Introduction to the Crisis
The question seemed simple enough: Was the witness’ use of the word “makeshift” merely shorthand for “makeshift shelter?” But for defendant’s counsel, it was a miscarriage of law: “Objection. Calls for legal conclusion. Calls for expert opinion. Relevance. Lacks foundation,” she interjected, prompting a weary, “Overruled,” from the judge. Over two weeks ending earlier this month, more than 2,000 objections punctuated a high-stakes hearing in federal court to have a judge decide whether to take the unprecedented step of seizing control of Los Angeles city’s homelessness programs.
The Legal Proceedings
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ordered the parties to file written briefs by Tuesday and then will rule on the petition by a group of business owners, property owners, and residents asking him to appoint a receiver over the roughly $1 billion the city spends addressing homelessness each year. In a show of how far it will go to protect its authority, the city brought in the heavyweight law firm Gibson Dunn to take over for in-house attorneys who previously handled the five-year-old case. The firm fielded a seven-lawyer team headed by Theane Evangelis, who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the city of Grants Pass and won the decision that reopened the door to citing and arresting homeless people for illegal camping.
The Defense Strategy
The defense team called no witnesses, but raised the threat of appeal minutes into the proceeding with the first of what would be 262 objections overruled that day, a transcript of the hearing shows. The peak for the seven-day hearing came on day three when Carter overruled 440 objections, mostly speaking in a barely audible whisper. Attorneys for the LA Alliance for Human Rights argued the city has breached settlements reached in 2020 and 2022 requiring it to provide nearly 20,000 new “housing solutions” for homeless people and to remove just under 10,000 encampments from the streets. “Breached and broken, your honor. That’s what we’re here to talk about today,” LA Alliance attorney Matthew Umhofer argued. “The system is broken and demands extraordinary judicial action.”
Counterarguments and Perspectives
Evangelis dismissed that contention as a gross inflation of facts and law. “In short, the alliance has attempted to turn this narrow proceeding … into a referendum on the city’s policy choices relating to homelessness,” she said. “And the alliance did not put on any evidence showing that the city won’t meet its targets, … nor could it.” A third perspective, focused on the removal of encampments, portrayed both the alliance and the city as insensitive to homeless people. “Your honor, removing tents does nothing to reduce an encampment,” said Shayla Myers, representing two groups intervening in the case on behalf of homeless people. “When a city takes a tent, it just means that in the heat of the day in Skid Row that unhoused residents have nothing to shelter them. But it doesn’t mean that an encampment has been reduced. It just means that unhoused folks have lost their belongings.”
The Hearing and Testimonies
Highly anticipated testimony from Mayor Karen Bass and two City Council members failed to materialize after Umhoff, alerted of an imminent appeal, withdrew them from the witness list. Instead, long segments of testimony, broken up by nearly constant objections, zeroed in on fine distinctions in the settlement agreement: What is the definition of an encampment? If a couple receive a rental subsidy, does that count as one bed or two? What is the difference between “encampment resolution,” “encampment reduction” and “encampment removal?” The alliance suggested that the city has overloaded its plan with permanent housing that costs more and takes longer to build than other forms of housing. Los Angeles City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo stoutly defended the city’s performance and, in particular, the housing in its plan which he said reflects the voters’ will in approving the $1.2-billion Proposition HHH housing bond.
The Path to Receivership
In February 2024, the alliance petitioned the court to fine the city $6.4 million, alleging it “obstructed efforts to establish critical encampment milestones and created far fewer beds than it promised to.” Carter, who had frequently indulged in monologues in court on the failings of what he has called the “Rocky Horror Picture Show” of the homeless services system, was skeptical about the sanctions but seized on the alliance’s request for an audit. After a flurry of city-court diplomacy, the city agreed to pay $2.2 million, a figure later upped to more than $3 million, for an independent audit. Released in February, and rebranded an “assessment” because the Alvarez & Marsal firm that conducted it was not a certified public accountant, it found that the city’s homelessness programs were disjointed and lacked adequate data systems and financial controls, leaving them vulnerable to waste and fraud.
Conclusion
The case is now in the hands of a judge who makes no secret of his commitment to curtailing homelessness and has repeatedly shown that he is willing to act under certain threat of being appealed. The future of Los Angeles city’s homelessness programs hangs in the balance, as the court weighs the unprecedented step of appointing a receiver. The outcome will have significant implications for the city’s approach to addressing homelessness, and the nation will be watching as this high-stakes drama unfolds.
FAQs
- Q: What is the main issue in the case?
- A: The main issue is whether the city of Los Angeles has breached settlements requiring it to provide housing solutions for homeless people and remove encampments from the streets.
- Q: What is the role of the judge in this case?
- A: The judge, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, is tasked with deciding whether to appoint a receiver to oversee the city’s homelessness programs, which would be an unprecedented step.
- Q: What are the implications of appointing a receiver?
- A: Appointing a receiver would mean that the city would lose control over its homelessness programs, and an external entity would take over, potentially changing the approach to addressing homelessness in the city.
- Q: What are the different perspectives on the removal of encampments?
- A: The alliance and the city have different views on the effectiveness and impact of removing encampments, with a third perspective arguing that it does not reduce homelessness but rather leaves individuals without shelter or belongings.
- Q: What is the significance of the audit and its findings?
- A: The audit found that the city’s homelessness programs are disjointed, lack adequate data systems, and are vulnerable to waste and fraud, which supports the alliance’s argument for receivership.
