[ad_1]
The question seemed simple enough. Was the witness’s use of the word “make-away” simply a shorthand for “make-away shelter”?
But for the defendant’s lawyer, it was a miscarriage of the law: “Objection. We seek legal conclusions. We seek expert opinions. We are relevant. We have no foundation.
Over the two weeks that concluded earlier this month, more than 2,000 objections have led to a high stakes hearing in federal courts to have judges take the unprecedented step of gaining control of the city of Los Angeles homelessness program.
US District Judge David O. Carter orders the parties to file a written brief by Tuesday, then controls petitions by a group of business owners, property owners and residents, asking him to appoint him to appoint the city to appoint about $1 billion each year.
In a show showing how far they’ll go to protect that authority, the city brought in heavyweight law firm Gibson Dunn, who took over for an in-house lawyer who previously handled cases five years ago. The company formed a team of seven lawyers led by Theane Evangelis, who debated on the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Grant City Pass and won the decision to reopen the doors to cite and arrest homeless people for illegal camps.
The defense team did not call eyewitnesses, but in the first of 262 objections that were dismissed that day, they raised the threat of appeal to the proceedings. The peak of the seven-day hearing came on the third day when Carter rejected 440 objections.
Lawyers for the LA Alliance for Human Rights allegedly violated the settlements reached in 2020 and 2022, demanding that the homeless people be provided with nearly 20,000 new “housing solutions” and remove just under 10,000 camps from the streets.
“Infringed, broken, your honor. That’s what we’re here to talk about today,” argued Matthew Umihofer, a lawyer with the LA Alliance. “The system is broken and calls for extraordinary judicial action.”
Evangelis dismissed the claim as a significant inflation of fact and law.
“In short, the alliance has sought to turn this narrow process into a referendum on city policy choices on homelessness,” she said. “And the alliance did not suppress evidence that the city would not meet its targets.
A third perspective focusing on the removal of camps portrayed both the alliance and the city as insensitive to the homeless.
“Your honor, removing the tent, does nothing to reduce the camp,” said Sheila Myers, who represents two groups intervening in the case on behalf of homeless people. “When cities take their tents, that simply means that in the heat of the skid row, there is nothing to evacuate the residents, but that doesn’t mean that the camps have diminished.
The much-anticipated testimony from Mayor Karen Bass and two city council members did not come to fruition after Umhoff retracted from the witness list after warning of the impending appeal.
Instead, a long segment of testimony, divided by almost constant objections, has now zeroed over the subtle distinction of settlement agreements. What is the definition of camp? If a couple receives a rental grant, will it count as one or two beds? What is the difference between “Solving camps,” “Reducing camps,” and “Removing camps.”
How the lawsuits have been brought on by attacks on the fundamental powers of the city, nominally about bringing homeless people inside, is an 18-month story surrounding terms of settlement. In February 2024, the alliance petitioned the court to fine the city $6.4 million, claiming it “stopping efforts to establish important camp milestones and creating far fewer beds than it promised.”
Indulging in frequent monologues in court about the failure of what the homeless service system called the “Rocky Horror Picture Show” was skeptical of sanctions, but it was seized in line with the request of the Alliance’s audit. After surged city court diplomacy, the city agreed to pay $2.2 million. That figure was raised to more than $3 million for an independent audit.
It was released in February and rebranded the “Rating” version. Because Alvarez & Marsal Firm, who implemented it, is not a certified public accountant, the city’s homeless program is found to be split apart, lacking proper data systems and financial management, and remain vulnerable to waste and fraud. No specific scams were noted, but found a contradiction that suggests that some beds are doubled, and no documentation was found to verify that hundreds of other beds existed.
The report gave rise to a growing cry for reform of the Los Angeles Department of Homeless Services three years ago, which oversaw city and county homeless services contracts. In April, the Board of Supervisors voted to shift the county’s $300 million annual contributions from the institution into the newly established homeless sector. For now, the city is sticking to Lahasa, but the city council voted in March to explore the formation of a new department within the housing sector to oversee its achievements.
Neither will move the stifling Carter who gave the bus until May to fix the broken system.
On May 8, the alliance filed a motion declaring that “we have used up the full Panapuri of remedies within the authority of the court, so there is no further option left.”
Carter ordered an evidence hearing to begin on May 27th.
The Alliance lawyers have launched a hearing with former Ratha Chief Information Officer, Emily Vaughn Henry. She testified that the homeless data system was “smoke and mirror,” and that her supervisor had directed her to “do whatever she could to make the mayor look good.”
Laura Frost, director of Alvarez & Marsal, testified that much of the data the company requested from the city was missing or did not respond, and that analysts at the company assumed it did not exist.
“We found out the system wasn’t working,” Frost said. And in response to a follow-up, “We don’t believe we can achieve significant and meaningful reductions in the city of Los Angeles’ unsheltered homelessness.”
Two downtown residents testified that Skidrow’s services were lacking.
“Daily life is survival,” said Don Garza, a frequent audience member in Carter’s courtroom. “People are dying on the streets of Skid Row. … There’s enough money for housing, shelters. There’s enough money to do it all.
The alliance suggested that the city overloaded its plans with permanent homes that cost more than other forms of housing and take longer to build.
Los Angeles city administrator Matt Sabo stubbornly defended the city’s performance. In particular, he said the housing in the plan he said reflects voters’ will in approving the $1.2 billion proposed HHH housing bond.
In testimony that spread over four days, Szabo adamantly denied allegations that the city misreported beds created under the 2020 agreement, claiming that the city would fulfill its obligations in the 2022 agreement, which would provide 12,915 additional homeless beds by June 2027. However, he argued that the city “takes steps to ensure that the data it is reporting is accurate.”
Finally, Umhofer reminded the judge of his own words from the 2021 ruling.
“This court cannot witness preventable deaths. This public health and safety emergency calls for a life-saving emergency. It shows that the city and county cannot or do not want to devise an effective solution to the LA homeless crisis.”
Advocacy group La Can and Myers, representing Los Angeles Catholic workers, supported part of the settlement agreement to provide housing, and supported the removal of the camp and the receiving vessel. She said the liability should exist on the judges themselves to ensure that the city creates all the housing needed for the contract.
“To do so, your honor requires oversight,” she said. “We don’t need receivers, but we need verification and data. We need more information, more honor when it comes to city obligations.”
At her closing, Evangelis summoned the Grants Pass Case.
“It’s as if the Supreme Court was talking about this very progressive thing,” she said. “This is very complicated. No one has the answers. And certainly not all of us will decide on these big issues here. It’s up to local governments, elected officials, dedicated civil servants… not an alliance.”
She ended with a string of questions she had said.
Among them, do recipients have the appropriate financial power from the city’s general fund? If so, how much does it cost to other priorities? Will the recipient manage the LA Housing Department? LA Police Station? LA Fire Station? Health Bureau?
The case is now in the hands of an unsecret judge whose commitment to reducing homelessness is now in the hands of unsecret judges, and repeatedly shows that he is willing to act under the specific threat of being appealed.
Times staff writers Jack Fleming and David Zanizer contributed to this report.
[ad_2]Source link
