The Brief

California’s shrinking news industry just got a major lifeline.

Gov. Gavin Newsom endorsed a novel plan to boost California’s struggling local media landscape, signing a law that will give news organizations tax breaks.

The governor signed a bill Wednesday to give local newsrooms $20,000 in tax credits for up to five journalists and an additional $15,000 for every additional reporter, with no cap. Outlets will also get $15,000 for every new journalist they hire and $7,500 for part-time employees.

Print, broadcast, digital, and nonprofit newsrooms that produce original reporting and meet certain editorial standards qualify for the tax breaks.

Newsom cited local news’ decades-long decline and the rise of misinformation for signing Assembly Bill 2222.

“When you lose local journalism, partisan organizations step in. More division, more anger, more bias that’s expressed. And we’ve seen it here in California,” he said at a press conference.

One in three California newsrooms have disappeared since 2005 as the media industry continues to hollow out due to fleeing advertisers and, increasingly, AI-generated search driving traffic away from traditional and reputable news organizations.

San Diego Assemblymember Chris Ward, a Democrat who authored the bill, said the funding boost will help struggling outlets retain reporters and hopefully hire new ones.

“Local journalism is the backbone of an informed democracy, and today California made clear that the people doing this essential work are worth investing in,” Ward said in a statement.

The state has dropped a lifeline to journalists before. Lawmakers in 2023 approved spending $25 million to create the California Local News Fellowship, a program that has employed dozens of journalists on two-year contracts.

In 2024, an agreement was also made between California and Google to spend $175 million over five years on local journalism. Much of the initial commitments proved lofty and were never fulfilled, as California and Google have contributed just $20 million in the first round of funding. Newsom allocated an additional $20 million in this year's budget for the tech giant to match.

These failed commitments and the state’s tenuous budget constraints left industry leaders uncertain about the bill’s prospects.

“I think we were all hoping he would do it, but we were not confident that it’d happen,” CalMatters CEO Neil Chase said, and that he’s thrilled that it did. “This is one of the models out there that seems like the most efficient way to do it without putting a thumb on the scale about which newsrooms survive.”

Media advocacy organizations lauded the law as a first in the nation.

“This is the largest-ever investment in local journalist jobs by any state and will benefit local news providers of all kinds,” said Matt Pearce, a policy director at the nonprofit group Rebuild Local News.

CalMatters CEO Neil Chase was involved in the 2024 deal as a board member for Local Independent Online News Publishers. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the organization, newsroom or its staff.

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

California’s High-Speed Rail Authority failed this year to push through most of the state legislation it deemed necessary to keep construction of the 171-mile rail line connecting Merced and Bakersfield on its current schedule.

In August 2025, authority Chief Executive Ian Choudri urged state leaders to commit stable state funding and cut red tape that he said had long stalled the project. He pitched several legislative ideas that would allow the agency to tap into local tax revenues and fast-track court disputes, environmental reviews and negotiations with utility companies in the rail line’s way.

“State action is critically needed to maintain the cost & timelines of the program,” he wrote in a January presentation to authority board members.

But only one of Choudri’s essential policy proposals became law. Senate Bill 1425, by Senate Transportation Committee Chair Dave Cortese, a San Jose Democrat, allows the authority to grant permits to outside entities such as utilities, local governments and private developers that want to build on authority-controlled land. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law Sunday.

Most of Choudri’s other pitches remained “concept-level ideas” that the high-speed rail authority never developed into written proposals, said authority spokesperson Micah Flores. When asked why, Flores told CalMatters that the agency is not tasked with writing laws.

“Legislators who learn about the concepts may choose or author legislation independently to help the project,” he said.

Many of those ideas faced fierce opposition from local governments. One proposal — vaguely mentioned in Choudri’s August 2025 report — would have allowed the authority to collect sales and property tax revenues within a half-mile of the rail line, alarming local officials who say it would divert essential funding local governments rely on for social services and road repairs.

“This proposal … is fiscally reckless, legally vulnerable, and fundamentally unfair to the communities expected to host High-Speed Rail facilities,” 11 mayors in the Central Valley and Southern California wrote in a June opposition letter. “Simply put: the state cannot solve a state funding problem by raiding local tax bases.”

After this story was published, Flores told CalMatters that the agency is still talking with local governments and is not proposing any policy, “particularly not one that would override local land-use or tax authority.”

