California's lawsuit against Norwalk over homeless shelter ban can move forward, judge rules

A judge has denied Norwalk's request to dismiss a lawsuit the state of California filed against the city over its proposed ban on emergency homeless shelters.

However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant also dismissed the Norwalk City Council as a defendant in the lawsuit, which state officials filed last year while accusing the city of violating several California laws including the Housing Crisis Act. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have both slammed the city of Norwalk's decision to move forward with a moratorium on emergency shelters, supportive housing developments and certain businesses such as payday loan providers.

A city report detailing the proposed ban said such establishments "may have detrimental effects" on the local community. 

During a city council meeting in September, several people spoke both in opposition and support of the ban, from a man who said a shelter near his restaurant drew "a disaster scene" of people loitering to a woman who urged council members to repeal the measure as she said many are just "one paycheck away from sleeping in their cars."

While the state's lawsuit can move forward, Judge Chalfant also said in a tentative decision this week, which was later finalized, that state officials have not alleged "imminent and significant hardship" stemming from the ban. 

"Petitioners charged into court and insisted on invalidation of the moratorium without alleging any facts of imminent and significant hardship," Chalfant wrote, giving the city of Norwalk 30 days to file an answer to the petition. The judge also wrote that state officials are "correct" in contending "that there is a significant public interest" in ensuring the city ordinance doesn't violate state law.

City officials have defended the proposed ban in court filings by saying it is not being enforced since there is currently a stay on it.

Along with emergency shelters and some affordable house developments, the ordinance would also ban certain businesses such as convenience stores, payday loan providers, laundromats and car washes. 

During a Sept. 17 meeting, the Norwalk City Council voted to move forward with extending the proposed ban following a presentation by Norwalk City Manager Jesus Gomez. The council had first approved the moratorium weeks earlier in August.

Gomez had presented a staff report that said emergency shelters and the other establishments "may have detrimental effects" on the local community. Just a day before the meeting, Newsom had threatened legal action against the city of Norwalk while California's Department of Housing and Community Development issued a notice of violation to the city earlier that same week.

The notice of violation had directed Norwalk Mayor Margarita Rios and other local leaders to repeal the ban by Sept. 23, saying it violated several state laws, including the Housing Crisis Act and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law. The repeal was never made.

In early October, Newsom's office released a statement saying Norwalk is no longer eligible for "key state housing and homelessness funds." A month later, the state filed a lawsuit against the city.

On Wednesday, Newsom released a statement reacting to the court's decision to allow the litigation to move forward.

"No community should turn its back on its residents in need. We will continue to hold Norwalk accountable for its failure to reverse this cruel and unlawful ban," Newsom said in the statement. 

Meanwhile, the city of Norwalk released a statement saying Judge Chalfant's statement highlighted "the absence of any imminent or significant hardship," and in doing so, had "echoed the City of Norwalk's consistent position." 

"This is not an act of defiance but rather an effort to pause, listen, and find common ground with the State," the statement said, adding that the city would work with state housing officials.

"The irony, of course, lies in the fact that the State is pushing for action against a moratorium that is already on hold, protesting enforcement where none exists," the statement continues, again defending the proposed ban by saying it's not currently in effect.