But identifying the ignition source is only part of the story. What the county’s investigation fails to address is a far more pressing question — who in local government is truly responsible for keeping Altadena safe?

The findings don’t explain why so many residents say they received little to no fire preparedness information beforehand. They don’t clarify why emergency alerts failed to reach countless households before flames arrived, how public safety resources were deployed in those critical first 24 hours, or why response efforts were hampered by outdated protocols, murky lines of authority, thin staffing and communication systems that couldn’t talk to one another.

For most Californians, local governance is a partnership between city hall and the county. But Altadena has no city hall. Los Angeles County is its only government.

The community’s town council, though elected, holds no actual municipal power — it can only offer the county advice. Instead, the Board of Supervisors effectively functions as Altadena’s city council, and the supervisor representing the area serves as its “mayor” in name, if not in dedicated attention, given that the position also oversees dozens of other unincorporated communities.

This isn’t a matter of a tiny outpost slipping through bureaucratic cracks. Before the fire, Altadena was home to nearly 43,000 people spread across more than 8.4 square miles — larger in population than 47 of Los Angeles County’s incorporated cities, and bigger in land area than 53 of them.

Yet the responsibility for serving this substantial community is scattered among numerous county departments: the Fire Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Office of Emergency Management, Public Works, the Chief Executive Office and the supervisor’s office. When responsibility is spread that thin, accountability becomes nearly impossible to pin down after a disaster. If there were failures in service, the public deserves to know which officials and agencies should own them.

I didn’t come to this issue only as a researcher. I lived through the fire alongside my neighbors. My family evacuated, and we suffered damage to both our home and our business. In the weeks that followed, I spent countless hours helping coordinate aid and listening to survivors describe what they experienced.

That experience led our firm to conduct a pro bono study — called ARISE — surveying 1,228 Altadena residents. The results were striking: roughly three out of four households said they received no fire preparedness outreach from the county in the year leading up to the disaster. Fewer than 8% of people who evacuated reported seeing firefighters during their escape.

These accounts, drawn directly from residents, paint a picture of a county government that felt distant and disconnected both before and during the emergency.

The county’s own after-action review acknowledged real problems — outdated and inconsistent policies, confusion over who had authority to act, staffing shortages, insufficient training, weak situational awareness and communication breakdowns. But that review wasn’t designed to assign blame or investigate wrongdoing. Its conclusion that there was “no single point of failure” should not be confused with a conclusion that government didn’t fail. For survivors trying to make decisions about rebuilding their lives, that distinction offers little comfort.

Accountability isn’t a competition with only one winner. The fact that Edison’s equipment sparked the fire doesn’t absolve the county of its responsibilities around preparedness, warning systems, evacuation procedures, emergency response and recovery efforts.

Holding Los Angeles County to account doesn’t mean ignoring the extreme weather conditions that fueled the fire, nor does it mean second-guessing split-second decisions made by first responders in the field. What it does mean is asking whether the county’s agencies were adequately prepared, properly led, and equipped to deliver the services Altadena residents pay for through their taxes — services that, unlike in incorporated cities, come without direct municipal representation.

Currently, the state auditor is reviewing how the Eaton and Palisades fires were prevented and handled, while the state attorney general is looking into possible civil rights violations. That’s a start, but it’s not enough.

The Legislature’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee should launch a broader investigation into how the county spent money and delivered services in Altadena before, during and after the fire. That inquiry should compare Altadena’s preparedness, warning systems, staffing levels, deployment strategies and emergency response to those of similarly sized incorporated cities facing comparable wildfire risk — drawing on spending records, dispatch logs, internal communications and firsthand testimony from residents. The goal should be determining whether Altadena’s unincorporated status left it more vulnerable, both in terms of service and in terms of who is held responsible when things go wrong.

Altadenans deserve more than a report. They deserve an apology and an honest reckoning from Los Angeles County — one that discloses everything the county is legally able to share, acknowledges plainly where its systems broke down, and lays out how the harm done will be addressed.

No resident of an unincorporated community like Altadena should ever again have to dig through organizational charts and hazard mitigation plans just to figure out who is supposed to be keeping them safe.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Did Altadena’s Unincorporated Status Contribute to Safety Failures During the Eaton Fire? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The move comes nearly two years after the devastating Los Angeles County fires left thousands of residents in limbo. While their houses may still be standing, many survivors have been unable to move back in, citing lingering smoke contamination and prolonged disputes with insurance companies over who is responsible for testing and remediation costs. According to the California Department of Insurance, the January 2025 fires generated more than 13,000 smoke-damage claims alone.

Newsom traveled to Altadena to sign the legislation, meeting with Eaton Fire survivors who have been pushing for clearer rules on how insurers must handle these claims. “These new protections will make insurer obligations clearer and give homeowners more financial flexibility when they need it most,” the governor said. The new laws take effect Jan. 1.

One of the centerpiece measures, Assembly Bill 1642, was authored by Assemblymember John Harabedian, a Pasadena-area Democrat. It orders the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop formal standards for testing, repairing and removing lead and asbestos contamination by the end of 2028, with similar rules for other toxic substances to follow by the end of 2029. Until those standards are finalized, existing federal and state guidelines on lead and asbestos exposure will remain in effect.

