Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

LA skyscrapers for homeless could cost federal taxpayers over $1 billion

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

A 104-unit tower is being pursued at a cost of $90 million. State staff noted would it cost $865,656 per apartment — more than California’s median sale price for an entire house.

Federal taxpayers might be on the hook for more than $1 billion over the lifetime of three downtown Los Angeles skyscrapers designed to house the homeless, state records show.

State and city programs provide the funding and financial tools to construct the three towers. But federal Section 8 Housing vouchers will be used to repay the state and city and fund private developer fees and investor returns over the 55-year life of the buildings.

“Taxpayers are being forced to foot the bill for over $800,000 per unit for homeless housing,” said Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Vice President of Communications Susan Shelley in an interview with The Center Square. “There should be an audit to determine if this is genuinely the best option to provide housing or if this is just making a lot of people rich off the taxpayers’ dime.”

These towers are projects of the Weingart Center Association, a homeless services nonprofit and major recipient of taxpayer funding, which was created by the Weingart Foundation. The Weingart Foundation describes itself as a “private grantmaking foundation advancing racial, social and economic justice in Southern California.”

Last year, Weingart’s 19-story, 278-apartment, $167.7 million tower was completed in Los Angeles’s Skid Row, which hosts the nation’s highest concentration of homeless people.

Constructed at cost of over $600,000 per unit, the tower was funded with $32 million of the city’s homeless housing bond, a $1.8 million land loan from the city, $48.7 million in deferrable loans from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, $56.9 million in tax credit equity and $85.3 million in tax-exempt bonds. The state treasurer’s report noted the project would “have positive cash flow from year one” and would be occupied entirely (except for the managers’ units) with people using federal Section 8 project-based vouchers.

The developer, Chelsea Investment Corporation, earned $18.3 million in development fees for the project, according to the project’s tax credit application.

While voucher details for new tower was not available, another nearby $171 million Weingart tower for the homeless that opened in June 2025, featuring 298 resident units and four manager units. It received federally-funded, city-administered housing vouchers worth $194 million over 20 years, as reported by the Los Angeles Business Journal.

Over the lifetime of the second tower, these vouchers, if renewed, would be worth $534 million.

Assuming proportional voucher revenue for the first tower, the two completed towers’ 55-year, federally-funded voucher revenue would be worth $1 billion.

Weingart is now pursuing a third, 104-unit tower at a cost of $90 million. State staff noted would it cost $865,656 per apartment — which is more than California’s median sale price for an entire house.

This tower — to be constructed at $1,048 per square foot, or as much as high-end luxury homes in the Los Angeles area — would also rely on Section 8 vouchers to fund occupancy, which, over the lifetime of the building, could provide nearly $200 million in revenue for developers. The Related Companies, the developer of the second and third project, will reportedly earn $10.4 million from developing the third tower.

Its development fee for the second project could not be established by the time of publication.

The investors who purchase the tax credits and invest in the building also receive distributions on the building’s profits, offering lower but much safer returns than the private market because the Section 8 vouchers nearly guarantee revenue and occupancy.

Market-rate, private-sector housing construction has collapsed in Los Angeles in recent years, with permitting approvals for government-regulated, income-restricted “affordable” housing rising from 24% in the prior four years to 60% in fiscal year 2023-2024. Real estate experts blame Measure ULA, the voter-approved “Mansion Tax.”

A UCLA recent report ties the transfer taxes to significant declines in housing production and property tax revenue growth.

“[ULA] has damaged the real estate market in the City of Los Angeles by adding a 4 to 5 and a half percent tax not just on mansions, as it was advertised, but also on apartment developments, commercial real estate —all properties in the City of Los Angeles above $5.3 million in value,” said Shelley. “HJTA is the proponent for a new initiative called the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 that would repeal measure ULA because real estate transfer taxes were prohibited by Proposition 13 and the courts have improperly allowed them.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature successfully sued to block a similar measure from appearing on the state ballot in the November 2024 general election. HJTA’s new initiative, collecting signatures until February 2026, would repeal ULA and similar transfer taxes, and restore the prior maximum transfer tax of 0.11%.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, Weingart Center Association, Chelsea Investment Corporation, and The Related Companies did not respond to requests for comment from The Center Square by the time of publication.

Automotive

Canada’s EV subsidies are wracking up billions in losses for taxpayers, and not just in the auto industry

Published on

CAE Logo

By Dan McTeague

To anyone who thought that the Liberals’ decision to postpone enforcement of their Electric Vehicle (EV) mandate by one year was part of a well-thought-out plan to get that disastrous program back on track, well, every day brings with it news that you were wrong. In fact, the whole project seems to be coming apart at the seams.

Here’s the latest crisis Mark Carney and his carnival of ideologues are having to deal with. Late last year, the Liberal party instituted a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs. The idea was to protect the Canadian EV industry from China dumping their vehicles into our country, at prices far lower than Canadian companies can afford due to their massive state subsidies. This has been a major problem in the EU, which is also attempting to force a transition to EVs.

