The most important stories for you to know today
Like many vendors along the El Salvador Corridor in Pico Union, Maria Godoy sells goods alongside others on the sidewalk of Vermont Avenue between 11th and 12th streets.Small businesses struggling financially in the neighborhoods of the neighborhoods of Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake, MacArthur Park and Highland Park could qualify for to help pay the bills.
Individual brick-and-mortar businesses can qualify for grants ranging from $5,000 to $10,000, while street vendors can receive about $3,000, according to city officials. A total of $400,000 is available through the program, and applications are now open. Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez announced the program’s goal, describing it as a way to support locally owned businesses navigating rising operating costs, shifting customer patterns, and the impacts of recent wide-scale events, like the ongoing immigration raids, along with wildfires, and broader economic uncertainty.To qualify, businesses must have a valid Los Angeles business license and have been operating in Council District 1 since December 2020, with some flexibility for street vendors. They also need to show they’ve been financially impacted by any largescale events, like the COVID pandemic, immigration enforcement, or the broader economy. Funding will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, with applications remaining open until funds run out. Small businesses struggling financially have another program they could qualify for to help pay the bills. The program is for businesses in Council District 1, which includes the neighborhoods of Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake, MacArthur Park and Highland Park. Individual brick-and-mortar businesses can qualify for grants ranging from $5,000 to $10,000, while street vendors can receive about $3,000, according to city officials. A total of $400,000 is available through the program, and applications are now open. Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez announced the program’s goal, describing it as a way to support locally owned businesses navigating rising operating costs, shifting customer patterns, and the impacts of recent wide-scale events, like the ongoing immigration raids, along with wildfires, and broader economic uncertainty.The program is open to independently owned businesses and street vendors located within District 1. To qualify, businesses must have a valid Los Angeles business license and have been operating in Council District 1 since December 2020, with some flexibility for street vendors. They also need to show they’ve been financially impacted by any largescale events, like the COVID pandemic, immigration enforcement, or the broader economy. Businesses that changed owners can also apply if they’re essentially running the same operation.Grants can be used for daily operational expenses, including rent, payroll, utilities, overhead and other business costs. Roochnik said the funding could also help businesses cover missed rent payments.in partnership with the PACE Business Development Center and New Economics for Women. The two organizations provide support to small and immigrant-owned businesses across Los Angeles.Funding will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, with applications remaining open until funds run out, Roochnik said. Hernandez said the program is meant to help stabilize neighborhoods that have been affected by immigration enforcement and economic hardships. “These small businesses are the backbone of our neighborhoods,” she said, adding the funding is meant to help them “stay open, keep workers employed, and continue serving our communities.” Naomi Villagomez Roochnik, CD1 communications director, said the announcement was made during a press conference at Delicias Bakery and Some, a longtime Latina-owned business in Highland Park. The neighborhood has experienced significant rising rents due to gentrification and the location was meant to highlight the kinds of businesses the program is meant to support.The grant is part of a pilot program, with the possibility of it expanding depending on demand and outcomes. The council office has launched similar aid efforts in the past, Roochnik said, such as food distribution and rental assistance. Businesses that may not qualify for this specific grant can be connected to other resources, according to Roochnik, including the city’s legacy business program, which is for businesses operating for at least 20 years. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled Tuesday that construction on President Trump's White House ballroom"must stop until Congress authorizes its completion."Using a notable number of exclamation points, Leon said the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, is likely to succeed in their lawsuit and therefore he is granting a preliminary injunction to halt construction."The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!" Leon wrote.A long-time dream project for President Trump, the ballroom is designed to seat 1,000 guests and will cost at least $300 million, according to estimates by the president. It has generated massive controversy and public pushback, but recently got approval from the Commission of Fine Arts, an architectural review panel now packed with Trump allies. The commission voted to give it a final signoff despite not seeing the final design. It had received more than 2,000 public comments, which according to staff were 99% negative.The National Capital Planning Commission is set to vote on the ballroom project during a meeting