A companion measure, AB 1795, establishes a legal presumption that smoke damage found within a designated fire zone was caused by that fire — shifting the burden of proof away from homeowners. The law also requires insurers to cover testing and cleanup costs in line with the forthcoming state standards.

“For homeowners who have already lost so much in a fire, the last thing a family should have to do is fight for a clear answer about whether it is safe to return home,” said Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Carson Democrat who authored AB 1795.

The legislation arrives amid mounting legal pressure on insurers. The state Department of Insurance, Los Angeles County and individual fire survivors have all taken legal action against State Farm and the state’s insurer-of-last-resort, the FAIR Plan, accusing them of mishandling smoke-damage claims. Just last week, Los Angeles County opened a separate investigation into Farmers Insurance over similar allegations.

Newsom also signed two additional bills authored by Harabedian addressing the financial strain faced by displaced homeowners. AB 1842 creates a statewide mortgage forbearance program for residents whose homes are declared uninhabitable following a major disaster, barring lenders from imposing late fees or penalties while payments are paused.

AB 1847 goes further for survivors of the Los Angeles County fires specifically, extending mortgage forbearance eligibility to 24 months and pushing back the deadline for homeowners to request forbearance to Jan. 7, 2029.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Becomes First State to Set Standards for Smoke Damage in Homes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

According to a joint analysis by CalMatters and The Markup, the total value of defense contracts awarded to companies in Los Angeles County has more than doubled over the past decade, even after accounting for inflation. That growth far outpaces the overall federal defense budget, which climbed about 19% in the same timeframe.

Last year alone, LA County businesses collected roughly $15 billion in defense contracts. While established giants like Boeing — headquartered elsewhere — still capture a large share of that spending, a new generation of local startups is increasingly cutting into the market. These companies specialize in emerging technologies such as low-cost missile systems, drones, surveillance satellites and artificial intelligence tools built for military use.

The momentum has been striking. In 2025, ten Los Angeles-area startups reached “unicorn” status — meaning investors valued them at more than $1 billion — according to the Los Angeles Business Journal. Most of those companies work in aerospace or defense.

The CalMatters and Markup analysis found that drone- and space-focused firms accounted for 14 of California’s top 100 defense contracts in 2015. By 2025, that number had grown to 21, with their overall share of contract dollars rising from 13% to 18%. Depending on how the data is measured — such as by contractor headquarters versus project location — the true increase could be even larger.

Much of this growth traces back to a wave of venture capital that has poured into aerospace and defense technology since 2008, according to a report from the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research nonprofit. That private investment has helped fuel today’s surge in government contracting.

But the boom is also creating friction in Washington.

The ongoing war involving Iran — which has drained American munitions stockpiles — is expected to push demand even higher. President Trump’s latest budget proposal calls for a record $1.5 trillion in military spending. At the same time, the Pentagon has begun awarding early contracts for the “Golden Dome,” an ambitious missile-defense shield that could eventually cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Many of the companies selected for that project are based in or connected to Southern California.

“You saw this huge rise in capital, and now you’re seeing much, much bigger government budgets for space,” said Sam Wilson, a researcher with the Aerospace Corporation.

That convergence of private investment and public military spending has unsettled some advocacy groups, who warn of a slide toward privatized warfare and the possibility of a new space arms race. Even some congressional Democrats have begun voicing objections to the scale of spending — a notable shift, since defense budgets have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support.

“It has tended to be a bipartisan, equal effort to increase the [defense] budget,” said Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project, which monitors military spending nationwide. “I think we are maybe seeing the limits of that now.”

Still, some of the biggest beneficiaries of the spending boom are found in deep-blue districts that voted overwhelmingly against Trump.

California’s 36th Congressional District, which includes the defense-tech hub of El Segundo, is represented by Democrat Ted Lieu, who won reelection in 2024 with nearly 70% of the vote. Defense contracts flowing into that district grew by more than $3.3 billion between 2015 and 2025.

Representative Maxine Waters’ 43rd District has seen similarly dramatic growth — despite Waters herself once backing legislation to abolish the Space Force altogether. Defense obligations in her district have increased by more than $1.6 billion, or over 500%, in the past decade. Waters’ office did not respond to requests for comment.

Seamus Daniels, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget for fiscal year 2027 would exceed even the peak levels of spending during World War II. He noted that the administration is pursuing this expansion while simultaneously proposing cuts to non-defense priorities such as healthcare — a combination that has made the budget especially contentious among Democrats.

Koshgarian said many Democratic lawmakers have historically supported increased military spending, particularly when it benefits their districts. But she believes attitudes may be shifting as the scale of proposed spending grows.

“That tension is definitely real, even in left districts,” she said. “But I think we’re reaching a level of extremity now that that might be starting to flip.”

A Comeback Decades in the Making

California’s dominance in defense technology didn’t happen overnight. The Silicon Valley Defense Group, which tracks emerging national security firms, found that of the top 100 technology-driven defense companies nationwide in 2026, 47 were headquartered in California — more than five times the number based in Colorado, the next closest state.

