The Brief

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Copper wire theft damaged business phone lines at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s East L.A. Station in February — two months later, service is still down.

Residents have faced longer wait times to get in touch with the department for non-emergencies. Now, all dispatchers are working from an off-site communication trailer connected via satellite, according to officials.

“We elevated this to the highest level we possibly could,” said Operations Captain Shawnee N. Hinchman at a Maravilla Community Advisory Committee (MCAC) meeting last week. “Our dispatchers aren’t even at the station right now because we had to reroute the lines to a different location, so we’re even down personnel.”

At the meeting, East L.A. resident Guadalupe Arellano said she’s struggled to contact the station to report parking enforcement issues.

“The last few times that I tried to make calls to…the Sheriff’s office, they had answering machines or are no longer answering calls,” she said.  

An officer told her that the best line of action is to contact the Sheriff’s Department directly, but noted delays are expected.

According to Sgt. Michael Mileski, several thousand dollars’ worth of copper wiring was stolen from an electrical vault during the early morning hours on Feb. 13. Fiber optic cables were damaged in the process, which affected a significant portion of the Eastern Avenue corridor in Boyle Heights and East L.A., disrupting phone lines for 100,000 residents for 5 days, Mileski said. 

Mileski was unsure why service had not been restored at the station and did not provide a timeline for repairs.

“We were told back in February that this would be ongoing. They said it would take about a month and a half to fix the problem,” Mileski said.

Copper wire theft has plagued the Eastside in recent years, leaving communities in the dark and disabling public facilities. Repairing damaged fiber lines can be difficult and time consuming for service providers. 

The office of Assemblymember Jessica Caloza has also stepped in to try to expedite the resolution. Hector Rodriguez, a field representative for Caloza’s office, told residents at the meeting that they are working with AT&T to restore service, but it has taken longer than expected.

“It’s extremely frustrating even for us as well but our office takes this extremely seriously, just like the community,” Rodriguez said. A spokesperson for AT&T wasn’t immediately available to answer questions from Boyle Heights Beat.  

As of Thursday, the business phone lines remain down and calls cannot be transferred within the East L.A. Sheriff’s Station.

Lt. William Morris told Boyle Heights Beat that four to seven dispatchers are currently working at a time from an off-site communications trailer. If a caller is unable to get through, Morris recommends trying again and said a dispatcher will eventually pick up. He added that 911 calls will go through no matter what.

LA Documenter Alex Medina contributed reporting for this story. LA Documenters trains and pays LA residents to take notes at local government meetings around Los Angeles. You can find meeting notes and audio at losangeles.documenters.org

Earlier this year, tickets to see SZA perform at the Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 a piece. In San Francisco, tickets to see Sam Smith at the newly renovated Castro Theater went on sale for $120, only to be quickly snatched up by scalpers and resold for upwards of $600.

Those are some of the stories that California lawmakers are citing as they advance two plans to change the ticketing landscape. One caps the extent to which resellers can mark up the original ticket price while the other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t yet own.

Democratic Assemblymembers Issac Bryan of Culver City and Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying bills that they say would protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive ticket sales.

Both measures are backed by the ticket market’s dominant seller, Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. Its support has some worried that the bills will help the company crush its competitors and jack up prices. A federal jury in New York this week found that the company illegally acted as a monopoly in a victory for, among others, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who with colleagues in other states sued the company two years ago and kept going after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now awaiting penalties.

Despite these headwinds, the ticket bills are sailing through the Legislature.

Supporters say the legislation has nothing to do with the antitrust case against Live Nation and helps consumers. Opponents disagree.

“The state Legislature should really be standing up for consumers instead of advancing bills that are there to help a monopoly that has been caught on record calling its fans stupid and has bragged about robbing them blind,” said Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights advocacy group.

Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying against the measures, a sign that they view the proposals as a threat to their business.

Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, wrote to CalMatters, stating, “Passing laws that hand the Ticketmaster monopoly more power and don’t actually make tickets more affordable is the last thing California’s leaders should do.”

But Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, argues that they will regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging the face value — or below face value — exchange of tickets.

