Sponsored message
Logged in as
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
  • Neighbors living near proposed new home oppose it
    A building with a large signage over the entrance that reads Silver Platter with burgundy and black paint
    The Silver Platter in Westlake is slated for demolition and the owners are seeking to relocate within the neighborhood.

    Topline:

    Residents living beside The Silver Platter’s proposed new home say work schedules, language barriers and an unfamiliarity with Zoom kept many from speaking at the city’s hearing.

    Why now: At a July 14 hearing, city staff with the Los Angeles Department of City Planning heard the proposal to relocate The Silver Platter after their longtime location on 7th Street was slated for demolition for a new housing development.

    Why it matters: No decision was made at the hearing. Instead, the zoning administrator left the public record open for 30 days to allow additional written comments before issuing a decision. City staff are balancing the bar’s cultural and historical significance against concerns raised by the Los Angeles Unified School District and residents about parking, noise, traffic and public safety.

    Read on... for more on the proposal.

    This story first appeared on The LA Local.

    Every school day, Vilma Armas watches her 16-year old daughter walk to Miguel Contreras Learning Complex from their apartment near the corner of Lucas Avenue and West Third Street.

    It’s the same intersection where The Silver Platter, a historic LGBTQ+ Latino bar, wants to relocate. 

    The mother is opposed to the proposal and she’s not alone as many of her neighbors and the Los Angeles Unified School District have raised concerns about opening a bar near six school campuses in the Westlake neighborhood.

    “It’s just not a good decision to open that there,” Armas said. “We’re against it for the safety of our children and ourselves, too.” 

    A person reads from a paper in their hand while another listens with a mobile phone attached at their wrist and the back of a person's head is visible from over their shoulder.
    Westlake residents Silvia Samayoa, left, and Esperanza Lopez speak with Vilma Armas about a proposal to relocate The Silver Platter on July 27, 2026.
    (
    Isaac Vargas
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    At a July 14 hearing, city staff with the Los Angeles Department of City Planning heard the proposal to relocate The Silver Platter after their longtime location on 7th Street was slated for demolition for a new housing development. 

    Multiple neighbors were unable to speak up during the virtual hearing due to their work schedules, language barriers, age and difficulty navigating the online meeting’s comment system. The bar’s owners have applied for a permit to sell alcoholic beverages and install a 15-foot neon sign at the new location on West 3rd Street.

    No decision was made at the hearing. Instead, the zoning administrator left the public record open for 30 days to allow additional written comments before issuing a decision.

    City staff are balancing the bar’s cultural and historical significance against concerns raised by the Los Angeles Unified School District and residents about parking, noise, traffic and public safety. 

    Supporters argue the bar is an irreplaceable cultural institution and a safe place for Spanish-speaking gay Latinos, transgender Latinas and working-class immigrants.

    “This is not a new bar coming to the neighborhood,” said Martha Vasquez, who runs the bar with her mother, Margarita Xatruch. “It is an institution asking to keep its doors open in a neighborhood that it has belonged to for 60 years.” 

    Residents say they’re not opposed to the clientele or the bar’s legacy but rather the proximity to where people live, work and where children attend school.

    The department will weigh in on the conditional use permit at a later date. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles City Planning Department did not respond to requests for comment on the application’s status.

    Why is The Silver Platter proposing to move? 

    The Silver Platter has operated since 1963, becoming one of Los Angeles’ oldest and most enduring gathering places for queer and transgender Latinos in Westlake. 

    But after more than six decades at 7th Street and Rampart Boulevard, the family-owned bar was forced to find a new home when the property was slated for redevelopment as a mixed-use housing project during the pandemic. News of the proposed development was first reported in Kim Cooper and Richard Schave’s newsletter, Esotouric’s Secret Los Angeles in May 2024.

    Rather than leave the Westlake neighborhood, the owners spent months fundraising and searching for another location before settling on 1403 W. 3rd St., about a half-mile from the original location. 