The high-speed rail project is already long delayed: In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond to build a high-speed rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles by 2020 for an estimated $45 billion. The project is now estimated to cost between $126 billion and $231 billion, with a full buildout expected by 2040, according to the authority’s latest business plan. Current plans call for building a first leg linking Merced to Bakersfield.

The project is set to receive $1 billion each year from the state’s carbon market auction proceeds until 2045, a deal Newsom championed last year. But the funding could be in jeopardy under new climate rules from the Newsom administration, which threaten to cut carbon market revenue by half.

The authority’s legislative losses this year could further stall the project, but it’s unclear by how much.

The agency’s business plan calls for the authority to complete the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment by 2033. But that timeline largely relies on the “overly optimistic” assumption that state lawmakers will approve the agency’s legislative priorities into law “almost immediately,” according to a review of the plan issued in July by the Office of Inspector General that oversees the authority.

The authority declined CalMatters’ multiple requests for interviews with Choudri or the chair of its board of directors, Steve Kawa. In a statement, Flores said the agency plans to push for similar legislative concepts next year and provide project cost and schedule updates in March.

It’s unclear what the next governor makes of the high-speed rail project. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra said in May he would “scrap the current configuration” but provided few details, whereas Republican Steve Hilton would cancel the entire project.

Other proposals died

Sen. Henry Stern, a Sherman Oaks Democrat, authored the only other proposal related to high-speed rail this year. His Senate Bill 1411, which had bipartisan support, would have allowed the rail authority to spend more state funds outside the Central Valley segment of the rail line, but the legislation was shelved in May during a process known as the “suspense file” hearing, where lawmakers rapidly kill or approve proposals without explanation.

Under current law, the authority can only spend up to $500 million from its share of the state climate fund on high-speed rail projects outside the Merced-to-Bakersfield portion. Stern’s measure would have lifted that cap and allowed the authority to use the money for early designs, engineering and land acquisition elsewhere along the planned rail route from the Bay Area to Southern California.

Stern said the flexibility would help the authority build “bookend” rail line projects across the state and attract investors from private companies while still building in the Central Valley.

“If you are not unlocking private dollars in those demand centers … you are then leaving money on the table that could otherwise accelerate the entire project. It can lift those boats in the valley,” he said.

But doing so would divert dollars from the Merced-to-Bakersfield project and contradict state lawmakers’ intent just four years ago to keep the funds in the Central Valley, legislative staffers warned in a May analysis of the measure, shortly before it died.

A top priority for the authority this year was to speed up the relocation of overhead power lines, water pipes and other infrastructure that is in the rail line’s construction path, Choudri said at an August board meeting. Utility companies have no incentive to move their lines and the agency does not have authority to compel them or bind them to a deadline, Choudri said.

“We are talking about utilities that were identified in 2017 that are still there in the way,” he said at the meeting. “Minus the legislative action, I just don’t know how else we can solve this.”

Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, authored Senate Bill 445 last year to address the issue. But the measure went through several last-minute overhauls amid opposition from local governments and utilities and also died in the suspense file.

Other priorities Choudri identified included:

• Expedite environmental review for facilities that will provide renewable energy for the rail line;
• Speed up resolution of court disputes over property acquisition, and
• Exempt the authority from paying sales tax on construction materials.

Cortese, a champion of high-speed rail, told CalMatters the rail authority is partly to blame for the legislative losses.

“The governor’s office and the high-speed rail [authority] haven’t asked us to write any bills,” he said. “Have they contributed to these bills not getting passed by simply not providing enough help? Sure, absolutely.”

Still, he said his fellow lawmakers also need to better advocate for the project.

“We can’t have bills like Stern’s bill and Sen. Wiener’s bill just completely stalled out,” he said. “That’s not on the authors as much as it’s on the legislative process that those bills can disappear without a debate.”

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

The city of L.A. has spent around $27 million on the Olympic and Paralympic Games, less than two years out from the summer of 2028.

That’s according to numbers crunched by City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who says he’s tracking city funds used for the Olympics and where they're going.

The tally for now includes $13 million in financing for police vehicles and an additional $14 million in other city departments. The majority of that — more than $11 million — is to pay workers in the City Administrative Office, Public Works and the L.A. Department of Transportation, among other city departments.

