The Brief

Homelessness gets top billing in a measure likely to make it onto your November ballot. Whether the measure has anything to do with homelessness is debatable.

The initiative proponents are calling the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act” would increase penalties for some drug and theft crimes, by rolling back Proposition 47 — the criminal justice changes California voters passed a decade ago. It also would force some people arrested three or more times for drug crimes into treatment.

But where does homelessness factor into this tough-on-crime measure? The initiative includes no money for housing, shelter or treatment beds — leading some experts to question how it would help get California’s more than 181,000 unhoused residents off the street in a state where recent research shows loss of income is the leading cause of homelessness. Nor does the measure allocate or create new funding sources to pay cities or counties to enforce it.

For Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who helped author the proposed ballot measure, the philosophy is simple: The measure would slash the homeless population by pushing those struggling with drug addiction into treatment.

“The big part of this, which is the key to the program, is it’s going to be compelled,” Reisig said. “People are going to have to go through the program or accept the consequences.”

But according to Elliott Currie, a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California Irvine, the measure is based on a false assumption.

“The theory is that people are homeless because we’ve been too lenient with drug addiction,” Currie said. “I think I can safely say that I don’t see one shred of serious evidence that that’s what’s going on.”

Did Prop. 47 increase homelessness in California?

The proposed ballot measure targets Prop. 47, which, when passed by voters in 2014, reduced certain theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. In some circles, Prop. 47 now is being blamed for a perceived increase in crime – and a fierce debate is raging over whether, and how, to change it.

Backers of the measure, which is likely to qualify for the ballot after it recently submitted more than 900,000 signatures (about 547,000 valid ones are required), also blame Prop. 47 for California’s dire homelessness crisis.

In the decade that Prop. 47 has been in effect, homelessness in California has grown by more than half — and backers of the proposed ballot measure say the two are “directly connected.” They argue by watering down the legal consequences for drug use, Prop. 47 removed the incentives for homeless Californians to participate in mental health and drug treatment, and as a result, fewer are. Because of that, they argue, more people are living on the streets.

“One of the primary root causes of homelessness is serious addiction, which is debilitating and results in people not being able to function or even hold a job,” Reisig said in an interview with CalMatters.

It’s true that participation in drug courts dropped throughout the state in the wake of Prop. 47. In San Diego County, for example, more than 650 people went through drug court in the year before Prop. 47 passed. By 2021, it was down to just 255.

As evidence Prop. 47 is tied to homelessness, backers of the measure point to states with stronger drug laws and smaller homeless populations. Illinois, for example, has a homeless rate about five times less than California’s.

But there are a lot of other factors — especially housing costs — contributing to the state’s homelessness crisis. Fair market rent for a two-bedroom in Chicago is just $1,714 – nearly half the going rate in San Francisco. The San Francisco area rate increased 72% since Prop. 47 passed, hitting $3,359 this year, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

For some experts who study crime and homelessness, the ballot measure is baffling.

“I’m not aware of any data that shows a connection between Prop. 47 and homelessness,” said Charis Kubrin, a professor of criminology at UC Irvine. “So it’s a bit of a puzzle to me why they’re together like that.”

Blaming the state’s spike in homelessness on Prop. 47 is “preposterous,” said Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing. “All of the changes that the (ballot measure) is proposing have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with homelessness.”

The organization hasn’t even taken an official position on the measure, because, Rapport said, it’s not related to homelessness.

The number one reason Californians end up homeless is a loss of income — not drug use, according to a UC San Francisco study that provides the most comprehensive look yet at the state’s homelessness crisis. And in the six months before becoming homeless, the people surveyed were making a median income of just $960 a month.

That doesn’t mean drug use has nothing to do with homelessness. Nearly a third of people surveyed reported using methamphetamines three times a week, while 11% used non-prescribed opioids. Other studies have had varying results: a 2022 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research study, which cited research from multiple surveys across several states, showed 43% to 88% of the homeless population struggled with drug abuse.

Drug and alcohol overdoses are also the leading cause of death for homeless people nationwide, according to a February study examining mortality rates among unhoused people between 2011 and 2020.

But it’s clear not everyone on the streets has an addiction. Therefore, the proposed ballot measure would leave out a large chunk of the state’s homeless population.

If the measure helps even a third of California’s 181,000 unhoused residents — that’s a huge number, Reisig said.

