Los Angeles Times - 26.08.2019

LATIMES.COM/OPINION MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019A

OPINION

EDITORIALS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OP-ED

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C

alifornians frus-

trated by Congress’

failure to pass cli-

mate and gun control

legislation have a po-

tentially potent tool to produce

the change they want: divest-

ment.

The California Public Em-

ployees’ Retirement System

and the California State Teach-

ers’ Retirement System, the na-

tion’s second- and third-largest

retirement plans, own invest-

ment portfolios that brim with

shares in fossil fuel companies,

ammunition manufacturers

and gun retailers. So do almost

all 401(k) accounts. Divestment

campaigns can change that.

The primary goal of divest-

ment advocacy usually isn’t to

force the collapse of target com-

panies by depriving them of

capital — that outcome is often

out of reach. According to a 1999

study in the Journal of Busi-

ness, the anti-apartheid divest-

ment campaign that targeted

corporations and individuals

who did business in South Afri-

ca in the 1980s — generally con-

sidered the most successful di-

vestment efforts — didn’t

deeply affect South Africa’s fi-

nancial sector. It achieved its

goal by stigmatizing the prac-

tices of the South African gov-

ernment.

As a 2012 Harvard Political

Review article concluded, “It is

almost certain that worldwide

popular opposition ... contrib-

uted to the decline of apartheid,

and divestment was an impor-

tant piece of this puzzle.”

This kind of activism is a

long slog, however. It runs up

against the caution, political

impassivity and sheep mental-

ity of institutional investors,

many of whom resent activist

interference.

One rationale for resisting a

divestment campaign is “fidu-

ciary duty,” which imposes a le-

gal requirement on managers to

try to maximize financial re-

turns for their funds. As long as

fossil fuel and gun companies

make money, many managers

consider them worthy invest-

ments. But divestment cam-

paigns challenge investors to

take a broader view of compa-

nies’ benefits, considering their

long-term social and environ-

mental impacts as well as their

short-term profitability.

In the case of fossil fuels, for

instance, gas and coal compa-

nies have been underperform-

ing stock market indexes for the

last half-decade and are likely

to continue to decline as renew-

able energy spreads and cli-

mate change intensifies. Even

fiduciary duty can argue for di-

vestment.

The effort to persuade the

University of California to sell

its fossil fuel holdings is a show-

case for institutional investors’

resistance to divestment.

Last month, an overwhelm-

ing majority — 77% — of the UC

faculty on all 10 campuses asked

the university’s regents to de-

finitively rid the school’s portfo-

lio of holdings “in the 200 publi-

cly traded fossil fuel companies

with the largest carbon re-

serves.” The petition added

weight to student demands

since 2013, and it was personal

for many of the science faculty,

who for two decades have been

in the forefront of identifying

global warming’s dangers.

Unfortunately, in response,

Roger Sherman, chair of the re-

gents’ investments committee,

issued a statement the day after

receiving the petition that es-

sentially sidestepped the issue.

Sherman’s statement em-

phasized that UC has already

moved away from fossil fuel

stocks and toward sustainable

energy, and cited the board’s fi-

duciary duty to give climate

change “the same weight as

other material risks.”

This is hardly the unambigu-

ous divestment commitment

the faculty voters want. Be-

cause of the university’s statu-

re, such a commitment would

generate enormous ripples

throughout academia and be-

yond. “This would be one of the

biggest moments in the seven-

year history of the fossil fuel di-

vestment movement,” said Bill

McKibben, co-founder of

350.org, which has led the inter-

national campaign.

Only students, faculty and

alumni can pressure the UC re-

gents to divest, but millions of

other Californians can put simi-

lar advocacy to work on their

own portfolios. CalSTRS, for

example, has repeatedly pro-

claimed that its funds are gun-

free, but according to As You

Sow, a shareholder advocacy

nonprofit, the teachers’ pen-

sion fund still holds hundreds of

thousands of shares in ammu-

nition manufacturers and mil-

lions of shares in gun retailers

such as Walmart and Dick’s

Sporting Goods.

One obstacle to divestment

campaigns is that individuals

don’t know what companies a

pension behemoth like Cal-

STRS or CalPERS is investing

in, and 401(k) holders have to

choose among mutual funds,

which are just as opaque. As

You Sow cuts through this ob-

fuscation with a website search

function. You can enter a fund

name to get a list of fossil fuel,

gun and other kinds of contro-

versial companies your savings

may be supporting.

Andy Behar, As You Sow’s

chief executive, is a divestment

optimist: He believes that if

enough individual investors

abandon funds with holdings

they object to, fund managers

will drop the objectionable

companies, which, in turn, will

face trouble raising money.