That wasn’t always the case. California was a manufacturing powerhouse during World War II and later became home to major aerospace firms such as Lockheed, Northrop and Convair during the Cold War. But the end of the Soviet Union triggered deep cuts to defense budgets in the 1990s, and industry consolidation eventually pushed corporate headquarters out of state — Lockheed Martin relocated to Maryland, Northrop Grumman to Virginia. Aerospace sales, which peaked in 1987, fell by nearly a third within six years, according to the RAND Corporation.

The turning point came in 1995, when San Diego-based General Atomics tested its Predator drone above the California desert. Armed with Hellfire missiles, the aircraft would go on to define modern warfare during the War on Terror.

Since then, a new wave of venture capital — combined with shifting government priorities — has revived the state’s defense sector. Stock values for aerospace and defense firms surged shortly after Trump’s first inauguration in 2017, and government contracts have since transformed companies like Costa Mesa-based Anduril into multibillion-dollar operations.

Where Venture Capital Meets Military Spending

Southern California’s advantage is bolstered by the presence of SpaceWERX, the Space Force’s innovation and seed-funding arm, headquartered in El Segundo. The office frequently funds nearby companies, reinforcing the coastal city’s growing reputation as a defense-tech hotspot.

During a recent visit promoting the “Arsenal of Freedom” initiative — a push to dramatically scale up munitions production — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth toured Rocket Lab’s facility in Long Beach and praised the company’s role in expanding U.S. space capabilities.

“This company, you right here, are front and center, as part of ensuring that we build an arsenal of freedom that America needs,” Hegseth told employees.

The pipeline from private investment to public contracts typically starts with SpaceWERX, which awards early seed funding to promising startups. Since 2021, the agency has issued 380 contracts worth more than $461 million to California companies — more than any other state, according to SpaceWERX spokesperson Matthew Clouse.

Once a company receives SpaceWERX backing, private investors often follow, viewing government funding as a signal of future demand, said Arthur Grijalva, the agency’s director. That dynamic has funneled billions of dollars into California-based defense startups in recent years.

El Segundo Mayor Chris Pimentel said local leaders have worked for years to attract that investment, even traveling to meet with venture capital firms during the economic downturn of the early pandemic.

“It really paid off with large dividends,” Pimentel said. “We started showing up and being in the room with some of the larger venture funds and saying, ‘we can make these things happen down here. We can build stuff.’”

He added that the effort has been driven by a shared belief in the region’s aerospace legacy, regardless of political affiliation. “This is where the future has been made historically,” he said.

Some companies built on these partnerships have grown into industry titans. Elon Musk’s SpaceX, founded in the Los Angeles area, completed the largest initial public offering in history this past June.

Smaller firms are expanding rapidly as well. True Anomaly, a space defense company founded in Colorado in 2022, now operates its largest office in Long Beach. “When you’re building this type of company, it’s frankly somewhat of a necessity to have a footprint here,” said Chief Financial Officer Mark Seidel.

The company has worked on Space Force missions and was recently selected as a contractor for the Golden Dome program. A $650 million funding round in April pushed its valuation past $2 billion.

Even as the defense sector brings jobs and investment to the region, critics warn of the risks tied to unchecked growth.

“We very much risk getting into a space arms race, where China invests more, so we invest more, so China invests more and we invest more,” Koshgarian said. “Where does it stop?”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Southern California Emerges as Hub for Booming Defense Technology Industry appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

CARE Court, formally known as the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Act, lets family members, first responders and others petition a judge to connect someone suffering from a serious untreated mental illness — conditions like schizophrenia — with a voluntary community-based treatment plan. If that voluntary arrangement doesn’t hold, a judge has the authority to order the person into treatment.

L.A. County launched its program in December 2023, but for much of its existence it has fallen well short of the caseload state officials originally predicted. Between December 2023 and June of this year, only 1,111 petitions were filed countywide — a fraction of the roughly 3,800 cases per year that state projections had anticipated.

That trend appears to be shifting. County officials say petitions climbed by about 85% between November and March, with 68 filed in March alone.

Martin Jones, a program manager with the county’s Department of Mental Health, credits the uptick to closer coordination with hospitals, first responders and other agencies that can identify and refer people who might benefit from the program.

“We’re doing quite a bit of work to put tools in their hands to also help them identify and refer folks to us who might benefit from the support,” Jones told LAist. “I think we’re approaching the project from several fronts, and we’re seeing the results of that.”

Jones also pointed to a change that took effect in January, which expanded the program’s diagnostic criteria to include people with bipolar I disorder accompanied by psychotic features. That broader eligibility, he said, has contributed to the recent surge in filings.

Supporters of CARE Court, a priority initiative for Newsom, argue it offers a more structured but less restrictive path toward stabilizing people with severe mental illness, and they view the rise in petitions as evidence the program is finally catching on.

Not everyone is convinced the growth is meaningful. Some mental health advocates and civil liberties groups say the numbers obscure a lack of real progress.

“The number of petitions says nothing about outcomes, which is the real point of the program,” said Eve Garrow, a policy analyst with the ACLU of Southern California. “Positive outcomes are really minuscule compared to the population in need.”

Statewide data show roughly half of all CARE Court petitions are ultimately dismissed. County officials counter that more than 4,000 people across California have instead been connected to alternative county mental health services when a formal CARE agreement wasn’t the right fit.

