The Brief

The simmering battle over the public library in Huntington Beach erupted again this spring when provocative signs cropped up around town overnight.

“Protect our kids from porn,” the placards warned in bold red letters. Funded by a city councilmember’s political action committee, they urged people to vote against a pair of ballot measures in an upcoming special election, including one that would abolish a controversial new community review board for library books.

As parents dropping off their children spotted the blunt message near elementary schools that April morning, outrage began to spread online over the delicate explanations it required for kids who were far too young to understand. One man declared on social media that he cut the word “porn” out of 12 signs and delivered the pieces to city hall.

“Frankly, it reads more like a tactic to provoke than a message grounded in conservative values, and that’s something I believe we should rise above,” the man said in a video posted to a popular Facebook forum.

Now, with only a week remaining before the election, proponents of the ballot measures to roll back library restrictions are hoping enough of those frustrated, weary parents in this Orange County beach community show up to carry them to victory.

The election — the culmination of nearly two years of tense clashes over sexual content in children’s books, parental rights and censorship — carries the weight of more than just the future of the local library.

An ascendant political movement, led by the self-proclaimed “MAGA-nificent 7” members of the city council, has in recent years turned Huntington Beach into the bulwark of conservative resistance to California’s progressive governance and a hotbed of nationally resonant culture wars, including on vaccines, Pride flags and voter ID.

As complaints about obscene material being available to young readers dragged even the once-beloved library into the fray, the increasingly marginalized liberal residents of Huntington Beach have mobilized — and floundered. Not unlike the national Democratic Party, which has grappled with how to counteract the full-throttle early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, their struggle to curb the breakneck transformation of their city’s identity have left many wondering how far the council can push its revolution.

“It’s just a war being waged on the community by people in an attempt to gain power,” said Natalie Moser, a former member of a liberal council minority who was ousted in November. She has criticized the Huntington Beach conservatives for reframing all of city politics as a partisan fight. “People are easier to manipulate when they’re divided, when they don’t see each other as people but just another side.”

Opponents of Measures A and B display book titles they want removed from the children’s section of the library during an event at Lake Park in Huntington Beach on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

The most optimistic believe the “protect our kids from porn” signs could be a turning point, waking up apolitical voters and swaying moderates in this Republican-leaning community to reject the restrictions on library material. If the ballot measures pass next week, they hope it will send a signal that residents want the city council to refocus on the fundamentals of municipal governance — public safety, road maintenance and economic development.

“It’s just so disheartening to see our city council turn this city against itself,” said Erin Spivey, one of several Huntington Beach librarians who quit in the past two years because of city interventions that they considered repressive. “People are getting really sick and tired of the city council overstepping what they are supposed to be doing. They’re supposed to be making our community better.”

'Let the community decide' on kids books

Amid a surging national book banning movement, the debate arrived in Huntington Beach two summers ago, when then-new Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark — a locally notorious activist who made it her cause célèbre to get what she deems sexual content out of the children’s section — first proposed reviewing and restricting access to certain library material.

Van Der Mark is alarmed by a contemporary wave of picture books and sex education manuals that she feels goes far beyond what is appropriate for young readers and could damage kids who accidentally encounter the material before they are ready.

“The last thing you want is a child to pick up a book and have a big picture of penises or instructions for how to masturbate,” she said in an interview.

The city council eventually adopted an ordinance establishing a 21-member community board to review library books for “textual or graphic references to sex, sexual organs, sex acts, relationships of sexual nature, or sexual relations in any form.” The board would have the authority to move the material to the adult section or prevent the library from purchasing it in the first place, though it has yet to be seated, in part because of a subsequent state law prohibiting these types of committees.

Van Der Mark compares the concept to the movie ratings system, arguing that it would empower parents by giving them more say in what their children read. She complained that librarians who reject the community input because they believe they know better are elitist.

“Librarians are human. They are human. They are not perfect, just like you and I are not perfect. Mistakes are going to be made,” she said. “Let the community decide. Let the community give their input on whether they think those books meet their community standards.”

But the opposition to library book restrictions has been fierce and sustained, frequently spilling into long, rancorous public comment sessions at city council meetings. Free speech advocacy groups have joined, including the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit earlier this year.

Critics say they fear the book review committee would allow the city council to assert more control over the library and eventually ban material that doesn’t align with its conservative views.

They are especially concerned that many of the books Van Der Mark and her allies have singled out are LGBTQ-themed. Some see warning signs in the recent cancellation of a library book club for gay novel “The Guncle” and a Facebook post by another city councilmember tying the “dramatic alarming rise” in LGBTQ identification among young people to the “explosion of LGBTQ+ literature.”