“Every company in Califor-

nia should let their employees

know what their [401(k)s are]

invested in — that to me is really

the big issue,” Behar said.

“We’re complicit in climate

change and gun violence, yet

none of us know it, and we don’t

realize the power we have to

change it.”

In contrast, the UC regents

can’t claim ignorance: They

manage the university’s portfo-

lio. They should directly ad-

dress the faculty petition, and

they should overcome their ti-

midity and commit the uni-

versity to wholehearted divest-

ment. The rest of us should end

our complicity by dropping in-

vestment funds that contain so-

cially destructive companies.

Jacques Leslieis a

contributing writer to Opinion.

Want change? Use divestment power

By Jacques Leslie

latimes.com/opinion

ENTER THE FRAY BLOG

Welcome, Jay Powell, to the ranks of Trump’s

public enemies.

Surprise! Trump gets something else wrong

about the Fed.

The latest bad immigration idea from the

White House.

Visit latimes.com/topics/enter-the-fray.

BLOWBACK

Visit latimes.com/

blowback.

STAY CONNECTED

8 facebook.com/

latimesopinion

8 twitter.com/

latimesopinion

HOW TO WRITE TO US

Please send letters to

[email protected]. For

submission guidelines, see

latimes.com/letters or call

1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.

T

he survivors and

families who lost

loved ones in the El

Paso shooting have

a difficult road

ahead as they deal with grief,

trauma and lasting physical in-

juries. These challenges are

likely to be compounded by an-

other issue for some of the vic-

tims: newly strengthened poli-

cies that limit public healthcare

benefits for immigrants.

The suspected shooter in El

Paso was allegedly targeting

Latino immigrants, and several

of those killed or injured were

not U.S. citizens. All of the sur-

vivors and victims’ families may

struggle with access to medical

care, but the struggle is likely to

be harder for those not born in

the United States.

About 23% of immigrants

who are in the U.S. legally are

uninsured, compared with 8%

of citizens and about 45% of im-

migrants in the country illegally

who have no health insurance.

In part that is because, while

immigrants are more likely

than citizens to have full-time

jobs, their jobs are less likely to

offer health coverage. Even El

Paso’s survivors who had em-

ployer health coverage before

the shooting are at risk of losing

it if they are unable to work be-

cause of injuries or trauma and

have to give up their jobs.

Legal immigrants who lose

employer health coverage can

apply for Medicaid, known as

Medi-Cal in California. Howev-

er, a 1996 federal law limited

Medicaid eligibility to certain

categories of “qualified” immi-

grants in the U.S. legally. In

many states, those who qualify

must go through a five-year

waiting period, and Texas has

imposed additional restric-

tions, putting eligibility out of

reach for all but a few.

Even immigrants who are el-

igible for Medicaid don’t always

sign up. As many as 75% of unin-

sured immigrants without

documentation may be eligible

for Medicaid, but don’t enroll

because of confusion about who

is eligible or fear of imperiling

their family’s status.

The Trump administration

recently added another barrier

to Medicaid enrollment. Start-

ing Oct. 15, immigrants who

have enrolled in Medicaid are at

risk of being disqualified from

becoming permanent residents

or citizens. In the case of some

El Paso survivors, the new rules

could potentially require choos-

ing between getting needed

medical care now and the

chance to become a citizen

down the road.

In most states, immigrants

without documents, including

DACA recipients, are ineligible

for Medicaid or subsidies for

coverage under the Affordable

Care Act. Medicaid may pay for

emergency services in some in-

stances, but in the case of the El

Paso survivors, who are likely to

need ongoing care, that won’t

be enough. El Paso’s victims

who can’t find health coverage

in this unforgiving system will

have a stark choice: deferring

needed medical care or amass-

ing medical debt.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Extending public benefits to

those without documents has a

long history in the United

States. Public schools, for ex-

ample, are open to all residents,

and federal law prohibits public

schools from asking about im-

migration status.

The U.S. could apply the

same approach to public

healthcare coverage that it ap-

plies to public education. And

while the current Congress

seems unlikely to extend Medi-

caid to those living in the U.S. il-

legally, individual states have

wide latitude to set eligibility re-

quirements using state funds.

California, for example, has pro-

vided Medicaid coverage for

children lacking legal status

since 2016 and recently ex-

tended the program to young

adults up to 25. Research shows

that immigrants pay more in

taxes and health premiums

than they receive in benefits,

and providing broader access to

medical care could help level

things out.

The El Paso families in par-

ticular shouldn’t have to strug-

gle to get medical care or be bur-

dened by unaffordable bills. We

can make a lasting commit-

ment to them, acknowledge the

value of immigrants, and ele-

vate the moral standards of our

healthcare systems by making

existing public health benefits

available to all those who meet

their criteria, regardless of legal

status.

Alex Gertneris a medical

student and doctoral

candidate in the Department

of Health Policy and

Management at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill. Paul Shaferis an

assistant professor in the

Department of Health Law,

Policy and Management at

Boston University.

The immigrant healthcare gap

By Alex Gertner

and Paul Shafer

PEOPLE GATHERat a memorial outside the El Paso Walmart where a shooter killed 22

people. Immigrants injured in the August attack could face barriers to finding healthcare.

Sandy HuffakerGetty Images

EXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine

MANAGINGEDITOR

Scott Kraft

SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR

Kimi Yoshino

DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS

Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,

Julia Turner

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS

Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,

Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez

Opinion

Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES

FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR

O

ne ray ofhope on a bleak elec-
tion night in November 2016 was
the overwhelming support that
Los Angeles city voters gave to a
bond measure to build housing
for the most vulnerable homeless people. By
a 3-to-1 margin, Angelenos passed Pro-
position HHH to authorize $1.2 billion in
bonds to help finance the construction of
10,000 units of housing, most of it designated
for the chronically homeless.
All of the money has now, essentially, been
allocated. The last round of housing projects
recommended by the city’s Housing and
Community Investment Department was
due to be presented to the HHH Citizens
Oversight Committee last Friday. Those
projects still have to get the blessing of an-
other city committee and the City Council,
but for all intents and purposes, the HHH
money has been spent or committed.
Yet two years and nine months since vot-
ers approved HHH, not one unit of housing
financed by the measure is open. A single
project with 62 units is scheduled to open in
late November. Meanwhile, the landscape of
the city, literally and figuratively, has only
gotten more grim. Homelessness surged 16%
in the city this year to about 36,000 people,
27,000 of whom are unsheltered. Encamp-
ments and trash proliferate across sidewalks
and curbs.
To city residents, this is maddening —
they’re spending more than a billion dollars
on housing, and all they see are more people
camped on sidewalks.
But here’s what they can’t see: Including
this last round of recommendations, the city
will be helping to create more than 8,
units of housing. That includes 5,873 sup-
portive housing units for homeless people
who need social services, 1,641 affordable
units for very-low-income Angelenos, and
975 smaller units being constructed of inno-
vative materials for homeless residents.
There are 1,400 units in construction right
now, 1,000 of which are expected to be ready
to occupy in 2020. An additional 3,713 are fore-
cast to open in 2021.
The slow pace of these projects is to some
extent unavoidable. It takes years to build
any kind of multi-unit project in this city, es-
pecially subsidized housing with funding
cobbled together from nearly half a dozen
sources. These are not trailers and tents be-
ing pitched. These are permanent housing
developments designed to fit the neighbor-
hood.
But things could have moved faster. Al-
though the mayor’s office has tried to
streamline some of the bureaucracy that de-
velopers go through to get projects ready to
build, that hasn’t meant speedier approvals
and inspections for developers. The office
just recently designated one official as a kind
of concierge to get projects through those
processes more rapidly. That should have
been done 2^1 ⁄ 2 years ago.
On the plus side, the slow pace spurred of-
ficials to look for unconventional ways to
build housing. A total of 975 units spread over
half a dozen innovative projects have been
recommended for HHH funding. The units
are still permanent housing, but made of ma-
terials that would allow them to be built fast-
er and cheaper.
So what happens now is the big question.
Even if all goes as planned with those 8,000-
plus units, that’s still short of the 10,000 that
voters were told HHH would fund. City offi-
cials insist that the city’s Housing and Com-
munity Investment Department will be
separately funding 3,000 additional units; so
far, the department says, it has 1,259 sup-
portive housing units in its pipeline.
The troubling news is that even after
everything opens, there still won’t be enough
units to house every chronically homeless
person on the streets right now. And with
each year that passes, more people stay on
the streets longer and become chronically
homeless. Meanwhile, Angelenos will contin-
ue tumbling into the ranks of the newly
homeless until there is an adequate supply of
affordable housing. That means prevention
in the form of rapid rehousing funds and
rental subsidies for people on the verge of
homelessness is crucial. Otherwise, we will
never get ahead of the homelessness prob-
lem.
Even after the HHH well runs dry, the city
has to keep building housing at a steady
pace. Los Angeles County is finally begin-
ning to get some of the $700 million it’s due
from the state’s No Place Like Home funds,
which can be used to house mentally ill
homeless people. And the city needs to en-
courage more developers to come up with in-
novative housing projects. Many homeless
people need services to enable them to stay
housed — but first they need the housing.

What L.A.

is getting for

$1.2 billion

The money raised by Proposition

HHH has now been allocated. It’s

producing results you can’t yet see.