The Brief

In March, the Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 to request proposals for outsourcing its public library system to a private company, other county governments, or another third party.

Results of a survey of around 400 Huntington Beach voters released Wednesday found that 67% of them opposed a move to privatize the city’s public library system, with only 17% of those surveyed supporting the move. At a council meeting earlier in May, council members debated whether the issue should be on November’s ballot so residents could decide on it — with the majority voting against putting it on the ballot.

The survey was paid for by labor unions, whose members could be affected by the move. This includes the Orange County Employees Association, which represents municipal workers in Orange County.

Just over 40% of those surveyed visit the library a few times a year, with 87% of respondents rating the library positively.

“At this time, the city of Huntington Beach is still preparing a formal Request for Proposal, which will eventually allow the city to examine the feasibility of managed library services in Huntington Beach. Upon completion of that process, staff will present this information to the City Council for further direction,” a city spokesperson said in a statement. “A timeline for issuing an RFP and presenting that information has not been set yet. A decision by the City Council has not yet been reached as to whether or not to proceed with managed library services in the City.”

Dina Chavez, president of the nonprofit Friends of the Huntington Beach Public Library, said there has been a petition filed with the Huntington Beach city attorney’s office, which will require a vote by the residents as well as the majority of the council to weigh in before the library management can be privatized.

How the issue came about

In January, Library Systems & Services (LS&S) approached the city of Huntington Beach with a proposal to run the city’s four-branch library system. Their proposal said they could cut costs by around $1 million annually.

Michael Posey, a former Huntington Beach mayor and city council member who currently works for LS&S, said the company does not privatize public libraries, but rather manages the operations.

“The assets, the building, the books, the materials, the intellectual property, all remain the property of the taxpayers,” he said. “Collection management, human resources, accounting, finance, marketing, website development, all of those operations are handled by our corporate headquarters so with that we bring economies of scale and best practices to public libraries and relieve the staff of those back office duties so they have more time for patron engagement.”

Some employees of the Huntington Beach public library system are against the privatization of operations, stating that it can result in the loss of institutional knowledge as well as in the loss of collections specifically curated for the city’s residents.

Item on the ballot

At a council meeting earlier in May, the majority of the council voted against putting the issue on the November ballot.

Councilmembers Rhonda Bolton, Dan Kalmick and Natalie Moser recommended a charter amendment that would require the majority of the city council as well as the electorate to approve any plans to change how the library was managed. They also wanted to ask Huntington Beach voters in November whether they want the library managed by an outside contractor.

The three council members wrote that they have received “more than a thousand pieces of correspondence from residents, and have had dozens, if not hundreds, of other conversations with concerned parents and library patrons about the future of our public library.”

“I think the arguments for and against could be made pretty easily for the voters, it's do you think your library is broken or do you think your library is OK,” said Kalmick at the meeting.

He said putting the issue in front of voters would mean that council members would not leave an “an indelible mark without I think a lot of information” on a city institution and “harm” the library.

But Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, who voted against the motion for the charter amendment, said it is in the city’s best interest to move forward with the request for proposal process and that “the fear-mongering” should stop.

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.