Search This Blog

Monday, February 23, 2026

Palisades Fire survivors furious after getting brush clearance fines from LA

 Residents of Pacific Palisades are furious and insulted after owners whose homes burned down in the deadly fires last year received brush clearance fines from the city.

“This is insulting and cruel. We have no house and we have no brush,” Carol Sandborn, a resident who lost her home of 40 years, wrote in red ink on the invoice and sent it back to the city. “I was a little astonished.”

Residents are mad at the city for allowing this to happen.FOX LA
No one could be reached on the phone below for further clarification.FOX LA

LA Fire Department brush fines are penalties issued to property owners in high-risk zones who fail to clear hazardous vegetation, ensuring critical defensible space to slow the spread of wildfires.

Residents say the fire department never inspected their properties — which are under construction — and that they do not intend on paying the fines as a matter of “principle,” Fox 11 reported. The bills show a charge of $31 for alleged non-compliance.

“It’s one final blow, you know, after they screwed us over, they’re still trying to take money,” another resident told the network. “$31 is nothing, but you know I’m not paying it. This is the principle of it.”

Several other people have gotten a notice, and many are angry. The mayor’s office said it is working with the fire department to look into what happened.

The California Post called the number listed on the bills, but the call went straight to voicemail, and the inbox was full. Neither a message could be left nor a department representative reached by phone to dispute the charge or ask for clarification.

Residents say they are not paying the fines.FOX LA

“It’s disappointing to get something like this and feel that somehow the city is working against you instead of with you,” Sandborn noted.

The mayor’s office later called the fines “unacceptable.” The LAFD were contacted for comment but did not immediately respond.

“No resident who lost their homes in the Palisades fire should receive this charge,” she said in a statement. “The Mayor’s office is in contact with the LAFD to determine next steps.”

https://nypost.com/2026/02/23/us-news/palisades-fire-survivors-furious-after-getting-brush-clearance-fines/

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Roosevelt Hotel’s fate remains unclear despite White House-Pakistan deal

 On Feb. 17, two days before news broke of an “agreement” for the US General Services Administration to team up with the Pakistani government to redevelop the Roosevelt Hotel, Pakistan’s Muhammad Ali, an advisor to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, had this to say on Pakistani news station AAJ:

The Roosevelt “will be privatized through a joint-venture or redevelopment model rather than a direct sale,” Ali said. He envisioned a “joint venture” where Pakistan would “contribute the land while a private partner would inject around $1 billion” into a skyscraper project to replace the empty, 100-year hotel that’s technically owned by Pakistan International Airlines.

But of course, the JV idea has only been kicking around for five years. And in any event, how can the GSA — a federal bureaucracy that owns and manages buildings for federal employees — possibly kick-start Pakistan’s confused campaign to cash in on the Roosevelt, which it urgently needs to help pay $7 billion it owes to the International Monetary Fund?

The Roosevelt Hotel was originally set to be redeveloped in a deal with the US and Pakistani government.Brian Zak/NY Post

The questions about the Roosevelt, which commands one of Manhattan’s choicest development sites on Madison Avenue between East 44th and 45th streets, had real estate insiders scratching their heads.

The announcement Thursday seemed to catch Washington flat-footed. The White House referred questions to the GSA, which got back to The Post Friday morning with a statement that did zero to explain exactly what the agency could accomplish for the Pakistanis that a succession of brokerages, banks  and advisors couldn’t.

“This agreement embodies the Trump Administration’s dedication to diplomacy and our nation’s economic prosperity,” said GSA Administrator Edward C. Forst. “GSA looks forward to working with the government of Pakistan on this project.”

Thanks for nothing, guys! A GSA source told us on background that the “memorandum of understanding” merely “establishes a structured, time-bound framework for joint evaluation of the technical, commercial, and economic parameters of cooperation, reflecting a shared commitment to transparent, disciplined, and mutually beneficial progress.”

And, given the Roosevelt’s prime location and “the complexity of New York zoning and municipal processes, institutional coordination aims to reduce execution risk, enhance regulatory clarity, and maximize transaction value.”

Got it?

