San Diego, CA
Analysis: Will Grammy Awards strike right or wrong note in fire-wracked Los Angeles?
The show will go on for the 2025 Grammy Awards in fire-ravaged Los Angeles, where Beyoncé, Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are among the top nominees. But should it?
There are no easy answers to this question. The issues it brings up have been increasingly pondered since the Jan. 13 announcement that the 67th edition of the Grammys will take place as scheduled on Sunday, Feb. 2 — and that the telecast is being revamped to raise funds for wildfire relief efforts and pay tribute to first responders.
That is a noble goal for the Recording Academy — under whose auspices the music industry’s most diverse and prestigious annual awards fete is held — following the unimaginably horrific destruction its host city has suffered this month.
But how challenging will it be to celebrate what has long been billed as “music’s biggest night” and to honor musicians at a time when so many in Los Angeles now find themselves struggling, homeless, bereft, or some combination of all three?
And how open to celebrating will Beyoncé, Swift and the other presumed winners be, let alone the untold number of Los Angeles area music-industry professionals who suddenly find themselves unemployed because the recording studios, music venues and other places of work have been shuttered or destroyed?
The possible answers are difficult to quantify — and have stoked speculation and controversy — as multiple fires continue to burn in and near Los Angeles County, while much needed rainfall is possible this weekend.
In a Jan. 15 statement, Recording Academy CEO/President Harvey Mason Jr. acknowledged the gravity of the situation so many in and around Los Angeles are facing. The same statement announced that all but a handful of the academy’s annual Grammy week events are being canceled this year.
‘The power of music’
“We understand how devastating this past week has been on this city and its people,” said Mason, who has been a powerful agent of positive change at the academy.
“This is our home, it’s home to thousands of music professionals, and many of us have been negatively impacted. So, after thoughtful consideration and multiple assurances from state and local elected leaders, public safety agencies and with support from our incredible artist community, we have decided to go ahead with the Grammy telecast and some select events. Grammy Week 2025 will not just be about honoring music, it will be about using the power of music to help rebuild, uplift and support those in need.”
That is admirable, certainly. And the Recording Academy has — through its MusiCares charity organization — raised more than $100 million to provide assistance to musicians and other music-industry workers facing financial, medical and personal hardships, including addiction recovery and disaster relief.
This year’s all-star MusiCares fundraising concert on Friday, Jan. 31, at the Los Angeles Convention Center will salute the band the Grateful Dead. It, too, is being revamped with the goal of raising even more money for fire victims.
The Recording Academy and MusiCares have thus far raised and pledged more than $2 million in emergency aid to members of the music community affected by the wildfires, following the launch of the organizations’ Los Angeles Fire Relief Effort to Support Music Professionals.
But the academy appears to be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this year’s Grammy Awards. And the decision to adapt what it calls a “condensed” schedule of 2025 Grammy week events came a day after — not before — Spotify, Billboard magazine and such major record companies as Sony, Universal, BMG and Warner Music Group all announced they were canceling their annual Grammy week events out of deference for the victims of the wildfires.
One of the first companies to cancel its 2025 Grammy party was Milk & Honey Management, which has offices in Los Angeles, Nashville, New York, Dallas, London and Sydney.
“It would be tone deaf to celebrate and I hope all other companies will follow suit,” said Milk & Honey Founder/President Lucas Keller in an Instagram post.
It’s important to note that Keller was referring to Grammy parties being “tone deaf,” not the Grammy telecast itself. But the bigger issue comes down to a simple — and, apparently, complex — matter of timing.
This month has seen the announcement of the 2025 Oscars nominees pushed back several times until today, while the Oscars telecast is still set to take place as scheduled — more than a month from now — on March 2. Other annual Hollywood events celebrating the film industry have been postponed “until further notice,” or canceled altogether, along with some film and TV premieres. But the Grammy Awards are not being pushed back.