Critics, including Garrow, have also raised concerns about cost. A review by the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary found that in fiscal year 2024, the roughly 100 people enrolled in CARE Court statewide cost an average of about $713,000 per participant.

Garrow argues the program sidesteps the deeper issue — a chronically underfunded mental and behavioral health system.

“Basically what it does is it slaps a court order onto a broken system instead of fixing the system,” she said.

As for outcomes in L.A. County specifically, the Department of Mental Health reports that through June, 21 participants had completed the program’s 12-month track, with four more expected to graduate within the coming year. The department also noted that 63% of participants in the county have chosen to keep receiving CARE Court services rather than complete the program and exit.

Original source: CalMatters

The post L.A. County Officials Say Mental Illness Treatment Program Is Gaining Momentum appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The release — which includes all of Southern California and marks the end of the agency’s two-month, statewide rollout — sets off a roughly five-month clock for L.A. city and county to receive public input, make adjustments, and begin enforcing heightened fire-safety regulations within the new zones.

The new Cal Fire maps are only for areas where local fire departments, like the Los Angeles Fire Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department, are responsible for responding to blazes. Previously, Cal Fire only mapped the highest severity rating, “very high,” for these local responsibility areas. The new maps include Cal Fire’s “moderate” and “high” zones as well.

New fire hazard zones for Los Angeles and Southern California

Local responsibility areas (proposed)

Cal Fire most recently updated all three zones for the areas where the state responds to fires in September 2023. However, the last time the agency updated its maps for areas where local fire departments are responsible was in 2011.

The city of L.A. saw its acreage in the “very high” zone increase by 7%. The addition of the new “moderate” and “high” zones led to the total acreage in the fire severity hazard zones increasing by 24%.

The unincorporated areas in L.A. County that rely on LACFD, however, saw their acreage in the “very high” zone more than triple. Much of the unincorporated areas — which make up over 65% of the county and include Altadena, the outskirts of Santa Clarita and Palmdale areas and Puente Hills near Whittier — are wildlands or exist at the wildland-urban interface, which are more prone to fire.

“Today’s release of updated hazard assessment maps from Cal Fire … underlines the ongoing wildfire crisis that California is experiencing,” Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) said in a statement. “We must act fast and at scale to protect our communities and make sure insurance markets work for everyone.”

With the rollout complete, California as a whole now has more “very high” hazard zone acres than ever before. Cal Fire mapped a grand total of 6.8 million acres into the local responsibility area hazard zones: “very high” zones grew 35%, from 860,000 acres to nearly 1.2 million; meanwhile, 1.2 million and 4.5 million acres were placed into the new “high” and “moderate” zones, respectively.

The hazard severity zone maps are referenced in more than 50 sections of California law. They require homeowners in “high” and “very high” hazard zones to follow fire-safe building codes for new construction — including installing multi-pane windows that are less likely to break in extreme heat and covering vents and other openings to prevent embers from entering the house. Homeowners in the “very high” zones must maintain defensible space around their properties and disclose the “very high” status when they put their houses up for sale

The legislature has also required local governments in heightened severity zones to routinely review evacuation routes and account for the potential peak stress on water supplies during a disaster. Local governments must also locate essential public facilities like hospitals and emergency command centers outside of heightened fire hazard zones “when feasible,” according to the law.

Cal Fire originally planned to release the maps in mid-January; however the L.A. firestorms that month forced the agency to delay as it moved significant scientific resources to supporting the firefight and relief efforts.

In the new maps, the Pacific Palisades and Malibu remain blanketed under a red “very high” zone, just as they did in Cal Fire’s old maps from 2011. Altadena, on the other hand, remains largely unzoned, indicating a hazard lower than “moderate,” just as it did in the old maps.

An analysis by The Times found that only 21% of the properties within the Eaton fire’s perimeter were designated as having “very high” fire hazard. Yet, an independent assessment by the public-benefit company First Street had identified 94% as having “severe” or “extreme” wildfire risk, meaning they had at least a 1 in 7 chance of experiencing wildfire in a 30-year window.

Cal Fire research manager David Sapsis, who oversees the agency’s mapping efforts, acknowledged that the models Cal Fire uses to create its maps cannot fully predict the dynamic spread of wildfire into urban areas. Cal Fire’s model instead accounts for the vegetation type, topology, climate and weather for wildland areas to calculate the probability of an area burning and the likely intensity of the blaze. From this, it calculates how far a blaze would likely spill over into urban areas.

The team also intentionally chose to leave out what it calls “outlier” events like the 2017 Tubbs fire, because, they said, it would have led to overly conservative zoning. Another outlier event: the Eaton fire, which, like the Tubbs fire, was driven by relentless, powerful winds that drove the blaze deep into a populated area.

First Street approaches it somewhat differently. The company creates a virtual representation of California that includes both vegetation and human infrastructure of the state’s urban areas, and simulates how fires would likely spread, including into areas like Altadena. If Cal Fire’s model is a snapshot of how fire acts, First Street’s is a motion picture.

Sapsis acknowledged he’d like to use newer approaches like First Street’s in the future. For its 2025 maps, Cal Fire made only slight modifications to its model, including the use of more up-to-date climate and extreme weather data. It also used a new model for estimating how far embers can bring fire into developed areas.

Other changes in the real world — such as new housing developments that changed an area’s classification from wildland to urban — also resulted in modifications to the Cal Fire maps.

In the latest release — comprising all of Southern California, including San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties — the cities of Hesperia and Jurupa Valley saw the most significant percentage increase in acres zoned, with the cities’ total averages in hazard zones increasing more than 35- and 45-fold, respectively. Jurupa Valley saw its “very high” zone expand from 226 acres to 6,195. Hesperia’s grew from 715 to 15,359.

The cities of Chino Hills, Lancaster and Santa Clarita saw significant increases in their “very high” zones; in all three cities, the zones grew by more than 13,000 acres.

The number of acres zoned as “very high” in San Diego decreased by nearly 30%; however, its total acreage in hazard zones still slightly increased thanks to the new “moderate” and “high” zones.

Only a handful of cities across the state saw decreases in the total acreage zoned, including Rancho Palos Verdes in L.A. County and Oakland in the Bay Area.

“I’ll be quite honest with you, before these maps were produced, I thought the very high fire severity zones were really going to reach deep deep down into Altadena, and they haven’t,” said LACFD Deputy Fire Chief Albert Yanagisawa. “I asked Cal Fire, seeing as what happened, is there a reason the maps were not changed, and what they said was, specifically, their model is for wildland fire modeling. It’s not utilized and it shouldn’t be utilized for [urban] conflagration modeling.”

Cal Fire has so far declined to comment on what drove changes in specific counties and cities.

Now, local jurisdictions have 120 days to accept public input on the maps and work with Cal Fire to issue an official ordinance implementing them. Typically, ordinances take effect about 30 days after they’re issued. At that point, the heightened fire safety regulations would apply to the new zones.

Local jurisdictions like L.A. city and county are allowed to increase the severity of a zone and add additional acres to a zone; however, they cannot decrease the severity of zones or remove acres from them.

These maps are a “critical tool for identifying high fire hazard areas and strengthening fire safety policies across our communities,” said County Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “For those working to rebuild after the Eaton fire, I want to emphasize that these maps provide essential information to guide your rebuilding efforts. They reflect the latest fire hazard assessments and will help ensure our homes and infrastructure are rebuilt with safety and resilience in mind.”

Fire safety advocates have attributed the continuing upward trend of acre zones to a litany of factors from development in fire-prone areas, ecosystem changes and climate change.

“Yes, climate change has obviously and absolutely impacted the severity of our wildfires and where they are happening, but way before there were climate impacts, there were land-use decisions,” said Howard Penn, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, a California-based nonprofit. “We have been sprawling into the wildlands for the last 75-plus years with very little consideration of the impacts.”

The post New fire maps increase hazard zones in L.A. and Southern California by 3.5 million acres appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the race to register voters before what folks are apocalyptically calling THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF ALL TIME, which we think happens every four years, we are disappointed to report that California is trailing the numbers it hit back in 2020 (the last most important election of all time).

Eighty-five percent of the Golden State’s eligible voters were registered by September 2020.

On October 10th, only 83% are.

Granted, there are more actual voters registered now than back then (22.3 million vs. 21.2 million), but there are also nearly 2 million more eligible voters.

Two million eligible, unregistered voters! That’s more than the entire population of a dozen states! You have no right to complain if you do not vote. It’s one of the few civic duties asked of us, and it’s a lot easier than jury duty or getting drafted.

Los Angeles County is bucking the slowpoke trend and putting the rest of SoCal to shame: There, 85.7% of eligible voters are already registered (5.7 million).

Orange County hit the state average, with 83% of eligible folks registered (1.8 million people).

Riverside is trailing a bit, with 82% of eligible folks registered (1.3 million); as is San Bernardino, with just 81% registered (1.2 million).

You can’t vote, people, vote, if you don’t register, people, register!

There’s still time. In California, registrations must be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than 15 days before Election Day, Nov. 5. That makes the deadline for registering Oct. 21, according to the Secretary of State.

Some props are due, though, to the SoCal counties, which have seen the largest increases in registration statewide since September 2020.

Riverside is tops, registering an additional 179,336 voters.

Orange is next, with an additional 140,571; then San Bernardino, with 122,454; San Diego, with 68,960; and Los Angeles, with 64,997.

What party are these registered voters affiliated with, you’re wondering? Statewide, 46% are Democrats; 25% are Republican; and 23% have no party preference.

It’s different, however, in the counties:

In progressive Los Angeles County, 52.4% are Democrats, 18% are Republicans, and 23% have no party preference.

Orange County still has strong conservative leanings, despite its new more progressive majority that backed Democrats in the last two presidential elections: 37% are Democrats, 34% are Republicans, and 23% have no party preference.

The Inland Empire counties, with a reputation for being more conservative than O.C., actually have more registered Democrats than O.C. In Riverside County, 39.6% are Democrats, 32% are Republicans and 20% have no party preference; while in San Bernardino, 40% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans and 21% have no party preference.

This is the most important election EVER!  And there are almost three weeks to register. Details on how to do that are at www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration. Get on it, people! This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF ALL TIME!

At least until next time.

The post Lower percent of eligible Southern California voters are registered now than in 2020. Get on it, people! appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The abnormal scarcity — compounded by the region’s long-running underproduction of housing — emerged when homeowners chose not to sell and give up pandemic-era mortgage rates. The so-called seller strike helped pushed home values to new records, despite rising borrowing costs.

Now the inventory picture might be changing.

“It’s getting a little bit better,” said Eneida Contreras, a Compass real estate agent who specializes in the San Fernando, Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys.

In April, the number of homes listed for sale in most Southern California counties rose from the same month a year earlier, according to data from Zillow.

Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties turned positive for the first time since the first half of 2023, each recording an increase of at least 5%.

Orange was the only county to see a decline, while in San Diego, inventory has risen for two consecutive months and is 18% above what it was a year ago.

To be sure, the availability of homes remains at historically low levels. But as it rises, it opens the possibility that prospective buyers will have an easier time making the largest purchase of their lives.

Jordan Levine, chief economist with the California Assn. of Realtors, said more homes are coming onto the market because owners are increasingly accepting that the new normal is interest rates in the 6%-7% range.

As people get married, divorced and have children, the “benefit of the low rate starts to be outweighed by having a house that doesn’t work,” Levine said. “Ultimately, these are people’s homes, too, and they are not just straight-up investments.”

Levine said he expects inventory levels to increase and home prices to be lower than they would have been if inventory continued to shrink. However, he and other experts said home prices are unlikely to decline. That’s because though more owners are coming to terms with high rates, many will likely choose to keep their sub-4% mortgages — a phenomenon known as the lock-in effect.

Other factors are at play. The economy is growing, and while most Southern California households can’t afford to buy, there’s a sizable population of techies, Hollywood types and other white-collar workers who can funnel excess cash into large down payments that offset high mortgage rates.

“The current level of inventory rise — which is a little bit, but not a lot — is likely to slow price appreciation but not turn it negative,” said Mike Simonsen, founder of Altos Research, a real estate data firm.

The rise in inventory is providing opportunities for buyers with means, but the market is still tough.

Interest rates are above 7%, and even if home prices rise at a slower pace, they will set records.

In Los Angeles County, the average home price in April was $890,516, an increase of 1.4% from March and surpassing the previous record, set in June 2022.

The six-county Southern California region climbed above its 2022 average home price record in March. It set another all-time high last month, reaching $875,388.

If mortgage rates noticeably decline, the lock-in effect could lessen and bring more homes onto the market. Falling mortgage rates would also immediately make housing more affordable.

Whether falling rates provide much relief is another question. Lower borrowing costs may bring a flood of additional buyers who quickly gobble up new listings and supercharge price growth.

“Building more housing is really what is going to break that cycle,” said Nicole Bachaud, a senior economist with Zillow.

According to the latest forecast from the Mortgage Bankers Assn., rates will remain high but will drop to 6.4% by the end of 2024.

Carol Otero of Rodeo Realty is among the Los Angeles agents seeing an increase in inventory. She estimated that the number of homes for sale in some San Fernando Valley neighborhoods has at least doubled in the past few weeks.

Buyers are eager.

Last Friday, Otero listed a four-bedroom home in Northridge. She said she has received six offers, all above the $869,000 asking price.

The post Buying a home in Southern California? There are now more options appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The suspects, all residents of Jurupa Valley, were identified by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department as:

• Thomas Balandran, 50
• Sherri Alvarez, 48
• Brianna Balandran, 19
• Unidentified juvenile, 17

On April 24, deputies responded to a business in Temecula where thieves attempted to steal over $1,000 worth of merchandise.

Investigators identified the suspects and discovered they were responsible for at least 10 retail thefts throughout Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties. The family had reportedly stolen over $7,000 worth of items during those incidents, authorities said.

On May 13, a search warrant was served at a home in the 6800 block of Valley Way in Jurupa Valley.

During the search, deputies found a large amount of stolen merchandise with price tags still attached. Other items, including narcotics and paraphernalia, were also found in the home.

Detectives learned there were additional homes connected to the thefts that involved suspects knowingly buying stolen goods to resell for profit, also known as “fencing.”

On May 14, two additional warrants were served in Moreno Valley where over $3,000 worth of stolen items were found.

The adult family members were arrested on charges of organized retail theft, burglary, conspiracy, and grand theft. The 17-year-old juvenile was released to a family member and charges will be filed with juvenile probation.

Deputies discovered that Balandran was on probation for grand theft at the time and additional charges were added to include violation of probation and drug-related offenses.

Investigators believe there are more retail thefts involving the family that have not been reported.

Anyone with additional information can call Deputy Christina Weber at 951-696-3133.

“The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has zero tolerance for these offenses and will continue to work proactively with our allied agencies, loss prevention partners, and the District Attorney’s Office to combat organized retail crime,” authorities said.

The post Southern California family arrested for series of alleged retail thefts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

With summer fast approaching, toxic algal blooms are beginning to pop up at Inland Empire lakes, posing a threat to people and their pets.

The blooms of cyanobacteria, commonly called blue-green algae, often look like streaks of spilled paint.

Their presence has prompted state and regional officials to urge lake visitors to take precautions.

In recent weeks, “caution” advisories have gone out for Lake Elsinore and Diamond Valley Lake in Riverside County, Puddingstone Reservoir at San Dimas in Los Angeles County, and Silverwood Lake in the San Bernardino County foothills. Signs were posted around those lakes specifying what activities should be avoided.