Mejia says he’s tracking the spending through the city’s accounting system, logging anything that is marked as an Olympics expense. His office noted that the tally is likely an undercount, since it doesn’t include LAPD expenses beyond the vehicle order.

“The city's trying to make it a no-cost Olympics, right? But we all know that's not true,” Mejia told LAist. “Because they’re spending a lot preparing for it and accelerating a lot of spending.”

Other noteworthy line items flagged by the controller include around $460,000 for “international affairs” within the mayor’s office and more than $3.2 million for a Recreation and Parks program called Universal Play.

A spokesperson for L.A. Mayor Karen Bass did not respond to emailed requests for details about the “international affairs” expenses.

Recreation and Parks spokesperson Rose Watson told LAist via email that Universal Play was the precursor to PlayLA, the youth sports program that private Olympics organizing committee LA28 has dedicated $160 million to.

Despite that, L.A. won’t be reimbursed for the $3.2 million it cost to staff and implement the program, Watson told LAist.

The Bureau of Street Services and the L.A. Department of Transportation did not respond to questions about their Olympics expenses in time for publication.

Paul Krekorian, the former L.A. City Council president who now leads the city’s office on major events, said in an emailed statement that most of the projects listed by the city controller were “key infrastructure improvements that Mayor Bass would deliver with or without the Games.”

He added that requests for city services by LA28 that go beyond what’s deemed “normal and customary” will be reimbursed.

Angelenos are being asked in the November election to make a big change to one of L.A.’s most important agencies, the city’s Department of Public Works.

But even the most plugged-in L.A. voters could be forgiven for having a hard time understanding how exactly the measure, Charter Amendment LA, would do that.

As a reporter trying to explain it, I did too.

I was able to wrap my head around most of what the measure would do with a little research and a few interviews. (We have a detailed breakdown of Charter Amendment LA in our voter guide.)

But one of its most significant pieces — one that would change who leads the Department of Public Works — took some serious digging to fully understand. And I wasn’t alone. It turns out that quite a few officials and experts in L.A. were also puzzled.

Who will run Public Works? Who runs it now?

L.A.’s Department of Public Works manages city facilities and infrastructure, including streets, bridges, sewers, storm drains and treatment plants, as well as City Hall and parts of Los Angeles International Airport. At the top of the department’s current power structure is a five-member Board of Public Works.

Charter Amendment LA would transfer power from the board to a role called the director of Public Works, who would report to the mayor, City Council and city controller.

At first glance, that seemed simple enough.

That is, until I asked what I thought was a straightforward question: “Who is the current director of Public Works?”

I did not get straightforward answers — from multiple city officials, supporters of the measure and its opponents.

• Some said the director of Public Works is the president of the Public Works board, who is generally considered the head of the agency.
• Others said the position has just never been filled. 
• The Public Works Department’s own public affairs representative simply didn’t know. 
• And Mayor Karen Bass’ office didn't respond to LAist’s two requests for comment this week.

Eventually, two current city officials pointed me to the person who’s overseeing these responsibilities.

There’s a backstory.

The disappearing director

The director of Public Works position was created through an amendment to the L.A. City Charter, essentially the city’s constitution, in 1999.

In 2005, the City Council transferred the director’s role and responsibilities to the board’s secretary, which was renamed “executive officer.”

Since then, the Public Works Department effectively hasn’t had a person with the title “director.”

Today, the executive officer position is held by TJ Knight, a longtime city employee. Knight’s official title is acting executive officer of the Board of Public Works.

“The director position has remained in the City Charter but has not operated as a separate position since [2005],” Knight said in an emailed statement to LAist. “Charter Amendment LA would revive and increase the authority of the director.”

If the measure is approved, however, it’s unclear who would become the director.

“Any next steps regarding the position will depend on the outcome of the election,” Knight said.

Calls for change

Overall, Charter Amendment LA aims to streamline how the city of L.A. plans for, budgets for and prioritizes infrastructure maintenance and repairs.

There's wide support for improving how the city handles these projects. The city struggles with aging infrastructure, a huge backlog of projects and a steady stream of complaints about delayed work and deteriorating conditions.

Many of those projects fall under the Department of Public Works. A chorus of officials and public infrastructure advocates, including supporters of Charter Amendment LA, blame the agency’s current structure, at least in part, for the city’s inability to address infrastructure projects in a timely fashion.