Beyoncé prays ‘for healing’
On Jan. 13, Beyoncé — who this year has a field-leading 11 Grammy nominations — announced her foundation’s donation of $2.5 million to the LA Fire Relief Fund. She also postponed a major announcement that had been scheduled for the same day (most likely regarding a new concert tour in support of her groundbreaking “Cowboy Carter” album).
In a statement on social media, Beyoncé attributed her postponement to the “devastation caused by the ongoing wildfires around areas of Los Angeles. I continue to pray for healing and rebuilding for the families suffering from trauma and loss. We are so blessed to have brave first responders who continue to work tirelessly to protect the Los Angeles community.”
In an Instagram post on Jan. 16, Swift announced she had made donations to 10 fire relief organizations, including MusiCares and Habitat for Humanity.
“The fires in California have devastated so many families, and it’s been heartbreaking to see these stories unfold. So much suffering, loss, and destruction,” Swift wrote in a post on Instagram. “These are the organizations I’ve donated to. If you feel compelled or able to donate, please do.”
Also on Jan. 16, Canadian pop star The Weeknd postponed the release of his new album and canceled his planned Jan. 25 concert at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. The stadium is now being used as a home base for temporarily housing and feeding more than 3,000 first responders that have been battling the nearby Eaton fire.
On Jan. 18, The Weeknd donated $1 million to fire relief charities. “My focus remains on supporting the recovery of these communities and aiding its incredible people as they rebuild,” he said in a statement on social media.
The Recording Academy’s focus is clearly much the same in its pivot to making next weekend’s Grammy events fundraising-driven, rather than just the usual festive celebration. But would it have been more prudent to postpone the telecast by at least a few weeks?
That is precisely what the academy has done twice before.
In 2021, the COVID pandemic led to the telecast being moved from January to March, when it was held without an audience. In 2022, a surge in COVID Omicron variant cases saw that year’s telecast postponed from Jan. 31 at Crypto.com Arena (formerly known as Staples Center) in Los Angeles to April 3 at MGM Garden Arena in Las Vegas. That was also where the 2022 edition of MusiCares, which feted Joni Mitchell, was held.
“We have a Plan (A) and a Plan B, for January,” Grammy honcho Mason said in a Union-Tribune interview in November 2021. Two months later, in January 2022, he announced that the telecast was being postponed until that April and moved to Las Vegas.
The ratings for the 2022 Grammys telecast were up 2.1 percent over the ratings for the 2021 telecast, which saw Beyoncé and Swift both make history with their respective wins.
The 2021 iteration was, as I noted in my review, “the first edition of the Grammys to take place without an audience, apart from the honorees who performed and applauded each other. It was also the first to be held in and around the 720,000-square-foot Los Angeles Convention Center — standing in for the adjacent Staples Center, the usual site for the 3-1/2-hour awards marathon — and the first where nearly all but a few awards were presented outdoors on one of the center’s balcony.”
Clearly, the academy knows how to pivot in trying circumstances. It did the same in 2020, when — only 10 days before the Grammys telecast — the academy weathered a firestorm of controversy over the sudden ouster of Mason’s predecessor, Deborah Dugan, amid charges of corruption, discrimination and sexual assault. Alicia Keys did a commendable job of deftly hosting the 2020 telecast, which took place the same day that Los Angeles basketball legend Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash.
Costly litigation ensued, although apart from receiving bad press, the fallout was felt largely within the academy, not as it is this year with the numbing loss of life, property and livelihoods across the greater Los Angeles area.
Of course, the Grammys telecast and livestream go out to a national and international viewing audience that numbers in the tens of millions, not just to Los Angeles residents. And the fact that so many Los Angelenos are in dire need, both in and outside of the music industry, bolsters the case for holding the Grammys and MusiCares to raise money to help those in need.
In any year, the telecast and MusiCares provide employment for hundreds of stagehands, audio and lighting technicians, TV production crews, managers, publicists, ushers, security guards, caterers and others who need a paycheck more than ever before. This also holds true for the employees at nearby hotels where out-of-town Grammy attendees will be staying, as well as for limo, taxi, Uber and Lyft drivers, restaurant workers, and others whose livelihoods stem in large part from tourism.
