Faced with numerous complaints about broken streetlights that have plunged neighborhoods into darkness, two Los Angeles City Council members unveiled a plan Friday to spend $65 million on installing solar-powered lights.
With 1 in 10 streetlights out of service because of disrepair or copper wire theft, Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Eunisses Hernandez launched an effort to convert at least 12% of the city’s lights to solar power — or about 500 in each council district.
Broken streetlights emerged as an hot-button issue in this year’s election, with council members scrambling to find ways to restore them. Councilmember Nithya Raman, now running against Mayor Karen Bass, cited the broken lights as an example of how city agencies “can’t seem to manage the basics.”
By switching to solar, the streetlights will be less vulnerable to theft, said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside.
“We can’t keep rebuilding the same vulnerable systems while copper theft continues to knock out lights across Los Angeles,” she said.
Three other council members — Traci Park, Monica Rodriguez and Hugo Soto-Martínez — signed on to the proposal. All five are running for reelection.
Miguel Sangalang, director of the Bureau of Street Lighting, said there are 33,000 open service requests to fix streetlights across L.A., although some may be duplicates. The average time to fix a streetlight is 12 months, he said.
Repair times have increased because of a rise in vandalism, the department’s stagnant budget and a staff of only 185 people to service the city’s 225,000 streetlights, he said.
About 60,000 street lights are eligible to be converted to solar, according to Yaroslavsky.
Council members also are looking to increase the amount the city charges property owners for streetlight maintenance. Yaroslavsky said the assessment has been unchanged since 1996, forcing city leaders to rely on other sources of money to cover the cost.
Last month, Soto-Martínez announced he put $1 million into a streetlight repair team in his district, which stretches from Echo Park to Hollywood and north to Atwater Village. Those workers will focus on repairing broken lights, hardening lights to prevent copper wire theft and clearing the backlog of deferred cases.
On Monday, city crews also began converting 91 streetlights to solar power in Lincoln Heights and Cypress Park. Hernandez tapped $500,000 from her office budget to pay for the work. The shift to solar power should save money, she said, by breaking the cycle of constantly fixing and replacing lights.
“This is going to bring more public safety and more lights to neighborhoods that so desperately need it and that are waiting a long time,” she said.
In recent years, neighborhoods ranging from Hancock Park and Lincoln Heights to Mar Vista and Pico Union have been plagued by copper wire theft that darkens the streets. On the 6th Street Bridge, thieves stole seven miles’ worth of wire.
Yaroslavsky and Park spoke about the problem Friday at a press conference in the driveway of a Mar Vista home. Andrew Marton, the homeowner, pointed to streetlights around the block that have been targeted by thieves.
Many surrounding streets have been dark since shortly after Christmas, Marton said. He has changed his daily routines, trying not to walk his dog late at night and worrying for the safety of his family.
He said he reported the problem to the city and was told it would take 270 days to fix. He then reached out to Park, who contacted the police department, he said.
A couple of neighboring streets had their lights restored, he said, but his street remains dark at night.
Park said she and Yaroslavsky identified $500,000 in discretionary funds to pay for a dedicated repair team to fix streetlights, either by adding solar or by reinforcing the existing copper wire, in their respective Westside districts.
During her first week in office three years ago, Mayor Karen Bass issued a sweeping directive to speed up affordable housing applications. Now, that plan is permanent.
The L.A. City Council unanimously voted Tuesday to adopt the Affordable Housing Streamlining Ordinance. Essentially, the ordinance takes Bass’ housing initiative, known as Executive Directive 1, and incorporates it into the L.A. Municipal Code, so the streamlined process will stick around even after Bass leaves office.
Under the ordinance, developers get fast-tracked city approval for projects that include 100% affordable housing. Reviews for such projects typically take six to nine months, but under the directive, they’re required to be approved within 60 days.
The expedited processing works by stripping away many of the discretionary review processes that typically bog down housing projects: City Council hearings, environmental reports, neighborhood outreach meetings, etc. As long as projects comply with certain criteria, including zoning and design review standards, they qualify for streamlined approval.
Bass introduced the directive to make good on her campaign’s promise to address the city’s affordability and homelessness crises. It also serves as a response to housing developers who have long complained about the city’s complex permitting process, in which projects languish for weeks or months while navigating the red tape of reviews and inspections.