    Supporters say remaining in the neighborhood is essential to preserving the community the bar has served for generations. 

    Preservation advocates have identified it as a culturally significant site, and in 2025 it was named one of the nation’s Endangered Latinx Landmarks, according to the Latinos in Heritage Conservation.

    “The next best thing for this historic institution to remain the important cultural landmark that it is is to stay within the Westlake-MacArthur Park neighborhood,” said Jesi Harris, the applicant’s representative, during the virtual hearing. 

    Why neighbors oppose the proposal 

    Weeks after the virtual hearing, Roni Lopez stood in the lobby of his apartment building, surrounded by neighbors who gathered to talk about the proposal.

    Lopez has lived in the building for more than a decade and was one of the few residents who spoke during the July hearing to voice his opposition. 

    Like many of his neighbors, Lopez, a pastor in South Los Angeles, said he is not opposed to The Silver Platter or the community it serves. His concern, he said, is the proposed location. 

    Residents remember the previous bar that occupied the ground-floor commercial space was a bad neighbor.

    There was the late-night noise, people drinking or lingering on the front steps of the residential building, and bar patrons blocked access to the apartment parking entrance and loitered around the nearby DASH bus stop.

    A group of people look forward for a photo while standing in a building lobby. Some are holding pieces of paper at their sides under a bright fluorescent light.
    Tenants gather in the lobby of their Westlake apartment building to discuss concerns about a proposal to relocate The Silver Platter next door on July 27, 2026.
    (
    Isaac Vargas
    /
    The LA Local
    )

    Several residents said the block became noticeably quieter after the business closed and worry another bar would bring back the same problems. 

    “The city will be responsible for the decision it makes,” Lopez said. “As you can see, there’s a large community here that does not want that place to open.”

    Applicants for The Silver Platter dispute the characterization, describing the bar as a quiet gathering place whose patrons have long depended on its low profile. 

    The applicants also said they agreed to several operating conditions, including opening after the school day, installing security cameras, coordinating with nearby schools and other measures.

    The LAUSD nevertheless opposes the proposal.

    Julissa Hernandez, legislative liaison for the district, said LAUSD recognizes The Silver Platter’s history but is still concerned about a late-night, alcohol-serving establishment adjacent to multiple schools. Hernandez said the proposed site is near six LAUSD campuses.

    Esther, Vilma’s 16-year-old daughter, shares those very same concerns. She even wrote a letter to her City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, urging the city to reject the Silver Platter’s proposal.  

    “I think it’s really inconsiderate to open a bar that close to not only one school, but an elementary school, and then you have middle schools and other high schools around here,” she said in her letter.

  • State officials may pull project funding
    A view from above of a pair of green hills at the bottom of the frame and the ocean in the horizon.
    Catalina Island is home to more than 4,000 residents, who live with slow, unreliable internet connection.

    Topline:

    California’s Public Utilities Commission will decide whether to claw back or keep $37.5 million in grant funding to bring fast, reliable internet to Catalina Island.

    Background: Last December, the CPUC awarded a grant to telecom company AVX Networks to install subsea fiber internet infrastructure between Orange County and the island.

    Why it matters: Catalina Island is home to more than 4,000 residents, and it draws thousands of tourists each year, but the internet connection is often slow and unreliable. The lack of a reliable internet connection affects critical services on the island such as remote learning and emergency response.

    Read on … for more on where things stand.

    California’s Public Utilities Commission will decide on Thursday whether to claw back or keep $37.5 million in grant funding meant to bring fast, reliable internet to Catalina Island.

    The island is home to more than 4,000 residents, and it draws thousands of tourists each year. Its slow, unreliable internet connection affects everything from remote learning to emergency response.

    Lance Ware is CEO of AVX Networks, the company awarded the grant from the CPUC in December 2025. He told LAist host Nereida Moreno that the island depends on a very limited wireless internet link.

