Taxpayer Lawsuit Filed
to Force Housing of
All Homeless in Less Expensive Facilities
Attorney Elizabeth Mitchell of the law firm of Spertus,
Landes and Umhofer, representing the homeless, property owners, residents and
the disabled, has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court to force the City and
County of Los Angeles to house all of its homeless in less expensive facilities
as soon as possible.
The suit contains 14 causes of action, including:
Negligence
The City and County have breached their duty to their
citizens to keep their communities’ streets open and available for movement of
people and property.
Mandatory Duty
Basic shelter is “medically necessary” insofar as it is
“reasonable and necessary to protect life, to prevent significant illness or
significant disability, or to alleviate severe pain” and the City and County’s
failure to provide the same to its homeless population constitutes a breach of
its duty under California Welfare & Institution Code Sections 17000 and
10000.
Public and Private Nuisance
The City and County have caused a substantial and
unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of citizens’ property, whether
that be a building owned or room rented; each have suffered and continue to be
threatened with respect to their health and welfare, by reason of the constant
threat of disease and the experience of human waste, trash, and encampments
outside their property.
Inverse Condemnation
The actions by the City have limited, damaged, and/or
burdened the owners’ property and/or business so substantially they rise to the
level of a regulatory taking, yet no compensation has been provided.
Waste of Public Funds and Resources
The City and the County have spent enormous amounts of
public funds on the homelessness crisis in ways that have had little or no
effect on the crisis, and thereby wasted those public funds.
Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
Numerous acts by the City constitute a “project” under CEQA,
including the power-washing scheme which flushes thousands of tons per year of
toxic substances into our oceans. The City’s decision to settle Mitchell v.
City of Los Angeles is another example of a “project” in the Skid Row area;
permitting unlimited property accumulation in the area has caused untold
amounts of human waste, trash, debris, and toxic substances to wash into our
waterways. Substantial evidence exists that the growing homelessness crisis may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Yet no review has ever been done, in violation of the CEQA.
Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act and
American with Disabilities Act
The City and County are failing to uphold their obligations
to maintain clear and accessible sidewalks and public rights-of way for its
disabled residents and visitors, resulting in regular violations of the California
Disabled Persons Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These violations
are obvious and known to the City and County both through their own inspections
and various reports of blocked sidewalks due to encampments through its own
reporting mechanisms, such as 311. Defendants and its agents and employees have
failed and continue to fail to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled
persons using public sidewalks.
Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
By enforcing the law in some areas and declining to enforce
the law in others, and by abdicating their duties under the law, the City has
arbitrarily determined where homeless encampments may or may not be located and
what communities should be affected, without following their own respective
procedures and in violation of both state and federal law. This has placed a
disproportionate burden on some persons, communities, and businesses over
others.
Violation of State-Created Danger Doctrine
Defendants have affirmatively created or increased the risk
that citizens would be exposed to dangerous conditions, which placed these citizens
specifically at risk, and these citizens were harmed as a result.
Uncompensated Taking
The actions by the City have limited, damaged, and/or
burdened the property owners so substantially they rise to the level of a
regulatory taking, yet no compensation has been provided.
Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy
The City and County acted with deliberate indifference, and
conscious and reckless disregard to the safety, security, and constitutional
and statutory rights of citizens.
Towards the objective of housing all unsheltered homeless persons as
soon as possible, the suit asks for immediate funding and of proven less-costly
housing models, including:
1.
Large membrane tents capable of housing 100
people that may be constructed in a few months (cost: $10,000 per bed), e.g.,
the Union Rescue Mission just erected one at that price.
2.
Large military-grade inflatable tents (cost:
$6,000 per bed).
3.
Pallet shelters (cost: $2,000 per bed).
4.
Tent “Kits” capable of housing a family of
four, with furniture, refrigerator, heater and electrical generator (Cost: $500
per bed, $2,000 per kit).
5.
SHARE Collaborative Housing, two persons per
bedroom in existing single-family homes and multi-family buildings (Cost: $500
to $700 monthly rent self-financed by each individual’s SSI, General Relief and
other benefits; $8,000 cost per annuum per person for management, peer-counseling
and other social services).
The suit would also require the City to maintain 36-inch ADA
access on all sidewalks all the time.