“Ultimately, that is what these bills will do, in addition to making sure that the tickets are actually real,” he said. “That is a good thing for California consumers. It's a good thing for artists and it's a good thing for these small businesses and nonprofits that make up the independent stages across the state.”

A Live Nation spokesperson said in a statement to CalMatters, “The resale lobby constantly tries to change the subject by pointing fingers at Ticketmaster, even though it has less than 25% of the resale market. This has nothing to do with anyone’s monopoly, but rather is about protecting fans from scalpers and the resale sites that cater to them.”

The company has spent roughly $165,000 on lobbying efforts this legislative session, including to support Bryan’s bill.

'Unlikely allies'

Bryan’s Assembly Bill 1349 would ban the sale of speculative tickets — or tickets that are not in the possession or ownership of the people who list them online. In an April hearing, Bryan said the bill protects consumers from predatory mark ups.

“This bill is so important that, after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together,” Bryan said, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. “In fact, this bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together, brought the National Independent Venue Association and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together.”

Several secondary ticket sellers are fighting the measure, including StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. The three companies have spent roughly $1.1 million dollars on lobbying efforts this legislative session, which included opposition to Bryan’s bill.

People watch fireworks during Bad Bunny’s halftime show from a parking garage outside Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 8, 2026.

(

Jungho Kim

/

CalMatters

)

Opponents including Robert Herrell, executive director for the Consumer Federation of California, argue that the bill strengthens Live Nation Ticketmaster’s grip on the ticketing and live entertainment industry. According to them, the measure would give Live Nation complete control over the ticket even after it has been purchased — meaning, for example, that consumers could lose the ability to sell it or give it away.

“There’s no consumer choice in the matter,” said Herrell. “They can keep people out of shows if they want to. There have been situations where, if you bought a ticket on the secondary market, you’ve been denied entry into a show.”

Proponents say Herrell and other opponents are mistaken. They say they are not trying to prevent transferability but rather, they want to protect fans from speculative costs.

“We want those rooms full,” said Ron Gubitz, executive director of Music Artists Coalition, which is co-sponsoring both bills. “So you have to be able to transfer a ticket. We just want it to be in a way that’s safe, trustworthy and not creating this run on the market that exists now.”

Gubitz pointed to a recent Bruno Mars concert, where tickets were on StubHub for $400 to $2,000 before they were on sale through Ticketmaster.

“That’s crazy,” he said. “That’s a speculative ticket that Bryan’s bill is trying to stop. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not fair to anybody, except for the secondary (market). It seems great for them.”

Price caps in a free market

Haney’s Assembly Bill 1720, also known as the California Fans First Act, would put a 10% cap on resale event ticket markups, inclusive of the ticket fees. In other words, a reseller could not charge more than 10% higher than the original ticket price.

In an interview with CalMatters, Haney said artists, independent venues and downtowns are currently being “screwed over and exploited” by scalpers and brokers.

“We can’t allow the status quo to continue if we want to ensure Californians have access to affordable tickets to see their favorite artists or if we want independent venues or the broader landscape of musicians and artists to thrive in our state,” he said.

Haney rejected the idea that his bill would strengthen the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly, saying that the company is one of the biggest operators and profiteers of the secondary ticket market and would therefore be subject to the same restrictions as any other platform or broker.

“I don't think it's a free market to allow folks to come in and buy up all these tickets and then create scarcity and then you're now required to buy your ticket at a much higher price from someone who had nothing to do with the event,” he said. “This is not something we would ever allow for airplane tickets or even dinner reservations.”

The bill has been criticized by opponents like Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at Progressive Policy Institute, who said price caps notoriously distort the market, describing them as “anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-artist.”

“If you shut down the resale market with price caps then guess what? Ticket buyers have no place to go but right back to Ticketmaster,” said Moss. “If (Live Nation) succeed(s) in decimating the resale market, then they steer millions and millions of fans back to their own ticketing platform where they charge monopoly ticket fees and where fans are hostage to their glitchy online platform and all of their data, privacy and security concerns that we always hear about in the news.”

Those concerns didn’t stop the bill from passing out of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism last week with a 6-1 vote. The bill also passed out of the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection on Thursday with a 9-4 vote.

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

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

Several candidates running for California governor will take part in a public forum Saturday in Koreatown, offering residents a chance to hear directly from them ahead of the primary election on June 2. 

