers who aren’t ready to relinquish their vehicles.

    “We got everything. We got water. We got restrooms. People are so nice,” said Mikolaj Marciniak, who has been living with his partner in an aging RV for over a year. “Sometimes all you need is a little bit of help.”

    The RV safe parking lot program has guided a dozen RV dwellers to permanent housing in its nearly first year of operation, a result that’s convinced L.A. County officials to keep the program rolling at least another year.

    More than 72,000 people are homeless on a given night in L.A. County and RVs are the most common type of shelter for people living outdoors, according to the county’s 2025 count, with nearly 6,300 counted across the county last year.

    A man with light skin tone, wearing a yellow graphic t-shirt, blue short, and a beige LA Dodgers hat, stands inside an RV. There is a laptop sitting on a table with other items around it.
    Mikolaj Marciniak stands in his RV, parked in LA County’s RV safe parking lot. The transitional housing program has helped connect a dozen people to permanent housing.
    (
    Isaiah Murtaugh
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    Residents of the RV safe parking lot get access to a mobile bathroom unit, a stocked outdoor kitchenette and a few pieces of exercise equipment. Marciniak told The LA Local before he moved to the lot, RV life was difficult, with neighbors wanting him and his partner to move along. Twice, he said, their tires were slashed.

    But in the fenced lot, he said, life is calmer.

    “You are protected,” said Marciniak, who moved to the U.S. from his native Ukraine in 2020. “You feel [that] you belong.”

    The couple has been living in the RV lot less than a year and is already looking for a permanent apartment through a housing voucher program.

    Since the program began, nine of the RV safe lot’s residents have moved into permanent housing, with three more on their way, according to Mel Tillekeratne, executive director of Shower of Hope. The nonprofit provides case management for residents and helps connect them with medical and housing services.

    “It’s not just about removing a RV off the street,” Tillekeratne said. “It’s making sure the person in there, whether it’s a senior, a young couple, that they go somewhere safe, and they’re happy and they don’t have to worry about homelessness again.”

    RVs are parked in a parking lot with some trees in the background. One of the RVs is covered with a tarp.
    RVs line up in an RV safe parking lot in South LA.
    (
    Isaiah Murtaugh
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    The lot, outside a vacant former county probation office, is not a permanent installation. The county is finalizing plans to extend the program by another year with funding from the county’s Measure A homeless service and affordable housing sales tax, according to Isela Gracian, senior deputy on homelessness and housing for L.A. County Supervisor Holly Mitchell

    “There is more need. The challenge is that people believe it’s too high of a cost for the number of people it serves,” Gracian said. “Sometimes we need to have a program that’s a bit more expensive if it meets the needs of the people it serves.”

    Mitchell, said Gracian, does not want to be part of the “whack-a-mole” game of shuffling RVs from block to block as residents and businesses call with concerns.

    “The true solution is having homes” Gracian said. “The additional outcome is improvement to the physical environment for communities.”

    The budget for this year’s Measure A revenue was sorted out early this month. County supervisors will hold a hearing on the rest of the budget for the county’s new homeless services and housing department on Feb. 27.

    This year is the first for the L.A. County Homeless Services and Housing department, created after the county voted to pull back hundreds of millions in funding for the regional L.A. Homeless Service Authority.

    Gracian said the county is still sorting out how the new department will work. It will take over the bulk of the former LAHSA funding this summer.

  • What does it look like for you?
    A cement truck drives up a street past a destroyed structure on the left and gated off area on its right. Signage set on a patch of grass in the foreground reads “Altadena xoxo” inside of a candy heart.
    Work trucks are a common sight in Altadena over a year after the Eaton Fire.

    Topline:

    The experience of rebuilding a home, a community and a life after disaster can mean vastly different things for different people. LAist wants to know: what does rebuilding look like for you?

    Why we're asking: LAist is putting together a community-centered photo project showcasing the many ways L.A. residents are experiencing rebuilding after the 2025 wildfires — whether that’s settling in a new community, physically reconstructing a house or returning to a neighborhood.

    Read on ... to fill out our survey.

    What does it mean to rebuild after disaster?

    That depends on who you ask.

    For some people, it’s rebuilding homes that were destroyed in the Eaton or Palisades fires. For others, it’s living in those destroyed communities, either having never left or just recently returned.

    Some people might have moved away altogether to rebuild their lives, and others are still moving from place to place, waiting to return home.

    Rebuilding your home, community and life can mean so many things. LAist wants to showcase the different ways L.A. residents are experiencing it through a community-centered photo project.

    So, what does rebuilding look like for you?

    Share your photos and experiences in the survey below and we may include your pictures and stories in an upcoming feature. We won’t publish anything you share without your permission.