on Thursday. Leon said he will delay the enforcement of the injunction for 14 days because he expects the administration to appeal immediately. He also said he would allow construction to continue for"the safety and security of the White House" – a clear reference to the secure bunker being constructed under the building.Using a notable number of exclamation points, Leon said the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, is likely to succeed in their lawsuit and therefore he is granting a preliminary injunction to halt construction. "The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!" Leon wrote. Leon said however that he will delay the enforcement of the injunction for 14 days because he expects the administration to appeal immediately. He also said he would allow construction to continue for"the safety and security of the White House" – a clear reference to the secure bunker being constructed under the building. A long-time dream project for President Trump, the ballroom is designed to seat 1,000 guests and will cost at least $300 million, according to estimates by the president. It has generated massive controversy and public pushback, but recently got, an architectural review panel now packed with Trump allies. The commission voted to give it a final signoff despite not seeing the final design. It had received more than 2,000 public comments, which according to staff were 99% negative. The National Capital Planning Commission is set to vote on the ballroom project during a meeting on Thursday. President Trump responded to the ruling in a social media post complaining that the National Trust for Historic Preservation doesn't appreciate his efforts at"sprucing up" Washington's buildings from the White House to the Kennedy Center. "So, the White House Ballroom, and The Trump Kennedy Center, which are under budget, ahead of schedule, and will be among the most magnificent Buildings of their kind anywhere in the World, gets sued by a group that was cut off by Government years ago, but all of the many DISASTERS in our Country are left alone to die. Doesn't make much sense, does it?" he wrote. Leon had previously allowed the construction to continue in a February ruling. In that filing, the National Trust for Historic Preservation argued the president hadn't followed proper procedure in tearing down the East Wing of the White House and soliciting private donations to fund the $300-million ballroom. In that February opinion, Leon wrote that he wasn't making a determination on the merits because of the way the suit had been framed. He concluded, saying that if the group were to amend its complaint"the Court will expeditiously consider it and, if viable, address the merits of the novel and weighty issues presented."Fans of Big Bear’s famous bald eagles are watching for signs of new life in Jackie and Shadow’s nest as “Pip Watch” kicks off Tuesday for the feathered couple’s pair of eggs.A pip refers to the first signs of hatching, usually seen as a small hole or crack on the egg as the chick breaks through the shell and works its way out into the world., the nonprofit that runs a popular YouTube livestream focused on the eagles' nest, started this season’s “Pip Watch” around “That means … it's past the time of development and it could start hatching any day,” said Jenny Voisard, the organization’s media manager.are watching for signs of new life in Jackie and Shadow’s nest as “Pip Watch” kicks off Tuesday for the feathered couple’s pair of eggs. A pip refers to the first signs of hatching, usually seen as a small hole or crack on the egg as the chick breaks through the shell and works its way out into the world., the nonprofit that runs a popular YouTube livestream focused on the eagles' nest, started this season’s “Pip Watch” around “That means … it's past the time of development, and it could start hatching any day,” said Jenny Voisard, the organization’s media manager.“Nature is fascinating to watch, and as the story of each day unfolds, we must remember that foremost, we are fortunate observers into their nest world,” Friends of Big Bear Valley wrote onto more than a million followers. “They have something important to teach us as humans about the natural world every day.”According to the nonprofit, Jackie and Shadow are “incredibly attuned” to their eggs. In the past, they’ve appeared to be able to sense life inside before a crack appears. During “Pip Watch,” about a day or two before the first mark appears on the outside of the egg, the chick will make an internal pip by piercing the egg’s air cell with its egg tooth, a sharp point on the eaglet’s beak that helps it break through the shell. “So Jackie and Shadow could potentially feel or hear them,” Voisard said. “We'll look to see if they're kind of looking at the eggs or looking like they're listening as well.” For example, the eagles may stand up in the nest, cock their heads to the side or lean in toward the nest bowl to hear the faint peeps or scratches coming from inside the uncracked egg shell, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley. If they feel movement, Jackie and Shadow may stand up more frequently, circle the nest bowl and check the eggs intently for progress.Humans have been urged to avoid what the nonprofit calls “Pip Watch Itch” — the urgent need to study the eggs frame by frame and declare every speck of dirt or fluff a pip.