Confirmed candidates include Democrats Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee. Candidates were invited based on fundraising totals reported earlier this year to the California Secretary of State.

Democrats Matt Mahan and Katie Porter, along with Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, were also invited but have not confirmed their attendance, according to the Center for Asian Americans United for Self Empowerment (CAUSE), one of the lead host organizations.

Details on attending and viewing

The forum will run from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at World Mission University located at 500 Shatto Place. Doors open at 9 a.m. and space is limited. RSVP is required, though entry is not guaranteed.

The forum will not be livestreamed but organizers say recordings will be released by May 4 with translations in Bengali, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Punjabi, Tagalog, Thai and Vietnamese with the possibility of additional languages.

Parking will be limited. About 80 spaces are available in the building’s first-floor garage, with another 15 to 20 spaces potentially available in a second-floor tenant lot. Free parking is also available in a nearby lot on Westmoreland Avenue, according to the university.

Focus on AAPI communities

Organizers say the forum is designed to connect candidates directly with AANHPI communities. More than 7.3 million Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders live in California, making up over 15% of the population.

“California’s AANHPI communities are a driving force behind the state’s economy, culture, and democracy,” Korean American Democratic Committee (KADC) President Esther Lim said in a statement.

“As the only gubernatorial forum in Los Angeles County hosted by and for AANHPI communities, this is a historic opportunity for candidates to connect with one of California’s fastest growing and most influential communities. Our coalition represents organizations across the political spectrum united by a common goal: ensuring AANHPI Californians are seen, heard, and prioritized.”

Organizers said Koreatown was an intentional choice for the forum. 

“Koreatown, like many AANHPI communities, has historically been overlooked and underestimated, making it especially meaningful to bring gubernatorial candidates directly into this space,” KADC and CAUSE said in a joint statement. “It was important to hold this forum in a location that is both accessible by public transportation and grounded in the communities we serve.” 

Where polls stand

The forum comes as the race shifts following Democrat Eric Swalwell’s exit. The candidate — who had been invited — suspended his campaign last week after facing allegations of rape and sexual assault, which he has denied.

A new Emerson College Polling survey conducted April 14-15 shows a wide-open race, with Hilton leading at 17% and nearly a quarter of voters still undecided. Bianco and Steyer trail closely behind at 14%.

Among Democrats, the poll found support is now split between Steyer (20%), Becerra (19%) and Porter (15%), with Becerra gaining ground after Swalwell left the race, according to the poll.

The post Koreatown to host candidate forum for California’s next governor appeared first on LA Local.

Democrats are searching for a hero to save them in the California governor’s race.

So far, no one in party leadership has come to the rescue.

Despite Rep. Eric Swalwell’s exit from the race this week, the Democratic field remains unwieldy, with seven major candidates still splitting the field less than three weeks before ballots are sent. Each of them refuses to bow out, regardless of their polling numbers, in the hope they can capture some of the voter attention that Swalwell’s demise drew to the race.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the face of the party in California, is not interested in elevating a successor. Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks, who faces criticism for not using his position to cull the field, has relied on party-commissioned polls and vague pleas for candidates to “honestly assess” their campaign’s viability, refusing to openly pressure anyone to drop out.

Even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — known for urging then-Rep. Adam Schiff to run for Senate and former President Joe Biden to drop his reelection bid — won’t intervene.

“People have reached out to me saying, ‘Your mom has to do something!’” said Christine Pelosi, daughter of the San Francisco congresswoman and herself a candidate for state Senate.

“I said, ‘You know what? She doesn't, though,’” the younger Pelosi said. “She already did that with Biden and Harris. She's not going to — don't look to her to do that again.”

Gone is the heyday of the San Francisco-based political machine, a network of political talent that dominated state politics for decades and produced titans such as Pelosi and Newsom, both of whom are moving on from California politics.

Now that pipeline has run dry, and this year there is no obvious heir to Newsom for the party to coalesce behind. No current statewide officeholder joined the fray, and both presumptive favorites — former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla — opted not to run.

That has made top Democrats loath to weigh in on the state’s first truly open Democratic primary in 16 years. In 2018, Newsom, then the lieutenant governor, was widely viewed as the most likely successor to former Gov. Jerry Brown, another product of the San Francisco political machine.

