The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling limiting when homeless people can be arrested in California and eight other Western states has left lawmakers who want a crackdown over the homeless’ negative effects on quality of life not even sure what that might look like.

In 2018, the San Francisco-based appellate court threw out a broadly written Boise, Idaho, law allowing arrests for sleeping in public, holding that if there were no shelter beds available, this was a cruel and unusual punishment. But dozens of local governments submitted or co-signed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing that the decision was murky at best. One oft-cited example: If a city has fewer shelter beds than its homeless population, is the city automatically blocked from arresting those sleeping in public? 

Some Los Angeles officials fear that’s a likely interpretation.

“The [Boise case] language, rather than citing clear principles where constitutional questions are at stake, makes local jurisdictions vulnerable to lawsuits as they struggle to achieve a balance between the legitimate rights and interests of homeless people and the legitimate rights and interests of other residents and businesses,” City Attorney Mike Feuer told The New York Times.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas called the ruling “ambiguous and confusing” and said in a statement released by his office that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal “handicaps cities and counties from acting nimbly to aid those perishing on the streets, exacerbating unsafe and unhealthy conditions that negatively affect our most vulnerable residents.”

Large homeless camps called ‘untenable’

It was Ridley-Thomas in September who signaled the arrival of a backlash on homelessness by breaking dramatically with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who has called for a compassion-first approach to what he calls “the moral and humanitarian crisis of our time.”

After persuading L.A. County supervisors to vote 3-2 to support filing an amicus brief backing Boise’s appeal, Ridley-Thomas issued a statement saying the status quo in which the city and county accept massive homeless encampments is “untenable. … We need to call this what it is — a state of emergency — and refuse to resign ourselves to a reality where people are allowed to live in places not fit for human habitation.”

Until then, Ridley-Thomas had been seen as a supporter of the view touted by Democrats like Garcetti and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argue that homelessness can be sharply reduced with the patient, smart use of public resources. Earlier this year, Newsom had named Ridley-Thomas to be part of his state commission on homelessness.

The fear that the Boise ruling would destroy the quality of life in cities with substantial homeless populations was a focus of Boise’s appeal, which was prepared by the Los Angeles-based Gibson Dunn law firm. “Nothing in the Constitution … requires cities to surrender their streets, sidewalks, parks, riverbeds and other public areas to vast encampments,” the appeal asserted.

San Francisco official downplays impact of ruling

While they were outnumbered by lawmakers who feared the worst, some local officials in San Francisco and Oakland were less alarmed with the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to pass on the Boise case.

In interpreting the appellate court’s 2018 ruling, these officials concluded they had the open-ended right to clear encampments that posed clear health and safety risks — so long as they notified those in encampments ahead of time that the camps are going to be cleared and offered the homeless storage for their belongings.

Jeff Kositsky, chief of San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, told the San Francisco Chronicle that he considered the Supreme Court’s action to be a “nonissue.”

Seventy-five miles to the east, Sacramento officials were far more concerned. They fear the upholding of the Boise ruling will interfere with local governments’ efforts to remove the homeless camps that have frequently sprung up in flood-prone areas, especially by the American River in Sacramento.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has drawn a line on homelessness, voting 3-2 to support a challenge to an expansive 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forbids local governments in nine Western states from enforcing laws against camping or sleeping on sidewalks or in other public places unless overnight shelter is available.

That ruling came in September 2018. In invalidating a Boise, Idaho, law against sleeping on public lands, Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that “just as the state may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless in public places,’ the state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying or sleeping on the streets.’” Berzon wrote for a three-judge panel.

Ted Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general who won the Bush v. Gore case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, is among the attorneys working with the city of Boise on an appeal. Los Angeles County will file an amicus brief in support of the appeal.

Republican Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Democrat Supervisor Janice Hahn co-sponsored the resolution to file the brief. Democratic Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, a member of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s state homelessness task force, surprised some observers by being the third vote for the resolution. Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and many big-city Democrats have endorsed policies that emphasize helping and sympathizing with the homeless. Garcetti has called homelessness “the moral and humanitarian crisis of our time.”

Supervisor: Don’t accept ’emergency’ as ‘new normal’

But Ridley-Thomas said in a statement that he was “fed up. The status quo is untenable. … We need to call this what it is — a state of emergency — and refuse to resign ourselves to a reality where people are allowed to live in places not fit for human habitation. I refuse to accept this as our new normal.” Los Angeles County has nearly 60,000 homeless people, according to official estimates, more than double the numbers seen 20 years ago.

Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Hilda Solis, both Democrats, voted no on the resolution, saying homelessness should not be criminalized. Kuehl also said she feared what a “terrible” U.S. Supreme Court might decide in its ruling.

Activists blasted Barger, Hahn and Ridley-Thomas not only for lacking compassion but for reinforcing the narrative of President Donald Trump that homelessness is out of control in coastal California.

“We can’t let Los Angeles, San Francisco and numerous other cities destroy themselves by allowing what’s happening,” Trump said last week.

The president has used Twitter to depict leaders of these cities as hapless and paralyzed in responding to declining quality of life caused by homelessness. He also dispatched Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to visit Skid Row in Los Angeles last week and said he wanted to help California deal with its homeless problem.

But the nature of possible federal help is unclear. Trump has suggested that homeless people might be rounded up and housed on federal property or military bases, but civil-rights lawyers say the president has no authority to forcibly relocate individuals who have not committed federal crimes. 

The Associated Press reported that Carson might link federal housing grants to local governments’ efforts to make it easier to add housing by limiting regulations. That approach would parallel efforts by Newsom and lawmakers led by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, to weaken local zoning rules that they say enable NIMBYs to block new housing.

Signaling he’s very likely to run for president, Bay Area hedge fund billionaire and progressive activist Tom Steyer has begun searching for key aides to help him as he seeks the 2020 Democratic nomination.

A recent Linked-In ad was traced by the New York Times to Steyer’s nascent campaign. ”A high profile political campaign based on the West Coast is seeking highly skilled political professionals to join our national campaign team,” it said. The ad sought state directors for New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina – the next three primary and caucus states after Iowa kicks off the nomination process with caucuses on Feb. 3, 2020. A Steyer aide confirmed to the Times that he was responsible for the posting.

Steyer, 60, a former Yale soccer team captain who became a Californian after enrolling at the Stanford graduate business school, had a relatively low-key role in state and national politics until 2012. That’s when he handed over many of his financial responsibilities and began aggressively advocating for bolder environmental programs, among other causes.

‘Need to Impeach’ campaign raises national profile

This year, Steyer’s national profile has shot up after he spent at least $40 million on a “Need to Impeach” cable and online campaign in which he stars in advertisements criticizing the conduct of President Donald Trump. The campaign has gathered more than 6 million signatures in an online petition urging Congress to remove the Republican Trump.

Steyer could be competing for the nomination against as many as three other California Democrats: Sen. Kamala Harris, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Rep. Eric Swalwell of the East Bay area near San Francisco.

Harris has by far the highest national profile of the three, having won headlines as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In online prediction markets, Harris, Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have all been the leader to win the nomination at various points over the past two months.

Harris 5th in first CNN survey of Iowa Democrats

Harris didn’t fare as well in the first CNN/Des Moines Register poll of Iowa Democrats released over the weekend. Former Vice President Joe Biden led with 32 percent, Sanders was next with 19 percent, O’Rourke had 11 percent, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren had 8 percent, with Harris in fifth at 5 percent.

But the former San Francisco district attorney can take solace in two facts. The first is that polls before the Iowa caucuses have a history of swinging wildly, and there is still more than 13 months until voting. The second is that African American candidates tend to do better in more diverse states than Iowa, which is 91 percent white.

While Illinois Sen. Barack Obama won the 2008 caucuses with 38 percent of the vote, that was among his 10 worst showings in primaries and caucuses as he went on to win the nomination. In 1988, civil-rights activist Jesse Jackson got 8.8 percent of the Iowa caucus vote versus the 29.4 percent he got in the overall Democratic nomination process as the runner-up to the nominee, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. Jackson only fared worse in two other states.

In the Register-CNN poll, Steyer and Swalwell got 1 percent each. Garcetti was at 0 percent, receiving the fewest votes of any of the 20 listed Democratic candidates.

A ballot measure that would repeal California’s 1995 state law limiting what properties can be subject to rent control seems certain to be on the November ballot after proponents submitted more than 565,000 signatures to state authorities last week, far above the minimum needed.

The measure’s lead sponsor is Michael Weinstein of the well-funded Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is working with tenants rights groups and social justice activists and which sponsored two 2016 state initiatives. At a news conference this week, Weinstein and his allies depicted rent control as an obvious solution to a housing crisis that has pushed rent and mortgages higher for years without drawing a vigorous response from local and state officials.

“The rents are too damn high and we need local control to solve the problem,” Elena Popp of the Eviction Defense Network said at a rally in Los Angeles, according to a published report,

The measure would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which banned rent control on housing units completed after its enactment and on existing single-family homes, duplexes and condos. The complex law imposed other limits as well, depending on rent-control provisions in individual cities.

Its passage came in the mid-1990s after developers backed by Republicans, planners and some community activists made the case that rent control laws adopted by 15 California cities after World War II – most notably Los Angeles and San Francisco – had had the effect of stifling new construction and leading landlords to skimp on renovations and repairs.

Economists and housing experts generally continue to see rent control as having a long-term negative effect on housing costs by making shortages more likely. A 2016 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office agreed with this conventional wisdom.

But with average monthly rents for two-bedroom apartments soaring past $2,500 in most Southern California coastal counties and above $4,000 in San Francisco and parts of Silicon Valley, public interest in rent control increased. In November 2016, eight measures to control housing costs were considered by Bay Area communities. Four passed, included laws capping annual rent hikes in Oakland, Mountain View, Alameda and Richmond.

Focus on housing stock plays better with policy wonks than public

The idea that rent control is no real long-term solution to a problem that is rooted in a shortage of housing units remains the view of some prominent Democrats. Most notably, Gov. Jerry Brown supported 2017’s Senate Bill 35, which makes it more difficult to use regulatory tactics to block properly zoned housing projects with at least some affordable units. According to one analysis, SB35 will compel more than 97 percent of California’s local governments to build more housing.

But this medium- and long-term approach to addressing the housing crisis has played better with policy wonks than the general public. Frustration over California housing costs has been a staple of social media and in the letters sections of newspapers for years.

This has caught the attention of elected officials. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti once appeared to be in the camp of those who saw adding housing stock as the key to slowing or stopping the increase in rent and mortgage costs. In 2014, the possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidate committed his administration to approving 100,000 new housing units by 2021 and has bragged about already being nearly three-quarters of the way to his goal.

But Garcetti surprised some political observers by coming to this week’s L.A. rally for the statewide rental control initiative and offering strong support. According to a City News Service report, Garcetti used one of the favorite talking points of activists – depicting rent control as a way for average citizens and City Hall to scale back the power of corporate and other interests. “I’ve always believed that those who live closest to a given block or a street know what’s best. Local government should have control over their own city,” he said.

In a statement, Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, offered a starkly different assessment: “This ballot measure will pour gasoline on the fire of California’s affordable housing crisis. It will do exactly the opposite of what it promises – instead of helping Californians, it will result in an affordable housing freeze and higher costs.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, 47 – with his military background, part-Mexican heritage, Spanish fluency, Rhodes scholarship and progressive credentials – has seen his tentative steps toward a White House bid win encouragement from pundits and politicians alike.

But Garcetti has a disadvantage that doesn’t hamper politicians like Harris, Warren and Biden who don’t have daily responsibilities for making government work better: He’s a mayor who faces fresh scrutiny each day over how his administration is performing. This has yielded months of critical coverage on three major issues:

1) A Los Angeles Times investigation of a retirement program set up for police officers and firefighters showed rampant abusive practices likely costing city taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Under the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), approved by voters in 2001, officers and firefighters can get both regular pay and a pension in their final years on the job.

The Times probe found that nearly half of the 5,000 men and women who signed up for DROP got substantial increases in their pensions by claiming work-related disabilities. The newspaper found broad evidence of workers’ compensation fraud – and no evidence the Garcetti administration ever acted to counter the fraud, even after being warned about it in 2016.

The newspaper also found no evidence the program has saved money, as voters were promised in 2001. And instead of keeping officers and firefighters on the job, DROP reportedly led to the loss of thousands of workers who filed disability claims.

Despite the findings, Garcetti earlier this month gave his blessing to a new police contract that retained DROP as is and gave officers a raise of up to 5 percent.

Recycling, homeless programs drew sharp critiques

2) A new 10-year contract with seven companies to improve recycling citywide has proven a public relations debacle for the Garcetti administration. Landlords have reportedly seen recycling bills go up three- to six-fold, leaving many scrambling to raise rents that are already considered sky-high. Many individual customers complain bitterly over extra fees added to their bills by the companies for services that previously were provided without additional charges.

City officials claimed to be blindsided by the problems. But as with the DROP program, there’s evidence that Garcetti and the Los Angeles City Council dropped the ball. The Times noted that former City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana had opposed awarding exclusive long-term contracts but was ignored. Santana contended that promoting recycling competition was more likely to lead to reasonable rates.

3) The city’s troubled efforts to respond to a burgeoning homeless problem. A 21-page report by Santana released in 2015 concluded that the city spent $100 million a year on homelessness in unfocused, marginally successful ways.

This year, a public backlash has built over the Garcetti administration’s slowness in responding to nearly 6,000 requests to clean up homeless encampments. City statistics released in February showed that 2,400 of the complaints had gone unaddressed for more than 90 days.

In an interview with the Times, City Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents a downtown district with a heavy homeless population, depicted City Hall’s response as having failed Angelenos.

On the homeless cleanup front, “How can we go to our constituents and say with a straight face, ‘We will get to this’?” Huizar told the newspaper.

Garcetti has plenty of time to make up his mind about a presidential bid, in terms of qualifying for the ballot in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in early 2020. He also has some leeway in gearing up fundraising and organizational efforts. The last “outsider” candidate to win the Democratic presidential nod – then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama – didn’t publicly signal his intention to seek the 2008 nomination until October 2006, after spending much of the year saying he would not run.

“We have a lot of work left to do to build a stronger city, state and nation and I know I can best build on our progress here in L.A.,” he wrote. “I am passionate about my city and my family; both are here in Los Angeles.”

The announcement came as little surprise, as few believed Garcetti would enter the crowded field that includes Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who has already built a robust campaign war chest and enters the race as the frontrunner. Garcetti’s decision is likely welcome news for former L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, as the two would have been competing for not only votes in the heavily Latino Southern California region – but donors as well.

Also, the mayor polled relatively poorly last spring in early surveying of the race.

Furthermore, rumors that Garcetti is setting the groundwork for a White House run have swirled for months – rumors fueled by his recent trips to places like New Hampshire and Wisconsin. He is also scheduled to visit the early primary state of South Carolina later this year.

While the mayor has been largely mum on possible aspirations to seek the 2020 Democratic nomination, the 46-year-old Garcetti has stressed a need for new blood and fresh energy in a party still reeling from a crushing defeat last November.

“I have a job I love,” Garcetti said at the Democratic National Committee’s annual meeting in Nevada earlier this month.

A jump to the White House would be unprecedented, however, as no politician has ever gone from city hall to Pennsylvania Avenue without other stops in between.

Garcetti finds himself in a unique position within the Democratic Party nationally. While he backed Hillary Clinton and is aligned with the establishment roots of the party, he has also unabashedly backed progressive measures like single-payer health care – policy proposals longtime Democratic figures like Sen. Dianne Feinstein have been hesitant to embrace.

At the same time, he’s taken a less aggressive tone in speaking out against President Trump’s agenda in Washington, largely avoiding the more hyperbolic rhetoric from other California leaders like Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.

