The question seemed simple enough: Was the witness “the use of the word” urgent “used only for a brief” urgent shelter “?
However, the defendant’s lawyer was a miscarriage of laws: “The contradiction requires a legal conclusion. Applicing the opinion of the experts. Relevance. The basis is missing,” she intervened, led to a tired “judge.
Within two weeks ending earlier this month, more than 2000 objections have been awarded a high hearing of the federal court to decide whether to take an unprecedented step to control the homelessness programs in Los Angeles.
US County Judge David O. Carter told the parties to submit written briefs before Tuesday, and then the petition of business owners, real estate owners and residents will accept the petition, asking him to allocate a receiver in about $ 1 billion, which the city spends on a homeless person each year.
The city attracted a heavy law firm Gibson Dunn to take over domestic lawyers, who had previously dealt with a five -year -old case. The firm organized a team of seven rights led by Theane Evangel, who in the US Supreme Court argued on the Grants Pass and won a decision to open the door to quote and seize the stray for illegal camping.
The defense team did not call witnesses, but raised the threat of appeal minutes to the process with the first of what 262 objections that would annul the day is a transcript of the hearing. The seven -day hearing peak took place on the third day when Carter lifted 440 contradictions, usually with a loud whisper.
La alliance for human rights said the city violated the settlements reached in 2020. And 2022.
“It has been violated and broken, your honor. That’s what we are talking about today,” said Matt Umhofer, La Alliance’s lawyer. “The system has stopped and requires extraordinary actions of the courts.”
Evangelis rejected this statement as a general inflation of facts and laws.
“In short, the Alliance tried to turn this narrow process … a referendum about the city’s political choices related to homelessness,” she said. “And the Alliance did not provide any evidence showing that the city would not meet its goals … couldn’t.”
The third perspective, focusing on removing the campsites, depicted the Alliance and the city as anesthesia for homeless.
“Your honor, after removing the tents, does nothing to reduce the campsite,” said Shayla Myers, who represents two groups intervened in the name of the homeless. “When the city takes a tent, it simply means that during the day in the Slid Row heat, when unprotected residents have nothing to protect them. But that does not mean that the campsite has been reduced. It simply means that unprotected people have lost their belongings. “
The very welcome testimony of mayor Karen Bass and two city council members was unable to implement the Umhoff warning of an impending appeal and withdrew from the list of witnesses.
Instead, the long segments of testimonies, broken down by almost constant contradictions, by zero due to the minor differences in the settlement: What is the definition of the campsite? If the couple gets a lease subsidy, is it considered a single bed or two? What is the difference between the Camping Resolution, the Campground Reduction and the Removal of the campsite?
The nominally, due to the attraction of homeless people, has escalated to the attack on the main powers of the city, there is an 18 -month -old saga that causes the terms of billing. 2024. February The Alliance went to court to have $ 6.4 million for the city of fines.
Carter, who often enjoyed monologues in court for what he called the Rocky Horror Picture Show of the homeless service system skeptical about sanctions, but seized the Alliance’s request for an audit. After a burst of the city court diplomacy, the city agreed to pay $ 2.2 million. USD and later more than $ 3 million. USD for an independent audit.
February It was released and renamed the “evaluation” because the Alvarez & Marsal, which carries out it, was not a certified accountant, and found that the city’s homelessness programs had been distanced from and did not have proper data systems and financial control and were therefore vulnerable to waste and fraud. Although he pointed out any specific fraud, he found discrepancies that show that some beds were doubled and found no documents confirming hundreds of others.
The report increased the reform of the three decades of Los Angeles homeless service supervising the city and county homeless services. April The supervisory board voted to transfer $ 300 million from the agency to the newly established Department of Homeless. So far, the city is following Lahsa, but the city council voted in March to investigate a new office formation in the Housing Department to oversee its activities.
None of the mollimo Carter, who gave the boss by May to arrange the defective system by promising to become a “your worst nightmare,” if it fails.
May 8 The Alliance made a proposal stating that “after the exploitation of the court’s authority, the full panopgry of the remedial measures, no more chances of not being taken over.”
Carter ordered to prove the meeting on May 27.
The Alliance lawyers opened a meeting with Emily Vaughn Henry, a former LAHSA chief information officer. She testified that her homelessness data system was “smoke and mirrors” and that her supervisor told her to “do everything we can to make the mayor look good”.
Laura Frost, director of Alvarez & Marsal, testified that the majority of the data requested by the company was missing or never responded, so the company’s analysts thought she was not.
“We found that the system was not working,” the Frost said. And, in response to further actions, “we do not believe in the state that it was that it could significantly and significantly reduce the homelessness in Los Angeles.”
Two residents of the city center testified to Skid Row due to lack of services.
“Everyday life is a survival,” said Don Garza, a frequent viewer in Carter’s courtroom. “People are striking, dying on the Skid Row streets. … there is enough money for housing, shelters. There is enough money to do all this. … where did the money disappear? Why do these people die in our streets? “
The Alliance suggested that the city reboot its plan with a permanent home that costs more, and it takes longer than other housing.
Los Angeles city administration officer Matt Szabo Stooutly defended the city’s performance and, in particular in his plan, which he says reflects the voters, will be approved by a $ 1.2 billion dollars worth HHH for housing bond.
Within four days, Szabo firmly denied suspicions that the city falsely reported any beds created in 2020. And claimed that the city would fulfill its obligation in 2022. The agreement contains 12,915 additional homeless beds until 2027. June However, he demanded that the city “taken steps to ensure that the data we provided were accurate.”
At the end of the Umhofer, the judge reminded his words from 2021. Resolution:
“” This court cannot be a testament to the death of death. This always impair public health and security, requires immediate rescue. The city and county of Los Angeles showed that they were unable or unwilling to create effective solutions for the La Homeless Crisis. “
Myers, representing the La Can and Los Angeles Catholic worker, advocated the part of the settlement agreement to provide housing, but before removal and contrast. According to her, her duty should be in the judge to ensure that the city creates all the dwelling needed in the agreement.
“This, in your honor, needs care,” she said. “It does not require the recipient, but it requires check and data. It requires more information, your honor, not less about the city’s obligations.”
At the end of the 19th century, Evangelis appealed to the Grants Pass case.
“The Supreme Court seems to have been talking about the same process,” she said. “It’s very complicated. No one has answers. And of course, not all we have to decide these huge problems here. It depends on the local authorities, the elected officials and the dedicated civil servants … not the Alliance.”
It ended in a litany of the questions she said were endless.
Among them: Will the recipient have the power from the city’s General Fund properly? If so, what price for other priorities? Would the receiver take control of the LA Housing Department? LA Police Department? LA Fire Service? Sanitary Department?
The case is now in the hands of a judge who does not hide his commitment to shorten the homelessness, and has repeatedly showed that he wants to act in a certain threat to be appealed.
Jack Flemmy and David Zahniser, the writers of Times employees, contributed to this report.
Sign up to get Essential California to get news, features and recommendations from La Times and Outside Six days a week.
This story initially appeared at the Los Angeles Times.