Category: US

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to prohibit homeless people from setting up tents within 500 feet of schools and daycare centers, during a raucous meeting where protesters shouted down council members and, at one point, halted the meeting.

The new restrictions, approved by a vote of 11-3, dramatically expand the number of locations where sleeping and camping are off-limits. And they come amid a furious debate about how the city should respond to encampments that have taken hold in many parts of the city.

Audience members repeatedly chanted “shut it down” as Councilmember Joe Buscaino, a longtime proponent of increased enforcement, attempted to speak in favor of the restrictions. Council President Nury Martinez then stopped the meeting for more than an hour so police could clear the room.

After audience members had exited, council members reconvened, discussed the measure and voted.

“I think people were trying this morning to shut this place down and keep us from doing the very job that we were all elected to do,” Martinez said before the vote. “And that, I think, is incredibly disturbing.”

Under the new restrictions, people would be prohibited from sitting, sleeping, lying or storing property within 500 feet of every public and private school, not just the few dozen selected by the council over the past year.

Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who represents South Los Angeles, voted against the restrictions, telling reporters they would move the city toward an “inhumanity that is beneath the citizens of the city.”

Councilmember Mike Bonin, another opponent of the restrictions, said city leaders should devote their energy instead toward improving programs that help homeless Angelenos, such as those that help people with housing vouchers secure an apartment.

“We need to have a relentless, exclusive focus on getting people indoors,” said Bonin, who represents coastal neighborhoods from Los Angeles International Airport north to Pacific Palisades.

A second vote will be required next week. Bonin predicted the changes would result in a roughly tenfold increase in the number of sites subject to enforcement, taking it from more than 200 to about 2,000. The city’s supporting documents on the proposal did not give a clear figure showing how many sites would be covered.

Los Angeles Unified School District officials told The Times that about 750 school sites are within the city limits, a figure that does not include private or parochial schools. Nearly 1,000 commercial daycare businesses are registered with the city’s Office of Finance, although it’s not clear whether all of those locations would be covered by the city’s new law.

Tuesday’s vote came more than two months after Alberto M. Carvalho, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, made a surprise in-person appearance before council members to ask for the new restrictions. Parents and school staff have also spoken out in favor of the changes, saying they have observed erratic or even violent behavior near or on LA Unified campuses.

Martha Alvarez, who oversees government relations for the school district, told the council that LA Unified had found 120 campuses with encampments over the past year.

“These conditions are a public health hazard,” she said. “They are unsafe and traumatic for students, families and staff as they enter school campuses.”

Councilmember Joe Buscaino also spoke in favor, saying he has already been working to open more beds for homeless people across the city, using a variety of strategies.

“I’ve supported Bridge Home shelters. I’ve supported tiny homes, Project Roomkey, Project Homekey, permanent supportive housing,” Buscaino said. “But what I don’t support are drug dens near our schools, parks, or anywhere children congregate.”

Sarah Tindall, middle school, walks with school kids past a homeless encampment near Larchmont Charter School in August 2021.

(Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)

The new school year starts Aug. 15.

Foes of the proposal have repeatedly argued the council’s restrictions would effectively outlaw poverty, leading to the deaths of homeless Angelenos. Prohibiting encampments around schools, they said, would simply push people and their belongings a block or two away.

“There are a lot of people who are struggling right now, and we should be helping them,” said Andrew Graebner, appearing before the council.

The new restrictions come as city officials are gradually closing one of the signature programs set up to help homeless Angelenos during the COVID-19 pandemic: Project Roomkey, which turned multi-story hotels into makeshift shelters.

Those facilities allowed the city to bring far more people indoors than they had before, at a time when the congregate shelter system, where many people sleep in a single room, had to operate well below capacity under social distancing guidelines.

The Mayfair Hotel, which provided 252 rooms under the program, recently ended its participation in the program. The LA Grand Hotel in downtown and the Highland Gardens Hotel in Hollywood, which provided a combined 553 rooms, are scheduled to cease operation as Project Roomkey sites at the end of the month, according to Brian Buchner, the city’s homelessness coordinator.

The Airtel Plaza Hotel, which has provided 237 rooms, is set to end its participation in the program on Sept. 30.

Buchner said there are “active discussions” at City Hall and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority about extending the deadline at one or more of those facilities.

Tuesday’s vote represents a shift in the city’s approach on enforcement of its anti-camping law, reducing the amount of discretion wielded by individual council members and establishing a more sweeping policy. That’s a major contrast from last summer, when backers of the law pitched it as a narrow and targeted measure, with enforcement accompanied by offers of services from outreach workers.

Over the past year, permanent metal signs setting deadlines for homeless people to leave have been posted at more than 200 locations, 33 of them schools or daycare centers. At some locations, tents and makeshift shelters have remained weeks or months past the enforcement deadline, as outreach workers struggled to persuade people to move voluntarily.

Although some sites are now clear of tents and encampments, others have had more people living on the sidewalk than they did when outreach workers initially assessed the spots.

City and county officials along with homeless services providers previously told The Times that an insufficient number of outreach workers and a lack of interim housing options have hindered the implementation of the law.

Foes of the council’s homelessness strategy have repeatedly called for the restrictions on sidewalk camping to be repealed. Some of those critics are now leading candidates in the Nov. 8 election.

Accountant Kenneth Mejia, frontrunner in the race to replace City Controller Ron Galperin, said the new rules would render about one-fifth of the city’s sidewalks off limits to homeless people. I have warned that the restrictions would simply push homeless people to other nearby blocks.

Councilmember Paul Koretz, who trailed Mejia by nearly 20 points last month, voted in favor of the new law.

The council’s new anti-encampment law has quickly become an issue in other contests. Civil rights lawyer Faisal Gill, now running to succeed City Atty. Mike Feuer, has previously promised not to enforce the law, saying it is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the 9th Circuit.

Gill’s opponent, attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, declined to take a position on the measure when contacted by The Times.

“The validity, interpretation and enforceability of the [anti-encampment] ordinance will certainly come before the next LA city attorney,” she said in a statement. “And if I am the city attorney, I would want the opportunity to consult with my clients — LA City Council — before taking a fixed position.”

One citywide contest where there is some agreement on the council’s approach is the race for mayor. US Rep. Karen Bass and real estate developer Rick Caruso, both running for mayor, have both come out in favor of the restrictions on encampments near schools and daycare centers.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Tuesday arguing that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban violates federal law — the Biden administration’s first legal action to protect abortion access since the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in late June.

In making the announcement at DOJ’s headquarters, Attorney General Merrick Garland told reporters that Idaho’s ban violates a federal law that requires medical providers to offer emergency medical treatment.

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), every hospital in the US that receives Medicare funds must provide “necessary stabilizing treatment to patients who arrive at their emergency departments while experiencing a medical emergency,” the 17-page complaint reads. In some circumstances, the necessary medical treatment is an abortion.

“This may be the case, for example, when a woman is undergoing a miscarriage that threatens septic infection or hemorrhage, or is suffering from severe preeclampsia,” Garland said.

Idaho’s law, which is set to take effect on Aug. 25, “will make it a felony to perform an abortion in all but extremely narrow circumstances,” the complaint said, including when doctors provide emergency medical treatment required by federal law.

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment stating that Idaho’s law violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and is preempted and conflicts with federal law. It also seeks a judgment that Idaho may not initiate a prosecution against or attempt to revoke the professional license of any medical provider who performs an abortion authorized under federal law. The department also called for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the state of Idaho to prohibit enforcement of its abortion ban when it conflicts with federal law.

“In the days since the Dobbs decision, there have been widespread reports of delays and denials of treatment to pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies,” Garland said. “Today, the Justice Department’s message is clear — it does not matter what state a hospital subject to EMTALA operates in. If a patient comes into the emergency room with a medical emergency, jeopardizing the patient’s life or health, the hospital must provide the treatment necessary to stabilize that patient. This includes abortion, and that is the necessary treatment.”

in to statement Tuesday, Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, said he would work with Idaho’s attorney general to defend the state law “in the face of federal meddling.”

“Our nation’s highest court returned the issue of abortion to the states to regulate — end of story,” Little said. “The US Justice Department’s interference with Idaho’s pro-life law is another example of Biden overreaching yet again while he continues to ignore issues that really should demand his attention from him — like crushing inflation and the open border with Mexico.”

Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who leads the Justice Department’s reproductive rights task force, said during the announcement Tuesday that Idaho’s law places the burden on doctors to provide at trial, following arrest and indictment, that they are not criminally liable.

“Physicians can only do so by proving that the abortion they performed was necessary for one of two reasons: to prevent the death of a pregnant woman, or in response to a case of rape or incest that was previously reported to the police or in the case of a minor to Child Protective Services. Physicians who do not meet this burden face two to five years imprisonment and revocation of their medical license,” Gupta said.

The legal action comes several weeks after Garland said the department would be advising federal agencies on their authorities when it comes to protecting access to abortions, bringing litigation and entering lawsuits on the side of private parties with amicus briefs and statements of interest.

“The Justice Department is going to use every tool we have to ensure reproductive freedom,” he told reporters. He also said that his office would file a motion to dismiss a Texas lawsuit challenging guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services requiring medical providers to offer abortions in emergency situations.

The federal law on which the guidance is based “requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care for a patient who comes in with a medical emergency that seriously compromises their life or their health,” Garland said. “And where that stabilizing treatment is abortion, they must provide the abortion. They must do so notwithstanding a state law that is so narrow that it doesn’t even protect a woman’s life or health.”

On Friday, Garland, Gupta and other DOJ officials agreed to a meeting of private law firms, law professors, bar associations and public interest groups at the White House to discuss legal representation for patients, providers and third parties lawfully seeking or offering reproductive health care services. throughout the country.

The department is “working slowly to protect access to reproductive services” in recognition of “the crisis that it is,” Garland said.

“It will take all of us — government lawyers, private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, public interest organizations — to do all we can to protect access to reproductive health care and to provide vigorous legal representation of patients, providers and third parties in need.” ,” he said.

Meanwhile, voters in Kansas will decide Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that will determine the future of abortion rights in their state — the first time anywhere in the US that voters will cast ballots on abortion since the Supreme Court reversed Roe.

Zoe Richards contributed.

Neil Heslin, father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, becomes emotional while testifying in the trial of Alex Jones on Tuesday in Austin, Texas.

Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool

hide caption

toggle caption

Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool

Neil Heslin, father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, becomes emotional while testifying in the trial of Alex Jones on Tuesday in Austin, Texas.

Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool

AUSTIN, Texas — The father of a 6-year-old boy killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting testified Tuesday that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones made his life a “living hell” by pushing claims that the murders were a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control.

In more than an hour of emotional testimony during which he often fought back tears, Neil Heslin said he has endured online abuse, anonymous phone calls and harassment on the street.

“What was said about me and Sandy Hook itself resonates around the world,” Heslin said. “As time went on, I truly realized how dangerous it was. … My life has been threatened. I fear for my life, I fear for my safety.”

Heslin said his home and car have been shot at, and his attorneys said Monday that the family had an “encounter” in Austin after the trial began in the city and have been in isolation under security.

Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, have sued Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems over the harassment and threats they and other parents say they have endured for years because of Jones and his Infowars website. Jones claimed the 2012 attack that killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at the Connecticut school was a hoax or faked.

Heslin and Lewis are seeking at least $150 million in the case.

“Today is very important to me and it’s been a long time coming… to face Alex Jones for what he said and did to me. To restore the honor and legacy of my son,” Heslin said.

Heslin also said that while he doesn’t know if the Sandy Hook hoax theory originated with Jones, it was Jones who “lit the match and started the fire” with an online platform and broadcast that reached millions worldwide.

Heslin told the jury about holding his son with a bullet hole through his head, even describing the extent of the damage to his son’s body. A key segment of the case is a 2017 Infowars broadcast that said Heslin did not hold his son’s body from him.