For example, in his second inaugural address in July, Garcetti didn’t mention President Trump by name, and instead struck a more unifying and pragmatic tone.

While those words sufficed after he was overwhelmingly elected as mayor, if he decides to run, Garcetti may be required to pivot towards appealing to an audience eager to hear a tougher anti-Trump message – especially coming from a state that has positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against the GOP agenda.

“I think all the rules are off,” Garcetti told a Wisconsin TV station this summer. “No African American could be president until one was. No reality star could be president until one is.”

For example, Bay Area Congressman Ro Khanna, D-Calif., reportedly asked Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich to run against the incumbent, believing the party needs someone further to the left to occupy the seat.

“There are other voices in our state who are far more in touch with the values,” Khanna told Politico.

While Feinstein has been a fixture of California politics for decades, her softer tone toward President Trump and stances on issues like national security and encryption have caused her to lose favor with some in her party.
“She was totally out of touch when the whole debate happened on encryption,’’ Khanna added, according to Politico, referencing the dialogue that took place in the aftermath of the San Bernardino terror attack. “She didn’t even understand some of those issues.”

Furthermore, she faced jeers from a town hall crowd this summer after suggesting that President Trump could become a “good president” if he would “learn” and “change.”

“Look, this man is going to be president most likely for the rest of this term,” the senator said at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club in August. “I just hope he has the ability to learn and to change and if he does he can be a good president. And that’s my hope.”

Following backlash, she was forced to clarify her remarks.

At 84, she is the oldest senator in the upper chamber and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As some reporters noted, the announcement is seen as bad news for L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who were viewed as likely candidates if Feinstein decided to retire. De León in particular is thought to have been eyeing the seat, as he’s termed out of the state Senate next year.

The talks about a primary challenger come as Democrats nationally have been looking to revamp their image with fresh faces and “new blood” after Hillary Clinton’s defeat last November.

“Her policies are completely out of touch with California Democrats, and we think she’d be more at home in a Republican primary,” Corbin Trent of the Justice Democrats told Vox, expressing support for a primary challenger.

With California positioning itself as the center of the so-called “Resistance” against the Trump agenda in Washington, the stage could be set for a challenge to Feinstein from the left. But with support from top Democrats in the state like U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, along with a robust campaign infrastructure and strong name recognition, any effort to take her on will present a steep challenge.

Denise Cross / flickr

In an effort to bolster its relevance during the next presidential election, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a new law moving California’s primary from June to early March.

A March primary gives the Golden State an opportunity to be political flashpoint moving into 2020. In 2016, by the time June rolled around, the presidential primaries were essentially over.

“Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country’s highest office,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. “California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country – including immigration, education and the environment. The Prime Time Primary Act will help ensure that issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.”

The move is also seen as a potential boost to possible Democratic candidates like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, rising stars in the party who would benefit from having their home state vote earlier in the primary process.

The legislation also moves up congressional races, taking effect in 2019. Now, the elections will fall “on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March,” making California part of the so-called “Super Tuesday” states.

Furthermore, an earlier primary will have a significant effect on fundraising, beyond candidates raising money earlier.

“With an earlier primary, our elections could have major national implications in the electoral college and down ballot races,” Los Angeles-based GOP fundraiser Charles Moran told CalWatchdog. “D.C. will have to pay attention to us for more than just our money.”

This isn’t a first for California, as there was a February primary back in 2008, leading to the “highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980,” according to Padilla.

Joining the “Super Tuesday” fray also appears to be an effort to thwart President Trump, or least give California a greater opportunity to set the anti-Trump agenda for Democrats nationally.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who authored the bill, hinted at that motivation, saying that “we have a responsibility to drive a different agenda at the national level and promote inclusion and consensus not the politics of division.”

California has positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against the Trump administration, suing over the travel ban, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and the border wall.

The most significant measures passed long before the session’s deadline. In April, lawmakers passed a controversial 12-cents-a-gallon gas-tax increase by a razor-thin margin. The law also increased vehicle-license fees. In July, they passed a 10-year extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program, with the help of several Republican legislators. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure could increase gas prices as much as 63 cents a gallon by 2021.