In other words, the Roosevelt site’s future remains as murky as ever.

The Pakistani owners have led Roosevelt-watchers on a merry chase ever since the pandemic forced the closing of the Roosevelt in 2020.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s advisor announced the hotel “will be privatized through a joint-venture.”REUTERS

In February 2024, we first reported that PIA had tapped prominent brokerage JLL to market the Roosevelt site to developers and investors.

In April 2025, when the 1,000 room hotel was still occupied by migrants, Bloomberg reported a company called Burkhan World Investments pitched the Pakistan government on a deal to partner in a joint venture to redevelop  the property in a scheme where PIA would retain 50% ownership.

Two months later, Realty Check reported that the investment company never approached anyone at PIA about the idea, but submitted it  only to a state privatization committee. Nothing more came of it.

Although Tishman Speyer, SL Green and Related Companies were said to have expressed interest, JLL and PIA went their separate ways last summer for reasons never made fully clear.

The interior of the Roosevelt HotelStephen Yang

Meanwhile, Pakistani “sources” told journalists that the Roosevelt would be renovated and reopened as a hotel  — an idea that drew hoots from insiders who said it would take at least a year to make the hotel habitable again.

Next, in November, Saudi Arabia-based daily Arab News reported that with JLL out of the picture, PIA was “weighing  proposals from seven potential groups” to advise on the hotel and facilitate any deal. Realty Check next reported the likely choice of a consortium would be led by Morgan Stanley and include CBRE.

Nothing  came of that, either.

Then came last week’s vague announcement of US-Pakistani cooperation. President Trump’s special envoy Steven Witkoff, a veteran of Big Apple real estate wars, brokered the deal.

Surely he knows something we don’t? 

https://nypost.com/2026/02/22/business/roosevelt-hotels-fate-remains-unclear-despite-white-house-pakistan-deal/

Millions of acres of foreign-owned American farmland sit idle

 Millions of acres of farmland across the country are privately owned, but a small share of it is foreign-owned land sitting idle in many areas.

That’s according to new U.S. Department of Agriculture data which shows just how much of the nation’s agricultural land is owned by other countries.

The USDA‘s online portal reveals that more than 45 million acres of land are owned by foreign countries, with an original purchase value of over $38 billion. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has the most agricultural acreage in the United States, at 15.35 million acres.

John Hewlett, a farm and ranch economics management specialist at the University of Wyoming, doesn’t find this surprising. Rather, he points out that not many know this farm fact.

“Many people are surprised to learn that Canada is by far the largest foreign holder of U.S. land (owning about 33% of the foreign total),” Hewlett tells Realtor.com®. “Followed by the Netherlands and Italy. Because these are long-standing allies, their ownership of timberland or wind farms rarely causes a stir.”

The Netherlands owns 5,197,940 acres of agricultural land, and Italy owns more than 2.7 million acres.

Whether this is a concern or not when it comes to agricultural land owned by foreigners, Hewlett says the “who” depends on what they are trying to protect.

U.S. farmland owned by other countries as seen on a map, with the darkest color representing the most acreage.USDA
Hewlett breaks it down into three categories:
  • National security: He explains that this group is primarily worried about proximity. “There have been high-profile cases of foreign entities attempting to buy land near sensitive military installations or critical infrastructure in the U.S. and around the world,” says Hewlett. Some lawmakers may “fear this could lead to surveillance, espionage, or interference with domestic security.”
  • Local farmers and rural communities: Hewlett says this is more of an economic concern. “Foreign investors often have deeper pockets than local family farmers, which can drive up land prices,” Hewlett explains. “This makes it harder for young or first-generation American farmers to enter the market.”
  • Food advocates: Hewlett says this group views it through the lens of food sovereignty. “They worry that if a significant portion of the food supply is controlled by foreign adversaries, the U.S. could lose its food independence, making the nation vulnerable during global supply chain disruptions or trade wars,” Hewlett adds.

Local level

In Wyoming, where Hewlett is based, over 260,000 agricultural acres are foreign-owned, but that is minuscule compared to other areas.

