Judge delays decision on L.A. County’s proposal to settle a homeless lawsuit
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which had tentatively approved the settlement agreement with the homeless for $400,000, postponed the vote after a heated debate on Tuesday night.
The board, which had previously said it was still reviewing the proposal, is expected to vote on it within the next few days.
The board was set to meet Tuesday night. Supervisor Hilda Solis, who represents Los Angeles County, urged the board to reconsider its proposed settlement.
“I do not want to settle and lose the argument on the merits of this case,” she said. “We need to have this on the table, but I also want to know how many homeless people we are going to impact in L.A. County. I want to look at the cost-benefit analysis of this proposal.”
“I think that people are being misled,” Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who represents the San Fernando Valley, said of the argument that Solis raised. “The city of Los Angeles will not get the funding it needs simply by being taken over by the county.”
Antonovich had been the biggest advocate for the city.
The settlement agreement between the city and county, which was brought up again and again by several supervisors in Tuesday’s meeting, would give the city $500,000 to settle the lawsuit that challenges the legality of the county’s homeless settlement program.
Under the settlement plan, the county would take responsibility for providing some permanent housing for about 7,500 homeless people during the next two years.
It would also agree to provide $300,000 — $200,000 for a new homeless program and $100,000 for an existing program — as an advance payment toward $1.4 million in federal funds being distributed by the White House to address homelessness in Los Angeles County.
The settlement agreement does not guarantee the city the amount of funding or any specific amount, city officials have said.
The city, which has not had any homeless settlement programs for about a year, would take on the responsibility in a partnership with the county, rather than