Connect with us

News

China property woes leave Los Angeles with a billion dollar tower of graffiti

Published

on

China property woes leave Los Angeles with a billion dollar tower of graffiti

When plans for the Oceanwide Plaza development were unveiled in 2015, it was billed as a gleaming symbol of downtown Los Angeles’ renaissance. 

The development’s Chinese backers laid out a $1bn vision of 500 luxury condos, a five-star Plaza Hotel and retail space — all sitting in a prime location just across from the arena where the LA Lakers play basketball. A 700-foot LED screen would wrap around the building, giving a pulse to the burgeoning entertainment destination.

Today, however, Oceanwide Plaza remains unfinished and its parent company is out of money. Instead of a prime downtown destination, Oceanwide has become another vexing problem for LA officials who are already grappling with a homelessness crisis and a serious lack of affordable housing.

Oceanwide’s three unfinished towers are covered with the work of seemingly gravity-defying graffiti writers, whose spray-painted tags gained worldwide attention in January when the Grammy Awards were held across the street at the Crypto.com Arena. The publicity attracted even more graffiti artists and other daredevils.

In the weeks since, paragliders have posted videos of themselves diving off the structure’s bare girders 20-plus storeys in the air. For LA mayor Karen Bass, that was the final straw. 

Advertisement

“I guarantee you tragedy will take place there if that place is not boarded up quickly,” Bass told a local television station this week. “The owner should reimburse the city for every dime.”

The city has given Oceanwide until this weekend to secure the area around the site. If the company fails to do so, then the job — and most likely the expense — will fall to the city of Los Angeles.

Kevin De León, a member of LA’s city council, issued a motion this week in which he called Oceanwide Plaza a “black eye on an otherwise vibrant part” of downtown LA. Besides the graffiti and parachuting, bandits had been stripping the building of copper wire, he said.  

His motion, backed by the rest of the council, calls for Oceanwide to build sturdy fences around the site, hire extra security, remove the graffiti and clear public space that has been obstructed by the project.

By the end of the week, few were holding out hope that Oceanwide would meet the deadline — or even respond at all. If that is the case, city officials say they would seek to reclaim the estimated $3.8mn needed to secure the site from the company. 

Advertisement

The development’s problems began as US-China tensions mounted during the Trump administration. China’s red-hot property sector began to cool off, and Oceanwide Holdings was removed from Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Midcap index in 2017. Two years later work stopped at Oceanwide Plaza as contractors complained of unpaid bills.

On January 3, its parent company filed papers with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange announcing that it was winding up the group and appointing a liquidator. Attempts to reach China Oceanwide Holdings representatives by telephone and email this week were unsuccessful. 

If LA has to assume responsibility for safeguarding the site, as many expect, the question becomes what happens next. City officials were unlikely to want to take over the site, said Donald Spivack, a former member of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency who now sits on the faculty at the University of Southern California. The city would become liable for accidents and other problems on the worksite.

“I doubt if the city will want to try to take over the property itself,” Spivack said. “That would be a big thing and it’s something that I would expect the city would not want to get themselves entangled in, effectively becoming the property owner.” 

The unfinished development is less than two miles from LA’s Skid Row district, where an estimated 6,000 homeless people live. Some Angelinos have said Oceanwide Plaza should be converted into housing for homeless and low-income people.

Advertisement

But the building had been sitting unfinished for nearly five years, and it could take up to a year of repairs just to get to the point where construction could resume, Spivack said. Completion could then take another year or two. 

“In terms of it being a near-term solution for the housing crisis that we have, I think it’s unrealistic,” he said. “It’s not something where you could go in there, do a little patchwork and open it up [as homeless residences] in six months. I don’t think that’s at all possible.” 

There were other obstacles to the idea of converting the building into housing for the homeless, said Richard Schave, an LA historian, preservationist and tour guide.

“No one wants to have the largest public housing project in the state of California next to” the Crypto.com Arena, where the Lakers, LA Clippers and Los Angeles Kings ice hockey club play, he said. 

If a buyer were not found for the building, another possibility was demolition, which would require a lengthy review process by the city, he said. “To demolish a building, the building safety commission has to go through an incredibly complicated legal process,” he said. “It would take a huge amount of space in a landfill and would create a huge amount of pollution. We’ve never done anything like this in the heart of the city.”

Advertisement

For city council member de León, the whole debate over Oceanwide was an unwanted distraction as the city faces larger problems. “It upsets me greatly that we’re dealing with the homelessness crisis in LA, we’re dealing with the housing affordability crisis in LA and we should be focusing . . . all of our resources there,” he said this week.

Additional reporting by William Sandlund in Hong Kong

News

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Published

on

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Advertisement

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending