Ten years ago, the original Taco Bell building in Downey was moved across multiple cities to the fast food chain’s headquarters in Irvine. Ten years later, it’s still sitting there.
Why now: It’s the 63rd birthday of Taco Bell’s founding this week.
Read on … to hear what, if anything, Taco Bell has planned for “Numero Uno.”
Los Angeles has an obsession with moving ginormous things across the city — we love the pure spectacle of it.
There was Levitated Mass, aka the huge boulder at LACMA, that undertook an 11-night journey on surface streets to arrive at the museum in 2012. Later that year, the space shuttle Endeavour did something similar, albeit for a much shorter but no less challenging 12 miles between LAX and the California Science Center.
In November 2015, yet another oversized object snail-crawled across town. This time, the first-ever Taco Bell — a 400-square-foot rectangle with Spanish Colonial Revival arches and tiled roof. In just one night, it traveled through nine cities from its original Downey location to the fast food giant's corporate headquarters in Irvine.
Taco Bell hinted at a grand relaunch, or a sort of memorialization. But 10 years later, in the week of the chain’s 63rd birthday, "Numero Uno" is still there — in the corner of said parking lot under a blue tarp.
The "bell" in Taco Bell is Glen Bell, a serial restaurateur and native Southern Californian who first made a go at it with a hot dog stand in San Bernardino in 1948. Four years later, having sold the stand, he upgraded to selling hot dogs and burgers at another San Bernardino location — across the street from a Mexican restaurant that sold, among other things, hard-shell tacos.
From there Bell's subsequent ventures would focus on the taco — culminating in the founding of Taco Bell at 7112 Firestone Blvd. in Downey on March 21, 1962.
"It's a little shoebox-sized space. It's super small. It's just got a couple little bathrooms in the back, and that's about it," Downey resident George Redfox said. "It was a really cool little building."
Redfox is a founder of the local historical preservation group the Downey Conservancy. Although he never went to that Taco Bell, he said he did go to Taco Raul before it. In 1986, Taco Bell closed the so-called "Numero Uno" location. After housing a number of other restaurants, the building shut down for good and had sat vacant since the end of 2014.
That's when it was slated for demolition. And that's when Redfox and his fellow preservationists stepped in and alerted Taco Bell. The corporation began a media blitz to "Save Taco Bell Numero Uno."
“This is arguably the most important restaurant in our company’s history,” said Brian Niccol, then-chief executive officer of Taco Bell Corp. in a statement at the time. “To think a business like ours, that spans 6,000 restaurants around the globe, started with a walk-up window no bigger than a two-car garage is truly inspirational. When we heard about the chance of it being demolished, we had to step in. We owe that to our fans, we owe that to Glen Bell.”
At 10:30 p.m. on Nov. 19, 2015, the Numero Uno move began. The building arrived early the next morning at the corporate campus in Irvine. The preservation campaign and the move ginned up a tremendous amount of fanfare, with local and national coverage.
"It's very on brand," said Sam Oches, editor in chief of Nation's Restaurant News, a trade publication based in New York. "Taco Bell is a party of one in the restaurant industry as far as what they can get away with."
Oches said the taco chain has cultivated and sustained an image of irreverence and fun with "strokes of marketing genius," like offering a free taco to everyone in the U.S. if parts of a decommissioned space station breaking up in Earth's atmosphere landed on a Taco Bell target floating in the south Pacific Ocean.
"Even though Taco Bell is 60 plus years old, they feel so young and fresh because they're really of this moment where all the young people are on social media and that's what's driving our discourse," Oches added.
So yeah, moving an old building 45 miles across L.A. sounds just about right.
The plan, the company said a decade ago, was to keep the building at its headquarters until "its future use is determined" — a decision that would be made with feedback from fans and the public.
Ten years later, the historic building is still sitting there — with a tarp thrown over it to fend off the elements. The company did dust off the old Numero Uno for a photo op to celebrate the chain's 60th birthday a couple years ago.
But those future plans — they're still in development.
"We love Numero Uno," Taco Bell said in a statement to LAist. "We don’t have any plans to share at the moment for what’s next, but we’ll be sure to bring you along when we do."
Redfox, the Downey preservationist, has ideas.
"For me I'd like to see it placed somewhere in the city. ... Yeah, I would like to see it back here" in Downey, he said.
But he's still grateful that Taco Bell saved Numero Uno from the wrecking ball. After all, Downey plays an important part in the history of American fast food.
"We got the first Taco Bell. We have one of the first McDonald's — number three, actually," Redfox said. "We've also got one of the original Denny's restaurants. A lot of fast food kind of started around this area."
Topline:
As a sanctuary in Riverside County closes down, nearly 500 ducks are now in the possession of the Riverside County Department of Animal Services, setting off a mass adoption effort that started Wednesday.
How we got here: Howard Berkowitz, founder and CEO of the Duck Sanctuary in Anza, was a hometown hero. He was the person called when hundreds of ducklings were about to hatch unexpectedly or when abandoned chicks and ducks needed homes after Easter festivities died down. But now he says he's been turned on. The Riverside County Department of Animal Services announced Tuesday that Berkowitz surrendered 480 ducks because “of overcrowding at the property,” setting off a mass adoption effort that started Wednesday.
The background: Berkowitz said he has taken care of hundreds of ducks, sometimes at his own expense, and still has around 500 ducks at the sanctuary. But the mental health problems caused by the accusations are prompting him to shut down the sanctuary and move to Northern California, taking many of his beloved ducks with him.
What's next: The county is putting the ducks in their possession up for adoption. To adopt, email shelterinfo@rivco.org, or visit the San Jacinto Valley Animal Campus. Ducks will be offered on a first come, first serve basis. The county is also waiving adoption fees.
Howard Berkowitz, founder and CEO of the Duck Sanctuary in Anza, was a hometown hero. He was the person called when hundreds of ducklings were about to hatch unexpectedly or when abandoned chicks and ducks needed homes after Easter festivities died down.
Now, the Riverside County Department of Animal Services says Berkowitz surrendered 480 ducks because “of overcrowding at the property,” setting off a mass adoption effort that started Wednesday.
In an interview with LAist on Wednesday, Berkowitz said his problems started after he received an unexpected call in 2024. It was from a supplier of a Filipino delicacy balut and her duck eggs were about to hatch.
He rushed over and saved around 120 hatchlings. A social media page then began accusing him of mistreating the fowl and mismanaging donations.
Berkowitz said he has taken care of hundreds of ducks, sometimes at his own expense, and still has around 500 ducks at the sanctuary. But the mental health problems caused by the accusations are prompting him to shut down the sanctuary and move to Northern California, taking many beloved ducks with him.
Because he won’t be able to take them all, he said he called the county for help. But the Riverside County Department of Animal Services said officials had to remove the animals because of “improper” breeding and care.
“Limited assessments show the animals did not receive adequate caretaking,” according to the county.
But, the county added, the California Department of Food and Agriculture tested a sample of the fowl for infectious diseases and the results came back negative.
Berkowitz said he'll transport around 500 ducks with him to Northern California, where he’s in the process of buying a 160-acre property.
The other 480 ducks, he said, were surrendered to the county to transport to another shelter.
The county is now putting the ducks in their possession up for adoption. To adopt, email shelterinfo@rivco.org, or visit the San Jacinto Valley Animal Campus. Ducks will be offered on a first come, first serve basis. The county is also waiving adoption fees.
Topline:
For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.
The backstory: Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops. But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.
What it means for L.A.: Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time. The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period. For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.
Read on... for more on how cities are starting to wiggle with the deadline approaching.
For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.
Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.
But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.
With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle.
Like a statewide game of Choose Your Own Adventure, local elected officials for the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles to San Diego are exploring ways to either lean into the spirit of the law, come up with their own plan tailored to the city’s whims and needs, or slow the local roll out for as long as possible while considering their options. Those that do nothing will be forced to accept the transit-oriented rezoning prescribed by state legislators.
Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.
The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.
For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.
Likewise, many lower income neighborhoods, those at risk of wildfire and sea-level rise or sites listed on a historic preservation registry also qualify for that temporary delay.
L.A.’s city council mashed every pause button it could.
Along with temporarily exempting zoning changes in poorer neighborhoods, known fire zones and historic districts, the council preemptively voted to allow modest multiplex buildings as tall as three or four stories in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently restricted to single family homes. That will bring those areas up above the cut-off needed for the four-year reprieve, according to the city’s planning staff.
By swallowing a little more allowable density in the short term, the city was able to ward off a whole lot more — for now. Backers of the measure said that will give the city more time to come up with a better alternative that still complies with the law.
The vote “adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.
When 2030 arrives, the city will either have to come up with its own plan that meets the overall density requirements of the state law — but with some allowable flexibility over where all the potential growth goes — or belatedly accept SB 79 whole cloth.
The L.A. vote came as a disappointment to many pro-development advocates, who have called upon city officials to speedily accept the state-imposed densification immediately, or barring that, to take more aggressive steps in the meantime.
“We’re pretty concerned that this is not actually going to produce housing,” said Scott Epstein, policy and research director with Abundant Housing Los Angeles, a “Yes In My Backyard” oriented advocacy group.
He noted that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to be financially feasible in areas where land costs are exceptionally high. The city’s ordinance achieves its increase in allowable density by permitting modest apartment buildings in relatively affluent neighborhoods.
But even some of the state law’s fiercest defenders see a silver lining in the city’s delay tactic.
“On the one hand, it’s disappointing because we're delaying the full potential of the law,” said Aaron Eckhouse, local policy programs director for California YIMBY, one of the sponsors of SB 79. But in Los Angeles, he noted, city officials have long been fiercely resistant to proposed zoning changes in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.
Now Los Angeles council members are effectively saying, “‘okay, we will do this on our terms rather than on the state’s terms,’” said Eckhouse. “But it is still happening, because the state forced the issue.”
The Los Angeles approach mirrors one being pursued by officials in San Francisco. There officials are considering a policy of exempting industrial areas and many of the city’s low-resource neighborhoods, while preemptively pushing up the allowable density on certain low-rise locations to get them over the 50% threshold and qualify for a delay until 2032.
But unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco doesn’t plan to spend years coming up with a bespoke local alternative. Instead, the city is proposing to roll out its own version before July 1. That task was made a bit easier given that local officials just wrapped up a citywide densification effort last year as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan.”
The current proposal is set to be heard by a Board of Supervisors subcommittee later this month.
For cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that decide to come up with their own local plans, they will still need to get the approval of state housing regulators. Officials from California’s Housing Department have yet to publicly weigh in on any individual city’s plans. But their boss has. In a handful of social media posts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has lambasted Los Angeles and San Diego for their proposed efforts to shield certain portions of their city from the requirements of the law. Newsom did not suggest that either city was violating the law itself.
Some cities may simply decide not to bother. Sacramento, for example, will soon consider an ordinance that would make modest tweaks to the way it accepts development applications subject to the state law, but otherwise leaves the state-set zoning rules intact.
Other municipalities, with smaller budgets and fewer professional planners on staff, may not have much choice but to accept the requirements of the state law, said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill when it was working its way through the Legislature.
Rhine said that some cities are still scrambling to understand the basics of the statute, such as how it applies to future transit infrastructure or how the law defines distance from a transit stop.
“If you’re a planner trying to come up with an alternative plan authorized by (the law), you don't have the information needed to even get started,” said Rhine. He said he is urging state lawmakers to consider extending the July 1 deadline. No one has taken him up on the idea yet.
In Oakland, the decision over whether to delay or accept the state upzoning has played out at the neighborhood level.
Last month, the city’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to take the full suite of possible delays in order to buy time and develop an alternative plan. This, city staff stressed, was not about opposition to the goals of state law, but about a preference among local planners to reconsider the city’s plan comprehensively and at all once, rather than in fits and starts.
“It’s no dispute over outcome,” Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist told the council. “I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.”
Even so, three city council members objected, arguing, in effect, that they would like the state’s override in their districts now, thank you very much.
Zac Unger, who represents some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods in North Oakland, argued that parcels that have already achieved the 50% density threshold should not be exempt in his district, especially because the bulk of them are located along busy commercial corridors.
Change is coming, one way or another, he argued at council. “I am arguing for, in a sense, coming to grips with that reality right now rather than spending a year providing people with the false idea that we can somehow exempt ourselves from state law.”
Two other members — Charlene Wang and Ken Houston — who represent some of the low-resource neighborhoods entitled to delay, also wanted to adopt the law in their districts now. “In an urban area like Oakland we should be far exceeding the density minimums in (state law),” said Wang.
In a follow-up interview, Unger noted that the debate in Oakland may be more symbolic than it is in other cities. By happenstance, city planners have been working for years toward an overhaul of the city’s zoning map, which they aim to wrap up next year. In other words, Oakland is likely to have an alternative plan that complies with the state law’s requirements by 2027 anyway.
“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings blowing up from the street,” he said. “It’s just a matter of urgency — and a statement of values.”
