A judge in April struck down a city code that allowed sanitation crews to cart away belongings stored in a public area, using the reason that those items are bulky. But attorneys representing homeless individuals and their advocates say the city is acting “in contempt” of that order by continuing to tell encampment residents that the rule is being enforced.
Over the past two weeks, Los Angeles sanitation crews have posted notices telling homeless individuals living at encampments that they are prohibited from having bulky items, even though the judge has ordered that the city to stop enforcing this law, the attorneys contended in court filings last week.
The attorneys represent Koreatown-based advocacy group Ktown for All and several homeless individuals who filed a lawsuit in July 2019 challenging municipal code 56.11, which they argue has resulted in belongings getting seized and destroyed unconstitutionally. The law restricts storage of property in public areas, and bars tents from being up during the day.
The City Attorney’s Office declined to respond to last week’s filings. Supporters of such cleanups say they are responding to complaints about the encampments from nearby residents. They say the the cleanups aim to keep large items from blocking walkways or becoming eyesores.
According to the court filing this week, Councilman Joe Buscaino said City Council members made promises to their constituents to keep the streets clean, and “bottom line is, our sanitation are not given the necessary tools to pick up bulky items in and around these encampments … “
The judge in the Ktown for All case, Dale S. Fischer, had found 56.11’s prohibition on bulky items to be problematic, however, arguing in the April ruling that this part of the law, which could lead to the confiscation and destruction of bulky items, lacked due process and “provides no process at all.”
Fischer ordered the city to stop the enforcement of that law, which allows for taking and throwing away people’s belongings based merely on their bulky size.
She wrote that “because the bulky item provision permits the city to remove and permanently destroy bulky items without any procedural safeguards whatever,” the plaintiffs would likely win their case on the basis that the provision violates due process protections in the Fourteenth Amendment and California Constitution in which the state is expected to respect a person’s legal rights when enforcing laws that deprive someone of their property.
But attorneys and activists said this week they have observed notices still being posted that say this provision will be enforced, especially in connection with the comprehensive encampment sweeps the Los Angeles City Council restarted at “special enforcement and cleaning zones” surrounding homeless “bridge” shelters.
In one instance, paper signs that read “bulky items are always prohibited” were posted in a 50 square-mile enforcement area around a new homeless bridge shelter in San Pedro notifying encampments residents of a “major cleaning” on July 31.
An attorney also counted 150 signs in a special enforcement and cleaning zone around a shelter in North Hollywood, on Raymer Street, that still contain language and images that say bulky items are prohibited.
The cleaning in San Pedro was requested by Buscaino. His spokesman, Branimir Kvartuc, responded to the filing, said “it was a relatively minor mistake in the initial signage posted” that was quickly fixed.
The attorneys also took issue with the permanent metal signs around special enforcement zones, many of which still read, “No Bulky Items Shall Be Stored in Public Areas” and that announced daily “Bulky Item Remove.”
In filings submitted Monday and Tuesday, the plaintiff’s attorneys called on the judge to hold the city in contempt, and to issue sanctions such as a daily fine of more than $45,000 and the posting of remedial notices to “compensate for the damages caused by the violation of an injunction, where the violation impacts public perception.”
“Posting these notices is not simply a harmless act,” given that it is a crime under municipal code 56.11 “to interfere with the city’s enforcement of the ordinance, and law enforcement officers are frequently present while sanitation removes and destroys belongings,” the attorneys wrote.
They added that “individuals who have been subject to LAMC 56.11 enforcement know or quickly learn they have no choice but to abide by the city’s notices and relinquish their belongings.”
The attorneys requested that the judge hear their motion as soon as Sept. 21. Dozens of pages of declarations from attorneys and activists, documenting signs stating that bulky items are prohibited, were included with the attorneys’ filings.
The attorneys argue that it is the city’s responsibility to prevent violations before they happen, and it should not be the plaintiff’s job to “police the injunction and identify violations,” the attorneys wrote.
They also argue that the city makes it difficult for them to keep track of cleanups.
“Unhoused residents have limited access to resources like phones and emails, which makes it exceedingly difficult for them to raise issues or document violations of their rights,” they wrote.
They added that many of the cleanup notices are posted using temporary signs, which are “fleeting” and are occasionally posted onto people’s belongings, which are then removed by sanitation workers.
Meanwhile, schedules of the cleanups are released to a private citizen named Adrian Riskin through a public records request and only then made available to the public, they said.
“In the best of times, it is difficult to track when the city is conducting cleanups, let alone when the city posts notices that violate the court’s injunctions,” the attorneys said.
The attorneys only became aware of the major cleanup in San Pedro on July 31 due to a newspaper article that included a photo of the notice, they said.
“Under these circumstances, it was very unlikely that the city’s contemputous actions on July 30-31 would simply go undetected,” the attorneys wrote.
Riskin said in his declaration that he typically receives schedules on the morning of the cleanups, but he did not receive the schedule for comprehensive cleanups until around 2 p.m. that day.
The cleanup, which had been scheduled “almost immediately” after the council voted to resume comprehensive cleanups in special enforcement zones and before the change was finalized, was only listed as a “spot” cleaning, rather than a comprehensive one, on the sanitation schedule that Riskin was given.
The attorneys argued in their motion that the city’s response to their concerns “about those violations demonstrates an unwillingness or an inability on the part of the city to take the steps necessary to ensure compliance with this court’s order.”
Sanitation crews are deployed each day to encampments throughout the city to enforce the municipal code, which restricts the storage of property in public areas and when tents can be up.
Extra dollars are allocated in the city budget to conduct regular 56.11 enforcement and provide other services at such zones, under a program called “A Bridge Home” launched by Mayor Eric Garcetti in 2018.
But in recent months, the sanitation department has suspended major cleanings, and were only doing “spot” cleanings. City leaders said they wanted to allow homeless individuals to quarantine in their tents during the COVID-19 pandemic, so the council voted to suspend enforcement of another provision in 56.11 that requires that tents be taken down during the day.
In April, Fischer’s injunction was issued ordering the city to stop enforcement of the bulky items provision.
In July, Buscaino, who represents the San Pedro area, championed the resumption of the major cleanings during the pandemic.
According to the court filing this week, the attorneys said that Buscaino told his council colleagues in a City Council hearing that “We’re doing a disservice if we don’t pick up these bulky items in and around these encampments.’”
