ReportWire

Tag: City

  • L.A. City Council declares Marilyn Monroe house a cultural landmark, saving it from destruction

    L.A. City Council declares Marilyn Monroe house a cultural landmark, saving it from destruction

    [ad_1]

    After a year-long battle, Marilyn Monroe’s Brentwood home has been saved from destruction.

    On Wednesday, the L.A. City Council unanimously voted to designate the Spanish Colonial-style residence as a historic cultural monument, protecting it from being razed by its current owners.

    “We have an opportunity to do something today that should’ve been done 60 years ago. There’s no other person or place in the city of Los Angeles as iconic as Marilyn Monroe and her Brentwood home,” Councilmember Traci Park said in a speech before the vote.

    Park, who represents the council’s 11th district, where the property is located, added that she’s planning to introduce a motion to evaluate tour bus restrictions in Brentwood after neighbors complained about unwanted traffic around the estate. She also floated the idea of moving the home to a place where the public could more easily access it.

    “To lose this piece of history, the only home that Monroe ever owned, would be a devastating blow for historic preservation and for a city where less than 3% of historic designations are associated with women’s heritage,” Park said.

    The battle over the home on 5th Helena Drive has been brewing since last summer, evolving into a greater discussion of what exactly is worth protecting in Southern California — a region chock-full of architectural marvels and Old Hollywood haunts swirling with celebrity legend and gossip.

    Monroe fans claimed the residence is an indelible piece of Hollywood history; the actress bought the house for $75,000 in 1962 and died there of an apparent overdose six months later, making it the last home she ever occupied.

    The homeowners claimed the house has been remodeled so many times over the years that it bears no resemblance to its former self. They also said it has become a neighborhood nuisance as tourists and fans flock to take pictures outside the property.

    The saga started when heiress Brinah Milstein and her husband, reality TV producer Roy Bank, bought the property for $8.35 million and immediately laid out plans to demolish it. They owned the property next door and wanted to expand their estate.

    An aerial view shows the Brentwood house where actress Marilyn Monroe died.

    (Mel Bouzad / Getty Images)

    The couple obtained a permit but soon ran into opposition, as historians, Angelenos and Monroe fans jumped in to protest the planned demolition. Councilmember Park said she received hundreds of calls and emails urging her to take action.

    The next day, she held a news conference, while sporting red lipstick and short blond hair in a nod to Monroe, giving an impassioned speech urging the City Council to designate the home as a landmark.

    In the months after, the landmark application slowly advanced, first receiving approval from the Cultural Heritage Commission and then from the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.

    In the meantime, Milstein and Bank were barred from demolishing the home. Milstein addressed the Cultural Heritage Commission directly in January in an effort to sway its decision.

    “We have watched it go unmaintained and unkept. We purchased the property because it is within feet of ours. And it is not a historic cultural monument,” she said at the time.

    In an attempt to halt the landmark designation process, they sued the city in May, claiming that officials acted unconstitutionally in their efforts to designate the home as a landmark and accusing them of “backdoor machinations” in trying to preserve a house that doesn’t meet the criteria for status as a historic cultural monument.

    “There is not a single piece of the house that includes any physical evidence that Ms. Monroe ever spent a day at the house, not a piece of furniture, not a paint chip, not a carpet, nothing,” the lawsuit says.

    A judge denied the claim in June, calling the suit an “ill-disguised motion to win so that they can demolish the home and eliminate the historic cultural monument issue,” according to ABC 7.

    The City Council vote was originally set for June 12, but Park requested a postponement, citing the recent court decision and pending litigation, as well as ongoing discussions between the city attorney’s office and the property owners.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • Officials talk of restricting masks at protests after violence outside L.A. synagogue

    Officials talk of restricting masks at protests after violence outside L.A. synagogue

    [ad_1]

    The violent protest Sunday at a synagogue has prompted Mayor Karen Bass to say Los Angeles should consider rules governing demonstrations and the wearing of masks by those protesting.

    Bass on Monday did not offer a proposal but said the city needed to look at the issue — including “the idea of people wearing masks at protests.” A number of pro-Palestinian protesters had their faces covered Sunday.

    The mayor, at an afternoon news conference, also said she was seeking city and state funding for additional security measures at places of worship in the city. Hours after the clashes, she ordered the LAPD to increase patrols in the heavily Jewish Pico-Robertson area where the protest occurred and at religious venues.

    Masks have been a part of many pro-Palestinian and some pro-Israeli protests over the war in Gaza, including on college campuses.

    When a mob attacked a pro-Palestinian camp at UCLA in May, it was difficult to identify suspects because many wore masks that hid their identities. Police said they would use technology that captures facial images and outlines and compares them with other photos on the internet and social media to put names to faces.

    It is unclear how the government could restrict mask use at protests.

    During the 2020 George Floyd protests, some health officials urged demonstrators to wear masks to protect against COVID-19. Although coronavirus cases have fallen dramatically since then, masks can still offer protection, especially to those who have underlying health problems.

    Earlier this month, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she was considering a mask ban on the New York subway, saying she was concerned about people with face masks committing antisemitic acts.

    “We will not tolerate individuals using masks to evade responsibility for criminal or threatening behavior,” Hochul told reporters at a news conference. “My team is working on a solution. But on a subway, people should not be able to hide behind a mask to commit crimes.”

    New York Mayor Eric Adams supported the idea, telling reporters that “cowards cover their faces.”

    Some civil liberties advocates opposed the idea.

    “Mask bans were originally developed to squash political protests and, like other laws that criminalize people, they will be selectively enforced — used to arrest, doxx, surveil, and silence people of color and protesters the police disagree with,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement, according to the Associated Press.

    North Carolina has also been talking about a mask ban, citing Gaza war protests. But there has been pushback from some health professionals and people with underlying health problems.

    One North Carolina resident told the Washington Post: “I’ve thought I should wear masks with something printed on it like ‘immune deficient’ or ‘cancer patient.’ But we should not have to do that.”

    A new proposal now includes health exemptions.

    There have been no formal proposals in Los Angeles, and it’s unclear whether the City Council would support the idea.

    But a local Anti-Defamation League official expressed support Monday for a mask restriction. Jeffrey Abrams, the ADL’s Los Angeles regional director, stood on stage alongside Bass at the afternoon news conference and said the city needed to do more to protect the community.

    “Just as Mayor Bass said, we need to look at every available legal tool, as the city attorney looks at existing anti-masking laws in the state of California,” Abrams said.

    The Sunday protest was condemned by top officials including Bass, President Biden and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    A pro-Palestinian protester gets in a car surrounded by pro-Israeli counterdemonstrators near Adas Torah synagogue Sunday.

    (Zoë Cranfill / Los Angeles Times)

    The protest began Sunday afternoon at the Adas Torah synagogue in the heavily Jewish Pico-Robertson neighborhood but eventually spread into nearby areas over several hours. Fistfights broke out between pro-Palestinian demonstrators — who said they were protesting an event at the synagogue promoting the sale of stolen Palestinian land — and supporters of Israel.

    “Yesterday was abhorrent, and blocking access to a place of worship is absolutely unacceptable,” Bass said Monday. “This violence was designed to stoke fear. It was designed to divide. But hear me loud and clear: It will fail.”

    “Intimidating Jewish congregants is dangerous, unconscionable, antisemitic, and un-American,” the president said in a statement. “Americans have a right to peaceful protest. But blocking access to a house of worship — and engaging in violence — is never acceptable.”

    The law enforcement sources said the event was advertised in Friday’s issue of the Jewish Journal promising to provide information on “housing projects in all the best Anglo neighborhoods in Israel.” “Anglo” is a direct translation from Hebrew meaning “English-speaking.” The ad does not specify where in Israel the real estate is.

    Protest fliers posted on social media said, “Our Land Is Not For Sale,” and condemned “land theft,” according to an Instagram post from the Southern California chapter of the Palestinian Youth Movement, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

    Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations office in Los Angeles, said the site of the demonstration was chosen not because it was in front of a synagogue but because of the event it was hosting.

    The protest “was in response to the blatant violations of both international law and human rights from agencies that seek to make a profit selling brutally stolen Palestinian land as the Israeli government continues its eight-month-long genocidal campaign and ethnic cleansing in Gaza,” he said in a statement.

    “Elected officials and the mainstream media have politicized this incident as religious discrimination as opposed to a human rights issue,” Ayloush added.

    Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, founder of the JEM Community Center in Beverly Hills, arrived at Adas Torah on Sunday to worship during afternoon prayer and was confronted by a group yelling into megaphones. Some synagogue visitors were blocked from going inside, he said.

    “We could not pray well because these people outside were screaming,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Karen Garcia, Richard Winton, Hannah Fry, Nathan Solis

    Source link

  • Austin Pets Alive! | APA! Voted ‘Best Nonprofit’ by Austin Chronicle…

    Austin Pets Alive! | APA! Voted ‘Best Nonprofit’ by Austin Chronicle…

    [ad_1]

    We are honored to have been voted ‘Best Nonprofit’ in the Austin Chronicle’s 2024 ‘Best Of’ issue. Since 2010, Austin Pets Alive! has won 14 “Best of Austin” awards from The Austin Chronicle, including ‘Best Nonprofit’ 10 times. We live in a community full of heart and it shows with all of the thriving nonprofits that help make our city one of the best around, so it truly is an honor to receive this award.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Just not afraid of humans’: Coyotes plague Mar Vista as neighborhood pets disappear

    ‘Just not afraid of humans’: Coyotes plague Mar Vista as neighborhood pets disappear

    [ad_1]

    Residents of Mar Vista are certain that they are being watched.

    And Jennifer Bedolla knows who it is: the pack of coyotes that she often catches lounging in her yard and who leave the carcasses of neighborhood pets around her home.

