The Brief

Tuesday is the final day for constituents of Santa Ana Councilmember Jessie Lopez to vote on whether she should remain in office. The outcome of the controversial recall — which is mired in legal dilemmas — could determine whether Orange County's second-largest city continues to lean in favor of policies like rent control and police oversight, or does an about-face.

Here's what you need to know:

Why is Jessie Lopez facing recall?

The recall is primarily backed by the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, which has spent more than $500,000 on the recall effort since January. Real estate groups have also kicked in at least $223,000 for the effort, including $100,000 from the National Association of Realtors.

Tim Rush, a real estate executive who chairs the recall campaign, cited Lopez's voting record in favor of rent control and cutting the police budget as primary reasons for the recall. Rush told LAist that Lopez's politics were "very, very liberal" and that she had an "anti-business sort of philosophy."

"[Lopez] wants to portray it that it's the corrupt police union [funding the recall effort]," Rush said. "But that isn't, by any means, all of it. … The money that's poured into this campaign has a lot to do with business owners and property owners who are upset over rent control."

Santa Ana is the only city in Orange County with a rent control ordinance. Its policy restricts rent increases to 2.54% through the end of August 2024. A handful of cities in L.A. County also cap rent increases under 3%.

You can read more from recall proponents here.

Santa Ana Councilmember Jessie Lopez was elected in 2020 to represent the city's Ward 3.

(

City of Santa Ana

)

What do her supporters say?

Lopez's supporters say her actions on the city council have led to greater police oversight and helped low-income residents fight unjust evictions and steep rent hikes. She has also noted that she voted in favor last year of increasing the number of police officers by 24 positions.

Lopez's effort to fight the recall is backed by community members, local Democratic leaders, including county Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, and several unions. These include the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has contributed close to $25,000.

In all, Lopez has raised around $200,000 to fight the recall.

Hairo Cortes, executive director of the Latinx youth advocacy group Chispa, said if Lopez loses her seat on the Santa Ana City Council, it could also mean the end of the council majority that championed policies like rent control, for which his group has advocated for years.

"It really is about losing the gains that the community has made if this recall were to be successful," Cortes told LAist.

You can hear more from Lopez and supporters here and here.

What are the legal issues with the recall?

A couple of weeks ago, the Orange County Registrar of Voters made a late discovery that the recall election was based on bad data.

Specifically, the city used population data and geographic boundaries from Lopez's current district when it should have used information from when voters first elected her in 2020, before redistricting took place.

Using the correct data, the registrar determined that the recall petitioners didn't actually collect enough signatures to trigger an election. And nearly 1,200 voters who should be able to vote didn't get ballots.

A Santa Ana voter who said they should have gotten a ballot filed a legal complaint asking for an injunction. But an O.C. Superior Court judge denied that request last week and said he won't make a ruling until after the election.

So, the election is going forward according to its original parameters.

Lopez told LAist she and her legal counsel are still considering options for challenging the election. And she noted that she and her supporters already have one previous legal claim pending in which a supporter alleged that recall proponents were lying to voters to get their signatures for the recall petition.

"This election is not about me anymore. The issues are so much bigger," Lopez told LAist last week. "The voters need to make a decision who they really want to represent them, special interests that push policies that harm working class people, or people who were born and raised in this city who are always willing to listen to their concerns."

Who gets to vote?

Lopez is encouraging constituents who didn't get a ballot to request a provisional ballot and vote.

It's unclear whether those ballots would be counted — O.C. Registrar Bob Page told LAist last week he intends to administer the election based on the current district boundaries and voter population initially approved by the city. That means voters who live in the city's current Ward 3.

You can look up your address on the city's interactive map.

How can I vote?

Mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Nov. 14.

Two vote centers are also open on Tuesday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the following addresses:

• O.C. Health Care Agency - Public Health Learning Center, 1729 W. 17th St., Building E, Santa Ana
• O.C. Registrar of Voters, 1300 S. Grand Ave., Building C, Santa Ana

Voters can also take ballots to one of three official drop boxes up until 8 p.m. Tuesday:

• O.C. Health Care Agency, 1725 W. 17th St., Santa Ana
• Orangewood Foundation, 1575 E. 17th St., Santa Ana
• O.C. Registrar of Voters, 1300 S. Grand Ave., Building C, Santa Ana

Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.

Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.

That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."

He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.

“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.

Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.

The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages

The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.

One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.

A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach

(

Courtesy Coco

)

L.A. City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez successfully introduced the motion last year to have the regulations revisited. 

“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.

That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said. 

She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots. 

Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.

“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.

Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.

(

Meg Kelly

/

NPR

)

The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.

A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from. 

“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.” 

Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.

What will the funding do?

The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. 

Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.

Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care. 

“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”

In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million. 

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.

(

Courtesy CSULA

)

Why representation matters

For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal. 

Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up. 

“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said. 

Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home. 

Barriers to access

The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.

Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.

At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. 

In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.

Students hope to give back

For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.

The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA. 

Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness. 

After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.

“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.

For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.

Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California scored a legal victory Monday that for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing.

Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.

The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.

Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.

“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.

In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”

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