The California State Bar has released the Legal Aid Impact Report, reporting on cases closed in 2017
The California State Bar is excited to share the Legal Aid Impact Report. The report is based on the first full year of statewide outcome data collected for cases closed in 2017.
“Increasing access to the legal system is core to our mission, and we are proud to support the dedicated, life-changing work of the legal aid community, not only with grant dollars but with collaborative efforts such as this groundbreaking report,” said Leah T. Wilson, Executive Director of the State Bar of California. “Legal aid serves millions of Californians, improves communities, and provides economic benefits to the state that we are only beginning to measure.”
The State Bar awarded over $37 million in legal aid grants in 2017. This report focuses broadly on outcomes achieved in 2017 by these grantees in serving low-income Californians, regardless of the source of funding, including their State Bar grant as well as other private and public funds.
Michael Rawson, Director of The Public Interest Law Project stated “It is amazing that legal services programs in California can achieve these results with so little resources. But, with entrenched segregation and the torrent of gentrification and displacement, programs remain vastly under-resourced to meet the burgeoning need.”
The report spotlights outcomes and client stories about legal aid in the areas of health, domestic violence, housing and homelessness, justice in the workplace, immigration and immigrant rights, consumer protection, seniors, children, people with disabilities, veterans, and disaster response.
“There are so many benefits of legal representation that cannot be quantified, but this report shows that legal aid has a tremendous impact on the lives of the most vulnerable residents in California. With approximately 8,000 low-income persons for every one legal aid lawyer, we need to keep fighting to increase access to these critical resources,” said Lauren Hansen, Staff Attorney at PILP overseeing public benefits cases.
By providing free legal assistance to low-income Californians, legal aid providers meet basic needs like food, shelter, and safety, help individuals in crisis, address systemic inequities and revitalize communities. Legal aid intervention can help keep a family intact and in their home, help an individual remain employed or in school, and improve health outcome.
Established as a statewide support center, The Public Interest Law Project (PILP), is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that provides litigation support, policy advocacy, consultation and training for legal services and other public interest law programs throughout California. PILP is recognized throughout California and nationally for the expertise it brings to public benefits, affordable housing, civil rights, and redevelopment law.
Read the full California Legal Aid 2017 Impact Report.
California Joins Kennedy Commission in Legal Action Against the City of Huntington Beach Over Its Unlawful Housing Plan
The state will file companion litigation against the City of Huntington Beach accusing it of willfully refusing to comply with state housing law
January 25, 2019 – Kennedy Commission and low-income veterans, represented by The Public Interest Law Project, Public Law Center, Legal Aid Society of Orange County, and Jones Day have been pursuing litigation to require Huntington Beach to make sites available for affordable housing since 2015. Today, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the state will launch a new, strong approach to enforce state law against a city, using AB 72 to sue the City of Huntington Beach for violating state housing law.
The state accuses the City of standing in the way of affordable housing production and looks to force the City to amend its housing plan to encourage “the development of additional housing units that are accessible to residents of all income levels.”
The Governor approved legal action against Huntington Beach and Attorney General Xavier Becerra will file a lawsuit against the City on Friday, January 25, 2019, after extensive attempts to offer partnership and support from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
PILP Staff Attorney Craig Castellanet, commented on Governor Newsom’s announcement, “We applaud the Governor for making enforcement of state housing law a priority for his administration. We welcome the state’s participation in this effort to address our state’s affordable housing crisis.”
Read Governor Gavin Newsom’s full press release.
The City of Los Angeles has finally dispensed with a longstanding illegal policy and practice that gave individual City Councilmembers unbridled power to decide if, whether, and where supportive and affordable housing projects are built in the City. As a consequence, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE Action) is dismissing its lawsuit challenging this illegal pocket veto.
For years, advocates have complained that the City’s use of Letters of Acknowledgement and Support violates fair housing laws and impedes housing projects that our community desperately needs. The use of such local approval requirements are also a nationally recognized impediment to fair housing. But prior to filing our lawsuit, the City ignored all demands to stop its illegal policy and practice.
As a direct result of this litigation, the City has completely and permanently eliminated all such letter requirements. The City’s actions go well beyond the requirements of last year’s state Assembly Bill 829, which prohibits state assistance for housing developments that are subject to such letter requirements. The City has removed the letter requirements from all of its affordable and low income housing loan programs that use state as well as local funding, including the Affordable Housing Managed Pipeline and the Proposition HHH programs. As a result, individual City Councilmembers can no longer utilize a pocket veto to unilaterally block, delay or condition housing projects for any or no reason at all. Nor can they use this practice to insert additional discriminatory barriers to projects, such as requiring the support of neighborhood councils.
