Intervenors object to LA moving homeless from under freeways

Intervenors in a civil case aiming to solve the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles accused city leaders of removing people residing under the U.S. Highway 101 freeway, which they claim was not part of a deal they negotiated with Los Angeles County.

Plaintiff LA Alliance for Human Rights sued the city in early spring, alleging officials were failing to provide beds for the homeless population. In June the city and county agreed to provide 6,700 more beds and the county agreed to pay for it. LA Alliance for Human Rights et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 2:20CV02291 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 10, 2020).

U.S. District David O. Carter in Santa Ana is overseeing the litigation.

Intervenors from the Legal Aid Foundation and Los Angeles Community Action Network argued the deal never referred to any relocations in the city, according to a brief filed Friday. Lawyers for the intervenors are Shayla Myers of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Catherine Sweetser of Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP and Carol Sobel.

"Although there is currently no order in place requiring the city to do so, the city of Los Angeles has commenced an operation to relocate unhoused individuals residing under freeway underpasses along the 101 freeway," the intervenors wrote in their brief.

They requested a status conference to clarify the deal. "This 'mandatory relocation' appears to have commenced on Oct. 13, 2020 when the City of Los Angeles posted notices throughout Council District 3, stating that 'effective Oct. 27, 2020, anyone sitting, lying or lodging within 500 feet of the 101 freeway between Lindley and Valley Circle will be required to relocate,'" the brief claimed.

The relocations are expected to last through Oct. 27, the brief said, and are being carried out "away from public view and without any participation of parties that are adverse to the City of Los Angeles.

"Intervenors are concerned that these private proceedings have the tendency to undermine the public confidence in the court system," the brief states.

An order that had enjoined relocations was vacated in May.

The intervenors argued the Oct. 13 notice from the city implies the judge signed off on the relocations. None of the city's actions are following any court order, and the deal only involved the funding of the beds, not the enforcement of municipal codes to keep people away from the underpasses, they argued.

The intervenors also argued the relocations are unrelated to the deal and the people being moved aren't being given access to any of the 6,700 beds. They are instead offered short-term motel vouchers, with the intent to transfer them to existing bridge housing once shelter becomes available, they argued.

Elizabeth A. Mitchell, a partner at Spertus Landes & Umhofer LLP, said Friday the intervenors' brief contains several misstatements, and the notices about the relocations are fully consistent with the terms between the city and county.

An agreement to provide 6,700 beds didn't involve plaintiffs, nor the intervenors, she said. Mitchell represents LA Alliance. The judge has the power and has agreed to oversee the agreement, and has been meeting with city council members under his authority to supervise the deal, she added.

"The suggestion that he is somehow acting out of bounds by doing exactly what he is required to do, what he has been asked to do, and what we have all agreed to -- supervise the implementation of the city and county's agreement -- is hogwash," Mitchell said. "And any suggestion that because he is doing so in the field -- actually observing what is happening rather than in a sterile environment like the federal courthouse or city council chambers is without merit."

Mitchell said neither she nor any representatives from the Los Angeles city attorney were invited by the judge to observe the process, but she asked to do so anyway.

"The obligation to move folks from under, over, near freeways undoubtedly still exists," Mitchell contended.

"Judge Carter has been absolutely clear that there is a health and safety issue, and clearance is mandatory, regardless of vacating the order," she said. "The LA Alliance approach has always been about finding balance which saves thousands of lives in Los Angeles, and gives everyone the community they deserve. That balanced approach is exactly what the project in CD3 is doing. Any suggestion that living in a gutter or on a sidewalk with vermin and excrement is better or safer than living in a clean, secure facility with services and meals is nuts."

Inquiries sent to intervenors and the city attorney's office were not returned Friday.