“I’ll take that,” he said. “I’ll take that number to try and get those people well, and to get them reintegrated, and to keep them out of jail and prison, and keep them from dying on the street of overdose or murder.”

This measure might help some people get sober, said Benjamin Henwood, director of the USC Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research. But for many people, that won’t be enough to end their homelessness, he said. While being sober might make someone more likely to get a job, it won’t make housing any less expensive.

“The question is: Once treatment is up, where do they go?” he said.

Under this measure, the answer to that question will depend on each individual county and how much, if any, housing they make available for people coming out of treatment.

How would the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act work?

If the proposed ballot measure is approved by voters, certain repeat drug offenses could be prosecuted as a “treatment-mandated felony.” That means the third time someone is arrested for a drug offense, they could be given a choice between jail or mandatory addiction and mental health treatment.

The measure says people participating in mandatory treatment also would be offered “shelter, job training, and other services designed to break the cycle of addiction and homelessness.” But it doesn’t say how any of that would be paid for. It would be up to counties to decide whether to offer shelter and other services, and how to fund them, Reisig said.

“That will have to be deployed in each county to the extent they can do it,” he said.

But without guaranteeing those housing services, the measure could actually worsen homelessness, Currie said. There’s already a robust jail-to-homelessness pipeline in California: 43% of those surveyed in the UCSF study were in jail or prison, or on probation or parole, in the six months before they became homeless.

“Anybody who says you’ve got to solve the problem by putting more people behind bars, but you then don’t say anything about how you’re going to help them re-enter when they come out — I think that’s pretty bogus,” Currie said.

The measure also doesn’t specify how the mandatory drug and mental health treatment would be funded.

Resources for treatment already are stretched thin in California. In a 2022 survey by the state’s Department of Health Care Services, 70% of California counties reported “urgently” needing more residential addiction treatment, while nearly 40% didn’t have any residential facilities at all.

In addition to providing no new funding, the proposed ballot measure could actually end up reducing funds for the very programs it’s trying to bolster, according to a report from the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office. That’s because Prop. 47 saved the state money in criminal justice costs by diverting people away from prison and jail. Those savings are earmarked for projects that provide mental health and substance use treatment (nearly $104 million was awarded between 2017 and 2020, and another $96 million between 2019 and 2023).

By gutting Prop. 47 and funneling more people into the state’s jails and prisons, the Legislative Analyst estimates the proposed ballot measure would eat away at those savings and increase criminal justice costs by as much as tens of millions of dollars per year. That could mean less money for mental health services and addiction treatment.

Reisig dismissed that worry, saying, at least in Yolo County, where he is district attorney, Prop. 47 savings haven’t made much difference. “There’s literally nothing that I fear losing through this program,” he said.

There is some new money available from other pots. In March, California voters approved a $6.4 billion bond to pay for 6,800 beds in facilities treating mental illness and addiction, and as many as 4,350 housing units for people who need those services. The state is set to start awarding that money in the spring and summer of 2025, Newsom said this month.

But at the same time, to plug a yawning budget deficit, Newsom has proposed cutting funds from the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, which provides beds for people who need mental health and addiction services.

Currie said he is “skeptical” of the lack of funding mechanisms for treatment programs and other services to ensure homeless people stay off the streets post-treatment. That, he said, could burden counties that already struggle with insufficient funding for such services — one in five homeless people surveyed by UCSF researchers said they sought substance abuse treatment but failed to get it.

“You can’t just say, ‘Ok, you counties. Since you are swimming in so much money after all … we are going to mandate drug treatment for some people on top of the existing number of clients,’” Currie said.

The politics of homelessness

Some political strategists say the measure’s tie to homelessness represents the campaign’s attempt to capitalize on public concern about the problem. Homelessness is a top issue on California voters’ minds, according to a February 2024 statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“This notion somehow that it addresses homelessness is deceptive and downright farcical,” said Garry South, a longtime Democratic consultant who has worked on ballot measures for more than 20 years.

Homelessness is ultimately due to a lack of housing, he argued, and measures aiming to address the problem without providing housing are “disingenuous.”

“You’ve heard the old saying ‘Putting lipstick on a pig,’” South said. “I’m not saying that this measure is a pig, but what I’m saying is it’s a standard procedure … to try to gussy it up with some reference or some provision that really strikes a responsive chord with voters when that’s not really what the initiative is about.”

If the measure appears before voters in November, “homelessness” won’t be in the title they see on their ballots. The official title of the measure, chosen by the state attorney general, is: “Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.”

