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.

State Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, and 16 co-sponsors have introduced legislation that sounds like a bold move to address the high cost of housing. Glazer’s

The last time the rental tax credit was increased, in 1979, it set the credit at $10 per month for an individual filer and $20 a month for joint filers, with eligibility capped by total income. Senate Bill 1182 would increase the cap to $20 per month for individuals and $40 per month for joint filers. To be eligible, individuals have to have gross incomes of $40,078 or less and joint filers have to have incomes of $80,156 or less.

One-bedroom apartments routinely go for $1,700 or more per month in most metropolitan areas and the average home sale is above $500,000 in most of Southern California and over $1 million in the Bay Area. Glazer’s credit would mean that joint filers paying the average rent go from spending $20,160 in a year to spending $19,920 – a 1.2 percent savings. Individual filers paying the average rent would drop from $20,280 a year to $20,160 – a 0.6 percent savings. The percentage savings on a typical mortgage would be much lower.

In his news release announcing the legislation, Glazer noted attempts by the Legislature on many fronts to make it easier to build more housing, starting with streamlining regulations and giving qualified projects guaranteed approvals. He said these efforts could take years before they began helping Californians.

“None of those measures directed relief to the monthly budgets of struggling renters,” Glazer said. “The renter’s tax credit does.”

Three Republicans among co-sponsors

The news release listed these lawmakers, including three Republicans, as co-authors: Sens. Jim Beall, D-San Jose; Steve Bradford, D-Gardena: Bill Dodd, D-Napa; Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton; Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo; Ben Hueso, D-San Diego; Connie Leyva, D-Chino; Josh Newman, D-Fullerton; Janet Nguyen, R-Fountain Valley; Richard Pan, D-Sacramento; Anthony Portantino, D-Glendale; Richard Roth, D-Riverside; Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley; Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont; Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita; and Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale.

Glazer’s office said the higher renters’ tax credit would cost the state $230 million in annual revenue.

There are other restrictions on eligibility for the renters’ tax credit besides income caps, the Franchise Tax Board’s website notes. They include:

  – Tax filers need to have paid rent for at least six months for shelter that served as their principal residence.

  – The rented property was not on a parcel exempt from state property tax.

  – The property was not shared for more than six months with a parent or a guardian or any individual who could claim the tax filer as a dependent.

  – The tax filer was not a minor living with a legal guardian, parent or foster parent.

Glazer, 60, a former political and development consultant and aide to Gov. Jerry Brown, won a May 2015 special election to fill the final 19 months of Mark DeSaulnier’s state Senate seat after DeSaulnier was elected to Congress in 2014. He won a full four-year term in 2016.

The times seem to be changing in California when it comes to housing. The decision of Brisbane, a tiny suburb of San Francisco, to exclude housing from a

Cities complaining about NIMBYism by neighbors isn’t exactly a California tradition. But with housing shortages and sky-high housing costs in the Bay Area, aggressive new tactics could be the new norm as some city halls push others to do much more to add stock.

The annexation threat appears to be hollow. As noted by veteran Brisbane City Attorney Michael Roush, a functioning, non-bankrupt city can’t be taken over against its will under state law. But if the city-county of San Francisco could persuade San Mateo County to pressure one of its smallest towns to build housing — a possibility raised repeatedly — Brisbane leaders would be put in a tight spot.

At issue is Brisbane’s plan to put 8 million-plus square feet of commercial properties on a 684-acre former industrial site known as the Baylands next to Highway 101 at the foot of the San Bruno Mountains south of San Francisco. Developer Universal Paragon Corp. sought a mixed-use plan for the polluted site, including 4,434 homes. But Brisbane Mayor Cliff Lentz, town officials and most residents think that would transform their community and want no part of it. In August, the Brisbane Planning Commission formally opposed any home construction on the site, which is seen as the source of a huge sales and property tax windfall for the town.

The debate over Brisbane’s plans heated up after Lentz’s remarks last month that the housing component was unnecessary because “San Francisco is providing the housing.” That incensed San Francisco Supervisors Aaron Peskin, David Campos and Jane Kim and city Chamber of Commerce leaders.