    “When the town is busy, for instance, a cruise ship comes … the internet just gets crippled along with all the telephone services,” Ware explained.

    Months after AVX Networks was awarded the grant, CPUC staff accused the company in July 2026 of breaking federal spending rules, citing insufficient justification and documentation for invoices.

    The proposed plan would build the fiber-optic network under the San Pedro Channel from two points on Catalina Island to landings near Huntington Beach. Those cables will then connect to the Middle Mile Broadband Network in Stanton.

    Where do things stand today? 

    CPUC staff allege that AVX Networks violated several program requirements, according to records.

    “Since the award, AVX Networks has not shown itself to have the requisite administrative, technical, and operational capacity to deliver on its project, and AVX Networks has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of its award,” the CPUC agenda item records state.

    Ware said he “vehemently disagrees” with those statements.

    “There are allegations on things in there that do not make sense to us in that we've had no due process or cure and correct period to address,” Ware said.

    What’s next? 

    If the commission terminates the contract and pulls the funding, Ware said the project will be delayed, but not stopped.

    “This is not curtains down for us,” Ware added. “It's gonna take longer, and we'll have to find some other way to finance it, but we certainly haven't given up.”

    How to participate in CPUC meetings

    California’s Public Utilities Commission meets on Thursday, Oct. 29 at 11 a.m. You can watch the meeting remotely here.

    To make public comments over the phone: Call (800) 857-1917. When prompted by the operator, unmute your phone and press *1 (star one). You will be prompted to state your name and/or organization. The operator will call on you when it’s your turn to speak.

    To make a written comment: You can submit comments on the CPUC docket page.

    Nereida Moreno contributed to the reporting of this story.

  • Sponsored message
  • All the tax measures on the LA, OC ballots
    An illustrated wallet with cash, a receipt and coins sits before a Los Angeles street scene with palm trees and skyline.
    More than 30 cities in L.A. and Orange counties have tax increases of some kind on the Nov. 3 ballot.

    Topline:

    By LAist’s count, over 30 cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties are asking residents to approve tax measures on Election Day this Tuesday.

    Why now? Municipalities cite stagnant revenues that haven’t kept pace with the rising costs of insurance, maintenance and infrastructure projects, and employee pensions. As a result, big cities, suburbs and small towns alike are all facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits. So they are asking residents to open their wallets — or potentially see deep cuts to basic city services.

    Read on ... to find out if possible hikes are coming your way.

    Southern Californians are feeling squeezed by the rising costs of, well, everything. And now their local governments are asking for more money, too.

    By LAist’s count, more than 30 cities or districts in Los Angeles and Orange counties are asking residents to approve tax measures on Election Day, Nov. 3, citing stagnant revenues that haven’t kept pace with the rising costs of insurance, maintenance and infrastructure projects, and employee pensions. Big cities, suburbs and small towns are all facing multimillion-dollar budget deficits and asking residents to open their wallets — or potentially see deep cuts to basic city services.

    The list of local measures on ballots from Culver City to San Clemente includes sales taxes, hotel taxes, business taxes, parcel taxes and utility taxes. Some ballot measures would extend or increase existing taxes while others are brand-new.

    Much of the answer to why so many tax measures are on the ballot lies in Proposition 13, which capped property taxes in 1978.

    Before Prop. 13, cities and counties relied on property taxes for nearly all of their revenue. In the decades since, they’ve increasingly turned to other types of taxes. Hotel and utility taxes, for example, were essentially nonexistent before the mid-1970s, and sales taxes represented a small sliver of revenue. Even as these taxes have grown, they’ve struggled to replace property tax revenue.