Among the states with the most foreign agricultural land investors are Texas (5,775,516 acres), Maine (3,512,624 acres), Colorado (2,477,247 acres), Alabama (2,210,274 acres), Oklahoma (1,829,711 acres), and Washington (1,787,990 acres).

In Maine, the northernmost state along the East Coast, where nearly 3.5 million acres are foreign-owned land, there’s not too much concern about losing green space to housing developments.

In Maine, there are nearly 3.5 million acres of foreign-owned land.Kevin – stock.adobe.com

“It’s kind of a misnomer, though, because in Maine, what’s considered agricultural land is actually working forest, like timberland,” Michelangelo Floridino, real estate broker with Landing Real Estate in Portland, ME, tells Realtor.com.

Floridino describes the Maine terrain and what it’s like near the Canadian border.

“Once you get about an hour of the border of New Hampshire and Maine, it’s a lot of private roads,” he explains. “Once you go a couple hours north, you might not have power. You might not have paved roadway to even get to these parts of Maine.”

He says there’s not much worry if a foreign investor were to try to turn the agricultural land into infrastructure, because of the changing the landscape.

“You can’t build houses up there,” says Floridino.

As for Canadians snapping up Maine real estate, he says he hasn’t been seeing much of that lately.

“I get more people from Massachusetts. I just had one call a couple of weeks ago from Oklahoma who was coming back to Maine. Another one I had was from North Carolina,” Floridino adds.

https://nypost.com/2026/02/22/real-estate/millions-of-acres-of-foreign-owned-american-farmland-sit-idle-across-the-country/

Mamdani co-signs comeback of nonprofit property COPA bill vetoed by Adams

A hotly debated housing bill that would give nonprofits first dibs on property purchases — vetoed by former Mayor Eric Adams hours before he left office — is likely to get a new chance to pass under the Mamdani administration. Its sponsor is already anticipating lawsuits attempting to stop it. 

The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act would keep housing in the hands of the community and curb landlords selling to big property groups, say advocates and bill sponsor Council Member Sandy Nurse. 

It does so, Nurse said, by giving qualified groups like community land trusts the right of first refusal on distressed residential buildings with four or more units. The nonprofits have 25 days to submit a statement of interest, then 80 days to make an official offer on the property before other buyers can take a shot at it.

Since the city began considering COPA five years ago, it’s faced sharp criticism from the real estate industry and Republican council members who say it would open the city up to legal challenges. Critics argue the bill violates private property rights, a landlord’s right to freedom of contract and the Constitution’s takings clause.

Nurse said she’d been told by the city’s Law Department her legislation was legally defensible before the council passed it with a 31-10 vote in December.

However, the city’s Law Department later reached out to Nurse to raise legal red flags — doing so days before she was set to bring COPA back to the floor in an attempt to override Adams’ last-minute veto. Nurse called the move “extremely frustrating” and an example of the “chaotic nature and disorganization” of the Adams administration.

Now, Nurse said, she and her team are working with the Law Department and “seeking to propose some new language to address the concerns.” She declined to share what those concerns were, as discussions were still ongoing.

“The Law Department told us the bill was defensible, but they wanted to make it even stronger … because of the amount of attention on the bill and because the real estate industry spent so much time trying to oppose the legislation,” Nurse said. “We want to make sure that it is as strong as possible in anticipating somebody wanting to sue the council over the legislation.”

The council member said she had “every intention to pass this legislation,” and was working as quickly as possible to reintroduce it.  

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who supported COPA on the campaign trail, said he’d work with the council to ensure it passes. 

His office told amNewYork Law the act would give tenants “a real opportunity to shape the future of their homes.”

“Our administration looks forward to working closely with Council Member Nurse to reintroduce and pass the legislation,” a spokesperson for Mamdani said in a statement.  

The future of COPA

City Council Speaker Julie Menin brought up the COPA legal advising mishap when she spoke earlier this month at the confirmation hearing for Steve Banks as head of the Law Department. 

Menin said the failure demonstrated that the council needs proactive legal opinions on bills.  

“It put the council in a very difficult situation where, weeks after the bill passes, we are hearing red flags from the Law Department,” Menin told Banks. “That cannot happen again.”