    In previous years, the occasional coyote would pass through the area at dusk. But this year is different as the pack grows bolder, with coyotes trailing after people as they walk their dogs and lunging at pets and children.

    “They’ve become more and more aggressive,” Bedolla said. “They’re just not afraid of humans. They’re just right on your back, running into you and not running away.”

    The official response from the city of Los Angeles is that residents can clear brush from around their homes, bang pots and pans to scare away coyotes and overall coexist with the wild animals, according to an information campaign directed at the neighborhood.

    Frustrated residents in the community just west of Culver City think L.A. officials do not appreciate their situation.

    The usual methods don’t work for them, they say. Animal experts advise anyone who comes across a coyote to wave their arms, shout and make themselves appear as big as possible, but these coyotes are not skittish around their human neighbors.

    Every day, among the hillsides the coyote yips and cries grow into a wild cacophony.

    Bedolla said a coyote lunged at her 11-year-old son while he played soccer in his backyard as several other coyotes watched. She often carries her 9-year-old Maltese-poodle mix, Zola, when they go out for their weekly walk, because the coyotes seem to have claimed the neighborhood as their territory.

    A number of pet dogs and cats have gone missing.

    “I’ve cleaned so many neighborhood pets from my yard,” she said. “Just piles of fur and carcasses.”

    Jennifer Bedolla stands on a top tier patio in her backyard, that has been inundated with very brazen coyotes in Mar Vista.

    Jennifer Bedolla stands on a top tier patio in her backyard, which has been inundated with very brazen coyotes in Mar Vista. Bedolla spotted 16 coyotes in her backyard recently.

    (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

    As hunters, coyotes are opportunists, experts say, their diet consisting of vermin, birds and, in suburban areas, human trash. They’re attracted to the scent of food on a person’s clothing and over the years have learned to live in close proximity to people.

    For some residents, it’s a little too close for comfort.

    But figuring out how they might get some relief — and who might help them — isn’t that easy.

    One resident turned to the L.A. County agricultural commissioner’s Weights and Measures Bureau for help after a frightening encounter.

    At around 11 p.m. on March 29, a person walking their dog in Mar Vista encountered a group of coyotes, said Chief Deputy Maximiliano Regis of the bureau.

    “The coyote sort of stopped, looked at [the person] and then made some sort of screaming or yelp sounds,” Regis said.

    The dog barked back, and the resident ran away, convinced they were about to be attacked. The person called Weights and Measures to investigate, and in early April an inspector found a mother coyote and four to five pups living in a nearby den.

    The mother coyote was likely taking her pups out to hunt, Regis said. But the den is in Los Angeles city limits, and it’s up to the city to determine what to do next, according to Regis.

    Los Angeles Animal Services coordinates with various agencies on wildlife within the city limits, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The city says the state agency manages the coyote population, but a spokesperson for Fish and Wildlife said the agency does not manage coyotes but provides information to local jurisdictions and the public on coyotes.

    Coyotes at Jennifer Bedolla's home in Mar Vista. One expert says the coyotes' behavior is linked to pupping season.

    Coyotes at Jennifer Bedolla’s home in Mar Vista. One expert says the coyotes’ behavior is linked to pupping season.

    (Jennifer Bedolla)

    “Wildlife officers will respond to attacks,” the Fish and Wildlife spokesperson said, “but it is up to local agencies to deal with coyotes in their communities.”

    L.A. Animal Services did not respond to follow-up questions about the city’s response to the coyote population. But in a statement, the agency said it hosted an online community meeting with the office of City Councilmember Traci Park as well as Fish and Wildlife to educate residents about “deterrents and property maintenance.”

    The agency also hosts its own monthly information sessions about “how to safely coexist with wildlife, as well as ways for people to keep their pets safe,” according to a statement from L.A. Animal Services.

    In Mar Vista, there’s a feeling that that type of safety is out of reach.

    Resident Jeanelle Arias said a coyote snapped at her 14-year-old dog, Blaine, a toy breed, in their backyard. The coyote scampered away after Arias’ other dog, 7-year-old Bart, barked and gave chase. But the coyote didn’t run away, according to Arias. It hopped on top of a planter to watch what would happen next.

    “If it wasn’t for Bart, Blaine would have been attacked,” Arias said. “There have been so many pets that have disappeared.”

    On June 4, a coyote trailed closely behind a man as he walked his dog around the neighborhood, according to footage captured on a Ring camera video.

    Neighbors said the man eventually spotted the coyote and yelled to scare away his stalker.

    Shelley Beringhele has lived in Mar Vista for the last 10 years, but her family has been in the neighborhood since her grandfather Val Ramos built his home in 1963.

    Coyotes were never a concern for the community, Beringhele said, but now shadow humans and pets.

    “I find it disturbing how bold the coyotes have become and how little the city is willing to do about the situation,” Beringhele said.

    But Rebecca Dmytryk, co-owner with Humane Wildlife Control, sounded a hopeful note. She said the coyotes’ behavior is tied to pupping season. Coyotes want to convey to other canines in the neighborhood that they have pups and are territorial.

    “They want to make sure that dogs understand, ‘Do not come over here, because our pups are close by,’” Dmytryk said.

    Despite the animal carcasses, Dmytryk doesn’t believe that coyotes are hunting neighborhood dogs but looking at them as intruders.

    The coyote pupping season stretches for a few months, from when coyotes give birth to when the pups become juveniles and leave their parents. The coyote activity should die down by autumn, Dmytryk said.

    Mar Vista is not unique, Dmytryk said. Other parts of Southern California are also enduring the pupping season, including sections of South Central Los Angeles and Woodland Hills, where she recently responded to one call to get coyotes out of a crawl space under a home.

    Dmytryk said she’d been contacted by one concerned Mar Vista resident and her business uses humane means of hazing coyotes. She provided the resident with information about how they can protect their home, similar to the advice provided by the city. Her methods include humane traps.

    California does not allow coyote traps within 150 yards of a residence without written consent, but that has not stopped some cities. Torrance contracted a trapper in an effort to manage its coyote population, which includes killing coyotes. The result was a state investigation over possible violation of the trapping law.

    Although Dmytryk advocates for humane measures, she does agree that the city of Los Angeles should take a more proactive approach to tracking coyotes and investigate why they’re active in one area. Residents in Mar Vista agree, although some say they’re unsure what that would involve. They just know that they are fed up.

    Mar Vista resident Shari Dunn, on a recent night, picked up a neighbor who had just encountered a coyote as she was walking her husky puppy. The neighbor screamed and became distraught over the encounter.

    “I drove her home, and she was bawling,” Dunn said. “The woman had just gotten home from work and was walking her dog. I guess you can’t do that anymore.”

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Solis

    Source link

  • California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

    California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

    [ad_1]

    A bill that would allow Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes in California passed the state Assembly Monday afternoon on a 49-4 vote and is headed to the Senate. But even if the Legislature’s upper chamber approves AB 1775, legalization remains far from a sure thing.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a prior iteration of the bill in October, citing the state’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.

    The bill would authorize local jurisdictions to allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell non-cannabis food and nonalcoholic beverages. The bill would also allow the cafes to host live music and other performances.

    Under current state law, consumers can consume cannabis at a dispensary, but dispensaries can’t legally sell non-cannabis products like coffee and food, as is legal in Amsterdam.

    California’s symbolic position at the apex of weed culture has long been rivaled by the Dutch capital, where cannabis cafes have been legal since the 1970s.

    Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation, has framed it as a matter of fairness. He argues that the cafes would level the playing field for the state’s highly taxed and regulated legal weed industry, allowing legitimate businesses to compete with black-market sellers who don’t operate under the same constraints.

    “This is a bill that supports our legal small businesses that just want to diversify their businesses and do the right thing,” Haney said Monday on the Assembly floor. “The illicit illegal market is continuing to grow and thrive, while our legal cannabis market is struggling.”

    Haney cited the governor’s prior veto, saying he had been working to address Newsom’s concerns through amendments to the bill. The new version would prohibit cannabis smoking or vaping in “back of house” of lounges, where food is being prepared or stored, creating separation between where people are consuming cannabis and other work areas.

    Rather than taking a blunt statewide approach, the bill would put the decision to allow cannabis cafes in the hands of local jurisdictions. Should a jurisdiction decide to greenlight the lounges, it would have to hash out its own permitting process and regulations.

    West Hollywood put a licensing system in place several years ago, and a handful of cannabis lounges operate within the city’s 1.89 square miles. The West Hollywood businesses operate with workarounds that separate the food businesses, The Times has previously reported.

    No such licensing system exists in the city of Los Angeles.

    The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Assn. and the American Lung Assn. have all opposed the bill, raising concerns about the health effects of secondhand marijuana smoke. They argue that the bill would undo hard-fought workplace protections “by re-creating the harmful work environments of the past.”

    Marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access has argued that patrons and employees would face no health risks because of the highly regulated nature of such establishments.

    A Newsom spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation.

    Staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick

    Source link

  • A Long Beach man started a petition to ban Airbnb in his neighborhood — and it worked

    A Long Beach man started a petition to ban Airbnb in his neighborhood — and it worked

    [ad_1]

    First came the all-night parties and music blaring from a neighbor’s house in Long Beach that kept Andy Oliver up at night.

    Then there were the “smoke outs,” when visitors enjoying refuge from hostile cannabis laws in their home states blazed marijuana throughout the day, sending clouds of hazy smoke into Oliver’s sanctuary, his house in the city’s College Estates neighborhood.

    The final straw was on Jan. 2, when a shooting victim climbed over his fence, bleeding and looking for shelter.

    In each case, the source of Oliver’s grief were tourists staying in an unhosted short-term rental next door. Such rentals are listed by homeowners who are not present during the guest’s stay, as with Airbnb.