    How Proposition 13 reshaped local taxes 

    • Before 1978, California municipalities could raise taxes without voter approval. But in addition to capping property taxes, Proposition 13 also changed the rules for other taxes. Section 4 of Proposition 13 states that any special taxes (which are taxes designated for a specific use) must be approved by two-thirds of voters. A later proposition passed in 1986 requires that general taxes be approved by a simple majority of voters. General taxes are general purpose funds that cities can allocate as they please.
    • The rules could change again this year with Proposition 43, which would raise the share of votes needed to pass local special tax measures proposed by citizens to two-thirds. Currently, citizen-led special tax initiatives only need to win a simple majority. 
    Despite what the Nov. 3 ballot might suggest, sales tax measures are actually becoming less common, according to Michael Coleman, author of the California Local Government Finance Almanac. “More and more governments have started to exhaust the capacity for that. There’s a limit in how much you can do both legally and in terms of the tolerance of voters,” Coleman said.

    State law caps the maximum combined local and county sales tax rate, and many Southern California cities are already at or near that cap, Coleman said. And sales tax isn’t as reliable as it used to be, amid the broader retail downturn and shift to a service-based economy (most services aren’t taxable in California).

    All of that means cities are increasingly turning to “ticky-tacky, peculiar taxes” to come up with revenue, according to Kirk Stark, a professor of tax law and policy at UCLA.

    The “conventional tax instruments” — property, income and sales taxes — are all limited by state law, Stark said. “Local governments that are hoping to satisfy demand for any kind of public expenditure have to turn to other, less conventional sources of revenue.”

    This year, cities are asking Southern Californians to say yes to a wide range of taxes. Below, we look at three examples in South Gate, Orange and Diamond Bar.

    South Gate: A utility users tax

    South Gate is asking voters to approve something less common: a utility users tax, or UUT for short. If Measure SG is approved, the 8% tax would be added to bills for utilities such as electricity, water, natural gas, cable and phone service. The tax would bring in an estimated $10.4 million per year.

    The city is facing a potential fiscal emergency and a $9.4 million budget deficit. Earlier this year, South Gate began cutting back services, including eliminating its crossing guard program and assigning fewer police officers per shift.

    At a City Council meeting on the tax measure earlier this year, several residents spoke against the measure, with some calling the deficit a result of potential financial mismanagement that shouldn’t be pushed onto residents. Others said the monthly costs would simply add a new burden to already tight budgets.

    “Being a homeowner here for the past 13 years, I have seen my utilities go up as well as the cost of living, my insurance for my house, and my car insurance go up. I believe there’s got to be a way to fix this problem without the UUT measure,” one resident told the City Council.

    “I’m extremely frustrated that you now want to do electricity, water, sewer, cable, cell phone, gas. ... That hurts us. You’re passing that on to us, and that is absolutely not acceptable,” said another.

    The only other utility users tax on the ballot in Los Angeles or Orange counties this year is in San Marino, where residents will decide whether to extend the city’s existing 5% utility users tax, which is set to expire on March 31, 2027, and increase it to 6%. Last year, the tax provided almost $2.2 million in revenue. As of 2021, a total of 162 out of 540 California cities and counties had a utility users tax, according to Coleman’s California Local Government Finance Almanac.

    Orange: Hotel and sales taxes could go up 

    Most people don’t book a hotel in their own city. That’s made hotel taxes an easier pill to swallow for voters, since the tax is mostly levied on visitors.

    The city of Orange is asking voters to approve Measure J, which would raise the hotel tax from 10% to 14%. Orange is one of 10 cities across Los Angeles and Orange counties where voters will decide in November whether to increase or establish a local hotel tax, also known as a “transient occupancy tax.”

    Orange residents will also vote on a 1-cent sales tax measure, as the city projects a $27.6 million deficit that it calls “one of the largest financial challenges in the city’s history.” The sales tax is expected to bring in $37 million annually, and the hotel tax would add $3 million.

    Diamond Bar: A new 1-cent sales tax 

    Diamond Bar voters will decide on Measure Q, a 1% local sales tax that would add a penny per dollar to purchases of taxable items. The city estimates the tax will bring in an additional $6 million annually, which could help plug a projected budget deficit of $5 million a year by 2030.