“Everything looks like a pip to everybody because the eggs are sticky and they're pretty dirty at this point,” Voisard said. “People worried that it's cracking or it's started hatching because it has feathers stuck to it or dirt or fluff or what have you.”If you suspect a pip, keep watching that spot on the egg. Hatching is an arduous process for the chick that requires a lot of energy, so a real pip will grow and become more obvious over time, according to the nonprofit. As always, Friends of Big Bear Valley reminds fans that humans can’t predict or control the outcome of the nest. Nature, and the eagles, are in charge. “It could take a while, so just relax like you're observing every other day on the nest,” Voisard said. “But of course we're excited. I mean, you can still be excited. I think positive thinking is definitely in order.” Friends of Big Bear Valley will let fans know if a pip is confirmed in either of the eggs, including on the organization’sIf you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.A crane sits next to Drake Avenue Apartments at the site of the factory-built housing complex in Marin City on Feb. 7, 2026.In an effort to put a dent in the state’s housing shortage, California is considering something unprecedented: getting into the construction insurance business.Last week lawmakers raised the curtain on a long-awaited package of bills meant to push developers toward cost-cutting innovations in construction, with a particular focus on factory-based building. One bill, Assembly Bill 2166, aims to guarantee insurance payouts for developers and lenders who are interested in factory-based building, but still need a little extra assurance. Boosters of the industry point to regulatory and financial hurdles that stand in the way of cost-effective mass production.Building homes in factories and then trucking them to where they’re needed offers a wide array of potential benefits: Faster construction, safer working conditions and lower overall cost that ought to ultimately make housing more affordable. Taking on the role of re-insurer — committing to come to the financial rescue at a specific chokepoint in the residential construction process — is a departure from virtually anything the state has done before in its years-long effort to cut the cost of housing in California.In an effort to put a dent in the state’s housing shortage, California is considering something unprecedented: getting into the construction insurance business.Building homes in factories and then trucking them to where they’re needed offers a wide array of potential benefits: Faster construction, safer working conditions and lower overall cost that ought to ultimately make housing more affordable., that promise has never materialized at scale. Boosters of the industry point to regulatory and financial hurdles that stand in the way of cost-effective mass production. The half-dozen new bills are meant to help the nascent industry clear those hurdles. Most would do so by standardizing or trimming regulation. But one,, authored by Wicks and Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, a Democrat from Palmdale, is different. Though still light on detail, the bill aims to guarantee insurance payouts for developers and lenders who are interested in factory-based building, but still need a little extra assurance. Taking on the role of re-insurer — committing to come to the financial rescue at a specific chokepoint in the residential construction process — is a departure from virtually anything the state has done before in its“This is the first time I have seen something like this be suggested, drafted and potentially implemented by a state for housing,” said Tyler Pullen, a researcher at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, who has been providing technical assistance to Wicks and other legislators on the bill package. He added that though the bill is certainly the “most open-ended and technically complicated” in the legislative package, some version of the idea popped up in nearly every interview he and his colleagues conducted with industry stakeholders as part of a recentConstruction is a risky endeavor. Developers run out of cash. Costs overrun. Lawsuits abound. Projects fail. A complex array of financial levers exist to help everyone involved, from lenders and investors down to the lowliest subcontractor, to minimize their exposure should things fall apart. One of the most important of those levers is the surety bond, a financial arrangement in which an insurer, in exchange for an upfront fee, agrees to pay out if, say, an electrical subcontractor fails to deliver. A bonded project is one that “puts the developers and the lenders at ease,” said Michael Merle, business development director at Autovol, an Idaho-based housing factory. “If any portion of the project fails, they are not going to be holding the bag.” Depending on the nature of the project and the contract, a bond might cost a factory anywhere from three-quarters of a percentage point to 3% of a contract’s entire cost, he said. For a factory working a large apartment project, those fewer percentage points might add up to a quarter million dollars or more. But that’s if the factory can even get bonded. Often they cannot. Why not? The text of the bill refers to a “self-reinforcing cycle” that the industrialized construction industry appears to be stuck in.A developer or project lender is wary of starting a project with a housing factory, a new-ish player in a new-ish industry that has seen some, and so requires a factory to bond the project. The factory would be able to convince a surety company to provide that coverage if it had a track record of financial success. But it doesn’t, because developers and project lenders are wary. No bond for the factory means it can’t attract any business. No business means the factory eventually fails. Carrillo and Wicks’ bill would have the state insure the insurers. If a project fails and a bond is called upon, the state would cover a portion of the payout in certain extreme circumstances . The ultimate hope underlying the legislation is that by making insurance companies more comfortable offering insurance, developers will become more comfortable signing on with factories, factories will have more steady business and, ultimately, they’ll be able to ramp up production, push down costs and start delivering on the long-offered promise of mass-produced housing. Doom loop terminated. Though the state of California has never taken on a role quite like this before, the idea rhymes with other policies at both the state and federal level. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two federally-sponsored companies, guarantee privately-issued mortgages as a way to boost more plentiful and cheaper lending for American homebuyers. The Small Business Administration guarantees surety bonds for small businesses. The state of California operates one loan guarantee program forlast year that would have replicated the model for affordable housing projects died without a full vote in the Assembly. The housing factory surety guarantee idea is “super innovative,” said Jan Lindenthal-Cox, chief investment officer at the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund, a nonprofit that directs philanthropic money toward cost-cutting affordable housing projects. “This is what’s needed if you really want to scale the industry.”But even some off-site construction proponents are skeptical. The Carrillo-Wicks bill is meant to push developers who are interested in off-site construction but skittish about its financial viability. That does not describe Mutual Housing California, a Sacramento-based nonprofit affordable development that has committed to use factory-built housing for the bulk of its future projects. “Who are we incentivizing?” Ryan Cassidy, Mutual’s vice president of real estate, asked of the bill. “We’re incentivizing developers whose only go/no-go is whether the factory stays in business. To me, that’s a developer who is probably not very savvy.” Likewise, the approach will help new factories with limited experience garner more business, he said. Mutual Housing contracted with Guerdon Modular Buildings, another Idaho-based manufacturer with among the longest track-records in the industry. “I don't think the risk of factory-built housing is whether Guerdon is going to go out of business.” Cassidy said he would prefer a “more direct” approach of simply giving factory-built projects more money. Merle at Autovol agreed that the surety bond proposal would likely benefit newer manufacturers. Autovol, another industry heavyweight, rarely has trouble getting coverage when it needs it, he said. And because of its relative financial stability and its list of long-term clients, it can go without bonding more often than not. “If you’ve only got two or three projects and a couple years under your belt, those are the ones that are required to bond,” he said. But for the same reason, “those are the ones that very much struggle to bond.” It’s unclear whether other lawmakers will be willing to tie the full faith and credit of the state to an industry that’s still proving itself. The bill is scheduled for its first legislative committee hearing in late April. The total amount that the bill could put state taxpayers on the hook remains an unanswered question. But for lawmakers who are unconvinced, one possible selling point is that the need for this program may be temporary. The premise of the bill is that “the state can support the early adopters while the factory-built housing industry builds up its reputation,” said Pullen at Terner. “This is a problem that could eventually be solved in the private market.” If all goes well in the industry, private insurers might be happy to offer factories their coverage without a state backstop and developers and lenders may no longer insist upon that extra layer of protection. For now, that remains a big “if.”A federal judge has knocked down the core of President Donald Trump's executive order barring federal funding for NPR and PBS, saying it violated the broadcasters' First Amendment rights on its face.A District Court judge has found that a Trump White House executive order to defund NPR and PBS violated the First Amendment and is therefore"unlawful and unenforceable." In his ruling, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said"the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — 'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others." Moss said the president's executive order,"Ending Taxpayer Subsidies for Bias Media" issued in May of last year"crosses that line."Trump's executive order stated:"Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens." The president's order and materials that accompany it accuse the public broadcasters of ideological bias, in NPR's case due to its news coverage. The networks deny this. Trump's executive order set in motion a series of events that ultimately knocked the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — the congressionally chartered entity through which federal dollars flowed to public media outlets — out of business.It wasn't immediately clear what the decision, which could be appealed by the administration, would mean for the future of federal funding of public broadcasting. The ruling would enable a future Congress to resume funding public media if it chose to do so. It also establishes the right of local public media stations that take federal subsidies to make their own programming