Hope and harmony
Music, at its best, can uplift and unify. It can lift spirits and provide hope and harmony in times of tragedy and need. It can simultaneously entertain, enlighten and bring attention to worthy causes. It can provide a few hours of escape, if not relief, when we are reeling from soul-sapping events.
But is it insensitive, if not tone-deaf, to hold the usually star-studded Grammy Awards so soon after the horrific fires that have displaced tens of thousands of people — fires that, as of this writing, 10 days before the Grammy telecast, are still burning?
What tone will returning host Trevor Noah, who was only announced Tuesday and is himself a Best Comedy Album nominee this year, strike?
How will the performers — none of whom were announced before the midday Thursday deadline for this article — strike a tone that is suitably sensitive and serious at an event that is typically upbeat and glitzy?
How many attendees from other cities and states will feel comfortable if claiming the hotel rooms they reserved means the ouster of displaced Los Angeles residents, who are unable to return to their homes, or have no homes to return to?
It is also unclear whether the delay in announcing any performers so close to the telecast suggests a reluctance to appear on the part of Swift and Beyoncé, this year’s two most prominent nominees, or any other top contenders. The absence of these two megastars — who for the first time since 2010 are vying against each other for the Album of the Year award — could impact viewership.
Nearly every question posed leads to more questions. None of them are easily answered.
The bottom line, then, may be whether the credibility of the Grammy Awards and its ability to raise money for fire victims is helped, or hindered, by going ahead as scheduled on Feb. 2. Here’s hoping it’s the former.
The 67th annual Grammy Awards
Hosted by: Trevor Noah
Featuring performances by: No performers were announced prior to the midday Thursday deadline for this article.
When: 5 p.m. next Sunday, Feb. 2, on KFMB Channel 8, Paramount+ and Showtime
2025 Grammy Awards Premiere Ceremony
Featuring: No performers or hosts were announced prior to the midday Thursday deadline for this article.
When: 12:30 p.m. next Sunday, Feb. 2. on grammy.com and the Grammy YouTube channel
Originally Published:
San Diego, CA
Adobe Falls: The elusive waterfall that briefly returns after San Diego rains
Blink, and you might miss it.
Adobe Falls isn’t Niagara Falls — or anything close — but after winter rains, a seasonal waterfall briefly appears in a narrow Del Cerro canyon, hidden beneath streets, homes, and San Diego State University property.
The waterfall forms along Alvarado Creek, which drains parts of eastern San Diego, including the SDSU area and surrounding neighborhoods. In wet months, runoff moves through a steep canyon and drops over a short rock ledge known locally as Adobe Falls. In dry periods, the flow often fades to a trickle or disappears entirely, leaving exposed sandstone and a shaded canyon bed.
What makes the site stand out is its setting. Above the canyon are Del Cerro residential streets and university property tied to San Diego State. Below it, Alvarado Creek continues west as part of the Mission Valley watershed, eventually feeding into the San Diego River system. Like many urban drainages in San Diego, its flow is shaped by stormwater runoff, paved surfaces, and altered drainage patterns tied to development.

Access is restricted. The canyon sits on a mix of SDSU and city-managed land and has long been closed to the public due to safety concerns, including steep terrain, erosion, and unstable footing after rain. Although widely referenced in maps and online posts, it is not an official trail or recreation site.
The canyon itself pre-dates modern development in Del Cerro. It is part of a broader network of inland waterways and canyon corridors used for thousands of years by the Kumeyaay, whose presence shaped movement and settlement patterns across the region.
In the mid-20th century, as Del Cerro developed, homes and roads were built along canyon rims rather than through them, leaving Alvarado Creek intact as a drainage system. Adobe Falls remained within that corridor even as surrounding hillsides filled with residential and institutional development.
Today, Adobe Falls remains a small but persistent reminder that San Diego’s natural drainage systems still function within a heavily built environment — appearing briefly after storms, then receding back into the canyon until the next rain.