    “All this happened over a year’s time, and it was beginning to be too much,” Oliver, 50, said. “This is a residential area, and something had to be done.”

    Fast-forward four months, and Oliver has successfully petitioned Long Beach’s Community Development Department to ban short-term rentals within College Estates. His win also spawned nine similar petitions around the city.

    “I don’t have the final count, but there are something like 755 homes, and we just got enough signatures,” Oliver said. “I heard it was close and I don’t have confirmation of the final vote, but I was informed [last week] that we succeeded.”

    Oliver’s victory was the culmination of nearly a year of work, which included trying the city’s complaint hotline, speaking with a councilmember and, ultimately, founding an online advocacy group, the Long Beach Safe Neighborhood Coalition.

    For months, coalition members commiserated on the social media site Nextdoor over their frustrations with the short-term rentals, gathering momentum for a ban.

    “The common theme that we kept running into was that this was a big deal for many residents and almost all of us got the runaround from the city of Long Beach,” Oliver said. “They didn’t seem to care.”

    As short-term rentals have spread, the responses across Southern California have varied.

    In Palm Springs, short-term rentals were capped in specific, high-demand neighborhoods, leading to a local drop in home prices.

    In Orange County, Anaheim requires a minimum stay of three nights to avoid frequent disturbances, while Seal Beach has limited short-term rentals to 31 units in the city’s coastal zone south of Westminster Boulevard.

    Last year, Lakewood banned them altogether.

    Similarly, Long Beach originally banned unhosted short-term rentals in the early days of the pandemic. But that ordinance was loosened to allow for 800 non-primary residence short-term rentals, meaning people could use their second properties within the city as an Airbnb.

    Currently, there are 626 non-primary short-term rentals registered in the city, according to the Community Development Department.

    Jean Young, a 67-year-old technical writer, is among those with a short-term rental.

    “I’m a part-time writer, and the income from rentals just smooths out the rough edges and has been wonderful,” she said.

    Young splits her time between her three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in Long Beach’s affluent Bixby Knolls neighborhood and one in the sprawling senior living community at Leisure World in Seal Beach, where she spends three or four months out of the year.

    She began renting out a part of her Long Beach home 11 years ago to JetBlue and Southwest flight attendants in town between shifts, then turned it into a place of refuge for traveling nurses during COVID-19. Now Young hosts physical therapists and medical residents.

    Sometimes she rents out the entire place.

    “My son has since moved on to college and my mother passed away, so there’s all this room in my house to share,” she said. “It would be sad to lose that ability.”

    Young said she understands the backlash from community members. The Jan. 2 shooting next to Oliver’s home on Kallin Avenue was “horrible” and an “abomination,” she said, but a citywide ban would ultimately be “damaging.”

    Oliver said he initially tried other means.

    He called the city’s hotline to complain about his neighbor’s rental, “but nothing was ever enforced.”

    He reached out to a city councilmember and the city attorney.

    Eventually, he had to go grassroots.

    “There were two previous petition drives that failed, so I wasn’t sure if we would have success,” he said.

    But whenever he was discouraged, he would think back to his encounters with rowdy neighbors.

    In December, he said he spoke with a bunch of 20-somethings from Texas staying at his neighbor’s house, because the “insane amount of marijuana they were smoking” was floating into his home.

    “They said recreational marijuana wasn’t allowed in Texas and they were going to take advantage of their time here,” he said.

    Just a few weeks later, on Jan. 2, a man standing in front of an unhosted short-term rental in the 800 block of Kallin Avenue was shot in the lower body by an unknown gunman, according to Long Beach Police.

    The home had been listed on Peerspace, an online marketplace for hourly rentals, Oliver said. The shooting is still under investigation.

    The victim tried to climb Oliver’s fence and smeared blood on the gate as he crossed into the yard.

    “My house was closed for hours due to an investigation,” he said.

    As momentum for Oliver’s petition grew, help came from unexpected places.

    Better Neighbors LA, a self-described coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists, hotel workers and community members, footed Oliver’s $1,050 petition ban fee with the city.

    “BNLA is happy to support neighbors like Andy in Long Beach as well as people and groups across Los Angeles County who want reasonable regulations on an out-of-control industry that affects their neighborhoods,” the group said in a statement.

    Oliver said the group is also funding efforts to ban unhosted short-term rentals in nine other Long Beach communities, including El Dorado Park, Naples and South of Conant, where resident Stephen Carr is leading an effort.

    Carr, a freelance photographer, said the ban was necessary after his neighbor’s home listed on Airbnb “turned into a hotel.”

    He said one weekend last summer, guests in town for an electronic dance music festival stayed up every night.

    “The music is blaring. There’s screaming and drunkenness spilling out into the front and back lawns till 3 a.m.,” he said. “One of the guests actually apologized the next day, but then they partied again till 4 a.m.”

    Carr said he called the police, but they would only issue warnings. He also tried the city’s complaint hotline, but never received a call back.

    Eventually, he found Oliver on Nextdoor and linked up with Better Neighbors LA, which he said funded his $1,050 petition fee.

    “There’s no regulation, no help coming from anywhere,” Carr said.

    For their part, the sites that host short-term rentals in Long Beach such as Airbnb, Peerspace and Vrbo, say they have outlets for residents to voice their concerns and point out problems.

    Airbnb cited a city report in April that said the majority of its operators were “meeting compliance standards” and that there was “proactive and reactive” enforcement against violations.

    The hosting site has a Community Disturbance Policy that bans parties and events that are disruptive, open-invite and that invite excessive noise, visitors, trash, littering and smoking, among other issues.

    Neighbors witnessing issues or violations are encouraged to reach out to Airbnb’s support staff, a company spokesperson said.

    Peerspace, meanwhile, said its sites rent out venues on an hourly basis including homes, photo studios, storefronts and banquet halls.

    The company said it takes neighbor concerns seriously and asks anyone experiencing complications to reach out to its Trust and Safety team. It also said it had no listing for the home on Kallin Avenue on Jan. 2, when the shooting victim climbed into Oliver’s backyard.

    Vrbo recommends that neighbors with complaints first address any issues with the host. They then suggest filling out a Stay Neighbor complaint form if a resolution can’t be found.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew J. Campa

    Source link

  • Graffitied skyscraper in downtown Los Angeles poised for sale

    Graffitied skyscraper in downtown Los Angeles poised for sale

    [ad_1]

    Oceanwide Plaza, the bankrupt, unfinished development in downtown Los Angeles that became a canvas for trespassing graffiti artists, is officially on the market.

    The Chinese owners of the stalled residential, hotel and retail complex towering over Crypto.com Arena have hired real estate brokers to sell the property to buyers who could restart the project after work stopped in 2019. Taggers recently covered its outer walls with graffiti visible from far away.

    Likely bidders for the property include large institutional investors such as Blackstone Inc. and BlackRock, and cash-rich overseas sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East, Asia and Europe, property broker Mark Tarczynski said.

    “I think there’s a broad range of buyers,” he said, “but the pool of buyers is small because of the size of the project.”

    Tarczynski is part of a team from real estate brokerage Colliers and Hilco Real Estate that will market the property, which fills a large city block on Figueroa Street across from the arena and LA Live.

    An April appraisal by Colliers submitted in a bankruptcy case involving the project estimated the as-is market value at nearly $434 million, Bloomberg said. Colliers also projected a cost of $865 million to complete the buildings, which are 60% finished.

    Real estate developments stall from time to time as developers run out of money; but rarely do they fail in such a high-profile manner as Oceanwide Plaza, which was supposed to be a glamorous addition to the skyline and center of activity in the bustling sports and entertainment district of downtown’s South Park neighborhood.

    Beijing-based Oceanwide Holdings bought a sprawling parking lot across from the arena in 2014 and soon set to work on a three-tower complex intended to house luxury condominiums and apartments, and a five-star hotel supported by upmarket stores and restaurants. It was also to include a massive electronic sign intended to help bring a Times Square flavor to Figueroa Street.

    The international company ran into financial problems that coincided with a Chinese government decision to restrict the flow of outbound investment. Work stopped on Oceanwide Plaza in early 2019 as contractors building it stopped getting paid.

    In February, general contractor Lendlease filed a petition for the involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Oceanwide Holdings to force a sale of the property and pay creditors who were demanding almost $400 million. Major creditors include Lendlease and EB-5 visa investors, who helped fund construction. Oceanwide also owes back taxes to Los Angeles County and money to repay the city for security put in place in response to the graffiti and other incidents including BASE-jumping paragliders leaping form the towers.

    The city allotted nearly $4 million to remove graffiti and secure the property in February. The property is now surrounded by a tall metal fence.

    While some real estate observers have speculated that it might make sense to raze the towers to make way for a different development, Tarczynski predicts that the next owner will finish the existing project.

    “It’s about two-thirds of the way done, with about $1.2 billion already invested in it,” he said. “Why would you tear down a perfectly good project? It’s unimaginable.”

    Oceanwide’s location in the center of downtown’s sports and entertainment district should help entice investors to finish the complex, Tarczynski said.

    “Every bit of the potential synergy between Crypto.com Arena, LA Live and Oceanwide Plaza still exists,” he said, “and there is a huge demand for housing and also hotel demand. This remains an attractive project.”

    The brokerage team expects to distribute financial information and other facts about the project to qualified buyers early next month and call for offers by the end of July, Tarczynski said. “We hope to be in escrow by October.”

    [ad_2]

    Roger Vincent

    Source link

  • Homeowners sue L.A. for right to demolish Marilyn Monroe’s house

    Homeowners sue L.A. for right to demolish Marilyn Monroe’s house

    [ad_1]

    In January, fans and conservationists celebrated when the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission recommended landmark status for Marilyn Monroe’s home, a crucial step in saving the residence from being demolished.