Affordable housing applications have been pouring in under the directive.
As of November, 490 projects have been streamlined, accounting for more than 40,000 affordable housing units, according to the Planning Department. Of those, 437 projects have been approved, with an average application process of 22 days.
It’s unclear how many of those projects are actually being built. At a December City Council meeting, Planning Department officials said that as of July, 44 streamlined projects had been started, accounting for roughly 2,500 units. But there are no data on how many have been finished.
Maria Patiño Gutierrez, deputy director for policy and advocacy at the nonprofit Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE), celebrated the decision to make the directive permanent, but said she hopes to see changes to the process down the road.
“We want this ordinance to work and bring affordable housing, but we also want to make sure it doesn’t displace tenants,” she said.
The directive has become increasingly watered down over the last three years as Bass carved out more and more areas from being subjected to streamlined applications. In June 2023, Bass exempted single-family zones from the directive, which accounts for 72% of land in L.A.
A year later, she exempted historic districts — including areas of Highland Park and Lincoln Heights — as well as “very high fire hazard severity zones,” which include parts of Silver Lake and Hollywood Hills.
To make sure streamlined projects weren’t displacing renters, Bass also exempted those that would replace rent-controlled apartment buildings with 12 units or more.
These exemptions will carry into the newly adopted ordinance, though they may be tweaked in the months to come. In a Dec. 2 meeting, City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado argued that the exemption to preserve rent-controlled buildings should shrink from a minimum of 12 units to five units, claiming such projects could displace tenants in neighborhoods such as Boyle Heights and Lincoln Heights.
Jurado said the current ordinance exempts 19% of rent-controlled buildings, but if the minimum threshold were set at five units instead of 12, it would exempt 36%.
Housing groups are pushing for amendments as well. A public comment letter published by Public Counsel and SAJE argued that maximum rents for streamlined projects should be cheaper than they’re allowed to be under current rules.
The directive defines “100% affordable housing” as 80% low-income units and 20% moderate-income units, but the nonprofits claimed that those rates, which would still let a “low-income” two-bedroom apartment be rented for as much as $2,726, are still too expensive for many Angelenos.
PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Yes on Proposition 3 and Los Angeles Blade will present an urgent Town Hall on October 28 from 7:00 PM at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 7501 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90046. For more information or to RSVP, click here.
As California voters prepare for the Election Day ballot, they have a critical opportunity to address a potentially dangerous inconsistency in the state’s constitution regarding the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
Think of it as a firewall against a potential 2nd Trump administration and Supreme Court effort to overturn same-sex marriage.
Proposition 3, the Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment, seeks to remove outdated language from the Prop 8 era, a ballot initiative that successfully defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
Although federal court rulings have rendered this language unenforceable, it has lingered in California’s constitution since 2008.
Proposition 3 would not only eliminate this vestigial language but also establish a constitutional right to marriage regardless of gender or race.
The history of Prop 8 is a complex and contentious chapter in California’s past. Passed in the 2008 state election, Prop 8 effectively banned same-sex marriage, following a California Supreme Court ruling that had declared a previous ban (Proposition 22 from 2000) unconstitutional. Prop 8 added language to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The passage of Prop 8 shocked many who viewed California as a bastion of progressive values, highlighting a divide within the state and igniting intense debate and legal battles. Religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the now somewhat repentant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, played significant roles in supporting Prop 8, with the LDS Church notably contributing more than $20 million to the campaign and mobilizing volunteers for door-to-door canvassing.
The legal journey of Prop 8 has been long and complex. Initially upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2009, it was later challenged in federal court. In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012, albeit on narrower grounds.
The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in “Hollingsworth v. Perry” (2013). However, rather than ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, the Court decided that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked legal standing to defend the law in federal court. This effectively upheld Walker’s 2010 ruling, paving the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California.
The uncertain landscape of LGBTQ+ rights
The current Proposition 3 arises from recent concerns about the stability of LGBTQ+ rights at the federal level. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested reconsidering other precedents, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This potential threat prompted California legislators to act proactively to safeguard marriage equality at the state level.
Moreover, 2024 has seen a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation across the nation and in Congress. “Extremist lawmakers in Congress failed in their hateful attempts to add anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to must-pass spending bills. These measures would have restricted medically necessary health care for transgender people, allowed taxpayer-funded discrimination against married same-sex couples, and further stigmatized the LGBTQ+ community,” said a spokesperson from Equality California.