State officials said the signs at Silverwood Lake were taken down early this week after tests confirmed copper sulfate treatment had eliminated the threat there, for now.

Mary Fahey, a spokesperson for the California Department of Water Resources, said via email, however, that visitors should still look out for and avoid algae and scum, both in the water and along the shore.

Fahey wrote that “patches of algae may still be present in the lake, such as in back coves where the treatment could not reach.”

It’s important, too, said West Bishop, an algae scientist and water quality research manager with EutroPHIX, to recognize that tests represent a snapshot in time of a particular water sample.

“It’s likely to come back at some point,” said Bishop, who is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and treated Silverwood, a State Water Project reservoir, for a bacteria bloom several years ago.

Two other prominent Inland Empire reservoirs — the State Water Project’s Lake Perris near Moreno Valley and Metropolitan Water District’s Lake Skinner near Temecula — aren’t under advisories, officials said.

Pets are especially vulnerable

There are three levels of advisories issued when harmful bacteria is present in the water: caution, warning and danger.

Under current caution advisories, swimming is generally permitted. But people are urged to stay away from algae and scum, to avoid drinking the water or using it for cooking, to not eat shellfish from the lake, and to keep pets out of the water.

“Dogs are very sensitive to toxic algae and can ingest it when they lick their fur after swimming,” Fahey wrote.

It’s OK to eat fish caught in a lake under a caution advisory, officials said, but the guts should be thrown away and filets should be cleaned with tap water or bottled water before cooking.

Adam Gufarotti, Lake Elsinore community support manager, said the advisory there won’t prevent the 11th Annual Dream Extreme Fishing Derby from taking place Saturday, May 18.

Nor will it halt boating activities, he said.

Rebecca Kimitch, a spokesperson for Metropolitan Water District, said a caution advisory covers all of Diamond Valley Lake, the huge drinking-water reservoir near Hemet.

Diamond Valley is 4.5 miles long, 2 miles wide and 250 feet deep, when full.

Among other things, a sign at the marina warns visitors to keep children away from algae, and not to use the water for drinking, cooking or cleaning fish. Instead, fish should be cleaned with tap water or bottled water.

Swimming is never allowed at the reservoir, Kimitch said.

Swim season approaching

At Puddingstone Reservoir in Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park, however, people can swim in a designated area during the season.

Derek Elleri, lake aquatics manager at for Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation, said the swimming season will begin on schedule Memorial Day weekend, despite the advisory there.

Visitors are allowed to fish, boat and get out on the water with stand-up paddle boards and personal watercraft, Elleri said.

“We’re at the caution level,” he said. “We tell people to be mindful of the risks and try to avoid contact where they can.”

Elleri said workers spotted algae growth at Puddingstone a couple weeks ago.

It was “almost like a paint sheen on the water,” he said.

Test results received Monday, May 13, confirmed harmful bacteria in the 250-acre lake, he said.

When bacteria levels rise higher and “warning” advisories are issued, swimming is forbidden at affected lakes, according to a state website.

Under a “danger” advisory, visitors are asked to avoid eating fish caught at those lakes as well, and to stay out of the water.

Algae problem grows

The timing of the bacteria blooms’ appearance at some Inland Empire lakes before the summer heat arrives is cause for concern.

“It’s definitely concerning, not necessarily a surprise, unfortunately,” said Bishop, the algae expert.

Such blooms are occurring earlier and lasting longer around the country, Bishop said, as reservoirs age andaccumulate nutrients and as climate change fuels a rise in water temperatures.

Other factors include increasing carbon dioxide levels and stronger ultraviolet light penetration, Bishop said.

The cyanobacteria blooms are dangerous because they can produce many different toxins — ones that harm the liver, kidneys, brain, digestive system and skin, he said.

“I don’t want to be a fear monger, but these toxins have been likened to ricin and cobra venom,” he said.

According to posted signs, toxins can irritate peoples’ eyes and cause skin rashes, vomiting and diarrhea. Pets can also suffer from vomiting, diarrhea and convulsions, and even die.

Because the bacteria are so toxic, Bishop said, “We need to get this under control.”

Bishop said one of the biggest needs is to reduce the nutrient load in lakes. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus pile up as rain washes residential and agricultural fertilizer, human waste and animal waste into bodies of water.

“These nutrients jumpstart these blooms, and allow these blooms to achieve higher densities,” he said.

Silverwood Lake is more than 50 years old and, as a result, has accumulated many nutrients, he said.

Lake Elsinore, Southern California’s largest natural freshwater lake, also has much nutrient material because it’s at the end of the San Jacinto River drainage.

“With that all sitting there and accumulating, there is very little flushing out,” Bishop said.

Lake Elsinore also is shallow. So it tends to heat up earlier than other area lakes, Bishop said.

Oxygen-rich bubbles are helping

In Lake Elsinore, city officials are taking steps to address the problem.

Gufarotti, the community support manager, said the city on Feb. 6 launched a “nanobubble” technology project. The $2 million system purchased from Hawthorne-based Moleaer uses microscopic gas bubbles 2,500 times smaller than a grain of salt to release oxygen in the water.