    “The city’s challenge is simple: costs for city services are going up faster than revenues,” states Diamond Bar’s fact sheet on the measure, which cites rising public safety costs and $100 million in infrastructure and maintenance needs.

    Several other cities have local sales tax measures on the ballot, including Santa Ana’s 1.5% sales tax extension and Los Angeles’ sales tax increase for the Los Angeles Fire Department, Measure FD.

    “There’s a variety because circumstances among these local governments vary. The types of economies among governments vary, the local conditions, even the preferences for what type of revenue measure or tax measure might work varies,” Coleman said. “A local government that’s looking at one of these is going to look at a number of different options and consider what might be most palatable to the voters in their community.”

    What’s on your ballot?

    Our LAist Voter Game Plan is here to help guide you through the Nov. 3 election with guides to races across Los Angeles and Orange counties — and that long list of state propositions — to help you cast a ballot that’s in line with your own personal beliefs and values.

    But the one thing we don’t do? We don’t tell you how to vote. That part is left up to you.

    You can find it all at LAist.com/Vote.

    Further reading

  • LA fires exposed millions to materials
    Person in a red helmet and yellow protective clothing aims a hose at a burning pickup truck as flames and thick orange smoke fill the street.
    A firefighter battles the Eaton Fire, Jan. 8, 2025, in Altadena, Calif.

    Topline:

    At the height of the Los Angeles fires in 2025, millions of residents were exposed in a 24-hour period to toxic lead levels from smoke that were 80 times higher than the typical background level, according to a new study. Researchers from the California Institute of Technology compared the chemical composition of smoke from the Eaton Fire with that of a wildfire and found that the urban plume had more lead, arsenic and halogens (which include chlorine and bromine) linked to burning vehicles, building materials and electronics.

    Why it matters: “The main, key finding is really that wildfire smoke is very different fundamentally from the urban smoke,” said Nga Lee “Sally” Ng, an author of the study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. With the new technology they used to measure what was in the smoke, they were able to “actually see the very detailed component of these particles that we are breathing.”

    Health effects: Ed Avol, professor emeritus in the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California who has researched the health effects of air pollution for decades, said significant exposure to heavy metals is consistent with what he’d expect, “but certainly surprising because we haven’t been able to document this sort of thing.” “One of the real advantages of this study is that it had the opportunity to make measurements sort of hour-by-hour across the sampling network. And typically we make measurements of airborne particulates and so forth a couple of times a week, at best,” said Avol, who wasn’t involved in the study.

    The backstory: The two wind-whipped infernos in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades that ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, killed at least 31 people and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, mostly homes, and everything in them — cars, paint, furniture, chemicals under sinks and more. Millions of people were exposed to smoke, which across the entire United States has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually. A recent study found that metal mixtures in the leftover smoke, ash and debris from the deadly 2023 Maui wildfires were harmful to the lung health of people living nearby long after the burning ended.

    At the height of the Los Angeles fires in 2025, millions of residents were exposed in a 24-hour period to toxic lead levels from smoke that were 80 times higher than the typical background level, according to a new study.

    Researchers from the California Institute of Technology compared the chemical composition of smoke from the Eaton Fire with that of a wildfire and found that the urban plume had more lead, arsenic and halogens (which include chlorine and bromine) linked to burning vehicles, building materials and electronics.

    “The main, key finding is really that wildfire smoke is very different fundamentally from the urban smoke,” said Nga Lee “Sally” Ng, an author of the study published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. With the new technology they used to measure what was in the smoke, they were able to “actually see the very detailed component of these particles that we are breathing.”

    Co-author Haroula Baliaka said understanding the different chemical compositions of smoke from an urban versus a wildland fire helps bridge a missing gap in research. Wildfires are growing larger, more intense, faster-moving and more frequent largely because of drier and warmer weather associated with human-caused climate change. As urban growth and climate change push more fires into cities, researchers said monitoring and emergency response will have to adapt.