“What they’re trying to do is exert their moral standards on others — and that’s unacceptable in society,” said Gina Clayton-Tarvin, a member of a local school district board that endorsed the ballot measures. “This is almost like attacking what is American.”

Lindsay Klick, a Huntington Beach parent and a longtime librarian in Orange County, said library collections should be expansive, so that everyone can find books that interest them and decide for themselves what they want to read.

“The library is not a winner-take-all thing like an election,” she said.

She criticized the city council for manufacturing outrage over sexual content in the library by selectively highlighting small excerpts from books out of their context, as if cropping the crotch from a picture of the statue of David.

Carol Daus looks at books in the children’s section of the Huntington Beach Central Library that could be restricted for including sexual content on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

Carol Daus looks at books in the children’s section of the Huntington Beach Central Library that could be restricted for including sexual content on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

It’s an effective strategy for politicians looking to raise their profiles as they seek higher office; Van Der Mark, who launched a bid for state Assembly last month, is the latest.

But it’s not a true reflection of how library patrons feel, Klick said, like at the small Orange County branch where she works near the Air Force base in Los Alamitos, which has the same books that the Huntington Beach city council has objected to.

“No one complains. It’s not a problem,” she said. “Why? Because we don’t have Gracey Van Der Mark.”

Ground zero in the national book battle

A special election in Huntington Beach carries high stakes for the national battle over children’s library books.

Library supporters collected thousands of signatures last fall for the pair of ballot measures; the second would limit the city’s ability to outsource library services, after the city council briefly explored privatizing the library last year. The council called a special election for June 10, rather than adopting the proposals outright or placing them on the ballot in 2026.

The outcome has become deeply important for the conservatives backing the city council as well. The two sides collectively spent more than $230,000 on the campaign by late May.

National activist Karen England, whose organization pushes to remove “pornographic books” from schools, has been speaking at city council meetings and church services in recent weeks to help raise awareness for the ‘no’ campaign. She said this is the first ballot measure that she is aware of challenging a book removal policy at a public library and she worries that, if successful, it could become a model for librarians across the country to cut parents out of deciding what their children read.

“That’s what I’m fighting against. They don’t know best,” she said. “I do feel like this is ground zero.”

The campaign has gotten extremely heated, with each side accusing the other of using emotion and misinformation to whip residents into a confused frenzy about what they’re actually voting on. Proponents of the ballot measures mock the conservative city council for injecting more government into peoples’ lives. Opponents complain that they are hamstrung in making their case to voters, because the offending library material is so obscene that they cannot even show it on social media or the news.

But the tension reached a zenith with the “protect our kids from porn” signs, which furious library supporters say unfairly portrayed it as a place run by groomers and pedophiles.

“If they feel like there is porn in the library, they should come and arrest me. Because I personally handed ‘It’s Perfectly Normal’ to patrons,” the former librarian Spivey said, referring to one of the books that Huntington Beach has moved out of the children’s section. “I wish they would, because it would show the community that what they’re doing is a lie.”

Van Der Mark, the architect of the library book review committee, said critics are simply trying to distract from the pornographic nature of the challenged books.

“You’re offended by the word (porn) but not the actual material,” she said.

Supporters of Measures A and B protest in Lake Park.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

Signs that state support and opposition for ballot initiatives related to library book restrictions in Huntington Beach on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

Yet despite the heightened significance that both sides place on the special election, neither seems ready to stand down if they lose. The ACLU lawsuit is still in court, and many Huntington Beach conservatives say they could never accept the challenged books being available in the children’s section of the library.

Casey McKeon, another city councilmember heavily involved in the library debate, said he is frustrated by how vehemently some people have pushed back against the book review board, even though the council “did this the right way” — through its policymaking process, because local parents were upset about the material.

“So we’re not supposed to fix an issue if it’s quote-unquote social or cultural?” he said.

The conservative city council members are leading Huntington Beach exactly the way that voters elected them to, McKeon said, and while the pace of the changes may upset some people, the council cannot wait to fix what it sees is wrong with the city.

“You only get four years,” he said. “You don’t know if you’re going to get re-elected. You don’t have forever.”

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

The crisp, cool weather continues Tuesday as the region prepares for another Santa Ana wind event on Wednesday.

Highs along the coast on Tuesday will be from 63 to 69 degrees, and up to 72 degrees for the valleys.

The Inland Empire will see daytime highs of up to 71 degrees.

In the Antelope Valley, there will be some areas of frost in the early morning, with temperatures ranging from 56 to 62 degrees.

