fix

The office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Imelda Padilla has begun working with agencies to find a solution to repair infrastructure damage caused by a fire last month that went through a tunnel at Encino Franklin Fields and has limited access to three softball fields used by youth organizations and the high school teams at Harvard-Westlake, Louisville and Sherman Oaks Notre Dame.

The fire on Jan. 22, believed to have been set by a homeless person, took out wooden framing below an asphalt bridge connecting access to a parking lot, making it unusable for safety reasons. Parents have since paid for a temporary scaffold bridge that allows people to traverse the condemned bridge. The parking lot remains out of commission along with handicap access. Notre Dame has not practiced or played games there since, moving to Valley College. Harvard-Westlake and Louisville have resumed practices and games.

The land is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. The bridge spans a culvert, maintained by the city. The fields are leased.

A spokeswoman for Padilla said in a statement: “Our team has taken the lead in convening City departments and have engaged the Mayor’s Office to help accelerate coordination and solutions. While agencies work through jurisdictional and cost responsibilities, our priority is preventing unnecessary delays and advancing immediate solutions. As damage and improvement needs are evaluated, we are focused on restoring safe access, including exploring a secondary access point to improve parking safety and ADA accessibility for families and field users. Student athletes and families should not bear the burden of administrative complexity, and we are pushing for a coordinated path forward that prioritizes timely repairs and safe access.”

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Artificial intelligence could deliver the productivity surge policymakers have been hoping for since the global financial crisis. But even if it does, economists caution that faster growth will not be enough to solve the mounting debt burdens weighing on advanced economies.

Public debt already exceeds 100% of GDP across most rich nations and is projected to rise further as ageing populations strain pension and healthcare systems, interest bills climb and governments ramp up defence and climate spending. Against that backdrop, AI is increasingly being framed as a potential fiscal lifeline.

The reality is more complicated.

Productivity: The “Magic” Ingredient-With Limits

Economists broadly agree that sustained productivity growth can dramatically improve fiscal dynamics. Higher output boosts tax revenues without raising tax rates, makes existing debt easier to service and reassures bond investors worried about long-term solvency.

At the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), modelling suggests that if AI meaningfully raises labour productivity and if employment also expands public debt across member countries could be about 10 percentage points lower by the mid-2030s than otherwise projected. Even then, debt would still climb to roughly 150% of GDP on current trajectories, up from around 110% today.

In the United States, best-case projections from several economists suggest debt could rise more gradually, to roughly 120% of GDP over the next decade rather than accelerating more sharply. But that still represents historically elevated levels.

As one economist put it, productivity is “like magic” for fiscal sustainability yet today’s debt challenges are too large for productivity gains alone to offset.

Demographics: The Structural Headwind

The fundamental constraint is demographic.

Ageing populations mean fewer workers supporting more retirees, pushing up pension and healthcare costs. In the United States, Social Security alone accounts for roughly one-fifth of federal spending, and benefits are indexed to wages. If AI lifts wages, it may simultaneously increase future benefit obligations.

Slowing immigration in some countries, particularly the U.S., compounds the issue by limiting labour force growth. If AI boosts output per worker but the total number of workers stagnates or declines, overall fiscal relief may be limited.

In short, AI may buy time but it does not reverse the demographic arithmetic driving long-term deficits.

Growth vs. Interest Rates: A Delicate Balance

For debt sustainability, what matters is not just growth, but the relationship between growth and borrowing costs.

If AI-driven productivity pushes economic growth above interest rates for a sustained period, governments can stabilise or even reduce debt ratios more easily. But if faster growth also lifts real interest rates for example, because higher productivity raises returns on capital then debt servicing costs could rise in parallel.

This debate is already unfolding among policymakers at the Federal Reserve, where officials are assessing whether AI could permanently raise the economy’s potential growth rate.

Bond markets will be decisive. Since the pandemic, investors have shown a willingness to punish governments perceived as fiscally profligate. Higher yields can quickly offset any growth dividend from technological gains.

Employment and Wages: The Distribution Question

Much depends on how AI reshapes labour markets.

If AI complements workers and creates new categories of employment, tax revenues may rise meaningfully. But if automation displaces workers faster than new jobs are created, or if profits accrue disproportionately to capital rather than labour, fiscal gains could disappoint.

Capital income is often taxed more lightly than wages. A productivity boom concentrated in corporate profits rather than payrolls may widen inequality without generating proportionate public revenue.

On the spending side, governments might benefit from efficiency gains in public administration. Yet history suggests higher growth can also lead to higher spending demands from infrastructure upgrades to social transfers.

No Substitute for Fiscal Reform

Even in optimistic scenarios where AI lifts U.S. growth closer to 3% annually for an extended period, debt ratios are projected to stabilise at elevated levels rather than return to pre-crisis norms.

In pessimistic scenarios where AI disappoints or a recession strikes before productivity gains materialise debt trajectories could worsen significantly, potentially reaching levels that trigger market instability.

The consensus among economists is clear: AI can ease fiscal pressure, but it cannot substitute for structural reforms. Addressing entitlement sustainability, improving tax efficiency and managing spending priorities remain central.

