Business
In 'generational moment,' Port of L.A. faces shifting winds in business and politics
The Port of Los Angeles has long been the single busiest seaport in the Western Hemisphere, employing thousands of Southern Californians and playing a critical role in the vast supply chain that underpins both the California economy and that of the United States as a whole.
Together with neighboring Port of Long Beach in the San Pedro Bay, it handles a whopping 40% of all the container traffic from continental Asia.
But today, as Port of Los Angeles director Gene Seroka puts it, this important but largely anonymous institution faces a “generational moment,” a set of challenges crucial for the regional economy and the well-being of many Americans.
Seroka has been leading the seaport since 2014. He recently sat down with the L.A. Times to discuss key issues involving the port.
We’ve been getting signs of slowing consumer spending. How busy have you been so far this year, and what do you see ahead?
It’s been an extraordinary year. For the first six months of the year, our business is up more than 14%, driven mainly by the strength of the U.S. We also have a dock workers’ negotiation on the East Coast, a drought in the Panama Canal and security issues in the Red Sea leading up to the Suez Canal. Many importers and exporters have told me that fractionally, they’ve shifted some of their allocation our way to hedge against any worsening in those three areas.
You’ve made many trips to Washington, including for three meetings with President Biden. What might changes in the White House and Congress mean for future funding and support?
Well, that remains to be a pretty big question mark. We’ve had unprecedented progress in the area of focus on ports, and a lot of it was brought to light because of the supply chain crunch that we saw during COVID. We saw the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was passed, the Inflation Reduction Act, and now the Environmental Protection Agency call for applications on the Clean Ports Program, which should be announced sometime in the fourth quarter of this year.
What I’ve seen so far is that in the last three years, we’ve submitted applications for more than $1 billion in [federal and state] grant money, and we’ve earned over $380 million. That’s probably our best three-year period that I can recall.
Depending on what happens in November, can things shift?
The infrastructure law runs through ’26, but based on my own experience, yes. I think we could see more of the same type and better support, or we could see a complete reverse.
What would create that?
Changing policy, changing focus away from the state of California. I don’t want to speculate, but I have seen what it looked like — the lack of access, the lack of any meaningful legislation like the infrastructure act. So, again, I don’t want to speculate, but we’ve had a pretty good run here. This industry, still to this day, even with all the technology and the global trade, it’s still a relationship-based business. And it still is relationships that carry us in Washington and Sacramento today.
And how was your access to and relationship with the Trump administration?
It was very limited, if nonexistent.
What about tariffs? Biden recently increased tariffs on a wider array of Chinese goods — steel, EV cars, solar cells. And there’s potential for even higher, broader tariffs to come, especially if Trump wins.
Dating back to 2018, the previous administration implemented tariffs on a variety of goods originating from China. Those tariffs were met with retaliatory tariffs that really were very impactful on a negative side for a number of American companies, including the agricultural sector. Flash forward, the most recent tariffs that the Biden administration put in were on $18 billion worth of goods. It’s a very narrow, targeted approach to tariffs. So I don’t see that impacting the Port of Los Angeles. What we’ve seen with tariffs policy, and in some cases rhetoric, is that here at the Port of Los Angeles, the portfolio with China is now down to about 45% [from 57% three years ago].
How much potential do other countries around the Pacific Rim have for becoming alternatives to China in terms of manufacturing?
No one can replace China as a manufacturing hub. But we’ve made up that difference by capturing cargo from other markets, and specifically Southeast Asia – Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, to name three. We’ve also seen growth in manufacturing in Mexico. And while some folks would say, OK, you’re building up more products in Mexico to come across the border by truck or rail, but we’re also feeding components into the maquiladora areas like Mexicali here in Baja, California. So there’s still a market for us to be a strong player, especially as Mexico continues to shine in the manufacturing community.
What about India, which seems to be rising in terms of manufacturing in the global economy?
It is. And I was just in India back in January. I had an opportunity to visit with Ambassador Eric Garcetti. What I can tell you is in the most recent full calendar year, China exported some 260 million 20-foot equivalent units of cargo. India exported 17 million. So while what we see there is opportunity and there is great talent, manufacturing in the same vein that we see in Asia may not happen overnight.
In the early months of the pandemic there were, at one time, more than a hundred cargo ships stuck at sea waiting to berth. What’s to prevent something like that happening again in San Pedro Bay?
