Quantcast
Connect with us

Los Angeles finds loophole in court ruling: Ban homeless people living in cars — but only at night

Published

on

The city of Los Angeles is hoping to get around a federal court ruling that struck down a ban on homeless people living in cars by specifying that the ordinance only applies to evening hours when they would be sleeping.

Last year, a federal appeals court struck down the city’s ban on living in vehicles, saying that it was “broad and cryptic” and it was only being applied to homeless people.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to KPCC, the city has two different proposals that it hopes will pass constitutional muster. One amendment provides a narrower definition of “living in a vehicle” that prevents parking between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. And the second proposal would provide a limited number of “permits” to homeless people, allowing them to park in designated non-residential areas.

City Atty. Mike Feuer has called the new amendments a “novel approach” that would “strive to meet the City Council’s goal to protect neighborhoods in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of the homeless.”

“The city has continued to take these draconian measures and focusing solely on law enforcement rather than providing solutions to the problem,” Venice Community Housing Corporation Executive Director Steve Clare told KPCC. “Just in Venice itself, the city has over 1,900 city-owned lots, in Venice. There are over 900 that are right down on Venice Beach. We could easily accommodate all of the people that are in our community in vehicles in comfortable locations.”

“The city just need to take a more proactive stance in terms of trying to solve a problem, address a concern rather than trying to suppress it and just cite people and put push them from one neighborhood to another.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Contracts show how Giuliani-backed lawyers planned to help fired Ukraine prosecutor get revenge on Biden

Published

on

Newly revealed contracts obtained by the Daily Beast show that two lawyers backed by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani explicitly promised to help fired Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin regain his reputation by digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

A contract written up by attorney Victoria Toensing this past April stated that Shokin would agree to pay Toensing and her husband, fellow attorney Joseph diGenova, $125,000 "for the purpose of collecting evidence regarding [Shokin’s] March 2016 firing as Prosecutor General of Ukraine and the role of then-Vice President Joe Biden in such firing, and presenting such evidence to U.S. and foreign authorities."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Fox News legal analyst makes stunning prediction: Trump will testify under oath in impeachment trial

Published

on

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano predicted that President Donald Trump would testify during his impeachment trial.

Napolitano told "America's Newsroom" anchor Bill Hemmer on Thursday that he believed the president would testify on his own behalf once the House votes to impeach him and the Senate holds a trial, reported The Hill.

“If you go to a Senate trial, who testifies on behalf of the president?” Hemmer asked.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Mitch McConnell may let Republicans write Senate impeachment rules without Democratic votes

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is plotting to shut out Democrats on impeachment if a bipartisan compromise on rules for the trial can't be reached.

The Kentucky Republican said this week that he hopes to reach an agreement on rules for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, but he's also readying a "backup plan" in case he can't reach an agreement with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, reported Vanity Fair.

“The first thing Sen. Schumer and I will do is see if there’s a possibility of agreement on a procedure,” McConnell said. “That failing, I would probably come back to my own members and say, ‘Okay, can 51 of us agree how we’re going to handle this?’”

Continue Reading