The Brief

A few of the candidates vying to be California’s next insurance commissioner want to address the insurance crisis by having the state take a bigger financial role.

Some of the problems they’re trying to solve include:

• Not all insurance companies will write new policies in areas at high risk for wildfires, driving many homeowners to the FAIR Plan, the fire insurer of last resort. 
• Policyholders’ rates are rising because Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has addressed insurance availability issues by implementing new regulations that allow insurers to use new additional factors when setting premiums. 
• Many of those who are insured and have submitted claims after a disaster — such as last year’s deadly Los Angeles County fires — have been frustrated by delays, denials and dissatisfaction with insurers’ handling of their claims. The Insurance Department recently took legal action against State Farm over such issues.

Their proposals run the gamut: Create a public insurer and do away with private insurers altogether. Implement a state-run natural disaster insurance system that would complement the private market. Provide a state backstop for insurance for insurance companies, also known as reinsurance. Form public-private partnerships that would theoretically give insurers confidence to keep doing business in California.

State coverage for major fires

More state involvement might help, said David Russell, a professor of insurance and finance at Cal State Northridge who co-authored a report for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners published last December. The report recommends creating a public-private partnership called the California Wildfire Authority, which would leave most coverage to private insurers and shift coverage of major wildfires to the state, including by providing additional reinsurance.

“It’s an amalgamation of compromises,” Russell told CalMatters. “The government will end up bailing people out anyway. Why not plan it in advance? Give everybody the playbook now and fund it properly.”

The idea sounds a little bit like what commissioner candidate Jane Kim, a Democrat, is proposing: a state-run authority for wildfire and flood funded by a portion of policyholders’ premiums.

Similarly, Republican candidate Merrit Farren has proposed a state-run reinsurance authority funded by a fee insurers charged their customers. Kim and State Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat, have told CalMatters they are also interested in state reinsurance but have not included it in their platforms like Farren. Steven Bradford, a former Democratic state lawmaker, wants to explore a public-private partnership that he said could help insurance companies with liquidity.

California has tried this before — sort of

In April, the California Earthquake Authority released a report analyzing different levels of state involvement in catastrophic risk. One option: a state backstop that would provide reinsurance for catastrophe, which Allen said could “help to absorb wildfire loss… an analogy, I suppose, is the (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) — they stabilize the banking system when it’s under major stress.”

The earthquake authority itself may offer some clues for California moving forward.

Created by the Legislature in 1996 after insurers retreated from California in the wake of the 1994 Northridge quake, the authority is a public-private partnership that critics say does not cover enough of the residential market. Moreover, the critics continue, the authority’s approximately $20 billion in claims-paying capacity is inadequate.

“It was a terrible deal,” said Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog. He said coverage through the authority is thin, deductibles are high and premiums are expensive. Court said that because quake insurance was carved out of homeowners insurance, the premiums policyholders have paid over the past three decades have mostly gone to reinsurance and bureaucracy as opposed to building up enough reserves.

On the other hand, Russell said, the authority has yet to be tested by a major earthquake, and “what (its creation) shows is that in California, we can do this because we’ve done it before.”

California and reinsurance 

Some insurance industry representatives questioned why the commissioner candidates think California would want to take on financial risk now largely borne by the FAIR Plan, which is required by law to offer policies to property owners who can’t get them from private insurers and is run by an industry alliance.

“It’s easy for people to propose solutions for government involvement that no one wants to fund down the road with taxpayer dollars,” said Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. “We’re not asking for that, by the way.”

But Farren said he developed his plan with the help of the insurance industry, including executives at Acrisure, a big insurance broker and financial services company based in Grand Rapids, Mich. If disaster strikes and funds in the proposed state reinsurance authority are insufficient to pay claims, it could raise funds by issuing bonds, which would have the same status as municipal bonds, Farren said. His idea was inspired by public reinsurance programs in Florida for hurricanes, the United Kingdom for floods and the U.S. federal government for terrorism risk.