An apology from Jones wouldn’t be good enough at this point, he said.

“Alex started this fight,” Heslin said, “and I’ll finish this fight.”

Jones wasn’t in court during Heslin’s testimony, to move the father called “cowardly.” Jones has skipped much of the testimony during the two-week trial and had a cadre of bodyguards in the courtroom when he did attend. Tuesday was the last scheduled day for testimony and Jones was expected to take the stand as the only witness in his defense of him.

Scarlett Lewis was also called to the witness stand Tuesday. She spoke much of her testimony from her directly at Jones, who had arrived in the courtroom.

“I am a mother first and foremost, and I know you are a father,” Lewis said. “My son existed… I know you know that.”

At one point, Lewis asked Jones, “Do you think I’m an actor?”

“No, I don’t think you’re an actor,” Jones responded, before the judge admonished him to stay quiet until it was his turn to testify.

Heslin and Lewis suffer from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder that comes from constant trauma, similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, a forensic psychologist who studied their cases and met with them testified Monday.

Jones has portrayed the lawsuit against him as an attack on his First Amendment rights.

At stake in the trial is how much Jones will pay. The parents have asked the jury to award $150 million in compensation for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury will then consider whether Jones and his company will pay punitive damages.

The trial is just one of several Jones faces.

Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax. In both states, judges issued default judgments against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.

Jones has already tried to protect Free Speech Systems financially. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection last week. Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over his financial claims from him, arguing that the company is trying to protect millions owned by Jones and his family from him through shell entities.

Sen. Joe Manchin (DW.Va.) says he is exchanging materials with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) To help her better understand the broad tax reform and climate bill he negotiated with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (DN.Y.) and says he is open to her suggestions for her as Democrats seek 50 votes to put the bill on the floor.

Manchin finally got a chance to speak to Sinema after lunch Tuesday, when she was scheduled to preside over the chamber.

Manchin was tight-lipped about the details of the conversation but made clear that he’s willing to consider changes she might want to make to the deal, which would raise $739 billion in new revenue over the next decade and reduce the deficit by more than $300 billion .

“We had a nice time. We had a nice time. Next?” Manchin said Tuesday when reporters pressed him for details of his chat with Sinema while she sat at the Senate dais.

Asked again to shed any light on whether Sinema will vote for the bill, which would give President Biden the biggest legislative victory of this first two years in office, Manchin said his colleague would make her own decision.

“We’re exchanging text back and forth,” he said, adding that Sinema is “extremely bright. She works hard. She makes good decisions based on facts. I’m relieved on that.”

Manchin said Schumer is “working with all the caucus” to get buy-in from all 50 members to get the budget reconciliation bill to the floor later this week.

Even though Sinema played a major role in negotiating the prescription drug reform component of the bill and set the broad parameters of the tax chapter, she learned about the deal at the same time as all of her colleagues and the general public — through a press release .

Manchin said he’s open to considering changes suggested by Sinema, including on a proposal to close the carried interest tax loophole, one of his priorities.

“We’re just basically exchanging back and forth whatever I have that she hasn’t seen. And our staffs are working together very closely,” he said, adding that he’s also exchanging materials relevant to the bill with other Democratic and Republican senators.

Asked if he would be willing to change the bill’s carried interest provision, Manchin responded, “Everyone is still talking.”

But Manchin defended closing the loophole that allows money managers to pay capital gains tax rates on income they collect from managing profitable investments.

Asked whether Sinema is upset that she didn’t get looped into last week’s talks with Schumer, which produced the surprise deal, Manchin said he didn’t want to get anyone’s hopes up when he didn’t know whether an agreement was even possible.

“She’s my dear friend,” he said. “But why bring anyone in and all their aspirations get high and the drama we go through and it doesn’t work out?

“I wasn’t really sure” a deal could be reached, he said.

“I’m not in control of the timing” of the announcement of the deal, he said. “Sen. Schumer is in control of the timing.”

“People getting mad because they think this is some kind of orchestrated coup against them is just so wrong,” he added.

This story was updated at 5:59 pm