Read more history stories here, and do you have a story to tell? Send an email to DebbieSklar@cox.net.
Sources:
City of San Diego – Stormwater & Watershed Division (Alvarado Creek / Mission Valley watershed)
San Diego State University – planning and environmental impact documentation for adjacent canyon areas
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – San Diego County watershed and hydrology mapping (Alvarado Creek / San Diego River system context)
San Diego History Center – Kumeyaay regional land use and inland canyon corridor history
City of San Diego Planning Department – land use records and access restrictions for Adobe Falls area
California State Historic Landmark files – Adobe Falls (Landmark No. 80)
San Diego, CA
Former City Manager, Jack McGrory: Straight Talk About San Diego, Part 2
Skip to content
San Diego, CA
Feds Will Finally Help Oceanside 73 Years After Admitting Fault for Its Disappearing Beaches
When the U.S. military built the Camp Pendleton Harbor complex just north of Oceanside in 1942, it didn’t set out to steal Oceanside’s beaches for decades to come.
But that’s exactly what’s been happening for the past 73 years.
In 1953, the federal government admitted that construction of harbor jetties at Camp Pendleton was directly contributing to the erosion of Oceanside’s beaches. The jetties block the ocean’s currents that carry sand along the coast, which causes Oceanside’s beaches south of the military base to lose out on sand that would have naturally flowed to them.
Rising sea levels caused by climate change also play a part, but in Oceanside, naturally occurring erosion has been exacerbated by the military base.
But the military is only just now stepping in to help. While the government’s admission of guilt seemed like a win, it somewhat backfired; because the federal government was on the hook for the entire cost, the project got swallowed by a bureaucratic black hole. Tired of waiting, Oceanside launched its own plan to save its beaches, one the military now refuses to help fund.
What Took so Long
In 2000, Congress passed a law mandating the Army Corps to study how it could restore Oceanside’s beaches to pre-harbor conditions.
The government was supposed to pay for the study and complete it in 44 months. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finally released the draft report of the study earlier this month – 26 years later.“Studies require both authorization and funding,” said Shawn Davis, public affairs specialist for the Army Corps, via email. “While the study was initially authorized in 2000, there have been gaps in funding that have impacted the timeline to complete the study.”
Those funding gaps happened until 2022 when Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, whose district includes much of North County’s coastal cities, helped secure $1.8 million in federal funding and another $2.27 million in 2025 to complete the study.
So, why did the funding dry up for so long at the federal level? According to Davis, “federal projects can only proceed and continue with appropriations from Congress.”
In other words, the project was stuck in bureaucratic limbo; it had the legal authorization to exist, but it couldn’t secure funds in a highly competitive budget that favored bigger projects.
Jayme Timberlake, Oceanside’s coastal zone administrator, told Voice of San Diego that the city and its representatives tried lobbying Congress for years, but there are often a lot of unknowns when it comes to Army Corps projects.
“It’s very political. It’s very much dependent on what the rest of the nation is going through and where the funds are going and how they’re getting allocated,” Timberlake said. “It’s very tough to navigate and there’s a lot of risk associated with it, meaning we can’t really rely on it.”
Other coastal cities received a plan before Oceanside did: The Corps completed similar studies for two sand replenishment efforts. One is a joint effort in Encinitas and Solana Beach, the other in San Clemente. Congress has already approved both of these projects for sand deliveries every seven to 10 years for the next 50 years.
“The difference is that the … projects that are happening in Encinitas, Solana Beach and San Clemente were initiated by a request to the Army Corps from these cites, and they were cost shared,” Timberlake said.
That means these cities are paying 35 percent of the costs, and the federal government is paying 65 percent. That also applies to sand deliveries every seven to 10 years. These types of projects can cost upwards of $100 million.
“In Oceanside, our mitigation project, at least the study was not cost shared. It was the full responsibility of the federal government because they admitted fault,” Timberlake said. “So, it’s really unfortunate that the mitigation for Oceanside beaches didn’t happen before those requested projects.”