A lot of thought, politics, and sometimes even litigation goes into drafting the title and summary of a ballot measure. While proponents of a proposition want to entice voters with their description, it’s ultimately the state attorney general’s job to make sure the language is fair.

Even without mentioning homelessness, South said the ballot measure could still “pass on its own merits.” He, for one, would likely vote for it as a way to decrease crime.

Drugs and homelessness

Tom Wolf, who has experienced both homelessness and addiction first hand in San Francisco, said the proposed ballot measure has great potential to help people who were like him.

An opioid addiction cost Wolf his job and his home, and landed him on the streets of San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood in 2018. He said he worked as a “holder” for nearby drug dealers, safeguarding their stash of narcotics in case they were busted by the police. Sometimes he stole razor blades from a nearby Target and sold them for money to buy heroin.

Wolf says he was arrested on drug charges five times within three months, and was released back to the street each time. The sixth time he was arrested, the judge let him sit in jail for three months, where he got sober. Wolf finally called his brother, who said he would bail him out if Wolf went to drug treatment. Wolf agreed. He says that if he had been given the choice between jail and treatment the last time he was picked up, he would have chosen treatment.

In June, Wolf will have six years sober. He’s now an advocate for drug policy reform, and works as director of West Coast initiatives for the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions.

“That accountability piece was the key to me getting off the street,” he said, “getting sober, becoming willing to accept an opportunity to go to treatment and give recovery an honest try.”

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are suing President Donald Trump jointly for violating their constitutional rights after his administration cut off their journalists' access to the White House. Trump claimed the news outlets were covering him unfairly.

"This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. Monday, says.

It cites the news organizations' First Amendment rights not to be punished by the federal government over their speech — in this instance, their news coverage. It also cites their Fifth Amendment rights to due process: the government cannot take away rights or privileges without any warning or process to intercede or appeal the decision.

"The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn't like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration," said the lead attorney for the news outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, in a statement. "This ban on the free press harms the American people, who are entitled to rigorous, fact-based coverage of the President of the United States."

In response to NPR's request for comment, the White House pointed to a Truth Social message the president posted early Monday: "The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!"

The latest front in larger battle

Boutrous tells NPR that legal precedents overwhelmingly support the news organizations' case.

Among them was a ruling Boutrous secured as attorney for NPR and three Colorado public radio stations. A federal judge found that a White House executive order barring any federal funds from going to the network or other public media outlets was unconstitutional. (Last year, the Republican-led Congress nonetheless pulled back all funding for public media at Trump's urging.)

Trump has lost many other legal challenges to his efforts to restrict the press, including in his first term the revocation of press credentials for Jim Acosta, then a CNN White House correspondent. A case filed by the Associated Press is still in the courts. It's over the White House's efforts to punish its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump's preferred name of the Gulf of America.

Trump was not subtle on Friday in explaining why he wanted to punish CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and Politico.

In a back-and-forth with reporters at the White House, he said his decision had not been sparked by any specific reporting, but the accumulation of what he called two years of unfair and negative coverage.

"There's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposefully negative things," Trump told reporters Friday. "Now, if they want to write them, that's fine, but I don't have to let them into my — into the people's house."

Starting over the weekend, journalists for the three news organizations said their reporting teams were barred from entry, even though they have permanent press passes.

Major tv networks stand by CNN

CNN is among five major television networks that make up what's called the White House video pool, which has provided constant coverage of the president's public appearances for decades. The outlets share the considerable expense and logistical burden of staffing those appearances and share the feed with all. The process ensures there are not myriad cameras crowding smaller spaces at the White House and other places the president appears.

CNN was to offer pool coverage of the president's departure from the White House and his visit to the United Nations in New York City Monday. But CNN was not listed as providing pool coverage on the White House daily guidance. Nor was any other member of the primary video pool — a group made up of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and, of course, CNN.

"Effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President," Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton said in a memo, which
was obtained by NPR. "There will be no replacement pool put in place."

Trump famously basks in the glow of TV news lights, coveting the attention they bring even as he rails against the accompanying coverage.

Tommy Evans, NPR's editor in chief, was among the news executives publicly condemning the White House stance and proclaiming solidarity with the three banned outlets. NPR is a key member of the radio feed providing parallel service to their TV counterparts.

"Barring journalists from the White House because the president dislikes their reporting is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and NPR condemns it without qualification," Evans said in a statement released Sunday. "The American public has a right to know what its government is doing in its name — not only the coverage a president finds flattering, but the full and accurate account of the use of power and public resources."