But the final hours of the session were still filled with tension. The housing package worked out between Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders had stalled in the final days, but snuck past the finish line. The package includes three bills. One (Senate Bill 35) would streamline the approval process for high-density affordable housing projects, but requires contractors to pay union-based prevailing wage rates on those subsidized projects in return.

The other two parts of the deal have a bigger tax-and-spend element to them. SB2 imposes new fees of $75 to $225 on various real-estate transactions to help fund subsidized high-density housing projects. SB3 will place before voters on the November 2018 ballot a $3 billion state housing bond that likewise will fund the construction of low-income housing units.

The gas tax increase has sparked a GOP-led recall effort of Fullerton-area Democrat Josh Newman, mainly because of his vote to support the increase – and because he represents a GOP-heavy district. Democrats passed two bills this session to change the recall rules to help the embattled senator, but that issue is working its way through the courts. If Newman loses, Democrats would lose their supermajority in the Senate. Anti-tax activists also are gathering signatures for an initiative that would repeal the new gas tax and license fees.

Nevertheless, some commentators were relieved that the session wasn’t worse, from a tax-hiking perspective. Joel Fox, editor of Fox and Hounds Daily, referred to this as a “tax-happy session,” but noted the California Chamber of Commerce’s success in defeating nine so-called “job killer” bills that proposed some form of tax increase.

Some of these defeated tax proposals include: A tax on contractors who do business with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; excise taxes on manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers of distilled beverages; an excise tax on distributors of sweetened soft drinks to fund a new health program; an increase in the personal income tax of 14.3 percent; a tax on opioid distributors; a new retail tax to fund affordable housing; expansion of the capital gains tax; and a measure to lower the vote threshold for local property tax increases.

California Democratic leaders spent a lot of time this session positioning themselves to resist the Donald Trump presidency. Many efforts involved little more than posturing and press conferences, but the Legislature passed three substantive bills that are designed to either affect the next presidential election or confront the Trump administration over its controversial immigration policies.

For instance, the Legislature passed SB568, which moves up the state’s presidential primary. It now occurs late in the primary process in June, but would move to March. That would make California the fifth state to vote for president in the 2020 election, provided other states don’t play leapfrog with their dates. California’s voters currently have little say in the presidential races because the nominees are fairly obvious by June.

“Winning big in California could help a Democrat clinch the nomination in the spring instead of the summer,” according to The Washington Post’s analysis. That could help defeat Trump in the next election because “if you can wrap up the primary in the spring, you have more time to focus on taking out an incumbent president.” It could also help Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti or Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., both of whom are eyeing a presidential run.

The Post also pointed to two other anti-Trump measures now on the governor’s desk. SB149 requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to be eligible to run in the state’s primary election. That’s obviously aimed at Trump, who refused to release his returns in the 2016 race. Most controversially, lawmakers passed a “sanctuary state” bill (SB54) that forbids state and local authorities from cooperating with federal officials to deport illegal immigrants. That sets up a serious showdown with the administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funds from localities that embrace sanctuary status.

Finally, California’s politically powerful unions got many of their priorities through this year’s legislative session. The most far-reaching measure, Assembly Bill 1513, would provide the names and personal information of home-care workers who work for private companies. That would enable unions to contact private-sector workers for organizing purposes.

The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 63, which expands the state’s family leave law, applying it to companies with at least 20 employees. It also passed AB1461, which would require employees at some companies that provide meal-delivery services to get a “food-handlers’ card.” Similar to the home-care bill, unions would then have access to these workers’ private information for organizing purposes.

The Legislature passed some other workers’ rights bills. AB168 bans employers from asking for an applicant’s salary history. That was posited as a women’s rights issue, as backers claim that providing pay information makes it harder for women to receive higher pay scales. Another bill (AB1008) would not allow employers to ask applicants about prior criminal convictions until a tentative job offer is made.