The 2026 race is also only the second time an open field has competed under the top-two primary system, adopted 16 years ago to the chagrin of both parties. That means two Democrats or two Republicans could advance to the general election and lock the other party out.

Newsom reiterated his lack of interest this week when he issued a statement that said in part, “I have full confidence that voters will choose a candidate who reflects the values and direction Californians believe in.”

Too much democracy for Democrats?

While grassroots activists have for decades decried the king-making of insider machine politics, the alternative — an abundance of candidates with no clear frontrunner — has proved unappealing too.

The resulting decision paralysis has resurrected calls for a strong leader to step in.

“This has been incredibly frustrating, not to mention scary, with the idea that we could end up with two Republicans,” said RL Miller, a longtime delegate and chair of the party’s environmental caucus. “I really do believe that there has been a failure of leadership at the top.”

Miller theorized that party leaders were overcorrecting after years of backlash following the 2016 presidential election, in which establishment Democrats disregarded the grassroots support for Sen. Bernie Sanders and instead anointed Hillary Clinton.

As more Democratic gubernatorial candidates entered the fray in the last year, Miller said she thought leadership had the “admirable intent” of letting delegates winnow the field themselves.

But anxieties were already spiking before the Democrats’ endorsing convention in February, where none of the nine candidates vying for the gubernatorial nod amassed more than 25% — far short of the 60% needed. Hicks faced repeated questions then about whether he would step in, but insisted it wasn’t his role.

“By the party convention, the alarm bells had been ringing for months,” said Miller, who has consistently voted against Hicks in internal party elections.

California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks addresses the media in Sacramento on Nov. 17, 2023.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

After the convention, Hicks released an open letter urging that “every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign,” and “if you do not have a viable path to make it to the general election” not to file to run. Only one listened, former Assemblymember Ian Calderon, who was polling around 1% or less.

Later, Hicks announced the party would conduct ongoing polls on the race and release them every seven to 10 days through early May, when ballots are sent.

Hicks’ defenders said he was right to abstain from picking favorites. Christine Pelosi said it would be “inappropriate” for the chair to weigh in on the candidates after delegates at the party convention chose not to endorse anyone.

Hicks’ calls for candidates to “consider their viability” was a “somewhat extraordinary and surprising” move, said Paul Mitchell, the architect of the gerrymandered congressional maps that voters approved via Proposition 50 to boost congressional Democrats in the upcoming election.

“It maybe wasn't surprising for people who think that the Democratic Party chair is like a backroom dealer that's going to knock heads or something like that,” Mitchell said. “But that's not the chair’s role in California right now.”

Top-two primary adds to tension

Both Mitchell and Christine Pelosi blamed the top-two system for much of the drama. The slim possibility that two Republicans could emerge from the primary has spurred many of the calls for leadership to weigh in.

Mitchell argued that since President Donald Trump put a thumb on the scale by endorsing former Fox News host Steve Hilton, there’s less risk that both he and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco would end up on the November ticket, alleviating some of the pressure on Democrats.

“If it wasn't a top two, people wouldn't care,” said Christine Pelosi. “You wouldn't have the added agita of ‘there's only two Republicans and there's a bunch of Democrats.’”

Notably, the state GOP failed to endorse a candidate at its recent convention, indicating that Trump’s nod might not hold as much sway as Democrats assume.

Still, if Hicks is trying to convince rank-and-file Democrats he’s doing enough, it’s not working.

Amar Shergill, the former leader of the party’s progressive caucus, suggested that its weak, decentralized leadership was by design so monied interests could exert more control over who gets elected.

“Rusty Hicks is furniture that folks with real power use at their discretion,” Shergill said.

“There's no sort of anger or animosity towards him as a person,” he said. “If it wasn’t Rusty, it would be somebody else. This is just the political situation right now.”

In an interview, Hicks told CalMatters that he is “doing what is required” to ensure a Democrat wins the race. But when pressed repeatedly, Hicks would not elaborate on what that work entails, if he believes what he’s done so far is working or if he should have had a stronger hand in culling the field, as his critics have suggested.