    The new owners of the Brentwood property were less ecstatic. They sued the city of L.A. on Monday for the right to demolish it, claiming that city officials acted unconstitutionally in their efforts to designate the home as a landmark and accusing them of “backdoor machinations” in trying to preserve a house that doesn’t meet the criteria for status as a historic cultural monument.

    The lawsuit comes from heiress Brinah Milstein and her husband, reality TV producer Roy Bank, who bought the Spanish Colonial-style home last summer for $8.35 million and immediately laid out plans to raze it. They owned the house next door and hoped to combine the two properties to expand their place, according to the lawsuit.

    Monroe bought the house in 1962 for $75,000 and died there six months later after an apparent overdose at the age of 36. The phrase “Cursum Perficio” — Latin for “The journey ends here” — was adorned in tile on the front porch, though its origin is a mystery.

    An aerial view of the house where Marilyn Monroe died is seen on July 26, 2002, in Brentwood.

    (Mel Bouzad / Getty Images)

    Fans and conservationists claim the residence is a part of Hollywood history and a physical reminder of Monroe’s legacy.

    Milstein and Bank disagree. Their lawsuit claims that the home has had 14 owners since Monroe’s death and has been substantially altered, with over a dozen permits issued for various remodels over the last 60 years.

    “There is not a single piece of the house that includes any physical evidence that Ms. Monroe ever spent a day at the house, not a piece of furniture, not a paint chip, not a carpet, nothing,” the lawsuit says.

    The house isn’t visible from the street, but that hasn’t stopped it from becoming a tourist hot spot. Fans and tour buses flock to the property to snap pictures of the privacy wall, which the lawsuit claims is a nuisance to the neighborhood.

    The battle over the home has been brewing since September 2023, when the city issued a demolition permit to Milstein and Bank on Sept. 7. The public outcry was swift, and L.A. City Councilmember Traci Park said she received hundreds of emails and phone calls urging her office to initiate the process of declaring the home a historic cultural monument in order to save it.

    Park held a news conference titled “Marilyn Monroe Home Preservation” the next day, delivering an impassioned speech while wearing red lipstick and short blond hair in a nod to Monroe.

    After the speech, the City Council voted to begin the landmark consideration process, nullifying the demolition permits. The council will vote to officially on whether to declare the house a historic cultural monument this summer.

    The goal of the lawsuit is to cancel that vote and restore the right to demolish the property.

    While addressing the Cultural Heritage Commission in January, Milstein suggested relocating the home rather than designating it a landmark. It’s unclear whether that option is still possible.

    “In the eight years that we have lived next door, we have seen the property change owners two times,” Milstein said while addressing the commission. “We have watched it go unmaintained and unkept. We purchased the property because it is within feet of ours. And it is not a historic cultural monument.”

    The process of protecting potentially historic homes has been a hot topic in recent weeks. It most recently surfaced when Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger demolished the Zimmerman House, a beloved Midcentury home designed by Craig Ellwood, to build a modern mansion in its place.

    The demolition sparked an outcry among locals and architecture enthusiasts, who questioned why the city allowed the Midcentury “time capsule” to be torn down.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • As court overturns a lot-splitting law, SB 9, one early adopter asks why

    As court overturns a lot-splitting law, SB 9, one early adopter asks why

    [ad_1]

    Sam Andreano is currently putting the finishing touches on his split-lot property in Whittier. He’s a guinea pig for state Senate Bill 9, a housing law that allows homeowners to divvy up their properties and build two or even four units on a once-single-family lot.

    Andreano, 59, was one of SB 9’s earliest adopters. He bought a single-family home for $790,000 in 2021, split the property in half and sold the existing home on half of the original lot for $777,777 in 2023 — essentially coming out with an empty lot for a little over $12,000, around what it would have cost in the 1970s.

    Then, Andreano spent around $400,000 building a home onto the back half of the original lot. He estimates it’ll be worth around $850,000 when it’s finished next month.

    The project was an absolute success; Andreano added density to a single-family lot and came out well financially.

    That’s why he was so shocked when an L.A. County judge struck down the law last month.

    Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin determined that SB 9 is unconstitutional because it doesn’t provide housing restricted for low-income residents, which he said was the law’s stated purpose. For now, it affects five cities: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar. But the ruling clears the way for the law — one of many designed to alleviate California’s housing crisis — to be invalidated in cities across the state.

    Few took advantage of the law, especially compared with other state laws created to increase density. A study from Bay Area NPR affiliate KQED-FM found that 16 California cities — including San José, San Francisco, Long Beach and Sacramento — approved just 75 split-lot applications and 112 applications for new units under SB 9 from 2022 to 2023, while approving 8,800 accessory dwelling units during the same stretch.

    Andreano thinks he knows why. He said some property owners he spoke to were hesitant to build SB 9 projects because they were afraid it would be overturned, and now their fears have come true. His project is fine because the property has already been divided, but he said others still applying will surely lose money due to the ruling.

    “You have to pay the architect, the engineer and others. Then the ruling comes down saying it’s overturned, and you’re out $50,000,” he said.

    Andreano was able to push his project through before the court decision because he moved quickly. He bought the Whittier property in December 2021 with the intention to split it up under SB 9 and officially started his application four months later.

    The process took two years, hundreds of phone calls and tens of thousands of dollars.

    The law allows a single-family-zoned lot to be split into two, and owners can build either a single-family home or a duplex on each lot, for a total of up to four units. But it requires the two lots to be split somewhat evenly, with a maximum difference of 60-40, and also requires each new lot to be at least 1,200 square feet.

    Under these restrictions, the ideal properties for SB 9 are big lots with small houses. So Andreano specifically bought a property that would work well under the guidelines: a 1,200-square-foot house on a 6,232-square-foot lot. Big(ish) lot, small house.

    He had to file two applications: one with the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning, and one with the Whittier Public Works Department. He addressed easements, sewer lines, power lines, where water would flow when it rains, etc.

    Then he brought in an architect, which cost about $20,000; a grading engineer, which cost around $15,000; a soil engineer, which cost around $8,000; and a surveyor, which cost around $5,000. The L.A. County Fire Department did three inspections, which cost around $1,500 each, and he also spent around $3,000 on application fees.

    “It was a lot of back-and-forth,” he said. “I’d submit my application, and the city would ask for revisions on A, B and C. Then I’d submit the revisions, and they’d ask for revisions on D, E and F.”

    He’s in the final stages of finishing the back house, bringing the timeline of the project to roughly two years. He said it’s definitely been worth it.

    The property now features two single-family homes separated by a fence: a 1,200-square-foot front house with three bedrooms and 1.5 bathrooms on a 3,349-square-foot lot, and an 1,100-square-foot back house with three bedrooms and two bathrooms on a 2,893-square-foot lot, where he plans to live. The lot-size split is 53.65% to 46.35%, well within the 60-40 restrictions.

    “People want to buy houses, and this is a way to increase density while also letting people work out the details on their own,” he said.

    Andreano hired Dennis Robinson, owner of Custom ADU Builder, to build the back house. Robinson has constructed seven SB 9 projects, and he’s completing seven more.

    Robinson handles both ADUs and SB 9 projects and said each type has it own perks.

    “ADUs are faster and cheaper, and you save around $20,000 in the permitting process alone,” he said. “But if you want to add multiple units to your property, SB 9 is better.”

    Robinson was surprised when the law was overturned. He was about to break ground on a project in Long Beach, where a family wanted to expand its garage into a 1,000-square-foot home and add a unit above, but now it’s in jeopardy.

    If the ruling is appealed and upheld, it would expand to affect California’s 121 charter cities, including Long Beach, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

    The law was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it didn’t provide housing for low-income residents, but Andreano said that if he had to sell or rent the home as low-income, he would’ve lost money.

    “That affordability factor makes sense for a 100-unit condo, where a developer can set a few units aside for low income, but it doesn’t work for an individual home,” he said. “The goal for SB 9 should be to add housing in order to make the market more affordable in general.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • Little Tokyo named one of America’s most endangered places by preservation group

    Little Tokyo named one of America’s most endangered places by preservation group

    [ad_1]

    Change has always come hard and fast to Little Tokyo. As one of the oldest neighborhoods in Los Angeles, it has shape-shifted over the last 140 years under the forces of urban renewal and gentrification, as well as the unjust wartime incarceration of its residents.

    Recent years have seen continued evictions, closures and relocations among businesses that were once staples of the community. The forced relocation of Suehiro Cafe sparked a recent street protest calling attention to the demise of establishments that once were the anchors of this historic community.

    Citing a need to save the identity of one of Los Angeles’ most culturally distinct neighborhoods, the National Trust for Historic Preservation announced Wednesday that Little Tokyo has been designated as one of America’s 11 most endangered historic places.

    “We hope that by bringing attention to displacement and gentrification occurring in the neighborhood, Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo can get the support and policy protections needed, so that the community can thrive long into the future,” said Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the trust.

    Little Tokyo joins, among other sites, the Texas home of country singer Cindy Walker, a lighthouse on the Hudson River, a sugar plantation on the U.S. Virgin Islands and one of the country’s first all-Black municipalities, Eatonville, Fla.

    The designation of Little Tokyo, which comes as the downtown L.A. neighborhood is about to celebrate its 140th anniversary, is the result of efforts by Sustainable Little Tokyo, a broad coalition of local interests that includes the Japanese National Museum and the Little Tokyo Community Council.

    Kristin Fukushima, managing director of the Little Tokyo Community Council, considers the trust’s decision “another step in a long journey looking at preservation as a tool for survival, securing our future and fighting off displacement.”