A couple of consumer advocacy groups are more receptive to the reinsurance concept. Court said it might be a good idea if the state or U.S. government provided some sort of backstop for insurance companies. (U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, the Democrat from California, has proposed federal legislation to establish a federal reinsurance fund for insurance companies, which the insurance industry opposes.) Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, told the state Senate Insurance Committee this week that she was in favor of “some kind of a backstop like Florida's hurricane catastrophe fund.” Bach told CalMatters later that she thinks the state helping “take a bite” out of what’s driving higher premiums could help.

Home construction on Hartzell Street in the Alphabet Streets neighborhood of Pacific Palisades on Aug. 30, 2025.

(

Myung J. Chun

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Florida is different from California, though, said Carolyn Kousky, an economist who studies climate risk and disaster finance. Kousky said that Florida’s insurance market is dominated by small players that need help with reinsurance, while “big national players are still writing quite a bit in (California).” Those national companies are diversifying their risk and can buy reinsurance based on their national portfolio, so those insurers have less need for a state backstop, she said. She questioned whether establishing a state reinsurer would make a significant difference in consumers’ insurance premium rates.

Kim said critics of her proposal to create a public disaster insurance fund that would split off wildfire and flood coverage from homeowners insurance — inspired by New Zealand’s program — ignore that California’s “current system doesn’t work, it’s too expensive and doesn’t cover enough.” She pointed to Los Angeles fire victims who have found that they are underinsured and don’t have enough coverage to rebuild their homes. She has not provided specific numbers for how much capitalization her proposed system would need; it’s something that would need to be studied, she said. She envisions that her plan would create a revenue stream that the state could invest into reducing fire risk.

“At least some of our dollars will be stewarded by the public,” Kim said.

Another candidate, Lalo Vargas of the socialist Peace & Freedom Party, wants to go further: He is calling for investigating the 10 largest insurance companies in California and eventually replacing them with a public insurer run by the state.

“Insurance works better when everyone is in the same pot,” Vargas said. That pot, he said, could be filled by taxing utilities and fossil fuel companies, “so billionaires could pay for the costs associated with the climate crisis.”

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

The Los Angeles City Council decided Tuesday to put off the full effects of a major new state housing law by allowing low-rise apartment buildings in some neighborhoods where such housing has long been banned.

All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting.

California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1. The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops.

However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.

Why it matters

L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes.

Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.

The reaction

Some local officials and homeowners have expressed frustration over new state limits on their ability to stop development in low-density zones. But advocates for more development said the council’s decision will help address high rents by allowing more housing in areas that have long been off-limits to new apartments.

“The City Council voted to open up high-resource single-family neighborhoods near transit stations,” said Scott Epstein, policy director with Abundant Housing L.A. “This reform is long overdue and will help build a future where Angelenos of all incomes can find homes in the neighborhoods of their choice.”

Where will the projects be allowed?

Officials with the city’s planning department said residents can see whether Low-Rise Ordinance projects will be allowed in their neighborhood by clicking on this interactive map and making two selections from the “layer list” menu: “Opportunity Station Sites Eligible for Low Rise” and “Sites Eligible for Low Rise Outside of Opportunity Station.”

The map shows that some of the areas eligible for new apartment buildings under this plan include Westside neighborhoods within a half-mile of the E Line’s Westwood/Rancho Park station, pockets of the San Fernando Valley near G Line stops, and parts of Eagle Rock along Colorado Boulevard’s planned North Hollywood to Pasadena rapid bus line.

Is this a done deal?

Both plans — the decision to delay full SB 79 implementation, and the new Low-Rise Ordinance — now go to Mayor Karen Bass for final approval. Council members are also considering some tweaks they say would help Low-Rise Ordinance projects get built.

Those changes would include letting developers build denser projects if they reserve more units for low-income renters, as well as rules that would let developers build ground-level parking instead of costlier underground parking. The council’s planning committee voted Tuesday to forward those suggestions to the full City Council for further debate.

There’s a new tool to fight illegal fireworks this Fourth of July: drones.