    Ed Avol, professor emeritus in the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California who has researched the health effects of air pollution for decades, said significant exposure to heavy metals is consistent with what he’d expect, “but certainly surprising because we haven’t been able to document this sort of thing.”

    “One of the real advantages of this study is that it had the opportunity to make measurements sort of hour-by-hour across the sampling network. And typically we make measurements of airborne particulates and so forth a couple of times a week, at best,” said Avol, who wasn’t involved in the study.

    Thousands of structures burned, releasing toxic chemicals

    The two wind-whipped infernos in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades that ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, killed at least 31 people and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, mostly homes, and everything in them — cars, paint, furniture, chemicals under sinks and more. Millions of people were exposed to smoke, which across the entire United States has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually. A recent study found that metal mixtures in the leftover smoke, ash and debris from the deadly 2023 Maui wildfires were harmful to the lung health of people living nearby long after the burning ended.

    During the fires, researchers measured trace elements of fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, every hour reported by instruments in the Atmospheric Science and Chemistry mEasurement NeTwork ( ASCENT ), a relatively new network of air quality monitors across the U.S. that measures the size and chemical composition of these particulates in real time. Ng said ASCENT is the U.S.'s first measurement network able to measure the chemical composition of airborne particles in real time.

    Researchers were able to see what chemicals were in the smoke, track how its composition changed over the fire’s course, and distinguish emissions coming from burning structures. From there, they estimated how many people across Los Angeles were exposed to the heavy metals, particularly lead, during the fire’s first days.

    They compared the typical value of lead before the fires and the chemical makeup of smoke from a 2024 fire in Riverside County that burned mostly vegetation with data from the Eaton Fire plume. Contrasted with the wildfire smoke, the plume from the LA fire contained 50 times more lead, three times more arsenic, and seven times more halogens. At the peak of burning, about 7 million people were exposed for 24 hours to lead levels more than 80 times what’s typical.

    Lead is a neurotoxin that can stunt children’s development, lower IQ scores and increase blood pressure in adults. Scientists still don’t know how short-term, high exposure to lead impacts human health. Arsenic exposure is associated with various cancers.

    Yaguang Wei, assistant professor in the department of environmental medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai who researches the health impacts of air pollution, wildfire smoke and severe weather, said their findings reinforced some conclusions of a recent study he co-authored that found, in part, that PM2.5 from wildfire smoke was more toxic than particulates from other sources.

    “I think their findings are not surprising,” said Wei, who was not involved in the study. When fires burn properties, they’re also burning “a lot of lead on your wall paint and the plastics and electronics and those are very toxic” when they burn, he said.

    Monitoring, policies and emergency response need to adapt, experts say

    Wei said the study has “important policy implications.” He thinks governments should take stronger actions to protect public health during these fires by investing in more wildfire monitoring and public alerts, and having more prescribed fires.

    For Avol, the study is a reminder of our “strange and increasingly dangerous new world” where urban and wildland intersect — and increasingly catch fire.

    “It reminds us to be cautious and be concerned and, you know, think about what we can do to minimize this. We’re not going to stop using all these materials containing metals and halogens and so forth in our homes,” he said. “How do we protect people from being exposed to that?”

    The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

  • City Council vote caps multi-year effort
    A person speaks at a podium at the steps of L.A. City Hall as a crowd behind her holds banners. One reads"Clean Air & Health Over Big Oil Wealth."
    Speaking before the City Council vote on Wednesday, Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said, "We need to make sure the companies responsible for this pollution are held accountable."

    Topline:

    The Los Angeles City Council voted, 13-0, Wednesday to phase out oil drilling, the final vote of approval needed to pass the citywide ban.

    The backstory: The city of L.A. first moved to phase out oil drilling in 2022. That motion was later overturned after oil drilling company Warren Resources sued the city, arguing that only the state, not local jurisdictions, could. A state law passed last year explicitly granted cities the right to ban oil drilling, and the L.A. City Council again took up the cause.