decisions without government pressure — including on whether to take NPR or PBS shows.A federal judge has knocked down the core of President Donald Trump's executive order barring federal funding for NPR and PBS, saying it violated the broadcasters' First Amendment rights on its face. A District Court judge has found that a Trump White House executive order to defund NPR and PBS violated the First Amendment and is therefore"unlawful and unenforceable." It wasn't immediately clear what the decision, which could be appealed by the administration, would mean for the future of federal funding of public broadcasting. In his ruling, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said"the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — 'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others." Trump's executive order stated:"Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens." The president's order and materials that accompany it accuse the public broadcasters of ideological bias, in NPR's case due to its news coverage. The networks deny this. Moss said the order"singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs. It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems, which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children's or other educational programming, or documentaries," Moss, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, wrote. "It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch," Moss said. Under the Constitution, the U.S. government cannot discriminate against people on the basis of the views they express; for news outlets, this extends to news coverage. Trump's executive order set in motion a series of events that ultimately knocked the Corporation for Public Broadcasting – the congressionally chartered entity through which federal dollars flowed to public media outlets – out of business. For more than a half-century, most federal money for public media has been funneled through the nonprofit Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The president insisted that all of the $1.1 billion that he and Congress had earlier agreed to set aside for public media outlets, including NPR and PBS member stations. The Republican-led Congress acquiesced. The ruling however would enable a future Congress to resume funding public media if it chose to do so. It also establishes the right of local public media stations that take federal subsidies to make their own programming decisions without government pressure – including on whether to take NPR or PBS shows. Last August, CPB said it would close its doors after serving as a conduit for federal funding to public broadcasting for decades. In a statement, NPR said the ruling"is a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press — and a win for NPR, our network of stations, and our tens of millions of listeners nationwide." "Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official. NPR and our Member Stations will continue delivering independent, fact-based, high-quality reporting to communities across the United States, regardless of the administration of the day." NPR's lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, added:"The Court's decision bars the government from enforcing its unconstitutional Executive Order targeting NPR and PBS because the President dislikes their news reporting and other programming," Boutrous said. In a statement, PBS, said it was"thrilled with today's decision," calling the president's order a"textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of longstanding First Amendment principles." Disclosure: This story was written and reported by NPR Correspondents David Folkenflik and Scott Neuman. It was edited by Managing Editors Gerry Holmes and Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Small Daily Habits Linked to Significantly Reduced Heart Disease RiskNew research shows that combining modest daily habit changes, like increasing sleep by just 11 minutes, engaging in moderate exercise, and eating more vegetables, can significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events. The study, following over 53,000 adults, found that an ideal routine, including 8-9 hours of sleep, 42+ minutes of exercise, and a healthy diet, could slash heart disease risk by 57%.
Read more »
Small Daily Habits, Not Major Overhauls, May Be Key to Heart HealthNew research suggests that small, sustainable daily habits, such as getting a few extra minutes of sleep, incorporating moderate exercise, and eating more vegetables, can significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events. The study, which followed over 53,000 adults, highlighted the importance of making consistent, modest changes to daily routines for improved heart health.
Read more »
Big change for California small businesses: No more SBA loans for non-citizensNon-U.S. citizens lose access to SBA funding for small businesses, which provide the bulk of new jobs in California.
Read more »
Small Daily Habits Linked to Big Heart Health BenefitsNew research suggests that incorporating small, sustainable daily habits can significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events. The study highlights the benefits of increased sleep, moderate physical activity, and dietary adjustments.
Read more »
Small But Mighty: Luxury Planners Outline The Secret To Making Your Micro-Wedding UnforgettableEmbrace the quiet luxury micro-wedding trend. Expert event designers detail how to swap a massive guest list for high-style decor, bespoke dining, and main character energy.
Read more »
CA small businessesThe most important stories for you to know today
Read more »