SACRAMENTO, Calif. — On Monday, the state of California filed a lawsuit against a city in the Los Angeles area, claiming that the municipality’s recent ban on the establishment of homeless shelters and temporary housing contravenes the state’s fair housing and anti-discrimination statutes.
This lawsuit is part of an ongoing initiative led by Governor Gavin Newsom, who is seeking to counteract what he perceives as local resistance to state mandates amid California’s urgent need for additional housing. The state has witnessed a significant spike in its homeless population, prompting further scrutiny on housing policies.
Norwalk, home to approximately 100,000 residents and located about 15 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, is the latest municipality to encounter legal challenges from the state regarding its housing regulations. This development follows a vote by the city council in September to prolong its existing temporary ban on new shelters and emergency housing accommodations.
City officials have publicly asserted that Norwalk is pulling its weight in addressing the homelessness issue; however, they cited past experiences with state programs—such as one that housed homeless individuals in motels—as a cause for concerns about public safety. The ongoing moratorium is expected to remain in place until next year, during which time it has already obstructed a proposed plan by Los Angeles County to house homeless residents in a local hotel.
The lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County claims that the city has contravened multiple housing laws by enacting this moratorium. The state is seeking a court order to invalidate the city’s new law.
Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized the state’s stance: “Our message is clear, our message is consistent. If local governments try to evade state housing laws and refuse to take even minimal actions to combat the acute lack of affordable housing in California, we will ensure they are held accountable.”
The legal action follows Governor Newsom’s public criticism of Norwalk’s decision and his calls for local leaders to reconsider their stance on the moratorium. Last month, the state indicated that it may proceed with legal action against the city and rescinded its housing plan, which disqualified Norwalk from state funding aimed at homelessness and housing initiatives. According to Bonta, state officials had discussions with the city last week without reaching any resolutions.
Governor Newsom stated, “It is unacceptable that the Norwalk City Council has chosen not to lift this ban, especially when they are aware of its illegality. No community should abandon its residents who are in need.”
As of now, both the mayor of Norwalk and a city spokesperson have not responded to requests for comments concerning the lawsuit.
Over the past several years, California has stepped up its enforcement of housing regulations. The state has filed lawsuits against at least two municipalities in the previous year for rejecting affordable housing developments and shelter options for the homeless. Recently, Newsom signed a comprehensive package of 32 housing bills aimed at facilitating state actions against local governments that defy housing mandates.
This ongoing lawsuit may further heighten the tension between state authorities and local administrations over the urgency and quantity of housing projects cities are required to approve. The state of California needs to construct approximately 2.5 million homes by the year 2030 to meet demand, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. However, the state is currently producing roughly 100,000 new homes annually, including only about 10,000 that are deemed affordable.
Governor Newsom, whose political aspirations extend beyond state leadership, has prioritized addressing housing and homelessness challenges during his tenure. His administration has allocated around $40 billion to develop affordable housing and invested $27 billion in solutions for homelessness. Earlier this summer, he exerted pressure on local governments to dismantle encampments that have proliferated in urban areas, even threatening to revoke state funding if satisfactory progress is not evident by the next funding cycle.