Strong bipartisan negotiations led to the removal of 51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ+ riders, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Congressional Equality Caucus and the relentless advocacy of LGBTQ+ organizations. Speaker Mike Johnson — considered the most anti-LGBTQ+ speaker in history — attempted to slow the appropriations process with these “poison pill” amendments, leading the country to the brink of a government shutdown multiple times.
Despite his failures, Johnson is attempting to claim victory by highlighting a limited provision that prohibits the flying of Pride flags on embassy buildings, which imposes no limits on other displays of the flag. “While we are disappointed in the passage of this provision, it is important to consider it in the context of the overwhelming defeat of other measures. The Speaker’s attempt to use this as a symbol of victory is as laughable as his dysfunctional term as Speaker has been,” the spokesperson added.
The fragility of rights
The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent shockwaves through the legal community, particularly among LGBTQ+ advocates. The decision raised alarms about the vulnerability of other civil rights protections, including marriage equality. Legal experts are now grappling with unprecedented questions about how to secure these rights amid a shifting judicial landscape.
The fragility of unenumerated rights — those not explicitly written in the Constitution but granted through Supreme Court interpretation — has become increasingly apparent. Marriage equality, like abortion rights, falls into this category and has been upheld through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. However, Thomas’s opinion in the Dobbs case hints at a willingness to reexamine these precedents.
A significant concern for marriage equality advocates is the idea that rights relying on due process must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” Since nationwide marriage equality is only seven years old, it lacks the historical foundation that might protect it from future challenges.
The patchwork possibility
If Obergefell were overturned, the U.S. could revert to a patchwork of marriage laws reminiscent of the pre-2015 era. According to the Movement Advancement Project, as many as 32 states could potentially revert to banning same-sex marriages. This scenario would create a stark divide across the country, with some states recognizing LGBTQ+ marriages while others outlaw them.
Such a reversion would have far-reaching implications for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since Obergefell. While it’s unlikely that existing marriages would be invalidated, the legal status of these unions could become uncertain. This potential outcome underscores the urgency of enshrining marriage equality in state constitutions and laws.
The challenge of codification
While some lawmakers have expressed interest in codifying marriage equality at the federal level, legal experts are divided on whether Congress has that authority. Traditionally, marriage laws have fallen under state jurisdiction, complicating efforts to establish federal protections.
This uncertainty adds pressure to state-level efforts to protect marriage equality. In states with existing bans, securing marriage rights would require constitutional amendments or ballot measures, necessitating extensive public education campaigns and grassroots organizing.
The importance of proactive constitutional change
Despite California’s progressive reputation, the state constitution still contains language that could be used to restrict same-sex marriages if federal protections were overturned. This highlights the importance of Prop 3.
Currently, 35 states maintain constitutional or statutory bans on same-sex marriage. Although these bans are unenforceable due to the Obergefell decision, they could be reactivated if the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling. California, despite its forward-thinking values, is among these states due to the lingering effects of Prop 8.
Without the passage of Prop 3, California could face a situation where existing same-sex marriages remain valid, but new marriages could be denied. This potential legal limbo underscores the urgency of updating the state constitution to explicitly protect marriage equality.
By passing Prop 3, California would not only eliminate discriminatory language from its constitution but also create a robust state-level protection for same-sex marriages. This proactive approach would ensure that, regardless of future federal court decisions, the right to marry would remain secure for all Californians.
The path forward
The journey to this point reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2023, that figure had flipped, with 71 percent supporting marriage equality. This change crosses party lines, with a majority of Republicans now in favor. The trend is particularly strong among younger voters, indicating a generational shift toward greater acceptance and equality.
The importance of Prop 3 extends beyond its practical effects. While same-sex marriages are of course recognized in California, enshrining this right in the state constitution provides an additional layer of protection against potential future challenges. Moreover, it represents a formal acknowledgment of past mistakes and a clear statement of California’s values of equality and inclusion.
Critics of Prop 3 have raised concerns about its potential to open doors for challenges to laws against polygamy or underage marriages. However, these arguments are misleading. Constitutional rights are not absolute and can be limited by compelling state interests, as seen with other fundamental rights like freedom of speech.