    “It doesn’t come with guarantees or funding,” she said, “but it does provide us with a national platform to spotlight our neighborhood.”

    Since 1988, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has published an annual list of sites — homes, neighborhoods, even highways — that are vulnerable to redevelopment and that “illustrate the complexities and challenges that have always been part of what it means to be American.” Many of these locales — often landmarks in ethnic communities — have been overlooked or ignored.

    Last year’s list included Philadelphia’s Chinatown, which Fukushima said helped inspire Little Tokyo’s application.

    In awarding this status, the trust looks for places of historical significance “that tell the whole American story,” Quillen said, and among other criteria, offer a solution — “a path toward enlivening the site so it becomes the center of activity that those preserving it want it to be.”

    This year, said Quillen, the trust received 111 letters of intent from 40 states and territories; 28 were advanced to the next round and of those, 11 were selected.

    In describing Little Tokyo’s application, Quillen specifically pointed to the vision that the Sustainable Little Tokyo coalition has for its future.

    “Their initiatives are policy-directed,” she said, and include expanding the city’s legacy business program; giving the community a voice in new development projects; and preserving cultural heritage, while serving the present community.

    “This is not a place to be frozen in amber but is instead looking to create a Little Tokyo that is vibrant and alive and serving communities in the present through this rich cultural heritage,” she said.

    The Sustainable Little Tokyo coalition hopes the endangered status will draw attention to the fragile character of the neighborhood, which is home to 400 small businesses that are facing pressures related to development in the area. Fifty of them are considered “legacy businesses” — defined as at least 20 years old.

    Between 2008 and 2023, at least 50 businesses 10 years or older have closed or relocated due to rising rent, according to the Little Tokyo Service Center, which has been fighting for more control over development that would provide more affordable housing, cultural centers and green spaces.

    “We would have had more legacy businesses if we hadn’t lost so many over the years,” said Fukushima.

    Suehiro Cafe’s First Street location is one of the most recent casualties — the restaurant is now operating at 4th and Main streets — but it is not alone. Little Tokyo Arts & Gifts has closed, as has the Family Mart convenience store. Anzen Hardware is moving to a building down the street. Little Tokyo Cosmetics was forced to leave on the eve of its fifth anniversary. The Shabu Shabu House — the first restaurant of its kind in the U.S. — also closed after 32 years.

    The neighborhood was especially impacted by Metro’s Regional Connector Project, with its construction delays, and by the effect that transit projects often have on the cost of rental properties.

    “Little Tokyo is facing a number of existential threats that are causing changes to the neighborhood, including driving up rents and driving out small businesses,” said Kristen Hayashi, a curator for the Japanese American National Museum.

    Hayashi cites among these threats not only the pressures of gentrification and the Regional Connector Project, but also the city’s plan to replace the former LAPD headquarters, Parker Center.

    “Saving Little Tokyo is definitely daunting,” said Fukushima, who adds a $2-billion mega-project coming to the Arts District to her list of concerns.

    “We talk to some community members who have been doing this work for 50 years, and there is fatigue,” she said. “They ask, ‘What can we do about it?’ The gears are in motion. How can we stop these broader impacts that other communities have not been able to do anything about? But Little Tokyo’s history is rooted in a stubbornness that doesn’t allow us to give up.”

    Hayashi argues that Little Tokyo’s importance to Los Angeles extends beyond its boundaries.

    “Why should we care about Little Tokyo?” she asked. “In addition to being at the heart of the Japanese American community in Los Angeles, it reflects the diversity that has always characterized this city. It represents a time in the city’s history when housing covenants dictated where Japanese Americans could live, and this became their refuge from discrimination, a place that provided them a taste of home.”

    While over the years its footprint has grown smaller, Hayashi is confident the community will endure.

    “This community cares too much,” she said. “We’re trying to future-proof Little Tokyo, to preserve its history and make sure people don’t forget the roots of the place.”

    [ad_2]

    Thomas Curwen

    Source link

  • California’s population increased last year for first time since 2020

    California’s population increased last year for first time since 2020

    [ad_1]

    California’s population rose last year for the first time since 2020, according to new state data.

    The state’s population increased by 0.17% — or more than 67,000 people — between Jan. 1, 2023, and Jan. 1, 2024, when California was home to 39,128,162 people, according to new population estimates released Tuesday by the California Department of Finance.

    “The brief period of California’s population decline is over,” H.D. Palmer, a department spokesman, said in a phone interview. “We’re back, and we’re returning to a rate of steady, stable growth.”

    That resumption of growth, Palmer said, was driven by a number of factors: Deaths, which rose during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, have fallen nearly to pre-pandemic levels. Restrictive foreign immigration policies imposed during the Trump administration have been loosened under President Biden. Domestic migration patterns between states also have changed, boosting the state’s population.

    In 2021, as the pandemic raged, more than 319,000 people died in California and fewer than 420,000 were born, the data show. Last year, about 281,000 died in the state, while nearly 399,000 were born.

    And while California saw a net loss of nearly 3,900 people to international immigration in 2020 — when many countries’ borders were closed due to the pandemic — the state saw a net gain of more than 114,000 international immigrants last year, according to state data. That’s close to pre-pandemic levels. In 2019, California notched a net increase of about 119,000 international immigrants.

    Shifting domestic migration trends — which were the subject of the much-ballyhooed “California exodus” during the pandemic, when remote workers moved to other states where they could live for a fraction of the cost of cities like Los Angeles or San Francisco — also played a key role.

    In 2021, about 692,000 people left California for other states, while fewer than 337,000 moved into the Golden State from other states.

    Last year, about 414,000 people moved here from other states, while more than 505,000 left for other states. That means California saw a net loss of about 264,500 fewer people to other states last year than in 2021, according to the new state data.

    Los Angeles and Orange counties grew last year, though not by much; the former saw a population rise of just 0.05% — or nearly 4,800 people — while the latter notched up 0.31% — or nearly 9,800 people.

    For both jurisdictions, that’s a reversal from 2022, when L.A. County saw a net loss of nearly 42,200 residents and Orange County lost about 17,000 residents. The city of Los Angeles saw its population rise 0.3% last year, the data show.

    California also saw a net increase of about 116,000 housing units — including single-family homes, multi-family dwellings and accessory dwelling units, or ADUs — in 2023. Palmer described that growth as an “encouraging” sign amid the state’s housing crisis.

    That rise, which is a relative drop in the bucket compared with the state’s more than 14.8 million housing units, was led by the city of Los Angeles, which saw a gain of more than 21,000 housing units, followed by an increase of about 5,700 units in San Diego, according to the state data.

    While California’s resumption of population growth is a boon for boosters who reject the storyline of the state’s decline, there is no indication that the Golden State will be returning to the massive boom in residents it underwent generations ago.

    “For the foreseeable future, we’re looking at steady, more predictable growth that’s slower than those go-go years of the 1970s and 1980s,” Palmer said. “Obviously, there are things that we can’t forecast that could have an impact on our population. For instance, another pandemic.”

    [ad_2]

    Connor Sheets

    Source link

  • In L.A., thousands of newer apartments have rent caps. Tenants don’t always know.

    In L.A., thousands of newer apartments have rent caps. Tenants don’t always know.

    [ad_1]

    Alexa Castelvecchi was glad when she and her roommates found their new apartment about a year ago, in a modern building in Hollywood with a big, sleek kitchen and oversized windows. It was nothing like the aging, rent-controlled apartment she once sublet in Venice, where she often had to cook using a toaster oven.

    But with the end of her lease on the three-bedroom apartment fast approaching, she has found herself worrying about how much the already high monthly rent of nearly $4,000 might increase.

    Little did she know that she has some of the strongest protections available. Unbeknownst to many tenants across the city, an obscure city rule requires some newly built rental properties to be put under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance, commonly referred to as rent control.

    Developers have built more than 10,000 such units since 2007, city records show, adding a new crop of rent-controlled housing across the city.

    The buildings offer a counterpoint to real estate industry claims that rent control limits new construction. But they also raise a question: do their tenants even know they live in rent-controlled units?

    Castelvecchi said she had no idea that she lived in a building with rent caps until a Times reporter told her recently.

    “Nobody said anything,” she said.

    Generally, the city’s rent control law only applies to buildings built on or before Oct. 1, 1978 — a cutoff date many landlords and at least some renters are acutely aware of. Under the rules, landlords can set the rent whenever a unit becomes vacant, but face limits on how much they can raise rent on individual tenants annually, usually between 3% and 8%, depending on inflation.

    Newer buildings typically do not have those protections, but they can depending on what was there before. Under a 2007 city ordinance, newly constructed apartments, townhomes and condos must be rent controlled if an older rent controlled property was demolished on site.

    The data show that developers across the city frequently pursue these projects despite their buildings being subject to rent caps the moment a lease is signed.

    The apartment building at 5800 Harold Way in Los Angeles, CA is under rent control.

    (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

    Leeor Maciborski, owner of ROM Residential, which currently owns Castelvecchi’s building, purchased that building after another investor built it. However, he said he’s developed five or six other properties in Los Angeles knowing they’d fall under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.

    The projects made financial sense because he could set the initial rent at market rate and was allowed at least a 3% increase each year, he said.

    “If I could build something … and I can count on 3% to 4% annual increases, I am happy,” the developer said.

    Tenant advocates, meanwhile, say that even if some new rent-controlled apartments are being built, replacing older rent controlled units for new ones is devastating. Not only are people evicted, but new construction demands a premium when the unit is initially rented.

    “The only ones who make out with this trade off is the developers and the landlords who are pulling in more and more profits and income on the backs of those people they have displaced,” said Larry Gross, executive director with the tenants advocacy group Coalition for Economic Survival.