Banks promised the speaker nothing similar would happen under his leadership, adding that he had already spoken with Nurse about the bill and that they had “talked about ways to try to move forward” with the legislation. When asked for more details after the hearing, the Law Department said it couldn’t comment on privileged communications. 

Menin, who abstained from voting on COPA last year, didn’t respond to questions from amNewYork Law regarding the nature of the red flags and whether she’d support the bill upon reintroduction. A spokesperson for the council told amNewYork Law Menin “is committed to working with her colleagues and stakeholders on new steps to advance the Council’s affordable housing agenda,” adding that the council pursued veto overrides of bills that passed with veto-proof majorities in December, which COPA didn’t.

Some real estate attorneys aren’t convinced that just a few changes would prevent the bill from legal challenges. 

Sherwin Belkin, a founding partner of real estate firm Belkin, Burden & Goldman, said the entire concept of the bill is problematic. 

“I think the notion of the state deciding who a property owner can sell its property to raises significant legal and constitutional questions regarding private property and contract rights,” he said.

“The property owner may feel that [another] party, not the nonprofit, has greater economic stability, will be a better partner to align itself with on sale … This is restricting that,” Belkin continued. “This is saying that’s not really for the seller to determine, but in fact, that’s very much part of private property rights and contractual rights — to be able to determine the stability and feasibility of the party with whom you’re about to enter into a contract.”

Elena Rodriguez, a staff attorney for the New Economy Project, which has advocated for COPA, shot down arguments that the bill would violate private property or contract rights. She emphasized the bill only applies when an owner is voluntarily selling a building, and said landlords are free to turn down a nonprofit’s offer and sell to someone else — they just have to give the nonprofit the chance to make the first offer.  

If a landlord does receive an offer from another buyer after they reject a nonprofit’s, they must offer the community group a chance to match it, and then sell to the group if it does. If no nonprofits express interest within the initial 25-day window, a property owner is automatically exempt from granting them the right of first refusal.   

“Courts have repeatedly upheld regulations that govern the process of a voluntary sale, and similar laws in San Francisco and elsewhere have taken effect without being struck down,” Rodriguez said. 

She added that COPA would only operate prospectively, meaning it wouldn’t interfere with any property actively under contract if passed, and it doesn’t regulate a building’s sale price.  

Market concerns 

Critics of COPA have also raised concerns that the law would slow down property sales, thus potentially driving down prices and the pool of would-be buyers.

That could create an argument that COPA violates the Constitution’s takings clause, which prevents government overreach into private property, because the procedural hurdles installed by the government could hurt property owners’ return on investment. But even some real estate attorneys say that might be a stretch. 

Belkin said the constitutional claim is significantly weaker than the property rights path. 

“That argument, I think, is a little more difficult, because you have to demonstrate that there has been an economic injury caused by the bill,” Belkin said. “It would be more speculative at this early time to be able to demonstrate that …but the argument would be that, by so limiting the pool of prospective purchasers, the purchase price will be negatively impacted.”

He and other attorneys said a potential fix might be to reduce the timeframes for nonprofits to make their offers, but Nurse said that wouldn’t be happening. The windows are already shorter than she initially wanted them to be, and it’s necessary to give nonprofits enough time to properly consider making an offer and to gather the necessary funds.

“The real estate industry … wants unfettered access to any potential property. They don’t want to be subject to any interventions that, personally, we think would help address the housing crisis,” Nurse said. “This legislation is meant to create a small window of opportunity for our trusted, mission-driven affordable housing providers to take these properties, purchase them, do light repairs and rehabilitation if needed, and provide safe, affordable housing that New Yorkers can live in.” 

“It’s not a guarantee, it’s just an opportunity,” Nurse continued. “It’s a small window of time, and once that window is closed, the private sector can continue to move forward with their mission, which is to make as much money as possible.”

COPA is expected to come up for a vote within this legislative session and will need only a simple majority vote to be sent to Mamdani’s desk.

https://www.amny.com/real-estate/mamdani-supports-copa-comeback/