Well, that’s job No. 1, in my view. What we did learn with the benefit of history is that this port must remain as a transit facility and not as a warehouse. Unfortunately, back in 2021 and 2022, a number of large importers used this port to store containers. Unbeknownst to us, they had deals with shipping lines to make sure that they could hold their containers here at the port for little to no charge. Once we diagnosed that by doing some data mining through our own system, the Port Optimizer, we were able to start moving cargo again.
No one was trying to hurt us, nothing sinister was taking place. The American consumer was simply buying at a pace that we’ve never witnessed. And importers had to get as much cargo here as quickly as possible, and it was just clogging up the works.
So now the next thing is going to be, how do we make sure that we can anticipate what’s going to take place next in the supply chain? A lot of that comes with data. I’ve been to Asia five times this year so far, and I’ve been to Europe once. I’m spending a lot of my energy talking to importers and exporters, service providers, leadership at the C-suite level to try to make sure I anticipate as much as possible, what’s happening now and what we can expect in the future.
More recently, we all read about the accident in Baltimore last March when a large container ship crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge. What’s the potential for such a mishap here, and what have you done to reduce the risk?
Well, we work hard every day at this, led by our head of public safety, Port Police Chief Tom Gazsi. And while vessel engine failures happen, it’s about how we create protocol to prevent that from going any further. We put a minimum of two tugboats on every ship that comes into this port. And for the larger ones, those workhorse vessels, you’ll likely see four tugs tied to a ship in the event of a power failure or engine failure. Those tugs go into action, put the rear thrusters on, slow down and stop that ship as it’s moving.
Also, our bridge has its legs on land. We’ve got rock formation under the channel near the stanchions to prevent a ship from getting anywhere close to it.
What is the longer-term impact of automation and AI at the port? Do you see that as threatening jobs?
Here in Southern California, out of our 13 marine terminals right now, we have three that are automated, and there may be more in the future. The automation or robotics that we see on our marine terminals today really is comprised of the land-side equipment, whether it’s to move containers onto truck chassis or onto rail cars, or for retrieval when the truckers come into the terminals to pick up their imports or drop off their exports.
But it’s our belief that while technology is moving faster than ever, we cannot leave the workforce behind. And that’s part of the motivation of why we just cut the ribbon on a new mechanics training facility on Terminal Island. That’s going to up-skill and re-skill longshoremen members so they can work on newer and greener equipment, and in some cases, automated machines.
Secondly, we have designated 20 acres of property here for the nation’s first workforce training campus dealing with goods movement — to bring people in who need training on trucking, warehousing, even coding [and] technology such as artificial intelligence that will be important to this port in the future.
What are the biggest environmental challenges at the Port of L.A.?
There’s nothing more that we want to see than for ourselves, the Port of Long Beach and others to reach this aspiration of a zero-emission port operation. But there are a lot of things that have to take place. We’ve got to be able to accelerate the technology, make it affordable for small businesses to be able to join.
Please know that of the 20,000 trucks that are registered to do business at the port, more than half are small businesses. We’ve got to make the barriers to entry as plausible as possible. We also have to support them by creating the infrastructure necessary to run these new and cleanest trucks that are possible.
For example, there are 7,500 gasoline stations in the state of California. There are only 46 hydrogen fueling stations. And according to their oversight board, they only work about half the time. There are only 92 high-speed heavy duty truck chargers in the country, less than two per state.
Now, we’ve also been working closely with the shipping industry for the past several years on cleaner and renewable fuels. We call this our green shipping corridor strategy. If we could reduce the emissions from ships moving from our largest trading partner in China, from Shanghai to the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, if we can reduce that emissions by 10%, that would be the equivalent of all the emissions in the Port of Los Angeles for an entire year.
Finally, let me ask you about jobs at the port. What kinds of skills do you look for now and will be looking for in the future?
The interesting thing about this port complex is there are a variety of jobs and skill sets that are always in demand. For example, we talk a lot about the people that actually move the cargo — the longshoremen, the marine clerks, the truck drivers and warehouse folks, the mechanics are all vital to this port. And that’s part of the motivation for us setting up that mechanic center as well as the broader goods movement training campus that I spoke of on the 20 acres of property at the Port of Los Angeles.