    Since mid-2007, owners have removed more than 13,000 older rent-controlled units from the market , leading to concern the demolition is worsening the city’s affordability and homelessness crisis.

    Over the same time frame, housing department data show 10,252 new units have been put under the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.

    New buildings can be exempt from the rules if they open for rent more than five years after the old property was removed from the market, or if the developer dedicates a certain number of new units as income-restricted affordable housing — though units will revert to rent control once those income restrictions expire in coming decades, according to the housing department.

    About 3,000 additional units fall into the latter, temporarily exempt category, although some are already income restricted.

    In theory, newly constructed rent-controlled properties could increase the overall number of apartments with rent caps in the city, because developers often knock down a small building to build more units. For now, that hasn’t happened.

    The real estate industry — as well as many housing economists — have long argued that far fewer developers would build if they are subject to rent caps, leading to even higher rents as supply shortages worsen. As a result, rent control ordinances across the country typically exempt new construction.

    Until recently, state law in California outlawed rent caps on properties built after Feb. 1, 1995, and even earlier in some cities like Los Angeles, with the exemption for newly built properties that replaced older rent controlled units.

    Then in 2020, a new law took effect and put statewide rent restrictions on buildings older than 15 years, though these caps are less strict than in places like Los Angeles, whose rules remain in place.

    The state bill’s author, then-Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco), had proposed 10 years as a cut off, but it was extended another five years to lessen opposition. At the time, the California Apartment Assn. took credit for the change, saying it would “mitigate the bill’s impact on future development of rental housing.”

    Fred Sutton, a senior vice president with the California Apartment Assn., said the fact that some developers build under the L.A. rules does not mean housing construction would not decline if rent caps were placed on all new buildings. As restrictions are added, fewer projects can be expected to turn a reasonable profit — even if some go forward, he said.

    “Can people still figure out a way to do it?” Sutton said. “Yes, but you’re not going to get as many people as you need.”

    Two developers told The Times they didn’t know about the rules before building. One said he’d do so again, while another wouldn’t because rent control gives him less flexibility to earn a profit.

    Maciborski said he’d take a different tack. He’d be willing to build another rent-controlled building, but only if the project would expect a greater return than before, to buffer him from potential actions by the Los Angeles City Council that might undercut his revenue stream.

    The pandemic pushed the council to freeze rent in controlled buildings for nearly four years. Only a few months ago did officials allow landlords to raise rent.

    “I’d consider it,” Maciborski said of constructing another rent-controlled property. “But now knowing what potential tools the city council … has at their disposal, it’s definitely a little scarier.”

    Renters who live in any rent-controlled buildings — old or new — should know about it. The Los Angeles Housing Department requires the landlord to alert tenants by posting notice at the property. But several residents who spoke to The Times at the newer buildings said they had no idea.

    After learning about her building’s status, Castelvecchi checked her lease and noticed that rent control is mentioned in a section she had previously overlooked. And she found a sign in the building outlining the rules, which she hadn’t previously noticed.

    It would have been better, she said, if she had simply been told verbally about the rules when she rented the apartment.

    “It’s extremely unnerving that it wasn’t communicated by anyone I met,” she said. “When you have to read the fine print, it feels difficult to trust.”

    Maciborski said that if a tenant asked, a leasing agent would tell them if a building was rent controlled, but when dealing with legal issues his company relies on putting it in writing.

    “It’s verifiable,” he said, adding written notices can also give more detailed information than a leasing agent may have on hand.

    Gross, the tenant advocate, said it’s a constant struggle to educate tenants of their rights, with many residents of older properties not understanding they have rent control protections. He believes the problem is even worse in newer buildings, because even if people understand rent control exists they often believe all new properties are exempt.

    “There’s not enough education and outreach,” Gross said.

    Monique Mendoza, who pays $3,800 a month to live in a townhome in Boyle Heights, said she also had no idea that her newer unit also falls under the city’s rent control protections. It would have given her some relief just to know, she said. She is constantly worrying about the cost of rent and probably couldn’t afford a big increase.

    Even without a rent hike, she said, “for us, as a family, it’s not affordable.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Khouri, Paloma Esquivel, Vanessa Martínez

    Source link

  • New law promises retail workers in unincorporated L.A. County ‘fair workweek’

    New law promises retail workers in unincorporated L.A. County ‘fair workweek’

    [ad_1]

    Workers at big retail and grocery stores in unincorporated L.A. County can retain a little more control over their schedules — and rely a little less on managers’ whims — starting next summer.

    On Tuesday, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted to require that employers give those workers their schedules two weeks in advance, compensate them for last-minute schedule changes and space out their shifts by at least 10 hours.

    The ordinance, which will go into effect July 2025, applies to any retailer and grocer in unincorporated L.A. County with 300 or more employees nationwide.

    The county has estimated that the ordinance would affect about 200 businesses, many of them large chains, and up to 6,000 workers. Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who spearheaded the policy, said Tuesday’s vote would benefit both.

    “It is a win for retailers committed to a work environment that gives them a competitive edge and for our retail workers who deserve the dignity of a predictable schedule so they can plan for childcare, school and other life obligations,” she said.

    The policy closely mirrors the “fair work week” ordinance the City of Los Angeles passed in 2022.

    Like the city’s version, the county’s policy requires that retailers provide “predictability pay” if they change a worker’s schedule last-minute and get employee’s approval before assigning them so-called “clopening” shifts — a closing shift followed immediately by an opening shift the next day. The ordinance also bars an employer from retaliating against an employee who reports violations.

    Several business and trade groups argued that the policy needlessly complicates the delicate art of scheduling staff. The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce said it would hamper businesses already struggling to compete against e-commerce companies, saddling them with fines in the tens of thousands of dollars. The California Grocers Association argued it would create needless bureaucracy, making eleventh-hour staffing changes “extremely challenging.”

    Both groups said they wished the policy included a grace period for a store to solve “honest clerical mistakes” without getting penalized.

    “Scheduling flexibility is one of the industry perks that many enjoy about working in grocery stores, yet this ordinance will make schedule changes, especially within a week of a shift, nearly impossible,” wrote Nate Rose, a spokesperson for the grocers association. “Taken together, its pay penalty requirements and the likely increase in needless lawsuits, will only lead to higher costs at the grocery store for Los Angeles shoppers.”

    The county’s Department of Consumer and Business Affairs would be responsible for enforcing the policy. Each violation comes with a penalty of $500 to $1000.

    Janna Shadduck-Hernández, project director at the UCLA Labor Center, said she believes the policy will bring stability to the lives of thousands of low-income workers. A 2018 study from the center found that the vast majority of retail workers, many of whom are people of color, get their schedules a week or less in advance.

    “What this allows is people to organize their lives,” she said.

    In recent years, major cities including Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia and New York City, as well as the state of Oregon, have passed laws to protect the time of shift workers. Kristen Harknett, a professor of sociology at University of California, San Francisco who studied the impact of Seattle’s policy, said she found workers’ well-being improved as their schedules became more predictable.

    “When you don’t know when — or how much — you’re going to work from one day or the next, it’s very disruptive,” she said. “It really just messes up your ability to plan.”

    Harknett said the county’s version has the same components as the other jurisdictions, with one key difference: food service workers aren’t included.

    “The carve-out for the restaurant and food industry is pretty unique,” she said. “Food service is pretty unstable and unpredictable, [and] those workers are not going to experience the enhanced protections that their counterparts in retail will.”

    The county indicated in a report last May that it would look at providing “coverage for workers in several other vulnerable industries, particularly food service” in the future.

    Amardeep Gill with the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, an advocacy group that pushed for the county policy, said she hoped other industries would enact a similar ordinance for their own sectors.

    “We’re hoping the work that we’ve done here really lays like a strong foundation where others can build upon this,” said Gill.

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Ellis

    Source link

  • New York’s Chip City Cookies Will Soon Open Its First Chicago Location

    New York’s Chip City Cookies Will Soon Open Its First Chicago Location

    [ad_1]

    Late this month, a New York-based cookie chain is opening its first Chicago location. Chip City, which debuted seven years ago in Queens, New York, will debut in late April in Gold Coast. The chain also has plans for Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, and Lakeview, according to a news release.

    The chain has 35 locations in New York, New Jersey, and Florida, and last year it arrived in the Washington, D.C. area. Started by friends Peter Phillips and Teddy Gailas in 2017, the expansion has been funded, in part, by a $10 million investment by New York restaurateur Danny Meyer. Meyer, the founder of Union Square Hospitality, is perhaps best known around Chicago for his investment in Shake Shack and GreenRiver, a shuttered Streeterville restaurant that earned a Michelin star. His fingerprints are seen elsewhere in the expansions of chains such as Tacombi, a casual Mexican restaurant with a West Loop location with a Wicker Park outlet on its way.

    A rendering of Chip City Gold Coast.
    Chip City

    Chip City goes through more than 40 flavors each year with options like peanut butter & jelly, oatmeal apple pie, and cannoli, and blueberry cheesecake. Other than cookies, there’s also a new “Chip Crookie” — a croissant stuffed with cookie dough.

    In 2022, another New York chain, Levain Bakery, opened a Chicago location. With contenders like Levain, Insomnia, and Crumbl, the world of cookie chains has come a long way since Mrs. Fields debuted in the late ‘70s. Getting cookies delivered via a third-party company has its charm, but true Chicagoans just want a true Maurice Lenell comeback.

    Chip City Chicago, 55 E. Chicago Avenue, scheduled for opening on Friday, April 26, 2024

    [ad_2]

    Ashok Selvam

    Source link

  • Builders may fight ‘impact fees’ that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules

    Builders may fight ‘impact fees’ that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — 

    The Supreme Court ruled Friday that developers and home builders in California may challenge the fees commonly imposed by cities and counties to pay for new roads, schools, sewers and other public improvements.