They say the board’s bureaucracy slows down infrastructure projects and makes it more difficult to hold a single person accountable for delays. On top of that, they argue the commissioners do not necessarily have extensive experience in public works or engineering. A director would be expected to have a background in those areas.

“If you look at how that impacts service and delivery of their tasks — which is everything from streetlights to curb ramps, to bike lanes, to sidewalk repair — it's very fragmented because there's no one person in charge of overseeing all of it and making sure that it's coherent in terms of its service delivery,” said City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who is backing the measure.

The Public Works Department is also divided into bureaus responsible for managing different sectors, such as sanitation, engineering, street lighting, street services and contract administration. Critics of the current system argue they also have no central leadership to turn to.

Yaroslavsky and other supporters say the answer is putting a strong director in charge rather than the board.

Charter Amendment LA would also give the City Council the power to change or eliminate the Board of Public Works altogether, a prospect that has sparked the measure’s main opposition. Opponents are concerned eliminating the board would do away with an important check and balance on the department at a time when public trust in City Hall has been damaged by corruption and other scandals.

“The Board of Public Works provides essential, open-meeting scrutiny over multibillion-dollar city contracts that Los Angeles taxpayers cannot afford to lose. Charter Amendment LA weakens accountability by consolidating power under a single position,” said City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.

Other city departments have boards, including the Department of Recreation and Parks, the Harbor Department and the Department of Water and Power. One major difference is that members of the Board of Public Works are the only commissioners in the city who are paid a salary. Some make around $200,000 a year.

It’s not clear what the director position would be paid if the measure is approved by voters in November.

If it does pass — and now that I understand the inner workings of the Public Works Department so well — let’s hope they don’t ask me to apply for the position.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation Wednesday that would have penalized Californians for using smart glasses to record people without their permission in changing rooms, doctor’s offices and other spaces people generally consider private.

The legislation also would have required companies making smart glasses or other wearable devices, starting in 2028, to include a light or some other feature that indicates that the person is video or audio recording. It would have banned the sale of technology designed to help people conceal a recording light or sound on a smart device.

Newsom wrote in a letter explaining his decision that the bill’s definition of a wearable recording device was too broad. He noted that the state already bars people from recording someone without their consent in spaces generally considered private.

Meta Ray-Bans, smart glasses that were rolled out in 2021, have especially grown in popularity, with more than 7 million of the AI-powered devices being sold last year. State Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, who wrote the bill, said it would’ve helped the state respond to the technology’s rapid growth.

“Whatever we can do to protect an individual’s right to privacy, we have to do,” she said.

The bill would have been the first of its kind in the nation and built upon the state’s extensive privacy protections. California is one of about a dozen states that already requires both parties’ consent before a conversation can be recorded via audio or video.

Reyes’ proposal was designed to clarify that it applied to smart glasses and make it easier for someone to tell when those devices are recording. Any person who violated the bill by secretly recording someone would have faced prison time or fines of up to $1,500. A company that made devices that didn’t comply with the bill would’ve faced fines up to $2,500.

But TechNet, a group of executives from companies including Meta, Google and Amazon, said the legislation, known as SB 1130, would have been unfair to businesses and customers.

“California already has extensive laws governing unlawful recording, and as currently written, SB 1130 is not the right approach to addressing these concerns,” TechNet Executive Director Robert Boykin said in a statement.

Meta touted the benefits of its smart glasses in response to Newsom’s veto, including an initiative providing the devices to blinded veterans to help them read documents and identify objects.

“We’re still in the early days of building this technology and we’re committed to continuing prioritizing privacy as we build,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

About a dozen states, including California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, require someone who wants to record a conversation to get the other person’s permission.

It’s important to strengthen privacy laws for these wearable smart devices because it’s not as obvious to tell when a person is using them to record compared to when someone is filming with their phone or a camera, said Justin Brookman, the director of technology policy for Consumer Reports.

In a letter to lawmakers earlier this year about the bill, Consumer Reports referenced a TikTok in which a woman recounted her experience getting a wax when she realized her technician was wearing smart glasses. The technician told the content creator, Aniessa Navarro, that the glasses weren’t on, but the experience was still unnerving, she said in the TikTok. The Consumer Reports letter cited a separate event in which a woman said she was secretly filmed with smart glasses at a gym and harassed online after the video was uploaded to social media.

“The stories are enough to cause alarm, and we need to do something as soon as we can,” Reyes said at the end of the legislative session.