Trump himself has sued numerous news organizations, including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal (owned by his political ally, Rupert Murdoch), CNN, the BBC and others.

The Justice Department has aggressively sought to secure reporters' notes and devices as it hunts down the sources of leaks. The Defense Department expelled news organizations, including NPR, from the Pentagon for refusing to promise not to seek information not officially authorized for release. The president's pick as head of the Federal Communications Commission has launched formal investigations of all major television networks, save Fox (also owned by Murdoch). The agency is also investigating NPR.

In this instance, previous judicial rulings would appear to stand against the president.

Trump is correct that there is no constitutional or legal right that requires him to allow any particular journalist — or anyone at all — to report on federal matters from the White House grounds.

Once admitted, journalists cannot be prevented from returning simply because the administration does not like their coverage. That would be "viewpoint discrimination" that the courts have held violate their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Under a 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that still holds today, reporters cannot be barred from the White House or denied a permanent White House press pass without a clear explanation from the Secret Service that incorporates due process.

The lawsuit by CNN, MSNOW and Politico is seeking a return of full access to White House for their journalists and to operate the video pool, as previously planned.

Disclosure: This story was written and reported by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by NPR Acting Chief Business Editor Emily Kopp. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is warning the public of a potential measles exposure from someone who traveled through Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles earlier this month.

What happened

The unvaccinated passenger arrived at Union Station on Saturday, Sept. 12, by Amtrak train just after 7 a.m. and departed about four hours later on an Amtrak Thruway bus bound for Bakersfield.

People at Union Station during the exposure window of 8 a.m. to noon may be at risk of contracting measles seven to 21 days after exposure. The last day to monitor for symptoms is Oct. 3.

State health officials say the passenger was traveling on buses and trains through L.A. and at least five other California counties before leaving the state.

"This case, along with previous measles outbreaks in California this year, serve as reminders of the importance of vaccination against measles," said Dr. Rita Nguyen, assistant state public health officer. "Measles is one of the most contagious infections that can lead to severe lifelong consequences, including permanent brain damage, and can also be fatal, especially for children."

What to watch for

Symptoms of measles include fever, red, watery eyes, and a rash that usually develops several days after other symptoms and typically starts on the face.

As of Sept. 14, a total of 59 measles cases have been reported in California this year. In most cases, patients were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status.

Imagine a sprawling network of roomy bike lanes, generously landscaped to calm relentless traffic. Think Amsterdam with newer buildings and fewer waterways. That’s been Long Beach’s goal anyway.

Instead of wide post-war boulevards, roads would become slower and leaner, transforming Long Beach into a top-five global cycling city, said former city traffic engineer Paul Van Dyk. “Some of that is tongue-in-cheek, but if you shoot for the moon you land in the stars.”

Long Beach has been working toward this vision since it adopted its bicycle master plan 25 years ago, now with mounting urgency as auto-related fatalities rise. The biggest project so far – the Studebaker Road Transformation Project – is bringing this vision to the doorstep of Studebaker Road residents.

It has drawn mixed reviews.

'The intent of the design is malicious'

“The intent of the design is malicious — it’s immoral,” said Joey Schilling, who drives the road six days a week and wrote a social media post criticizing the project that drew almost 1,000 comments. ”It’s people who do not use the road trying to tell other people how to use the road.”

Amid red cones and barriers, a woman and her dogs navigate the construction zones at Studebaker Road and Willow Street in Long Beach on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026. Photo by Thomas R. Cordova.The $65 million project runs over five miles from Second Street all the way up to Carson Street. It includes bike lanes, greenways and stonescape with fiber-optic cable running underneath. It is crucial to the city’s long-term plan of knitting together 300 miles of bikeways by 2040 to bring bicycle culture to Long Beach, as well as create safer streets.

The massive project funded from 13 federal, state and local agencies, gives a glimpse of what’s to come for Long Beach thoroughfares. The Clark Avenue work is in progress. Pacific Avenue and Orange Avenue “backbone” plans are on deck. Now Studebaker Road, the biggest, longest and most expensive, is well underway, spending the most dollars and, arguably, drawing the most resident anger.

Schilling, who lives near Studebaker Road actually does ride his bike to work in Seal Beach and said he is OK with bike lanes in general. However, he says the project is not practical in a community where he says most drive to work. “It’s not a reasonable solution. It’s not even for the greater good, that would be to appease the 95 percent who use their cars. The cost and the benefit do not match up. The cost is too high, the benefit too low.”