    The justices said these “impact fees” may be unconstitutional if builders and developers are forced to pay an unfair share of the cost of public projects.

    Developers have contended that limiting California’s high fees would lead to the construction of more affordable new housing.

    California state courts had blocked claims arising from “a development impact fee imposed pursuant to a legislatively authorized fee program” for new development in a city or county.

    But the 9-0 Supreme Court decision opened the door for such challenges. The justices revived a constitutional claim brought by an El Dorado County man who put a manufactured home on a small lot and was told he would have to pay a “traffic mitigation fee” of $23,420.

    The decision could have wide impact in California, since local governments have increasingly relied on impact fees rather than property taxes to pay for new projects.

    But the justices did not spell out when such fees become unfair and unconstitutional.

    Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they joined the majority opinion in Sheetz vs. El Dorado County because it merely allows such challenges.

    In a separate opinion, conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he saw merit to the “common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new development through reasonable formulas or schedules that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property.”

    State and county attorneys had made just that argument. They said it was fairer to impose a development fee on all the lots in an area.

    But the justices nonetheless ruled that homeowners and developers may sue to challenge these fees as an unconstitutional taking of their private property. The case will now go back to the California courts.

    The Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento hailed the ruling as a significant victory for property rights.

    “Holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion,” said attorney Paul Beard, who represented the El Dorado County homeowner. “We are thrilled that the court agreed and put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the 5th Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.”

    Beard said El Dorado County “failed to show — and cannot show — that the fee is sufficiently related and proportionate to the traffic impacts” of his client’s “modest home.”

    The debate over development fees is especially relevant in California, where local governments have increasingly relied on the charges to finance parks, streets, schools and other infrastructure and services since the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 limited property tax revenues.

    The fees have come under scrutiny in other cases as developers and others have blamed them for driving up the cost of housing and for a wide disparity in cities’ fees.

    A 2018 study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that, depending on the city, fees for new single-family homes could range from $21,000 to $157,000, and could account for 6% to 18% of the median home price.

    For decades, the Supreme Court has cast a skeptical eye at California’s regulation of private property. In a pair of decisions, it limited the power of government officials to demand concessions from a property owner in exchange for a building permit.

    In 1987, justices ruled for the owner of a beach bungalow in Ventura who was told he could not obtain a permit to expand his home unless he agreed to allow the public access to the beachfront. The conservative majority at the time described this demand as akin to “extortion” and said it violated the 5th Amendment’s clause that forbids the taking of “private property … for public use without just compensation.”

    In a follow-up decision involving a store owner who was forced to allow a bike path on her property, the court said the government may not impose such special conditions on property owners unless it can show an owner’s new development would cause direct harm to the community.

    But since then, it has been unclear whether this property right applies to development fees or in situations where fees are set by legislation rather than imposed on a single owner seeking a permit.

    Writing for the court in Friday’s ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

    The case arose when property owner George Sheetz sought a permit to put a manufactured home on a lot he owned in Placerville, outside Sacramento. El Dorado County required him to pay a “traffic impact mitigation” fee to obtain the permit. Some of the money was to go toward upgrades to Highway 50, which runs through the area, but most was to go toward new or expanded roads in the county.

    Sheetz paid the fee and obtained his permit, then sued to challenge the fee as unconstitutional. He argued that the taxpayers of the county, not the new owner of a small home, should be required to pay for road building.

    The justices agreed to hear his appeal after he lost in the California courts.

    State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has supported legislation to rein in developer fees, said he didn’t expect Friday’s decision by itself to have a significant effect on the debate in Sacramento because it only called out one extreme situation.

    “Ultimately, the solution is the same today as it was yesterday,” Wiener said. “The California Legislature needs to put in place an actual structure for impact fees. Right now, it’s all over the map.”

    Wiener said he sympathizes with local governments that turn to the fees because it’s easier than raising revenue through broad-based taxes — but he said some cities use sky-high fees to block housing development.

    “There is something a little odd about effectively taxing new housing to pay for societal needs that should be paid generally by taxpayers — by the entire community,” he said.

    Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Assn. of Counties, said in a statement Friday that the organization was still reviewing the ruling to understand its implications.

    But he said that “limiting the ability to legislatively enact fees will negatively impact the ability of our 58 counties to protect the health and welfare of their communities and drastically limit the building of vital local infrastructure.”

    “In many cases,” Knaus said, “these fees are the only tool available to pay for new infrastructure around certain development projects.”

    Times staff writer Liam Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • City of L.A. won’t issue new dog breeding licenses, citing overcrowded shelters

    City of L.A. won’t issue new dog breeding licenses, citing overcrowded shelters

    [ad_1]

    The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to temporarily stop issuing new dog breeding licenses because of overcrowding at city-run animal shelters.

    The city’s six shelters have 737 kennels, but more than 1,500 dogs were living at the shelters in February, according to the most recent available data. The shelters are more than 200% over capacity, which has led to dogs tripled up in kennels or being housed in crates in hallways for months on end.

    Euthanizations of dogs by the city are up 22% so far this year compared with the same period last year.

    The Times has chronicled poor conditions at shelters, including a lack of dogwalking and inadequate food supplies for small animals.

    “It is unacceptable for the city to continue issuing breeding permits while thousands of animals are suffering from overcrowded conditions in our shelters,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the committee that oversees the city’s Animal Services Department, said Tuesday.

    The American Kennel Club, which bills itself as the world’s largest not-for-profit all-breed registry, opposes the ban. It said in a statement this week that “blaming registered, responsible breeders” for the shelter crisis won’t improve conditions for those dogs.

    Anecdotal evidence suggests the majority of people who purchase licenses from the city aren’t breeding their dogs, said Staycee Dains, the Animal Services Department’s general manager, at a hearing last year.

    Rather, many dog owners buy a city breeder permit, which costs $235, so they don’t have to spay or neuter their pets as required under city law.

    The city doesn’t regulate breeders, and unlicensed backyard breeders remain a problem.

    Dains said at last year’s hearing that she is seeing more and more purebred dogs coming into the shelters.

    The ban applies only to new dog breeding permits. It will lift when the three-month average of the daily inventory count of dogs at the city-run animal shelters is “equal to or less than 75 percent of the department’s total dog kennel capacity.”

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Senior Vice President Lisa Lange praised council members for the vote Tuesday but said in a statement that more needs to be done, including enforcing the existing spay and neuter law.

    Hernandez said the ban is “far from the only action” needed by the city. She said she hopes to discuss “current conditions in the shelters during our budget conversations” in the coming months.

    [ad_2]

    Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Austin Pets Alive! | Austin Needs To Rebuild Its Model, Not Kill For…

    Austin Pets Alive! | Austin Needs To Rebuild Its Model, Not Kill For…

    [ad_1]

    Shelters all over the United States are struggling, including Austin Animal Center and us right here at Austin Pets Alive!. In 2011, Austin became a No Kill community and has remained so with increasing save rates year over year. With the recent city ordinance changes and AAC’s latest announcement stating that hard decisions may need to be made for 20+ dogs who volunteers say should never be at risk, it’s safe to say that we’re facing the real chance that Austin is dangerously close to stepping into the wrong side of history.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California is building fewer homes. The state could get even more expensive

    California is building fewer homes. The state could get even more expensive

    [ad_1]

    Ken Kahan makes a living building homes.

    A specialty? Luxury apartment complexes in Los Angeles neighborhoods such as Palms and Silver Lake filled with mostly market rate units, but with a handful of income-restricted affordable ones as well.

    It can be a good business, but lately less so.

    “We have pulled back,” said Kahan, the president of California Landmark Group. “The metrics don’t work.”

    Across California and the nation, developers moved to start fewer homes in 2023, a decline some experts say could eventually send home prices and rents even higher as supply shortages worsen.

    Developers cite several reasons for delaying new projects. There’s high labor and material costs, as well as new local regulations that together make it harder to turn a profit.

    Perhaps the biggest factor — and one hitting across the country — is the high cost of borrowing. Rising interest rates not only make it more expensive for Americans to buy a home, but they add additional costs for developers who must shell out more money to build and manage their projects.

    As a result, fewer projects make financial sense to build and fewer homes are built.

    “More than anything it is debt costs,” said Ryan Patap, an analyst for real estate research firm CoStar.

    In all, preliminary data from the US. Census Bureau show building permits for new homes nationwide fell 12% in 2023 from the prior year and 7% in California. Drops were recorded in both single-family homes — most of which tend to be for sale — as well as multifamily homes — which are chiefly rentals.

    Dan Dunmoyer, president of the California Building Industry Assn., said one major reason for the decline is that many for-sale home builders foresaw “a massive downturn” and stopped buying lots to develop when mortgage rates soared in 2022.

    Then a funny thing happened. Demand for their product didn’t crater as much as expected, in large part because existing homeowners didn’t want to sell and rid themselves of ultra-low mortgage rates.

    “Builders kind of woke up and realized ‘Oh, it’s just us [selling homes],‘” Dunmoyer said. “But we don’t turn on a dime.”

    As for-sale builders restart their engines to take advantage of a shortage of listings, there are signs of improvement. During the first two months of this year, builders in California pulled 35% more permits for single-family homes than during the same period a year earlier, according to census data.

    Permits for multifamily continued to decline — dropping 33%.

    The diverging paths are probably due to several factors, said Rick Palacios Jr., director of research for John Burns Research and Consulting.

    On a whole, single-family home builders have access to a wider source of debt that isn’t as vulnerable to rising interest rates. In the single-family market, the supply shortage has also worsened and home prices are climbing.

    Meanwhile, rents in many places — including Los Angeles — have dropped slightly as vacancies have risen, in part because apartment construction has been relatively robust in recent years.