We are pleased to have largely achieved the goals of our lawsuit. It’s unfortunate that it took so many years for the City to do the right thing, but we are satisfied that the City has made progress. We will continue to monitor the City’s actions, and take appropriate steps as necessary, to ensure that it does not erect additional arbitrary barriers to affordable and supportive housing.
On December 12, 2018, Judge Frazier of the San Diego Superior Court ordered the City of Encinitas to adopt its first housing element since 1992 without subjecting the necessary zoning changes to density and height limitations to the voters for approval.
San Diego voters approved Proposition A in 2013, requiring all height and density increases to be approved by a majority of voters, even when density and height changes are required to comply with state housing element law and to provide adequate sites to accommodate the City’s fair share of the region’s housing projections.
On behalf of Lorraine Del-Rose and the organization, San Diego Tenants United, PILP, San Diego Voluntary Lawyer’s Program, and Cozen O’Connor sued the City of Encinitas after the voters rejected the City’s housing element. Several weeks after our lawsuit was filed, the Building Industry Association filed an almost identical suit that was related and assigned to the same judge.
The Court ordered the City to adopt a housing element with the necessary zoning changes within 120 days and without subjecting the plan to the voters. This marks the first time the City will identify adequate sites for lower-income households in three decades.
To view the Judge’s order, click HERE.
Public interest legal services lost a great warrior, leader, and mentor this week. Stephen Ronfeldt, a co-founder of PILP, Director of Litigation of the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, member of the inaugural class of the Reginald Heber Smith fellows and the 2018 recipient of the Loren Miller Legal Services Award, passed away peacefully on December 1 at home with his loving family around him.
Community Group Sues City of Los Angeles for Using Illegal Procedure to Block Supportive and Affordable Housing Projects for Homeless
Los Angeles Times
To keep state funding, L.A. eliminates “veto” provision
LOS ANGELES, July 26, 2018 — Public Counsel, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, and the Public Interest Law Project announced today that they have filed suit on behalf of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE Action) against the City of Los Angeles over an illegal city procedure deceptively labeled the Letter of Acknowledgment (LOA), which gives individual City Councilmembers the power to decide if, whether and where supportive and affordable housing projects are built in the City. LOAs currently allow individual Councilmembers to secretly block, alter or delay affordable and supportive housing projects for any reason or no reason at all, violating multiple provisions of state law. Without obtaining a LOA from a Councilmember, developers cannot be eligible for supportive and affordable housing funding from the City. The Complaint alleges that LOAs are an illegal barrier that stand in the way of the housing solutions that would solve the City’s continuing problems of homelessness and segregation — despite the voters’ clear intent to the contrary.
The overwhelming success of Proposition HHH in 2016 authorized $1.2 billion to fund the construction of 10,000 units of supportive and affordable housing throughout LA. However, almost two years after its historic passage there are still districts in LA where there are no Proposition HHH housing units. “This is a crisis of conscience. Voters have said loud and clear that the City must do everything in its power to fund supportive and affordable housing and help get our neighbors off the street,” said Mark Rosenbaum, Director of Public Counsel’s Opportunity Under Law Project. “Yet the City continues to maintain a policy that thwarts the will of the people by allowing Councilmembers to covertly veto the building of supportive and affordable housing in their districts, in order to placate NIMBYs and interest groups who want to keep homeless residents and low-income people out of their neighborhoods.”
“No other type of development in the City is subject to the same arbitrary approval by an individual Councilmember, which is a violation of state law”
– Michael Rawson, Director of the Public Interest Law Project
“The LOA policy is a clear violation of California state laws, including laws prohibiting discrimination in housing based on race or disability and laws protecting supportive and affordable housing,” said Jeffrey Bornstein, a Partner at Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP. “No other type of development in the City is subject to the same arbitrary approval by an individual Councilmember, which is a violation of state law,” said Michael Rawson, Director of the Public Interest Law Project. “This is a known impediment to fair housing that has been nationally criticized for years, yet the City keeps readopting it year after year,” said Shashi Hanuman, Directing Attorney of Public Counsel’s Community Development Project.
In addition to the lack of accountability, the adverse effects of the LOA policy are felt most acutely by people of color and people with disabilities, who are disproportionately homeless. The most recent homeless count in LA showed that on any given night, over 31,000 individuals, including children, seniors, veterans, individuals with mental and physical disabilities, and survivors of domestic violence, have no choice but to live in sidewalk encampments and sleep in tents or sleeping bags. “Every day that our elected officials delay or outright reject supportive and affordable housing projects means another night on the streets for residents in desperate need of a place to call home,” said Gloria Cortez, of ACCE, the plaintiff in the case. “It’s time for the City to remove this unnecessary barrier to building the housing we need to solve our homelessness crisis and put roofs over our fellow Angelenos’ heads.”