    Why ban drilling? Hundreds of active wells “sit just steps from homes, churches, parks, hospitals and other places that our residents visit and congregate on a daily basis,” Councilmember Adrin Nazarian said. Advocates living near wells also spoke to a host of health issues that they and their neighbors had experienced, including asthma and cancer.

    What oil companies say: Some have already said they plan to fight the ban, arguing that the ordinance constitutes a taking of private property without compensation and a violation of their rights.

    What’s next for the city: Council members and advocates pushed for the oil wells to be plugged safely.

    Read on … to hear from advocates who rallied outside City Hall before the council vote.

    The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-0 Wednesday to ban new oil wells and phase out all existing ones within 20 years, the final vote needed to pass the citywide ban.

    For community residents and environmental advocates, this has been a long time coming — the push to enact this ordinance began over a decade ago.

    “To every single one of us, this is what this means: That we hopefully will inherit a safer Los Angeles, a healthier city, not just for us, but for generations to come,” said Ashley Hernandez, a community organizer and Wilmington resident.

    Hernandez was among dozens of demonstrators who gathered outside City Hall Wednesday morning for a rally ahead of the council vote, holding signs with slogans like “Clean air & health over big oil wealth” and “Together we can stop the climate emergency.”

    A person speaks at a podium with a crowd of demonstrators behind her.
    Ashley Hernandez spoke about the ban on oil drilling creating a healthier city for future generations. She spoke at a rally before the L.A. City Council voted to ban new wells and phase out existing ones.
    (
    Kevin Tidmarsh
    /
    LAist
    )

    The backstory

    The city of L.A. first moved to phase out oil drilling in 2022. That motion was later overturned after Warren Resources, an oil company, sued the city, arguing that only the state could enact such a policy. A state law passed last year explicitly granted cities the right to ban oil drilling, and the L.A. City Council again took up the cause. L.A. County is planning a similar ban.

    The push to close the wells

    Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky, Heather Hutt and Adrin Nazarian spoke in favor of the ban at the morning rally.

    “Seven hundred fifty-nine of these active wells sit just steps from homes, churches, parks, hospitals and other places that our residents visit and congregate on a daily basis,” Nazarian said.

    Richard Parks,  president of Redeemer Community Partnership in South Los Angeles, said his family and several of his neighbors who live near oil drilling sites where odor-neutralizing chemicals are sprayed into the air have faced health consequences, including miscarriages.

    “We were left to wonder, did we lose these children because of the way these oil companies were operating in our community?” Parks said.

    For South L.A. resident and high school senior Isabella Galbraith, the fight to close oil wells has lasted most of her life. She said she participated in her first protest, advocating for the closure of the Jefferson drill site, when she was just 5 years old. (That site has been closed and is now being developed into a park.)

    “It's not normal to struggle to breathe. It's not normal for all of your family members to have asthma, to be getting cancer,” Galbraith said. “It's a daily reality for all of us, and it shows up in the little ways, and they have big, lasting consequences.”

    What’s next

    Oil companies have already said they plan to fight the ban, arguing that the ordinance constitutes a taking of private property without compensation and a violation of their rights.

    Meanwhile, Parks said he hopes the city continues to take action on oil wells, including revoking conditional use permits for nuisance oil drill sites and using the authority of the L.A. Fire Department to plug idle oil wells.

    Meanwhile, Yaroslavsky also advocated for the wells to be properly plugged and cleaned up.

    “We need to make sure these wells are properly plugged and these sites are cleaned up, and we need to make sure the companies responsible for this pollution are held accountable,” she said.

    Local residents are already looking to the future of what these sites could be once they’re shut down and cleaned up.

    “I'm looking at … the future of these sites. Maybe these could be parks that our communities desperately need,” said Wilmington resident and rally organizer Wendy Miranda. “I'm just really excited for Wilmington, for South L.A., for other communities that have oil drilling near them to see that this will no longer be in our neighborhoods.”