Beach hazards

You'll want to avoid swimming in the ocean because of strong rip currents and breaking waves from high surf. Minor flooding of beach parking lots is possible. These conditions will last until Friday morning for the Orange County coast, and until Saturday morning for L.A. County beaches.

No burn alert in effect

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has issued a no burn alert for most of SoCal until 11:59 p.m. because of high air pollution. That means you should avoid any burning of wood, including fireplaces or manufactured logs made from wax or paper. The alert applies to O.C. and L.A. County's non-desert areas, as well as Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Santa Ana’s Ayuda Sin Fronteras — a fund to support immigrant families affected by ICE sweeps — could more than double with an additional $150,000 influx of city dollars if approved by the City Council Tuesday night.

The federal immigration sweeps have increased fear among immigrant families, prompting some to avoid workplaces and other public areas. The fund goes toward helping those families pay for up to one month’s worth of housing expenses, including past due rent and utility bills.

The program was created in July following heavy immigration enforcement that rattled many communities in Southern California, including Orange County’s only sanctuary city — Santa Ana.

When it launched, the city approved an initial $100,000 for housing assistance. In October, the City Council directed the city manager to seek additional funding for approval. Those funds were pulled from several city department employee vacancies, including the city attorney’s office, the Santa Ana Police Department and others.

Ayuda Sin Fronteras has supported 232 residents as of Oct. 21, according to city officials.

Mayor Valerie Amezcua said she will revisit the fund as much as possible to make sure the city is doing all it can to support community members affected by immigration enforcement.

“We need to make sure that we take good care of our community because there is a need,” Amezcua told LAist. “There's a need for rental assistance, for food, for utilities. As the mayor and council, we're committed to helping out our community.”

Who qualifies? 

The funds are reserved for Santa Ana families with members who have been detained, deported or financially hurt by immigration enforcement. Families will need to provide proof of immigration enforcement activity or a signed third-party verification form.

The program requires identification of all household members, but the city says it does not require proof of citizenship.

Applicants need to be renters at or below moderate income. A family of five, for example, needs to make no more than $177,000 a year. The city’s income chart can be found here.

Other help is available 

In Orange County, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento created the Orange County Liberty Fund in partnership with community organizations, bringing together $1.5 million to support immigrant families in navigating the legal system.

In September, the Costa Mesa City Council launched a $200,000 immigrant legal defense fund to help those detained by ICE within the city.

Outside Orange County, the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, along with L.A. County, have asked for support from local philanthropists to donate to immigrant support funds.

After Los Angeles moved to significantly lower yearly increases in most of the city’s apartments, some City Council members now want to change the rules again. This time, they’re hoping to give small landlords the ability to raise rents more than their corporate counterparts.

On Tuesday, the council is scheduled to vote on a proposal that would let small landlords — those who own 10 units or fewer — raise rents by an additional 1% each year. The idea was put forward by Councilmembers John Lee and Monica Rodriguez.

“This modest adjustment recognizes the difference between a family that owns a few units and a large corporate operator,” Lee said in a statement to LAist. “Our goal is to keep small landlords in the system and prevent the loss of rent-controlled homes.”

While the idea is gaining support from landlord groups, tenant advocates say the proposal would create a cumbersome and unfair, two-tier system in which some renters have to pay more than others.

The changes coming for LA rent control 

In a culmination of years of debate, the City Council voted last month to lower the maximum allowable rent increase in the city’s rent-controlled housing to 4% per year. That’s down from the previous maximum of 10%.

Lee, whose district includes the northwest San Fernando Valley, voted against the changes after expressing concern about how the lower increases would affect the bottom line of small rental property owners. Rodriguez, whose district includes the northeast San Fernando Valley, supported the changes, but said more should be done to keep “mom-and-pop” landlords afloat.

“The motion proposes a modest adjustment to help ensure these small landlords remain viable, rather than being pushed out and accelerating the further corporatization of housing in Los Angeles,” Rodriguez said in a statement to LAist.

Landlord groups said the proposed 1% increase could help at the margins, but small landlords would still have to contend with insurance premiums and maintenance costs that have been rising faster than overall economic inflation.

“Throwing a bone in the form of an additional 1% to smaller owners is necessary but will be insufficient to keep many owners in the housing business,” Daniel Yukelson, executive director of the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, said in an email. “More and more, owners are being forced to look for the exit ramp in the city of Los Angeles.”

Do small landlords really have it harder?

But researchers paid to investigate the issue have not found evidence that small landlords face stronger headwinds than corporate owners. A city-commissioned report by the Economic Roundtable, an independent research nonprofit, found no significant differences between the financial health of small and large landlord operations in L.A.