“I grant you, the notion of exploring annexing Brisbane is provocative,” Peskin told the San Francisco Chronicle. “But, then again, the statements of the elected officials in Brisbane are provocative, too. What comes around, goes around. … For Brisbane to shirk responsibility [on housing issues] deserves a strong response.”

While continuing to talk tough, the San Francisco supervisors pulled back from a vote on the annexation resolution last week. Kim said that perhaps San Francisco or San Mateo County should consider trying to annex only the Baylands site, not all of Brisbane.

The pressure may have already influenced Brisbane. The City Council put off a planned Thursday vote related to the massive project, the Chronicle reported, saying the council may delay other related votes until next year.

But the power play is not going over well with Brisbane residents. KPIX-TV reported last week that the locals its reporter talked to feared San Francisco’s machinations might ruin their community.

“I don’t like it at all,” resident Julie Banks, whose parents and grandparents grew up there, told the San Francisco CBS affiliate. “It wouldn’t be Brisbane, it wouldn’t be a town. It wouldn’t be small and I don’t think our kids would be as safe.”

The second public hearing on the project will be held Nov. 17 at a special meeting of the Brisbane City Council. The first was held Sept. 29.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District argued that it’s not enough for developers to detail the environmental impacts from their proposed projects. Instead, they must also detail how the existing environment would affect the residents, employees or customers of new housing, commercial-retail or mixed-use projects. That assertion outraged the California Building Industry Association, which said it placed huge new obstacles on projects in urban areas — especially “infill” projects championed by environmentalists as a way to increase housing density near mass transit options.

Builders got their way at the trial court level, but an appellate court sided with the Bay Area AQMD. This month, however, a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled that CEQA simply doesn’t mandate that sweeping a review.

“Given the sometimes costly nature of the analysis required under CEQA when an EIR is required, such an expansion would tend to complicate a variety of residential, commercial, and other projects beyond what a fair reading of the statute would support,” wrote Judge Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar. Instead, he wrote, CEQA deals with “the project’s impact on the environment – and not the environment’s impact on the project.”

Builders feared adverse ruling

The decision came as a huge relief to developers and business interests, many of whom expected an adverse decision in the wake of the California high court’s Nov. 30 ruling that rejected the 5,800-page environmental impact report for the Newhall master planned community in the Santa Clarita Valley. The project, first proposed in the 1980s, would create homes, retail-commercial zones and leisure-recreational facilities for 58,000 people.

Contrary to some reports, this wasn’t just a simple battle between environmentalists — in this case, the Center for Biological Diversity — and a developer — the Newhall Land & Farming Co.  The California Department of Fish and Wildlife was the first named party in the lawsuit because it had helped prepare an EIR that said the project had enough mitigation that it would have no net negative effect on the environment, specifically in the release of additional greenhouse gases. The state had been encouraged to take this position by Los Angeles County, which approved the Newhall project’s zoning in 2003.

Justice knocks ‘recipe for paralysis’

The Newhall decision was supported by five of the seven California justices. Interestingly, one of the two dissenters invoked not just his reading of CEQA but the larger issue of a lack of housing in California. This is from the Los Angeles Times:

Justice Ming W. Chin said the environmental impact report could be fairly easily revised but complained the litigation would delay the project by years at a time when the state faces a housing shortage.

 

“Delay the project long enough and it has to meet new targets, and then perhaps new targets after that,” Chin wrote. “All this is a recipe for paralysis.”

This acknowledgment of the effects of judicial decisions on the real world is relatively unusual. For example, in May, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out a state pension reform program that supporters said was crucial to keeping Illinois from becoming the first state to declare bankruptcy. This account is from The New York Times:

All seven members of the state’s highest court found that a pension overhaul lawmakers had agreed to almost a year and a half ago violated the Illinois Constitution. The changes would have curtailed future cost-of-living adjustments for workers, raised the age of retirement for some and put a cap on pensions for those with the highest salaries. But under the state Constitution, benefits promised as part of a pension system for public workers “shall not be diminished or impaired.”

“Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law,” Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier wrote in an opinion. “It is a summons to defend it.”

Whether or not the federal government might come to the rescue of Illinois if it went bankrupt has been the topic of intense speculation in that state’s media.