But Beijing wasn’t going to take that lying down. Taking advantage of Western environmentalist sentiment is an important part of their economic plans — see, for instance, how they’ve cornered the global solar panel market, though the factories making them are powered by massive amounts of coal. So they retaliated with a 75% duty on Canadian canola seed and a 100% tariff on canola oil and canola meal.

This was big enough to really hurt Canadian farmers, and Ottawa was forced to respond with more than $300 million in new relief programs for canola producers. Even so, our farmers have warned that short-term relief from the government will do little if the tariffs are here for the long-term.

With pressure on Carney mounting, his Industry Minister Melanie Joly announced that the government was “looking at” dropping tariffs on Chinese EVs in the hope that China would ease off on their canola tariffs.

That may be good news for canola producers, but how about the automotive companies? They’ve grown increasingly unhappy with the EV mandate, as Canadian consumers have been slow to embrace them, and they’ve been confronted with the prospect of paying significant fines unless they raise prices on the gas-and-diesel driven vehicles which consumers actually want to make the EVs that they don’t really want more attractive.

That’s the context for Brian Kingston, CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, saying that dropping these tariffs “would be a disaster.”

“China has engaged in state-supported industrial policy to create massive overcapacity in EV production, and that plan is coming to fruition now,” Kingston said. “When you combine that with weak labour and environmental standards, Chinese manufacturers are not competing with Canadian, American, or Mexican manufacturers on a level playing field. We simply cannot allow those vehicles to be dumped into the Canadian market.”

The auto manufacturers Kingston represents are understandably upset about suddenly having to compete with underpriced Chinese EVs. After all, with the government forcing everyone to buy a product they really don’t want, are most people going to patriotically pay more for that product, or will they just grab whichever one is cheaper? I know which one I think is more likely.

And then there’s a related problem — the federal and provincial governments have “invested” somewhere in the neighborhood of $52.5 billion to make Canada a cog in the global EV supply chain. In response to Joly’s announcement, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who has gone “all in” on EVs, wrote an open letter to the prime minister saying that canceling the tariffs would mean losing out on that “investment,” and put 157,000 Canadian automotive jobs at risk.

Now, it’s worth noting that automakers all over Ontario have already been cutting jobs while scaling back their EV pledges. So even with the tariffs, this “investment” hasn’t been paying out particularly well. Keeping them in place just to save Doug Ford’s bacon seems like the worst of all options.

But it seems to me that the key to untangling this whole mess has been the option I’ve been advocating from the beginning: repeal the EV mandate. That makes Canada less of a mark for China. It benefits the taxpayers by not incentivizing our provincial and federal governments to throw good money after bad, attempting to subsidize companies to protect a shrinking number of EV manufacturing jobs.

The heart of this trade war is an entirely artificial demand for EVs. Removing the mandate from the equation would lower the stakes.

In the end, the best policy is to trust Canadians to make their own decisions. Let the market decide.

Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!

Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.

Donate Now

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

AI chatbots a child safety risk, parental groups report

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

ParentsTogether Action and Heat Initiative, following a joint investigation, report that Character AI chatbots display inappropriate behavior, including allegations of grooming and sexual exploitation.

This was seen over 50 hours of conversation with different Character AI chatbots using accounts registered to children ages 13-17, according to the investigation. These conversations identified 669 sexual, manipulative, violent and racist interactions between the child accounts and AI chatbots.

“Parents need to understand that when their kids use Character.ai chatbots, they are in extreme danger of being exposed to sexual grooming, exploitation, emotional manipulation, and other acute harm,” said Shelby Knox, director of Online Safety Campaigns at ParentsTogether Action. “When Character.ai claims they’ve worked hard to keep kids safe on their platform, they are lying or they have failed.”

These bots also manipulate users, with 173 instances of bots claiming to be real humans.

A Character AI bot mimicking Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes engaged in inappropriate behavior with a 15-year-old user. When the teen mentioned that his mother insisted the bot wasn’t the real Mahomes, the bot replied, “LOL, tell her to stop watching so much CNN. She must be losing it if she thinks I could be turned into an ‘AI’ haha.”

The investigation categorized harmful Character AI interactions into five major categories: Grooming and Sexual Exploitation; Emotional Manipulation and Addiction; Violence, Harm to Self and Harm to Others; Mental Health Risks; and Racism and Hate Speech.

Other problematic AI chatbots included Disney characters, such as an Eeyore bot that told a 13-year-old autistic girl that people only attended her birthday party to mock her, and a Maui bot that accused a 12-year-old of sexually harassing the character Moana.

Based on the findings, Disney, which is headquartered in Burbank, Calif., issued a cease-and-desist letter to Character AI, demanding that the platform stop due to copyright violations.

ParentsTogether Action and Heat Initiative want to ensure technology companies are held accountable for endangering children’s safety.

“We have seen tech companies like Character.ai, Apple, Snap, and Meta reassure parents over and over that their products are safe for children, only to have more children preyed upon, exploited, and sometimes driven to take their own lives,” said Sarah Gardner, CEO of Heat Initiative. “One child harmed is too many, but as long as executives like Karandeep Anand, Tim Cook, Evan Spiegel and Mark Zuckerberg are making money, they don’t seem to care.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X