“It’s introducing oxygen-rich bubbles at the bottom,” Gufarotti said.

It’s a two-year pilot project focused on the eastern part of the lake, he said, adding that the city may expand the system to cover the entire lake after the trial period ends.

Elevated bacteria levels — which were in the lower part of the caution range — were detected at two of five monitoring sites, Gufarotti said. Those are near the West Marina and Perret Park.

Harmful bacteria wasn’t detected at three other stations near the nanobubble equipment, Gufarotti said.

Gufarotti told the Lake Elsinore City Council in a Tuesday, May 14, report that the lake is clearer and bluer than it was this time last year because of the project.

Chris Stephan, Moleaer global director of sales for surface water, said there is more oxygen in the lake and less harmful algae.

Still, summer is around the corner and rising water temperatures will present a challenge.

“Water holds less oxygen when it’s hot,” Stephan said.

Gufarotti said the city, in addition to deploying the nanobubble system, is gearing up to apply a treatment to kill algae twice a month.

“The summer is going to be tough,”  he said. “And we’re going to fight back.”

The post Toxic algae blooms hit Inland Empire lakes, threaten people and pets appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ADUs are one of the few bright spots for the state’s housing market at a time of rising construction costs, high interest rates, and continued local resistance to greater housing density. These unassuming units, often basement apartments, backyard cottages, and converted garages, are far more affordable to build than other housing options and have become a politically palatable infill alternative to apartment complexes.

With median construction costs of about $150,000 in California, ADUs cost less than a third of traditional, federally subsidized affordable housing. As a result, the median ADU in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Coast is affordable (costs less than 30% of income) for a low income family, 31% of ADUs in Los Angeles County are affordable, and large numbers of ADUs are affordable in other regions, as well.

Over the past eight years, ADU construction has skyrocketed. California went from about 1,000 ADU permits in 2016 to 5,000 in 2017 to 25,000 in 2022.

This boom did not come easily. Many local governments have resisted ADUs, fearing they would overcrowd single-family neighborhoods. While some of these concerns are legitimate, the state’s housing crisis has persuaded state lawmakers that cities must allow more housing construction, even in built-out areas — and ADUs are one way to achieve that.

California lawmakers have worked for decades to limit local governments’ authority to block construction of these units. The effort began in 1982 when the legislature prohibited cities from categorically barring ADUs. Local governments responded by placing what a report from the Furman Center at New York University called “cumbersome and unpredictable discretionary  review requirements on applications for ADUs.”

Local resistance prompted the state in 2002 to mandate ministerial (rather than discretionary) local approval of ADU permits. Yet ADU production remained low.

Reforms in 2016 finally made inroads. That year, the legislature adopted two bills, AB 2299 and SB 1069. These required cities to allow ADUs on single-family lots. They also prohibited them from requiring design features such as direct pathways to the street and setbacks for garages converted into ADUs. These laws also eliminated parking requirements for ADUs near transit stops and for ADUs attached to existing houses; prohibited cities from requiring new water, sewer or utility connections for ADUs, or from charging utility fees for ADUs; and required ministerial permitting of ADUs to occur within 120 days.

More state laws followed, as legislators and advocates identified and removed other barriers to ADU construction.

Suddenly, ADU production surged across the state. According to the California Department of  Housing and Community Development, ADUs will meet 3% of the state’s housing needs for the period from 2021-2028.

Yet this growth has been uneven. In a recent study, the Rose Institute of State and Local Government analyzed differences in ADU production in Long Beach, San Diego, Anaheim, Pomona, Ontario, and Corona in light of the state’s assessment of these cities’ housing needs. In  Long Beach, the state’s per capita ADU leader, these units have met 5% of housing needs. By  contrast, ADUs make up only 2.6% in Anaheim. Within the Inland Empire, only 1% of housing needs are met in Ontario, 1.1% in Corona, and 2.2% in Pomona.

The report found that variations in ADU production can result from several factors, including the local housing market. For example, Ontario, like other cities in the Inland Empire, is still developing outward into greenfield sites, potentially reducing the demand for ADUs due to the availability of new single-family homes.

Familiarity with ADUs also matters. Planners in Long Beach, a leading producer of ADUs, describe these units as part of the fabric of their city, and say the knowledge they have gained processing ADU applications helps them approve permits faster than in some other cities. By contrast, other cities have less experience with this form of housing.

Local policies can affect ADU production, as well. Although the state has limited local control over ADUs, standards can still vary on several important dimensions. This is where local governments can most make a difference.

To help meet housing production goals, cities should assess where their regulations may be holding back ADU production and consider loosening standards in those areas. In particular, local lawmakers should look closely at three factors: parking requirements, structural setback requirements, and fees.

Parking requirements can add significant costs to new development, making them infeasible for homeowners without access to large capital flows. Structural setbacks can make larger ADUs geometrically infeasible, limiting the variety of options available to would-be buyers and renters. Finally, fees place high up-front costs on ADU developers, who often are individual homeowners,  further dissuading them from realizing their property’s potential.

Giving homeowners a little more wiggle room in how they build their ADUs could make the difference between catching up to statewide ADU production levels and missing out on a powerful tool to meet housing needs.

The post ADUs can help the Inland Empire meet housing needs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.