Aside from those cities that are racing to embrace the state law and those seeking delay or their own versions, there is another possible category: Those that resist the law entirely.
After California lawmakers passed a law in 2021 allowing homeowners to split up their properties into as many as four separate units, density-averse cities pushed back. Some took the state to court, others explored adopting municipal charters, one flirted with the idea of becoming a mountain lion refuge. None of the measures ultimately succeeded.
If SB 79 is met with a similar array of resistance, we aren’t likely to see that until after the July 1 deadline, said Eckhouse with California YIMBY.
“The reason to do something now is either to lean into it or to use the provisions of the law for flexibility and deferrals,” he said. “But if they just want to stand in the door and say ‘no,’ we might not find out about that until the zoning standards go into effect.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
City officials and community groups are planning a two-day event for a FIFA World Cup watch party in July. The events will close a part of Wilshire Boulevard that passes through the park and turn the street into a pedestrian space.
About the events: The events, scheduled for July 10 and 11, will coincide with the playoff matches. The teams have not been determined yet. They will include food vendors, a large screen to view the games, and family activities. Organizers say the goal is not just to celebrate the tournament, but to give residents a preview of what MacArthur Park could become.
Proposal to reconnect the park: The concept mirrors the proposed Reconnecting MacArthur Park project, which would permanently close the stretch of Wilshire that cuts through the park and unify its north and south sides into one continuous green space. More than 60% of surveyed residents support removing the roadway, according to preliminary findings from that study. The World Cup events will offer a temporary version of that idea.
MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.
City officials and community groups are planning a two-day event for a FIFA World Cup watch party in July. The events will close a part of Wilshire Boulevard that passes through the park and turn the street into a pedestrian space.
For some residents, that change can’t come soon enough.
“I support this idea because right now kids aren’t really able to play in this area,” said Palea Hernandez, a Westlake resident and mother of three young children. “It’s not safe and clean enough for them.”
The events, scheduled for July 10 and 11, will coincide with the playoff matches. The teams have not been determined yet. Organized by Council District 1, the events will include food vendors, a large screen to view the games, and family activities.
Organizers say the goal is not just to celebrate the tournament, but to give residents a preview of what MacArthur Park could become.
The concept mirrors the proposed Reconnecting MacArthur Park project, which would permanently close the stretch of Wilshire that cuts through the park and unify its north and south sides into one continuous green space.
“They do plan to close Wilshire Boulevard between the parks to be showing the World Cup,” said Diana Alfaro of Central City Neighborhood Partners. “So that is something that’s basically the same as reconnecting MacArthur Park.”
More than 60% of surveyed residents support removing the roadway, according to preliminary findings from that study.
The World Cup events will offer a temporary version of that idea.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation plans to release a report on their outreach into the community and an evaluation on alternatives to reconnecting Wilshire Boulevard. The open streets event in the summer will preview potential changes to the area.
Organizers plan to model the event after open-street initiatives like CicLAvia, using a road closure to create space for pedestrians. Chelsea Lucktenberg, a spokesperson for Council District 1, said there will also be community organizations tabling with resources, including on where to get grocery and rental assistance.
“We’re also looking to have activities and fun. Maybe a soccer clinic and other pop-up workshops,” she said.
The office is still finalizing details, but outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May.
Lucktenberg said a similar event had been planned for last June but was canceled due to safety concerns during a period of heightened immigration enforcement activity in the area.
Not everyone is convinced the event alone will make a difference.
“If I’m being honest, I hate LA. I don’t like this place,” said Alex Valenzuela, who was born in Westlake and visits the area periodically when he has business at the Mexican consulate nearby. “The park is nice, but I just don’t like the fact that everywhere you see, there are homeless people, people smoking, people on drugs.”
Concerns about homelessness and drug activity came up repeatedly in interviews with residents and workers near the park.
Fernando Rodriguez, owner of Variedades A and K, where he does money transfers and sells vitamins and other household supplies, supports the idea as long as it does not disrupt access for workers.
He believes kids could benefit from closing down Wilshire and opening it up for activities, but that the city needs to address homelessness in the area.
“Every day it’s packed with homeless people. The kids come to play in the park, but I’ve seen the homelessness and drugs,” he said. “Even if they close down to provide activities for kids, it’s not going to be safe for them if all the homeless are still here.”
Jonathan Santos, a leasing agent inside the MacArthur Park swap meet, said he would support the plan if it leads to visible improvements.