“The study found that, in general, small landlords are not suffering greater distress,” Anna Ortega, who is with the city’s Housing Department, said during a recent City Council meeting.

Tenant advocates with the group Keep L.A. Housed opposed the 1% bump for small landlords, saying it would be unfair to charge some tenants more every year simply because they’re renting from a non-corporate owner. The coalition also said enforcing the rules would be difficult.

“Allowing small landlords to self-certify creates the opportunity for abuse, as some will fraudulently claim the status and charge incorrect (and potentially illegal) rent increases to already rent-burdened tenants,” said Pablo Estupiñan, a Keep L.A. Housed member and an organizer with the nonprofit Strategic Actions for a Just Economy.

The rules in LA and beyond

The city’s rent control rules generally apply to rental units built before October 1978, though some newly built apartments are covered as well. About 70% of the city’s apartments are subject to the rent hike caps.

Some other Southern California jurisdictions with rent control allow small landlords to increase rents more than larger owners.

L.A. County allows small landlords in unincorporated areas to increase rents an extra 1%. The city of Inglewood allows owners of buildings with four apartments or fewer to increase rents by an extra 5% compared with owners of buildings with five or more units.

Los Angeles’ regional homelessness agency is working to find ways to keep thousands of people in their homes, while complying with new federal funding restrictions on permanent housing.

The governing board for the L.A. Homeless Services Authority voted Monday to start the process of reallocating about $130 million in federal funding currently being spent on permanent housing to other projects meant to serve unhoused Angelenos.

Because of new funding restrictions from the U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development, known as HUD, about 5,000 households in the county will lose their rental subsidies, according to several LAHSA officials who spoke at a commission meeting Monday.

Those changes, along with state and county funding shortfalls for homeless services, threaten to drastically worsen the region’s homelessness crisis, they said.

"The fact of the matter is there’s going to be a tremendous and terrible impact on people, on agencies, on landlords,” said Nathaniel VerGow, LAHSA’s chief program officer.

Officials said they’re scrambling to maximize federal funding under the new guidelines while also advocating against the new HUD policy.

“It is a cliff and it feels catastrophic, but I think it forces us as a region to figure out how to save ourselves,” LAHSA Commission Chair Amber Sheikh said.

The funding challenge

Most federal homelessness dollars flow into the L.A. region through the Continuum of Care program, managed by HUD.

The Los Angeles region is eligible for more than $260 million in federal funding under that program in the coming fiscal year, including $217 million for existing projects.

But no more than 30% of those funds can go toward permanent housing projects, according to a “notice of funding opportunity” HUD issued last month.

That’s a challenge for L.A. County, because 90% of regional HUD funds currently cover people’s rent, according to LASHA officials.

Instead, L.A. and other cities and counties must spend the bulk of their federal funds on other interventions, including transitional housing and street outreach.

HUD officials have said the policy is meant to encourage self-sufficiency.

At Monday’s meeting, Commissioner Justin Szlasa urged his colleagues to consider larger funding trends.

“ There's actually a 23% increase in available funding from HUD, the federal government,” he said. “It just doesn't work with the way that we normally have done things here.”

“We need to find, in this crisis, a way to be constructive about this,” Szlasa added.

HUD policy changes

HUD released its new notice of funding opportunity last month and rescinded a previous two-year funding agreement.

Opponents have concerns with the federal housing department’s move away from “housing first” approaches. They also said HUD rolled out the changes without providing enough time to prepare service providers and clients for disruptions.

Last week, 21 states, including California, sued HUD, claiming the new federal policies “essentially guarantee that tens of thousands of formerly homeless individuals and families will be evicted back into homelessness.”

This week, a group of cities and homelessness organizations also sued over the changes. Plaintiffs include the city and county of San Francisco. The Continuum of Care for San Francisco was awarded $56 million in federal funding for Fiscal Year 2024.

Approximately 91% of that funding supports permanent housing projects, according to the complaint.

What’s next?

The LAHSA Commission voted Monday to approve its request for applications for existing and new projects.

Providers must submit applications to LAHSA over the next two weeks, and LAHSA has until Jan. 14 to craft and submit a new application to HUD.

The agency is now talking with 130 contractors about the transition.

LAHSA is also working with some permanent supportive housing providers to convert their programs to transitional housing instead, officials said.

People who were in permanent housing projects aren’t eligible for transitional housing under HUD’s guidelines because they're not considered unhoused, VerGow said.

The commission also reviewed a policy for ranking project applications and prioritizing them for federal funding. Officials said that policy has to be approved at a LAHSA Commission subcommittee on Dec. 10.

Funds are expected to be awarded in May 2026.