“A drone’s real-time aerial view can help officers assess situations faster, improve safety, support faster response times and ensure the right resources are sent where they’re needed most,” the Anaheim Police Department stated in an Instagram post.

Anaheim's department is the latest law enforcement agency using the technology to quickly identify illegal fireworks use. The Downey City Council is expected to vote Tuesday night on potential new fines and new rules that would allow local law enforcement to use drones to patrol neighborhoods for illegal fireworks usage.

How it works

Here's how the tech is put to use: Seconds after authorities receive a call reporting illegal fireworks activity, drones can take to the air, hovering above neighborhoods and businesses to find a specific location and an offender. The surveillance devices are equipped with night vision and zoom lenses that allow first responders to record high definition videos right from their Real Time Crime Center at the station.

Then, officers can determine whether to send out a patrol car or issue a citation for the incident.

Why it matters

The city’s drone usage comes as law enforcement agencies across Southern California brace for the annual flood of complaints about illegal firework use at this time of the year. Drones make the most effective use of time and resources, experts say.

“We'll typically see about 2,000 calls and about 300 related to fireworks,” Anaheim’s chief communications officer Mike Lyster explained about the Fourth of July. “It really is a better use of resources on what is always a very, very busy holiday for us.”

Drones allow officials to collect enough evidence to issue these citations. In Anaheim, the punishment starts at $1,000 and climbs to $3,000 by the third offense. But authorities say the goal is to curb illegal fireworks use altogether due to the risk of injury and wildfires.

Lyster hopes that people will think twice about using illegal fireworks this holiday — not just because of the fines — but because of its negative impact on local communities.

“The Palisades fire was ultimately started by illegal fireworks, and sadly, not in our city, but in our neighboring city, a young Anaheim girl died in an illegal fireworks incident last year,” Lyster said.

Where are drones already in use?

More cities are testing this method in order to crack down on illegal firework use. Sacramento, San Bernardino and Riverside are just a few of the other areas that have adopted this technology in recent years.

How do I know what's legal?

If you have any questions about what is legal or not in your community, a quick Google search can help.

Each county goes by different regulations for the types of fireworks you can use — if at all.

For example, parts of Anaheim allow “safe and sane” fireworks to be used only on the Fourth of July between 10 a.m and 10 p.m. This includes non-explosive, non-aerial devices like fountains, sparklers and smoke balls. State-approved fireworks will have a State Fire Marshal seal.

LAist staffer Anjanette Gile also contributed to this report.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet?

On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block … while drinking amazing coffee.

From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!

It’s part of Local News Day LA, a pop-up series organized by The LA Local that connects you with your local reporter and give you a chance to become the source instead of just the reader.

LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.

See below for the full list of participating media outlets and coffee shops — The LA Local and our media partners hope you’ll join us:

LAist will be joining The LA Local and other local media partners for Local News Day LA on June 27.

(

The LA Local

)

Where to find a journalist

1. The LA Local – Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake will be hosted by Open Market
2. The LA Local – Inglewood and South LA will be hosted by Asteroid Vinyl Cafe
3. Boyle Heights Beat will be hosted by Picaresca Cafe
4. CalMatters will be hosted by Yia Caffe 
5. Calo News will be hosted by Cruzita’s Deli and Cafe
6. The Eastsider will be hosted by Rosebud Coffee (Highland Park location)
7. LAist will be hosted by Cafe Calle
8. Los Angeles Radio Collective will be hosted by Spoke Bicycle Cafe
9. LA Sentinel will be hosted by Patria Coffee
10. LA Taco will be hosted by Cafecito Organico (Silverlake location)
11. LA Public Press will be hosted by Holy Grounds Coffee & Tea
12. Long Beach Post will be hosted by Wrigley Coffee
13. Q Voice News will be hosted by Hot Java
14. USC Annenberg Media will be hosted by South LA Cafe (Western location)

Come enjoy a cup of coffee (or tea) with us while supplies last. 

A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.

The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.

The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”

In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.

“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.