The Sacramento Bee noted that not all labor-backed bills succeeded: “Heavy opposition from the dialysis industry blocked SB349, which would have set staffing levels for those clinics” and opposition from county governments blocked a bill (AB1250) that would have largely banned counties from contracting out many services. AB568 did pass, however. It requires school districts, charters and community colleges to provide six weeks of paid leave for pregnancy-related reasons.

Lawmakers didn’t shy away from hot-button social issues. SB179 provides a gender-neutral option called “non-binary” for driver’s licenses. And AB1209 “will require large companies to report their mean and median salary data by classification and gender to the Secretary of State, who will post the data online,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Critics complain the state didn’t deal with several pressing financial issues, ranging from California’s exploding unfunded pension liabilities to reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, which is widely blamed for encouraging lawsuits that delay needed construction projects. The Legislature certainly didn’t control spending this year either, as it approved a budget that sets every manner of spending record.

The governor has until Oct. 15 to make his decision on the bills that made it to his desk.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Both cities cite the same reasons they are epicenters for homelessness: mild climates and extremely expensive housing. But knowing what’s driving the problem isn’t the same as having an answer for it.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Council leaders in 2015 declared a “state of emergency” over the homeless crisis and announced $100 million in funding for homelessness relief in 2015-16, a big increase over previous years. In 2016, city voters followed up by approving a $1.2 billion bond to ramp up plans to build housing for the homeless, and in fiscal 2016-17, homeless funding went up to $138 million.

But since the emergency declaration, the average number of those homeless on a given night according to city tracking has gone up by nearly two-thirds. In 2015, the average number was 21,338. In 2016, it was 28,464. In 2017, with half the year still to go, the number has grown by 18 percent to 34,189.

Not only are efforts to get more homeless into shelters failing, a Friday report in the Los Angeles Times concluded that a $14 million program to clean up homeless encampments was ineffective because as soon as one camp area was closed and cleaned, another popped up nearby.

City officials argued they were making progress in addressing an immense problem. Residents weren’t buying it.

“[Work crews] clean up and they come right back. It’s just a never-ending cycle,” a North Hills hair salon owner told the Times. “You’d think they would come and find a place for them, but they don’t. They just tell them to move.”

Heavy spending producing weak results

In San Francisco, residents – and elected officials – face even worse frustrations. The city spends far more than Los Angeles to deal with a smaller number of homeless people, without the gains one might expect.

In 2015, Mayor Ed Lee was re-elected to a second four-year term after a campaign in which he promised to tackle what was unanimously seen as a humanitarian and civic crisis. But eight months later, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a rare front-page editorial declaring city efforts to have failed.

The number of homeless people on an average night was estimated at about 7,500 in January 2015. By late 2016, city officials’ estimate had jumped to about 10,000, with some homeless advocates saying the number was closer to 12,000. Different counts have different methodologies, leading to disputes over whether the problem is significantly worse than it used to be. But the Chronicle’s front-page editorial came down squarely on the side of those who argue some official counts are much too low.

Meanwhile, as in Los Angeles, attempts to clear homeless encampments that San Francisco voters had blessed by approving a measure prohibiting tents on public sidewalks in November 2016 were depicted by news coverage as more symbolic than substantive. Mayor Lee agreed with the assessment.

City spending on homelessness has gone from $241 million in fiscal 2015-16 to $275 million in 2016-17 to $305 million in the fiscal year that began Saturday. In May, a local nonprofit group also promised to provide a $100 million grant to tackle homeless.

But this may not affect the problem except on the margins. Local governments have long noticed that a relative handful of homeless people – those with serious mental illness – consume a disproportionate share of homeless funding with constant trips to emergency rooms and confrontations with police and residents. In San Francisco, this category of homeless people makes up 3 percent of total homeless but uses one-third of resources. A June 2016 Chronicle story suggested the tab for this group alone could eat up far more than one-third of all funds if its severe problems were addressed with the comprehensive approach that advocates want.

That would leave little to go around for the most common category of homeless person – those who lost shelter after losing a job or after a rent increase or a life emergency such as heavy medical bills.