“I would support this if it gets rid of the homelessness. I’m sick and tired of it,” Santos said. “I think closing down this street might be the beginning of something.”
Santos, who grew up in the neighborhood, said he no longer feels comfortable bringing his children to the park.
“My kids do not like it here … No way I would let them come here to play at MacArthur Park,” he said.
Others said more activity could help shift the feel of the park, even if temporarily.
“I feel like it will take a lot of homeless people away if they see a lot of people in the area with little kids,” said Erica Garcia, a local resident and mother. “I’ve been living here for two years now and I don’t bring my kid out here because it’s not safe.”
Garcia said she would be open to bringing her baby out to the park in July to experience the World Cup activation if there are extra security guards and police patrolling the area.
Outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May as organizers finalize plans for the July event. Lucktenberg said residents can also expect to hear more about the events starting in May. The viewing parties at the park are just some of several that will be hosted across the city, including a block party at Liberty Park in Koreatown.
Neither of those parties are officially sanctioned by FIFA, who are planning to host their own events at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.
The post FIFA World Cup events to close Wilshire through MacArthur Park for two days in July appeared first on LA Local.
Topline:
The average refund so far is $350 more than last year at this time, despite projections that it would be closer to $1,000 due to Republican-led tax changes as part of the Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Reactions to refunds: Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.
The backstory: The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year." But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.
Read on... for more on tax refunds so far.
Early spring means the return of warm weather and … taxes. On a recent weekend, Dan and Glynna Courter were enjoying the sun with friends over a picnic of blueberries and Cheez-Its at Birmingham's Railroad Park.
When the topic moved to how they're feeling about their tax refunds, nearly everyone at the gathering responded with a chorus of lukewarm just fines.
The lack of enthusiasm was surprising considering everyone on the picnic blanket received sizable refunds, including about $10,000 for the Courters combined. But Glynna thinks their refund wasn't that much different from last year. The couple withhold the maximum taxes from their paychecks, which helps them avoid the risk of owing taxes and leads to a bigger refund.
"We might go to a nice restaurant," Dan added, after Glynna said they'd use the refund for savings.
This is not the vibe Republican lawmakers were planning for this tax season. The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year."
But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.
So far, the average refund has totaled about $350 more than last year. By early April, the average tax refund sat at $3,462, which is 11.1% higher than the same point last year, according to the IRS.
And Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.
"There's a bit of a disappointment in how much those refunds are," said Tom O'Saben, the director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. "People are quietly, perhaps, happy but not to the extent where I would call it significant."
One possible explanation for the lower refunds is that the benefits from the tax law changes could be showing up more for Americans who don't receive refunds, but owe taxes. The IRS data on tax refunds this season does not factor in how much less Americans owed compared to last year.
"The evidence is stronger that more tax relief is relatively flowing to those who otherwise would owe when they file," said Don Schneider, deputy head of U.S. policy at the investment bank Piper Sandler.
But Schneider points out that owing less money is harder to notice than getting cash in hand.
"Getting it in a refund is probably more impactful, more easy to understand than having a reduction in what you otherwise would owe," Schneider said.
Wealthier filers so far seem to have received larger benefits from the tax changes.
"Higher income taxpayers are much more likely than lower income taxpayers to report significantly higher refunds this year," said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
That's due in part to the increase in the SALT, or state and local tax, deduction cap raised by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Filers can now deduct up to $40,000 for property, sales and income taxes paid to state and local governments. The deduction primarily goes to wealthier Americans who own homes with big mortgage payments.
Since they traditionally are more likely to procrastinate sending in their returns, that could cause this year's average tax refund to grow later on, but likely still fall short of the additional $1,000 mark, Lautz said. "It is unlikely that we will see that kind of boost by the end of this."
Part of the tepid response to refunds could be related to the extra cash Americans are spending at the pump.
The war with Iran has brought the average price for a gallon of regular in the U.S. well above $4. Data from the Bank of America Institute and PNC shows consumers have continued spending on gas, and depending on how long gas prices stay elevated, all of the benefits Americans received from the 2025 tax and spending bill could go solely to staying fueled up.
"The tax refund season might be very good, but it's also being offset by this price in gasoline," said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
Bob Jones, a retiree in Birmingham, is satisfied with his refund. He benefited from an extra deduction of $6,000 for a lot of seniors 65 and up. But the war with Iran has him worried about what that means for the price of gas, so he's put it all in savings.
"You need the savings simply for gas," Jones said.
Copyright 2026 NPR