A Race Against Time

There is also a sequencing risk. If financial markets grow nervous about fiscal trajectories before AI-driven gains are realised, borrowing costs could spike. In that case, the productivity dividend may arrive too late to calm bond investors.

Technological revolutions historically take time to diffuse across economies. Infrastructure, regulation, workforce training and corporate adoption all shape how quickly productivity benefits materialise.

For debt-laden economies, the gamble is that AI’s boost will be large, broad-based and timely. That is possible but far from guaranteed.

AI may help governments breathe easier. It will not absolve them of the harder political choices required to put public finances on a sustainable path.

With information from Reuters.

Faced with numerous complaints about broken streetlights that have plunged neighborhoods into darkness, two Los Angeles City Council members unveiled a plan Friday to spend $65 million on installing solar-powered lights.

With 1 in 10 streetlights out of service because of disrepair or copper wire theft, Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Eunisses Hernandez launched an effort to convert at least 12% of the city’s lights to solar power — or about 500 in each council district.

Broken streetlights emerged as an hot-button issue in this year’s election, with council members scrambling to find ways to restore them. Councilmember Nithya Raman, now running against Mayor Karen Bass, cited the broken lights as an example of how city agencies “can’t seem to manage the basics.”

By switching to solar, the streetlights will be less vulnerable to theft, said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside.

“We can’t keep rebuilding the same vulnerable systems while copper theft continues to knock out lights across Los Angeles,” she said.

Three other council members — Traci Park, Monica Rodriguez and Hugo Soto-Martínez — signed on to the proposal. All five are running for reelection.

Miguel Sangalang, director of the Bureau of Street Lighting, said there are 33,000 open service requests to fix streetlights across L.A., although some may be duplicates. The average time to fix a streetlight is 12 months, he said.

Repair times have increased because of a rise in vandalism, the department’s stagnant budget and a staff of only 185 people to service the city’s 225,000 streetlights, he said.

About 60,000 street lights are eligible to be converted to solar, according to Yaroslavsky.

Council members also are looking to increase the amount the city charges property owners for streetlight maintenance. Yaroslavsky said the assessment has been unchanged since 1996, forcing city leaders to rely on other sources of money to cover the cost.

Last month, Soto-Martínez announced he put $1 million into a streetlight repair team in his district, which stretches from Echo Park to Hollywood and north to Atwater Village. Those workers will focus on repairing broken lights, hardening lights to prevent copper wire theft and clearing the backlog of deferred cases.

On Monday, city crews also began converting 91 streetlights to solar power in Lincoln Heights and Cypress Park. Hernandez tapped $500,000 from her office budget to pay for the work. The shift to solar power should save money, she said, by breaking the cycle of constantly fixing and replacing lights.

“This is going to bring more public safety and more lights to neighborhoods that so desperately need it and that are waiting a long time,” she said.

In recent years, neighborhoods ranging from Hancock Park and Lincoln Heights to Mar Vista and Pico Union have been plagued by copper wire theft that darkens the streets. On the 6th Street Bridge, thieves stole seven miles’ worth of wire.

Yaroslavsky and Park spoke about the problem Friday at a press conference in the driveway of a Mar Vista home. Andrew Marton, the homeowner, pointed to streetlights around the block that have been targeted by thieves.

Many surrounding streets have been dark since shortly after Christmas, Marton said. He has changed his daily routines, trying not to walk his dog late at night and worrying for the safety of his family.

He said he reported the problem to the city and was told it would take 270 days to fix. He then reached out to Park, who contacted the police department, he said.

A couple of neighboring streets had their lights restored, he said, but his street remains dark at night.

Park said she and Yaroslavsky identified $500,000 in discretionary funds to pay for a dedicated repair team to fix streetlights, either by adding solar or by reinforcing the existing copper wire, in their respective Westside districts.

You may have missed it, what with President Trump’s endless pyrotechnics, but California voters will decide in November who succeeds Gavin Newsom, the highest-profile governor since the Terminator returned to Hollywood.

Unfortunately for those attempting to civically engage, the current crop of contenders is, shall we say, less than enthralling.

In alphabetical order (because there is seriously no prohibitive front-runner), the major candidates are Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, John Slavet, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee.

Whew! (Pause to catch breath.)

Armed with that knowledge, you can now go out and win yourself a few bar bets by asking someone to name, say, even two of those running.

Meantime, fear not. Your friendly columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have surveyed the field, weighed the odds, pondered California’s long history and concluded … they have absolutely no clue what will happen in the June 2 primary, much less who’ll take the oath of office come next January.

Here, they discuss the race that has Californians sitting on neither pins nor needles.

Chabria: Mark, I do this for a living and I’m having trouble summoning up any interest in this race — yet, anyway.

Part of my problem is that national events are so all-consuming and fast-moving that it’s hard to worry about potholes. I admit, I appreciate that our White House-contending governor is fighting the big fight. But remind me again, what’s a governor supposed to do?