“I'm not interested in opening up the playbook as to what we will or will not do in the coming days and weeks,” he said.

CalMatters’ Yue Stella Yu contributed to this report.

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

More than 20 locations in South L.A. will get speed cameras under a pilot program that gets rolling this fall. 

The plan, which was approved by the L.A. City Council last month, will cover a total 125 targeted zones in the city, according to L.A. Department of Transportation documents. The cameras could start snapping photos of speedsters as early as July, with a 60-day warning period  — where drivers wouldn’t be fined — running into September. 

LADOT says the cameras are aimed at reducing traffic fatalities while complying with a 2023 state law that requires LA and five other cities to establish automated speed enforcement programs before 2032.

L.A. saw 290 traffic fatalities in 2025, according to LA Police Department data, 6% less than 2024. Several of the city’s deadliest intersections are clustered in South L.A. along Western Avenue, Vermont Avenue and Figueroa Street, according to data analyzed by Crosstown.

Where will the speed cameras be installed in South LA?

Some intersections will have multiple camera clusters installed on the streets around them. The intersection of Gage Avenue and Figueroa Street, for example, will have cameras to the north, south and west. 

Cameras will be located on:

• Figueroa Street between Adams Boulevard and 23rd Street
• Figueroa Street between Gage Avenue and 62nd Street 
• Figueroa Street between 68th Street and Gage Avenue
• Figueroa Street between Manchester Avenue and 85th Street 
• Normandie Avenue between 62nd Street and 64th Street
• Western Avenue between 55th Street and 53rd Street 
• Western Avenue between 24th Street and Adams Boulevard 
• Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard between Hobart Boulevard and Saint Andrews Place 
• Florence Avenue between Van Ness Avenue and Haas Avenue 
• Florence Avenue between Vermont Avenue and Hoover Street 
• Vermont Avenue between Florence Avenue and 71st Street 
• Vermont Avenue between 58th Place and 57th Street 
• Vernon Avenue between Wadsworth Avenue and McKinley Avenue 
• Gage Avenue between Hoover Street and Figueroa Street 
• Gage Avenue between Halldale Avenue and Raymond Avenue
• Slauson Avenue between Brentwood Street and Inskeep Avenue 
• Slauson Avenue between Budlong Avenue and Menlo Avenue 
• Central Avenue between 92nd Avenue and 91st Street 
• Avalon Boulevard between 77th Street and 74th Street 
• Manchester Avenue between Wadsworth Avenue and Central Avenue
• La Brea Avenue between Veronica Street and Coliseum Street 
• La Cienega Boulevard between Coliseum Street and Bowesfield Street 
• Arlington Avenue between Adams Boulevard and 18th Street 
• Jefferson Boulevard between Crenshaw Boulevard and Bronson Avenue

More than 20 locations in South LA will get speed cameras under a pilot program that gets rolling this fall.

How much will tickets cost? 

Cameras will snap a photo of a speeding vehicle’s rear that includes its license plate as well as its make and model. 

The system will document the date, time and vehicle speed, then issue a citation to the vehicle’s registered owner, according to LADOT’s policy plan.  

Fines will ratchet higher based on how fast a vehicle is moving, starting with a $50 fine for vehicles going 11 to 15 mph above the limit. 

Vehicles moving 16 to 25 mph over the limit will get $100 fines, and vehicles going 26 mph or more over the limit will get $200 fines. 

The max fine will be $500 for vehicles that go 100 mph or more above the speed limit.

LADOT said camera images will not include rear windshields or faces, and that state law does not allow the cameras to use facial recognition technology.

How were speed camera locations selected?

Some Angelenos submitted comments to LADOT, worrying the speed camera program will disproportionately affect people of color, according to a March 20 department memo. 

LADOT said in the memo that it worked to minimize any inequity, in part, by distributing the cameras evenly across the city’s 15 council districts, with every district getting at least eight cameras, and no district getting more than nine.  

The transportation department said it based much of its location selection on speed-related collision data and proximity to places like senior centers and schools. 

State law requires that the city continue monitoring the program’s effectiveness and impact on civil rights and liberties, according to LADOT.

The post Speed cameras are coming to South LA — here’s where they’ll be installed appeared first on LA Local.