Judge Rules Against Placing L.A. Homeless Programs in Receivership

Introduction to the Case

A federal judge declined to put Los Angeles’ homelessness programs into receivership Tuesday, even as he concluded that the city failed to adhere to the terms of a three-year-old settlement agreement focused on addressing the humanitarian crisis.

Details of the Ruling

In a 62-page ruling, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter wrote that “this is not the time” to hand over control of the city’s roughly $1 billion in homelessness programs to a court-appointed third party. Such a move, he said, would typically be treated by courts as a last resort — and after “all other less intrusive remedies have been exhausted.”

City’s Failure to Meet Obligations

At the same time, Carter found that the city breached the terms of a settlement agreement with the nonprofit LA Alliance for Human Rights, which calls for the creation of 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027. The city failed to provide a plan for achieving that goal, he said, and missed quarterly housing targets established as part of the agreement.

Consequences of the City’s Actions

The judge said the city “flouted” its responsibility to provide the court with “accurate and comprehensive data” and disobeyed a court order dealing with its strategy for reducing homeless encampments. “While the Court does not find at this time that the City has breached the Settlement Agreement as a whole, the City has failed to meet critical internal obligations under the Agreement,” he wrote.

Next Steps and Monitoring

To address those shortcomings, Carter ordered the selection of a third-party monitor to review and verify the data being produced by the city on its homeless housing and encampment goals. Carter also signaled that he probably would order the city to pay the legal fees of the alliance and homeless advocacy groups that have intervened in the case — the Los Angeles Community Action Network, or LA CAN, and the Los Angeles Catholic Worker.

Reaction from Parties Involved

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney with the alliance, hailed the ruling, saying the judge has imposed “significant consequences” on city leaders and would “continue to hold the city’s feet to the fire.” Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, said the judge made the right decision by rejecting the alliance’s “radical request to appoint an unelected and unaccountable receiver.”

Background of the Case

The case has been in Carter’s courtroom since 2020, when the alliance sued the city and county, arguing that too little was being done to address the homelessness crisis, particularly on Skid Row, which has the largest unhoused population in Southern California. Over the years that followed, the city entered into two settlement agreements: one with the alliance and the other with Los Angeles County, which provides mental health, healthcare, and other social services to the region’s unhoused population.

Conclusion

The ruling highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing homelessness in Los Angeles and the need for more effective and accountable management of the city’s homelessness programs. While the decision against receivership is seen as a victory for the city, the appointment of a third-party monitor and potential legal fees underscore the seriousness with which the court views the city’s obligations under the settlement agreement.

FAQs

1. What was the main decision of the judge?
   • The judge decided not to place Los Angeles’ homelessness programs into receivership.
2. Why did the judge make this decision?
   • The judge believed that handing over control to a court-appointed third party should be a last resort and that other less intrusive remedies had not been exhausted.
3. What did the city fail to do according to the judge?
   • The city failed to provide a plan for achieving the goal of creating 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027 and missed quarterly housing targets.
4. What are the consequences for the city?
   • The city will have a third-party monitor to review and verify its data on homeless housing and encampment goals, and it may be ordered to pay legal fees for the alliance and advocacy groups.
5. How do the parties involved react to the ruling?
   • The alliance sees the ruling as imposing significant consequences on the city, while the city views the rejection of receivership as a positive decision.