Barabak: End homelessness. Elevate our public schools to first-class rank. Make housing and college tuition affordable. Eliminate crime. End disease and poverty. Put a chicken in every pot. Make pigs fly and celestial angels sing. And then, in their second year …

Seriously, there’s a pretty large gap between what voters would like to see happen and what a governor — any governor — can plausibly deliver. That said, if our next chief executive can help bring about meaningful improvement in just a few of those areas, pigs and angels excepted, I’d venture to say a goodly number of Californians would be pleased.

Broadly speaking, my sense when talking to voters is they want our next governor to push back on Trump and his most egregious excesses. But not as a means of raising their national profile or positioning themselves for a run at the White House. And not to the exclusion of bettering their lives by paying attention to the nitty and the gritty, like making housing and higher education more readily available and, yes, fixing potholes.

Chabria: All that is fair enough. As the mom of two teens, I’d especially like to see our university system be more affordable and accessible, so we all have our personal priorities. Let’s agree to this starting point: The new governor can’t just chew gum and walk. She or he must be able to eat a full lunch while running.

But so far, candidates haven’t had their policy positions break through to a big audience, state-focused or not — and many of them share broadly similar positions. Let’s look at the bits of daylight that separate them because, Republicans aside, there aren’t canyon-size differences among the many candidates.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest entry in the race, is attempting to position himself as a “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” centrist. How do you think that will go over with voters?

Barabak: You’re having me tiptoe uncomfortably close to the Make A Prediction Zone, which I assiduously avoid. As I’ve said before, I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know. (Many readers will doubtless question the underlying premise of the former if not the latter part of that statement.)

I think there is at least a potential for Mahan to tap into a desire among voters to lower the hostilities just a bit and ease up on our constant partisan war-footing.

You might not know it if you marinate in social media, or watch the political shout-fest shows where, as in nature, the loudest voices carry. But there are a great many people working two or even three jobs, ferrying their kids to soccer practice, worrying about paying their utility and doctor bills, caring for elderly parents or struggling in other ways to keep their heads above water. And they’re less captivated by the latest snappy clap-back on TikTok than looking for help dealing with the many challenges they face.

I was struck by something Katie Porter said when we recently sat down for a conversation in San Francisco. The former Orange County congresswoman can denigrate Trump with the best of ‘em. But she said, “I am very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”

California’s homelessness and affordability crises were years in the making, she noted, and need to be addressed as such.

I heard Antonio Villaraigosa suggest something similar in last week‘s gubernatorial debate, when the former Los Angeles mayor noted the state has spent billions of dollars in recent years trying to drastically reduce homelessness with, at best, middling results. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror,” he said.

That suggests to me Mahan is not the only candidate who appreciates that simply saying “Trump = Bad” over and over is not what voters want to hear.

Chabria: Certainly potholes and high electricity bills existed before Trump. But if the midterms don’t favor Democrats, the next governor will probably face a generational challenge to protect the civil rights of residents of this diverse state. It’s not about liking or disliking Trump, but ensuring that our governor has a plan if attacks on immigrants, the LBGTQ+ community and citizens in general grow worse.

I do think this will matter to voters — but I agree with you that candidates can’t simply rage against Trump. They have to offer some substance.

Porter, Swalwell and Becerra, who have the most national experience and could be expected to articulate that sort of vision, haven’t done much other than to commit to the fight. Steyer and Thurmond want to abolish ICE, which a governor couldn’t do. Mahan has said focusing on state policy is the best offense.

I don’t think this has to be a charisma-driven vision, which is what Newsom has so effectively offered. But it needs to bring resoluteness in a time of fear, which none of the candidates to my mind have been able to project so far.

But this all depends on election results in November. If Democrats take Congress and are able to exert a check to this terrible imbalance, then bring on the asphalt and fix the roads. I think a lot of what voters want from a governor won’t fully be known until after November.

Barabak: The criticism of this collective field is that it’s terminally boring, as if we’re looking to elect a stand-up comic, a chanteuse or a juggler. I mean, this is the home of Hollywood! Isn’t it the birthright of every California citizen to be endlessly entertained?

At least that’s what the pundits and political know-it-alls, stifling yawns as they constantly refresh their feeds on Bluesky or X, would have you believe.

Voters elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor — that’s two movie stars in the state’s 175-year history — and, from the way the state is often perceived, you’d think celebrity megawattage is one of the main prerequisites for a chief executive.

But if you look back, California has seen a lot more George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis types, which is to say bland-persona governors whom no one would mistake for box-office gold.

It seems to me no coincidence that Schwarzenegger, who arrived as a political novelty, was replaced by Jerry Brown, who was as politically tried-and-true as they come. That political pendulum never stops swinging.

Which suggests voters will be looking for someone less like our gallivanting, movie matinee governor and someone more inclined to keep their head down in Sacramento and focus on the state and its needs.

Who will that be? I wouldn’t wage a nickel trying to guess. Would you care to?

Chabria: I certainly don’t care to predict, but I’ll say this: We may not need or get another Terminator. But one of these candidates needs to put some pepper flakes in the paste if they want to break out of the pack.