The other piece is that you’ve got a growing community here in this harbor enclave. There are 260,000 residents, a lot of young kids going through school that see this port every day and want to be a part of it. We need engineers, naval architects and others that have expertise [who can] design, build and create for our industrial sector of marine terminals and other cargo moving interests.
And the next big thing obviously will be to put an even deeper emphasis on folks with information technology capabilities, whether it’s a young kid who knows technology because they play video games or those who have taken interest in coding, all the way to folks who are going now to college and grad school studying the sciences to be more involved in technology.
Residents of Monterey Park voted overwhelmingly to ban data centers on election day, making the San Gabriel Valley city the first in the nation to do so by public vote.
As of Wednesday, 86% of votes were in favor of Measure NDC, the city ban, according to the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk.
Other cities and towns have passed moratoriums on data centers, as a wave of opposition sweeps the country. But the Monterey Park vote can only be overturned by another ballot measure, making it the most permanent data center ban in a jurisdiction.
Monterey Park’s City Council had already banned data centers by ordinance, after a proposed 247,000-square-foot data center met an outpouring of public anger and concern. The developer withdrew that plan.
That facility would have been less than 500 feet away from the nearest home, and would have used three times the electricity of the entire 60,000-person city. Residents said it would have caused noise and air pollution and driven up electricity rates.
“This ensures long-lasting protections for current and future generations,” Amy Wong, co-founder of the group San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action, said of the vote. “It means that future city councils cannot overturn a data center ban, even if data center developers wanted to spend money to fund pro-data center candidates.”
The measure had no formal opposition. The developer of the proposed facility, investment firm HMC StratCap, said it wouldn’t engage in the ballot fight when it withdrew in March.
The Data Center Coalition, an industry trade group, expressed disappointment in the vote.
“It sends a signal that the area is closed for business, both for data centers and for other significant economic development projects,” state policy director Khara Boender said.
“It deprives local residents of the opportunity to compete for jobs and investment, while also causing the area to relinquish substantial long-term economic investment, high-wage jobs, and critical tax revenue to neighboring areas or other states.”
SGV Progressive Action worked with hyperlocal groups including No Data Center Monterey Park to rally support for the measure.
The group is now focused on stopping data center proposals in the City of Industry and fighting a move by City of Industry, Santa Fe Springs, Vernon and City of Commerce to welcome data centers and other industry with fast-tracked permitting and tax incentives.
City of Industry, in the San Gabriel Valley, and Vernon, south of downtown L.A., are primarily industrial areas, each with around 300 permanent residents. They are employment centers, and tens of thousands of workers commute in daily.
There has been little vocal opposition to data centers among the few residents of these cities. Wong said the protest is primarily coming from the surrounding neighborhoods.
“If a data center gets built in City of Industry, residents across the region would bear the brunt of pollution and increased utility costs,” Wong said, noting that it is surrounded by 16 other cities and unincorporated communities.
Data center proposals have been limited in California compared to Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois and Arizona, which sit at the center of a recent boom in hyperscaler facilities to power artificial intelligence.
California has the third-most data centers in the country, with 300, but high electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in other hotspots.
That doesn’t mean opposition hasn’t been fierce. In Coachella and Imperial County, residents are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
In the San Gabriel Valley, Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoriums, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update.
Wong said she hoped the ballot measure vote would galvanize the opposition. “The vote is a testament to the people power of our region,” she said. “Our region is worth protecting, and we won’t let data centers determine our future.”
A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.
The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.
The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.
“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”
Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.
It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.
Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.
“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.
Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.
“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”
Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.
In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.
In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.
A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”
“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.
Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.
L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.
Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.
Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.
“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”
The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.
“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.
Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.
Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.
The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
-
South Dakota2 minutes agoTornado watch in effect as severe storms target South Dakota
-
Tennessee5 minutes agoTennessee Baseball Breakout Star Announces He Won’t Enter the Transfer Portal
-
Texas10 minutes agoCentral Texas soldier dies in Iraq during training incident, Department of Defense says
-
Utah17 minutes agoNew program at University of Utah aims to keep up with growing Utah industry
-
Vermont20 minutes agoVermont seeks dynamic pricing for state park access
-
Virginia25 minutes agoWest Virginia commit announces decision by blasting ‘Country Roads,’ lighting a couch on fire
-
Washington32 minutes agoSteelers Sign TE Darnell Washington to Four-Year Extension
-
Wisconsin35 minutes agoWisconsin DNR reminding ATV and UTV drivers that more wardens will be out this weekend