Meanwhile, Oceanside’s Sand Was Disappearing

While Oceanside officials and residents waited for the government’s help, the city’s beaches were rapidly disappearing before their eyes.
Previous Army Corps studies estimate the Harbor has caused a loss of 1.4 to 1.6 million cubic yards of sand volume from Oceanside’s beaches since 1942, with some areas retreating at a rate of 6.6 feet per year. That’s 84 years of consistent and severe sand loss.
El Niño conditions over the years have also exacerbated the problem.
“There was such a dramatic loss of sand that the community really started asking for solutions,” Timberlake said. “There’s a whole generation that has been able to use the beach and then have it be gone, so it has triggered a lot of community interest.”
After 20 years of waiting, Oceanside decided to take matters into its own hands.
“Once there was momentum to fix the problem itself and not rely on the Army Corps any further, the city did a feasibility study in 2020, and that study really unearthed all the possible things that Oceanside could do in the short and long term to fix its beaches,” Timberlake said.
A few years later, city officials held a competition that brought together three design teams from around the world to develop sand retention pilot projects. They chose a concept that includes the construction of two headlands that will aim to stabilize sand on the back beach, with an offshore artificial reef aimed at slowing down nearshore erosive forces.
The project is called RE:Beach and it’s already funded up to the construction phase, Timberlake said. The city has applied for a few different grants to cover construction, which will cost upwards of $60 million.
Timberlake said the city asked the Army Corps to help fund the rest of the RE:Beach project, and the Army Corps denied the request.
The Government’s Plan

Oceanside’s RE:Beach project and the federal government’s recent recommendations won’t conflict with each other, Timberlake said. In fact, the two projects will complement one another.
The Army Corps’ draft feasibility report identified beach nourishment (a lot of sand) as the tentatively selected plan to restore Oceanside’s beaches.
It calls for dredging 4 million cubic yards of sand from an offshore borrow site and then placing it along Oceanside’s beaches, with the goal of sustaining a minimum 85-foot wide beach from Oceanside Harbor south to Buena Vista Lagoon. Sand replenishment would be 1 million cubic yards the first cycle, then repeated every 10 years.
Realistically, though, it could be another couple decades before Oceanside’s beaches start receiving sand, Timberlake said.
That’s because there are other competing projects the Army Corps is working on. Plus,, Congress still has to appropriate funding for the rest of the project to move forward once the feasibility study is completed. Initial costs of construction are currently estimated to be $243,540,000, Davis, spokesperson for the Army Corps, said via email.
It’s still unclear if the government will cover the full costs of construction and the subsequent sand renourishments for Oceanside, but Levin told Voice he thinks it’s unlikely.
“I will advocate for every penny to come from the federal government, given that the government did acknowledge responsibility,” Levin said. “But I do also know how the Army Corps works, and it’s very likely they’ll want some sort of cost share.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing major funding cuts to the Army Corps’ budget for fiscal year 2027. If those cuts are approved by Congress, it could have an impact on projects like this one.
Related Posts
-
Los Angeles, Ca16 minutes agoLeBron James informs Lakers he will play elsewhere next year
-
Detroit, MI31 minutes ago5 realistic cornerback trade targets for the Detroit Lions after Terrion Arnold’s release
-
San Francisco, CA43 minutes agoHeadlines, June 30 – Streetsblog San Francisco
-
Dallas, TX46 minutes agoLIVE | Ivory Coast, Norway meet for World Cup knockout match at Dallas Stadium
-
Miami, FL51 minutes agoEvery Dolphins head coach’s start in Miami from worst to best
-
Boston, MA58 minutes agoHistorian clears up one of the biggest myths about the Boston Tea Party
-
Denver, CO1 hour ago
Nemanja Jokic, the older brother of\u00a0Denver …
-
Seattle, WA1 hour ago3 Seahawks Rookies Who Must Step Up Right Away