Wider lanes, sturdier medians

The Studebaker project features raised bus stops and wider bike lanes than have been seen previously. No more flimsy bollards separating bikes from cars, said Van Dyk, the city traffic engineer who helped usher in the bikeway and traffic-calming street plan before he went on to consult on other urban bike projects.

The green bollards seen on Bellflower Boulevard and Studebaker before the redo often get hit by cars and can resemble thick blades of stomped grass. “People do not like the way they look, and I agree with their frustrations,” said Van Dyk. “That’s why we moved towards those concrete medians.“ He said planners “learned a lot of lessons along the way.”

Studebaker will feature roomier bike lanes – 9 feet wide compared with the old 6-foot-across version. Wider lanes will allow riders to travel two abreast for a better ride, Van Dyk said. It also makes them easier to clean. Debris-filled lanes are a sore spot with bikers.

The old bike lane sweeper the city used to clean narrow paths was notoriously difficult to move and use. (Fourth District Councilmember Daryl Supernaw joked that sightings of the small sweepers were less frequent than Bigfoot.) But a regular street sweeper can get into the broader lanes where it can’t on Broadway and Bellflower south of Atherton. (They actually set a street sweeper in a bike lane before planning and pouring the concrete to make sure it would fit.) Still, protected bike lanes are harder to clean than lanes merely separated by paint and “swept” by passing cars.

David Raslevich, a 41-year-old cyclist who frequently rides on the new lanes on Clark, said he has noticed branches, leaves and other debris. “I feel safer riding with the traffic, because they (cars) move debris out of the way for you.”

Buses stop in traffic, not turnouts

One new component of Studebaker and the other newer lanes are raised bus stops. The new stops designed to accommodate bikes and buses are about five inches off the ground and separated from the road by a curb. Buses will stop in the No. 2 lane, halting traffic behind them, and pick up passengers, instead of easing out of a bus turnout.

Van Dyk said that change evolved from talks with Long Beach Transit, which revealed that buses would sometimes get hit when pulling into traffic. Planners reasoned it’s better to have cars waiting for a bus to pick up passengers instead of forcing a bus waiting to pull into the No. 2 lane.

“It’s math my second grader can do: What’s better, 40 people on a bus wait or four people in cars,” Van Dyke said. “Which is the greatest cost to society? The bus is going to be more efficient.” He also contends the new system is safe; there is less ambiguity as a bus will slow down in front of a car, so the car would be more likely to stop instead of zipping around a protruding bus bumper.

It is too early to know how this plan will play out – the new bus lane curbs on Clark show missing chunks already from drivers that likely didn’t see them. Raslevich said he has seen cars turn into the curb by the raised bus stop. “They don’t know that there’s an island there, so they’re hitting that island, pretty much daily.”

Councilman Supernaw, whose district encompasses the $65 million project, had reservations about the price tag before ultimately supporting it.

'All anyone asked for is a repave'

“All anyone asked for is a repave, to get rid of potholes and have a smooth surface to drive on,” Supernaw said. “Should we just forgo the bike lanes and do a straight repave? The answer was no, we wanna use the grant money for the bike lanes.”

The city saw it as a grander vision, weaving together a puzzle of state and federal grants along with $8.5 million in local sales tax money for new transit stops, sidewalks and curb ramps that improve how all people can move through the city.

“It’s not just ‘I wanna ride a bike for fun.’ People need it to get to work,” said Jocelin Padilla, a spokesperson for the city’s Public Works Department.

'Communication via spraypaint'

A series of community meetings were held in 2024, drawing limited feedback. But when residents later saw painted pavement markings showing the planned curbs and bike lines, “they got involved in a big way,” Supernaw said.

“We call this communication via spraypaint,” said Supernaw. “Constituents see lines marked out and contact the council office.”

Aside from the cost and the bus islands, some residents are frustrated by the execution. Leslie Goldman, who lives near Studebaker and Stearns, said large piles of dirt – at times higher than cars – have blocked residents from crossing the street or seeing oncoming traffic. Some concerns were addressed, including a bus shelter that was added due to feedback from residents.

“We’re not saying we don’t want construction done ever, that’s life in the big city,” she said. But Goldman contends the “assembly line” construction approach, as opposed to the work done in shorter phases, is leading to more “noise, vibration, dust, traffic, blind spots, trash, roadblocks, … All at sporadic intervals unknown to residents. It’s not just an inconvenience, it’s a hardship.”

A 'once-in-a-generation' timeline

Padilla of Public Works acknowledged the hardship, but said the benefits would outweigh the short-term pain. She said doing the work in shorter segments would increase costs and project timelines – not a good thing when it needs to be finished by the Olympics. “This is a once-in-a-generation project,” she said.

Not all residents are wary. “Studebaker is gonna be awesome when it’s done,” said Dan Olsen, who lives near Studebaker and Atherton. “It’s new, it’s fresh, the neighborhood is going to benefit. It’s been a total pothole disaster for so long. … Even though there are catches and hooks, it’s still worth it.”

Long Beach still isn't Amsterdam

Long Beach is not yet Amsterdam; it’s still a patchwork of protected lanes and unprotected ones of varying degrees of newness. But Studebaker should be done in 2027. Pacific Avenue and Orange Avenue are next. The bike lanes and streets won’t uniformly connect, but there will be more of them – Artesia Boulevard to service Jordan High, Clark Avenue near Long Beach City College and now Studebaker. “Long Beach’s cycling network is reaching critical mass,” Van Dyk said.

Van Dyk and other bike proponents say it’s a long game. Amsterdam itself was car-dominated until the 1970s when the Stop de Kindermoord movement was launched in response to the high number of child deaths. “It’s a generational effort; it took multiple generations to give us the infrastructure we have today,” he said.

Will any of this make the streets safer?

Will they help make transportation safer for cars and bikes? The city racked up 53 traffic deaths in 2025, the highest in a decade, and 32 bike/pedestrian and e-scooter deaths. This year has seen 36 traffic deaths through mid-September. The city is also trying other tools; speed cameras are being installed, and tickets will go out this fall.

It’s not yet any safer to ride through Long Beach than it was 10 years ago, “but it’s not safer to do anything in Long Beach,” said Kurt Canfield, a cyclist and organizer for Car Lite Long Beach, a bike advocacy organization. He often rides the Broadway bike path, which he considers a success despite debris in the lane and other issues.

“They wanna bike, they wanna walk, people are driving 300 horsepower crossovers. We’re in conflict for the same space,” he said. “But this infrastructure gives us the ability to be safer.”

A grand piano, hauled in on a Ford F-350, will make its way next weekend to Griffith Park.

Then, right below the Hollywood sign, the flatbed will unfold into a stage for a recital by pianist Hunter Noack, who has played everywhere from Yosemite Valley to Joshua Tree National Park.

His Sept. 26 and 27 performances are all part of In a Landscape: Classical Music in the Wild, organized in partnership with the nonprofit Trust for Public Land. (The show is sold out, but you can sign up for the waitlist.)

For a decade, Noack has hauled his Steinway — the same model used at Carnegie Hall — through rough terrain to perform in unusual places: 370 concerts and counting.

The piano has survived fire, wind and 112-degree heat

"We've had the piano lid be ripped off by the wind. We've had the piano trailer tires catch fire on Highway 1. We've almost driven off the side of Mount Bachelor. We've played in 112-degree heat and negative 2 degrees in the winter," Noack said. And the piano has come out unscathed, including after it was towed down the washboard gravel along Schweitzer Mountain in Idaho — the only thing that happened was that it went out of tune.

How the show actually works

Among the pieces on the program at Griffith Park is "Nature Boy," the song Eden Ahbez wrote while living outdoors under the first L of the Hollywood sign. The song was later made famous by Nat King Cole.

Audiences at the Griffith Park show will be provided with wireless headphones for concert-hall quality sound, he said. "Some people just set up their picnic chairs or blankets right near the stage. Other people lay down," Noack said. "When there's so much else that's happening visually ... the music kind of automatically becomes a soundtrack, and we all get to experience that together."

The philosophy behind the series' name

The series is named after "In a Landscape," a piece by John Cage, who believed any sound could be music — even "somebody crinkling on a bag of chips," Noack said.

During his first show in 2016 at the Columbia River Gorge, Noack was midway through a soft Schumann piece about a delicate flower when 40 Harley-Davidsons on a memorial ride rolled up and circled the piano.

Rather than pack it in, he answered with Frederic Rzewski's "Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues," a piece built to mimic the aggressive clatter of a cotton mill. "It was a conversation between the piano and these roaring Harleys," he said.