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.

By John Hrabe

Four years ago Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California’s controversial Green Chemistry regulations: AB 1879 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, and SB 509 by Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto. He proclaimed that the state was adopting “the most comprehensive green chemistry program in the world.”

The laws, which only took full effect this year, granted unelected chemical bureaucrats at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control the authority to regulate virtually every consumer product sold in California. In his typical grandstanding fashion, Arnold promised that all of these new regulations wouldn’t have any negative consequences on California’s job market.

“Right here at Nelson Nameplate, the company’s owners replaced toxic solvents with a more benign process,” Schwarzenegger said at the bill signing ceremony for AB 1879 and SB 509 in late September 2008. “Workers, neighbors and our environment were safer. And guess what? One of the great things is that it also proved that the company’s bottom line has improved because it saved on chemicals and expensive disposal.”

Did you catch that last part? These new regulations actually help “the company’s bottom line.” And Arnold isn’t the only person living in the magical land where regulations help businesses make money.

“We see this as a two-for-one initiative,” said Debbie Raphael, director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, in a July 2012 press release announcing the new regulations. “Public health and the environment benefit by lessening our use of toxic chemicals, and California companies get a significant boost into markets that are rapidly expanding.”

You read that correctly. According to state regulators, new government mandates help a company’s bottom line. Of course, the argument is absurd. If businesses could save money, they’d be changing their policies or manufacturing processes without the government stepping in with new mandates.

People can disagree about the benefit of new regulations—whether the greater public good outweighs the financial costs—but it’s completely disingenuous for the regulatory movement to argue regulations help companies make more money. No one wants companies dumping chemicals into a river, regardless of how much money it saves them. But, you can’t rewrite the facts. All regulations cost money, and sometimes the public health benefits are worth the cost.

The American Chemistry Council, the big bad business association that represents the nation’s largest chemical companies, has called state regulators’ bluff. The association isn’t calling for an end to the new Green Chemistry law; it’s simply asking the state to conduct an economic analysis in order to inform policymakers of the regulations true economic impact. If nothing else, it would expose regulators lies that new chemical mandates help businesses. Among the topics to be covered in such a report:

* Total statewide compliance costs  of the regulation;

* Total number of businesses impacted;

* Impact on small businesses;

* Number of businesses created and eliminated;

* Jobs created and destroyed.

Economic shortfalls

“The American Chemistry Council has been engaged in an extensive multi-year effort to help California construct a regulatory approach to green chemistry that fosters innovation and enhances public and environmental health,” the association said in a press statement. “It is imperative that regulators take into account the state’s ongoing economic shortfalls, and the obligation to ensure the new regulations do not impact job retention and growth.”

An economic analysis of the Green Chemistry regulations isn’t just common sense. It would also comply with state law. Consider this the part of the story that really drives home the point of California’s over-regulation. In 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law SB 617, which required state agencies to conduct a rigorous economic analysis before adopting any new regulations. Yes, a regulation to restrict more regulations.

Almost exactly one year ago, Brown heralded SB 617 as legislation that would “boost California’s economic competitiveness, bring greater fiscal stability to the state and reform the regulatory process to promote business growth.”

While Brown has failed to follow through on the economic impact study, more than a dozen state legislators are pushing for an in-depth look at California’s Green Chemistry law. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, State Sen. Michael Rubio of Bakersfield and 16 fellow Democrats sent a letter to Brown asking for an investigation of the economic impact of the regulations.

“It is without contention that the range and scope of these regulations is wide and can impact every manufacturer, business and consumer in California and beyond,” Rubio and his colleagues wrote.

The Democratic legislative effort was matched by Assemblyman Jeff Miller, R-Riverside, who serves as vice chair of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. He believes that California’s Green Chemistry rules “could become California’s next regulatory train wreck and yet another business-unfriendly move by a state with shockingly high unemployment.”

“Some troubling details about how this happened: The initial statement of reason from DTSC justifying ‘green chemistry’ ran 200 pages.  The final regulations total 78 pages.  The economic analysis: four pages,” Miller wrote at Fox and Hounds Daily.  “This is fairly simple math and an indication of how far out of balance our regulatory system has gone.”

The public has until October 11, 2012 to register their public comments with the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Check out an earlier CalWatchDog series on how California’s chemical regulations hurt the global economy:

Part I: California exports regulations worldwide

Part II: California’s Global Regulatory Regime

He had championed a noxious police-union, muscle-flexing bill that would have allowed cops and other categories of the government elite to keep their personal property information secret. This was such a bad bill that the Senate killed it in committee, even though Der Feuer’s Assembly colleagues passed it 68-0. When it comes to ingratiating themselves to cop unions, Republicans and Democrats always try to outdo each other.

Feuer argued that criminals look up the personal property records of cops and then commit crimes against them. Only problem — there’s no evidence this ever happened. There have been incidents of criminals following cops home, but this has nothing to do with property records.

Der Feuer was perfectly content undermining the entire system of open government records that protect the integrity of property transactions. Once you make any exemptions, the whole system falls apart because people can no longer count on knowing who is buying and selling properties. The Feuer bill should have been called the Protect Corrupt Government Officials Who Pull Property Scams Act or the Help Deadbeat Cops Screw Their Ex-Wives Out of Property Settlements Act, given the likely results.

No matter. Feuer was doing the bidding of his union allies, but fortunately there are at least a handful of adults left in Sacramento.

JUNE 21, 2012