    “Single-family solid, multifamily weak is a pretty consistent theme across most of the country,” Palacios said. “You’re hard pressed to find a market where developers and investors are gung ho on apartments.”

    In the city of Los Angeles, developers must contend with another factor — Measure ULA.

    The citywide property transfer tax took effect last year to fund affordable housing and has drawn the ire of the real estate industry.

    Though it’s known as the “mansion tax,” except for rare exceptions it applies to all properties sold for more than $5 million, no matter if they are gas stations, strip malls, apartment buildings or actual mansions. Under the measure, a seller is charged 4% of the sales price for properties sold above $5 million and below $10 million.

    At $10 million and above, the tax is 5.5%.

    Apartment developers and real estate brokers said additional costs from ULA make it even harder to earn a reasonable profit in what can be a risky business.

    That’s because when building apartments, developers often sell their finished product, which would probably trigger the ULA tax for any building over 15 units, according to Greg Harris, a real estate broker with Marcus and Millichap. Even developers who hold onto their properties typically need to take out a mortgage on the finished building — and Harris said lenders are willing to give less because they too would need to pay the tax if they foreclose and sell the property.

    “ULA is like the last nail in the coffin,” said Robert Green, a Los Angeles developer. “It couldn’t have come at a worse time.”

    Many apartment projects got their start under different economic circumstances and have opened in recent years or will soon. That supply should help keep rents down for a while, but not forever, said Richard Green, executive director of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.

    In two or three years, as fewer apartments are finished “we will see rent start to go up again,” he said.

    That would be a hit for Californians struggling to find housing in an expensive state where thousands sleep on the streets.

    Economic cycles, of course, ebb and flow and construction may rebound.

    The Federal Reserve plans to cut interest rates later this year, which may help more projects make sense financially, as could rising rents.

    Land sellers could also drop their asking prices to adjust for rising developer costs, including ULA in Los Angeles.

    Normally, real estate analyst Patap said he’d expect apartment construction to rebound as land costs adjust downward. But he noted developers say they are also cautious about building in L.A. because of a broader political shift in the city that’s more supportive of restrictions on landlords and more supportive of protections for tenants.

    In the city of Los Angeles, multifamily permits dropped 24% in 2023 compared with 19% in Los Angeles County, census data show. (Data from the Construction Industry Research Board show even larger drops: 49% in the city and 39% in the county.)

    Laurie Lustig-Bower, a commercial real estate broker with CBRE, said some L.A. landowners have reduced their prices to sell, but “if they don’t have a gun to their head” they are waiting until developers can pay more.

    In recent years, state lawmakers have taken action to make it easier to build housing, in part by eroding local control over land use decisions.

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has also fast-tracked 100% affordable buildings under her Executive Directive 1, while the city recently exempted smaller projects from some storm water capture requirements.

    Mott Smith, chairman of the Council of Infill Builders, said more must be done to increase the number of new homes in Los Angeles and cited the storm water decision as the kind of steps government should take.

    “The city has no influence over interest rates … [but] what it controls is the process to get a project approved,” Smith said. “There are so many opportunities.”

    For now, developers say it’s tough to find opportunities.

    Kahan said his company runs the numbers on potential land purchases constantly and at least once a week finds it doesn’t make sense to buy and build.

    He expects to purchase some land in Southern California by year’s end, though mostly outside of the city of Los Angeles where Kahan said he’s increasingly looking because of costs from ULA, which unlike current interest rates aren’t expected to change.

    So far, Kahan said he’s yet to find a deal that will work — within or outside city borders.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • (Sky Sports)

    (Sky Sports)

    [ad_1]

    New Zealand Women 1st innings

    Total

    207 all out, from 48.2 overs.

    Batting

    Runs
    Balls
    4s
    6s
    SR

    1. Bates
      c Jones b Dean;
      50 runs,
      74 balls,
      6 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 67.57
    2. Bezuidenhout
      lbw b Ecclestone;
      35 runs,
      62 balls,
      2 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 56.45
    3. Kerr (c)
      lbw b Cross;
      24 runs,
      36 balls,
      1 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 66.67
    4. Plimmer
      lbw b Cross;
      17 runs,
      24 balls,
      0 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 70.83
    5. Green
      c & b Bell;
      7 runs,
      23 balls,
      0 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 30.43
    6. Halliday
      c Jones b Dean;
      6 runs,
      12 balls,
      1 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 50.00
    7. Gaze (wk)
      b Bell;
      18 runs,
      23 balls,
      1 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 78.26
    8. Rowe
      c Knight b Sciver-Brunt;
      16 runs,
      20 balls,
      2 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 80.00
    9. Kerr
      b Bell;
      9 runs,
      11 balls,
      1 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 81.82
    10. Tahuhu
      c Wyatt b Dean;
      1 runs,
      2 balls,
      0 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 50.00
    11. Jonas
      not out;
      0 runs,
      2 balls,
      0 fours,
      0 sixes,
      and a strike rate of 0.00

    Fall of Wickets

    • Suzie Bates at 90 for 1, from 20.6 overs
    • Bernadine Bezuidenhout at 100 for 2, from 23.2 overs
    • Georgia Plimmer at 139 for 3, from 30.6 overs
    • Amelia Kerr at 148 for 4, from 34.1 overs
    • Brooke Halliday at 157 for 5, from 37.6 overs
    • Maddy Green at 159 for 6, from 38.6 overs
    • Hannah Rowe at 191 for 7, from 44.6 overs
    • Izzy Gaze at 204 for 8, from 46.6 overs
    • Lea Tahuhu at 207 for 9, from 47.4 overs
    • Jess Kerr at 207 for 10, from 48.2 overs

    Bowling

    Overs
    Maidens
    Runs
    Wickets
    Econ

    1. Cross:
      10overs,
      3 maidens,
      24 runs,
      2 wickets,
      and an economy of 2.40.
    2. Bell:
      9.2overs,
      0 maidens,
      41 runs,
      3 wickets,
      and an economy of 4.39.
    3. Sciver-Brunt:
      10overs,
      0 maidens,
      44 runs,
      1 wickets,
      and an economy of 4.40.
    4. Ecclestone:
      10overs,
      0 maidens,
      39 runs,
      1 wickets,
      and an economy of 3.90.
    5. Dean:
      9overs,
      0 maidens,
      57 runs,
      3 wickets,
      and an economy of 6.33.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jurors award $11.5 million to former LAPD K9 handler who claimed discrimination over Samoan heritage

    Jurors award $11.5 million to former LAPD K9 handler who claimed discrimination over Samoan heritage

    [ad_1]

    A jury this week awarded $11.5 million to a former Los Angeles police K-9 handler who sued the city alleging that his supervisors retaliated and discriminated against him in part because of his Samoan ancestry.

    The officer, Mark Sauvao — pronounced “su-VOW” — alleged he was unfairly punished after he reported some of his colleagues had called him names such as “cannibal” and “barefoot coconut tree-climber.” One supervisor also reportedly referred to him as being Tongan; Sauvao took the comment as an affront given the bitter early history of war and enslavement between Samoa and Tonga.

    Sauvao, who is still with the department, also alleged that officers spread false rumors that he tried extorting fellow K-9 handlers by refusing to train them unless they gave him their overtime hours.

    The city can still challenge the size of the jury award.

    From 2005 to 2017, Sauvao was assigned to the department’s elite bomb detection K-9 unit. The 30-year LAPD veteran said his troubles began several years after his promotion to dog trainer, which came with extra pay and benefits.

    After learning of the rumors about him, Sauvao said, he demanded that the unit’s commander, Lt. Raymond Garvin, intervene and launch an investigation into the officers spreading them. Neither happened, he alleged.

    Another colleague testified in a deposition that Garvin relayed the overtime allegations against Sauvao to other officers at a roll call held at a nearby bagel shop. Someone in the group accused Sauvao of being the “ringleader” of a faction within the K-9 unit that called itself the “P.M.-Watch Mafia,” according to the testimony. Sauvao denies these claims.

    Garvin previously filed his own lawsuit against the city alleging that a department higher-up conspired to kick him out of the unit, which led to a $700,000 settlement.

    Sauvao said he eventually brought the matter up to Capt. Kathryn Meek of the Emergency Services Division, which oversees the K-9 unit and the bomb squad. Instead of investigating his reports, Sauvao said, internal affairs detectives showed up to search his locker several months later, which he believed was in retaliation for making his earlier complaints.

    Sauvao said his request to contact a police union representative after the search was denied.

    He was later ordered to undergo psychiatric testing and eventually transferred to a less desirable assignment that caused him to be separated from his police K-9 named Pistol, according to the lawsuit.

    Sauvao’s attorney, Matthew McNicholas, said the award was the latest he has won in cases involving members of that K-9 unit. Two other cases from around 2008 led to jury awards of $3.6 million and $2.2 million, respectively, he said. That the same unit continues to have problems 15 years later suggests a lack of oversight, he said.

    “It tells me that command continues to do what it wants and that unless somebody like me digs in, they get away with it,” McNicholas said. “Ninety-eight percent of the department are hard-working people that just go to work, do their jobs and go home; the unfortunate thing is that the other 2% have a lot of power.”

    The city attorney’s office didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment, and an LAPD spokeswoman said the department would not discuss the case.

    Sauvao’s claims were similar to those of another K-9 handler who worked in the unit at the time, Alfredo Franco, who also sued the city for discrimination and retaliation he reportedly faced after standing up for Sauvao.

    Several of Sauvao’s former colleagues testified on his benefit in depositions filed in the case, with one saying he had an “unblemished” reputation and another describing the respect he commanded within the niche community of police K-9 trainers nationally.

    [ad_2]

    Libor Jany

    Source link