This situation highlights the ongoing nature of the struggle for equal rights and the importance of vigilance in protecting hard-won freedoms. Prop 3 represents an opportunity for California to lead by example, demonstrating how states can take concrete steps to safeguard the rights of their LGBTQ+ citizens in an uncertain legal landscape.
As the November election approaches, California voters can align the state’s constitution with the prevailing values of equality and inclusivity. By voting yes on Prop 3, Californians can eliminate the last remnants of discrimination from their constitution and send a clear message that bigotry has no place in California’s fundamental laws.
In a time when LGBTQ+ rights face renewed challenges across the nation, California has the chance to reaffirm its status as a progressive leader and to correct a long-standing injustice in its constitution.
Prop 3 is not just about changing words in a document; it’s about enshrining the principle that love and commitment deserve equal recognition under the law, regardless of who you are or whom you love.
Ysabel Jurado, 34, a lifelong community member of Highland Park, and openly out candidate, is running against current Councilmember Kevin De Leon for Council District 14, the most powerful city council in Los Angeles County.
Her campaign slogan is ‘Ysabel For The Community.’
Earlier this year, Jurado made history in the primary, using her perspective as a historically underrepresented person in the hopes of bringing new leadership to the district after De Leon was called to resign in 2022, following a scandal.
The live voting results earlier this year highlighted Ysabel Jurado at 24.52%, with 8,618 votes, while De Leon fell behind by nearly 400 votes, with 23.39% in the primary.
Jurado is a tenants rights lawyer and housing justice advocate from Highland Park who has built her reputation in the community with support from social activist Dolores Huerta, L.A. City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez and L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis.
“I’m the daughter of undocumented immigrants, a public transit rider, a former teen mom, and a working class Angeleno who has navigated the challenges of poverty. I have held the line on countless strikes and defended truck drivers against the same wage theft my father faced,” said Jurado in her candidate statement.
De Leon secured the second spot and will go head-to-head against Jurado in November. Jurado rose to the top of the polls, while her opponents spent more money on their campaigns, including De Leon. Miguel Santiago raised the most money for his campaign and also spent the most to secure support. De Leon came in second with both money spent and money raised. While Jurado came in fourth in the amount of money spent and raised for her campaign.
Jurado is running to become the first queer, Filipina to represent CD-14. Among the list of issues she aims to tackle while in office are; homelessness, climate action, safer streets and economic justice that uplifts small businesses.
“I will bring the institutional knowledge of a legal housing expert and the lived experience of a queer, immigrant-raised, working class, woman of color – a battle-tested representative for and from the community,” said Jurado.
De Leon might be facing an uphill climb after he was caught saying homophobic, racist and anti-sematic remarks in a leaked audio recording that rocked his political career. Even President Joe Biden called for his resignation.
The conversation that rocked L.A politics is said to have started because of redistricting plans and gerrymandering. According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, De Leon had his hopes set on running for mayor of Los Angeles. Since the audio was leaked, protests erupted, calling for his resignation. De Leon continued in his position after an apology tour and is now running against Jurado on the November ballot.
The recording of a conversation between De Leon, Ron Herrera, Nury Martinez and Gil Cedillo.
“Between FBI raids, backroom gerrymandering, racist rants, and corruption charges, our needs have been chronically ignored,” says the statement. “City government has failed us. We deserve better.”
If she wins, she would join a progressive bloc of leaders in city council that include Nithya Raman, Hugo Doto-Martinez and Councilmember Hernandez. The leadership would have a pendulum swing toward city affairs that has not been seen before.
CD-14 covers Eagle Rock, El Sereno, Boyle Heights and parts of Lincoln Heights and downtown L.A., which includes skid row and other points of interest.
Those points of interest make CD-14 seats particularly difficult when it comes to dealing with polarizing issues like homelessness and street safety measures.
According to the latest demographic data by L.A City Council, 61% of the population is Latin American, while the second highest population is white, at 16%, followed by Asian, at 14% and Black at 6%.
If elected, Jurado aims to tackle homelessness in a district that has one of the highest unhoused populations in the city.
Jurado is now gearing up for the November election by continuing to campaign at various events across Los Angeles, including ‘Postcarding with Ysabel,’ at DTLA Arts District Brewing and The Hermosillo.