INGLEWOOD, CA, June 19, 2018 – Uplift Inglewood Coalition, an affiliation of community empowerment organizations, today filed a lawsuit against the City of Inglewood, charging that the City violated state housing and civil rights laws by entering into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with the L.A. Clippers for use of public land to build a NBA basketball arena. The suit seeks to vindicate the rights of Inglewood residents during a time of rapid community change and skyrocketing housing costs that have already displaced many long-term residents.
“At a time when low-income Inglewood residents are facing a devastating and growing housing crisis, we allege that the City of Inglewood has failed to comply with multiple state laws that are intended to produce much-needed affordable housing,” said Antonio Hicks, a senior staff attorney with Public Counsel. “As documented in this lawsuit, by entering into an ENA with the Clippers, the City violated California’s Surplus Land Act, which mandates that surplus public land is first offered for sale or lease for the purpose of affordable housing.”
California’s Surplus Land Act is a longstanding state law designed to promote the development of affordable housing, and requires that government agencies prioritize the use of publicly owned land for affordable housing – or for parks and recreational purposes – before the land is offered to developers for other purposes. The suit further alleges that the City’s failure to comply with the Surplus Land Act results in civil rights violations – by discriminating against the development of housing intended for low-income households, and disproportionally against members of certain racial and ethnic groups and individuals with disabilities.
The City of Inglewood and Clippers owner, Steve Ballmer, recently held a press conference to announce proposed state legislation to provide shortcuts for the stadium project by exempting it from certain environmental challenges. At the press conference, Ballmer made the following remarks: “I want to build a house in Inglewood … We’d like to have our own house, right here, on this site.”
“The City of Inglewood is choosing to use publicly owned land to help a billionaire build a home for his sports team, at a time when longtime residents are struggling to stay in their own homes,” said Woodrow Curry, III, a member of the Uplift Inglewood Coalition. “It’s morally bankrupt and a mismanagement of our public resources. We’re calling on the city’s leadership to do the right thing and to prioritize the creation of affordable homes before arenas.”
Inglewood’s own analysis indicates that over eighty (80) percent of Inglewood residents qualify for some sort of subsidized housing. And the City’s data shows that rents in the City of Inglewood have risen by almost twenty-five (25) percent in the last five years alone, and almost fifty (50) percent of Inglewood residents are low-income and severely rent-burdened, which means they are paying more than fifty (50) percent of their income towards housing.
Many Inglewood residents point to the construction of a $4 billion NFL stadium – slated as the future home of the L.A. Rams and L.A. Chargers – as a catalyst for driving up housing costs and turning Inglewood into a hot area for property speculation. Stories abound of landlords that are looking to cash-in, and with no rent-control protections in place, long-time residents of Inglewood claim they are being driven out of their homes.
“I’m an Inglewood renter, and now I’m on the verge of losing my home,” said Sara Santos, a resident who supports the lawsuit. “My landlord just raised my rent by $300, and it breaks my heart that I may have to leave my community. For so many years, Inglewood was an affordable place to call home. But now it seems like city leaders have been seduced by outside billionaires, and have forgotten about the everyday folks who are the true champions of Inglewood.”
The suit also alleges violation of additional California law that requires cities to take steps to plan and zone for adequate affordable housing and shelter for homeless residents – as well as the charges that Inglewood has failed to develop 112 affordable housing replacement units it was obligated to produce several years ago.
“When cities ignore laws like the Surplus Land Act, it creates a ripple effect throughout the region, resulting in less affordable housing units and ultimately more homelessness,” said Tom Casparian, an attorney with Cozen O’Connor. “All this lawsuit seeks to do is get the City of Inglewood to follow the law.”
Public Counsel, the Public Interest Law Project (PILP), and the law firm of Cozen O’Connor filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court today asking the Court to order Inglewood to follow the requirements of the Surplus Land Act and meet its obligations to adequately plan and zone for affordable housing and shelter in the city – as required of every city in the State.
In 2011, Shasta County was several years late adopting its required housing element revision. Because of its tardy timeline, the County committed itself to rezoning sites to accommodate 800 units of higher density housing that could meet the unincorporated County’s housing need for lower income households. But by the next state required revision in 2014, the County had not completed the rezonings and again, did not adopt a timely update to the Housing Element of its General Plan.
Because of this ongoing failure to plan for the housing needs of lower income families and individuals, Tracy Bowman and Micheal Williamson, who have both struggled to find and maintain affordable housing in Shasta County, with the help of Legal Services of Northern California and PILP, filed a lawsuit to challenge the County’s lack of an adequate housing element and compel the rezoning to accommodate the 800 affordable units from the last planning period and over 300 units needed during the current planning period. In addition to the required rezonings, the County must also establish a zone, or zones, where emergency shelters can be built without a Conditional Use Permit. Despite the 10 year old legal requirement to do so, the County still does not allow the construction of emergency shelters anywhere in the County without discretionary review.