A10 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2019 LATIMES.COM/OPINION
OPINION
EDITORIALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LETTERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.H
omelessnesshas been a hu-
manitarian crisis in the state of
California for some time now,
as the number of homeless peo-
ple keeps growing along with
their visibility on sidewalks, in riverbeds, in
parks.
Casting about for solutions, some offi-
cials in Los Angeles County — including Su-
pervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who co-
chairs a state task force on homelessness,
and L.A. City Councilman Joe Buscaino —
are calling on California Gov. Gavin New-
som to declare a state of emergency on
homelessness.
But that’s not a solution. It’s a press re-
lease.
Sure, there was a time only a few years
ago when we would have welcomed an emer-
gency declaration from anyone — the city of
L.A., the county, the state. The most we got
were local declarations of a shelter crisis,
which let the city and county bypass some
regulations in putting up shelters and gave
them more flexibility when spending state
homelessness funds.
Things are different now. The city of Los
Angeles has committed $1.2 billion for hous-
ing for homeless and very low-income peo-
ple through Proposition HHH, and more
than 8,000 new units should be available in
the next several years. The county of Los
Angeles will have several billion dollars to
spend over a decade on services and rental
assistance through Measure H. The task
force on homelessness that Newsom cre-
ated is working on ways to get more people
into housing and treatment.
Meanwhile, there is more state money
than ever to address the problem. The cur-
rent state budget provides $1 billion for
homelessness projects, and a big chunk of
that is coming to Los Angeles city and
county. There also are state tax credits and
affordable housing loans. More state aid
would be welcome, but an emergency decla-
ration wouldn’t automatically deliver it.
The governor just signed a bill that ex-
empts new homeless housing and shelter
projects in the city of Los Angeles from Cali-
fornia Environmental Quality Act lawsuits,
potentially accelerating their construction.
There are similar CEQA exemptions for
other jurisdictions in the state.
And anyone who thinks declaring a state
emergency will allow us to tap into a font of
federal funds is dreaming. For starters, fed-
eral emergency aid is obtained by cities and
counties, not the state. Besides, the Trump
administration already turned down a re-
quest from Newsom for more housing
vouchers for homeless people.
Ridley-Thomas and Buscaino contend
that a state of emergency declaration would
cut through time-consuming local bureau-
cracy. Ridley-Thomas says a declaration
could suspend a law that prevents indefinite
involuntary commitments, giving officials
some leverage over severely mentally ill
homeless people who refuse treatment.
And, he says, it could mobilize National
Guard personnel to do things like operating
mobile showers.
There’s no question that Los Angeles
needs more showers (and bathrooms) for
homeless people and less bureaucracy when
it comes to approving housing and shelters.
But those are problems for local officials to
fix. It’s up to the city to speed up its permit-
ting and regulating process. The mayor’s of-
fice says it’s doing so, but if the process con-
tinues to drag (and we sure hear a lot of
complaints about the pace), then the may-
or’s office still has work to do on that. For his
part, Newsom seems mystified about what a
state of emergency could do that he hasn’t
done already.
A declaration of a state of emergency
looks more like political posturing than any-
thing else. And that, we know for sure, will
not fix our homelessness crisis.
Getting housing and shelter and even
bathrooms in place for homeless people in
Los Angeles is challenging. But the gover-
nor is not a fairy godmother, and a declara-
tion that homelessness is an emergency is
not a magic wand that can be waved to
make the problems go away. Ridley-Thom-
as, Buscaino and their colleagues have to
stop making gestures — we have seen too
many of those already — and do the politi-
cally difficult work of providing more hous-
ing, addressing the public health issues re-
lated to homelessness and standing up to
constituents who would block housing or
shelter projects for NIMBY reasons.
And, frankly, we don’t want the civil
rights of anyone, including homeless people,
suspended wholesale.
A declaration of emergency may seem
like a bravura move, but it’s not. It’s just a
statement of the obvious — that homeless-
ness is an urgent issue. It’s up to local offi-
cials to do a better job delivering housing
and shelter and services.Posturing on homelessness?
Some officials want the governor
to declare a state of emergency, a
gesture with few visible benefits.
U
.S. District Court Judge Mor-
rison England Jr. was right to
block California’s blatantly par-
tisan new law forcing presi-
dential candidates to release
five years of tax returns as a condition of ap-
pearing on the state’s primary ballot.
In a written ruling issued Tuesday, Eng-
land said that the “Presidential Tax Trans-
parency and Accountability Act” is uncon-
stitutional in several ways. It violates the
presidential qualifications clause and the
equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitu-
tion, and it deprives voters of their 1st
Amendment right to associate with and
vote for the candidates of their choice,
among other shortcomings. Furthermore,
England noted that the argument on which
the law was predicated — that presidential
candidates have been releasing their re-
turns routinely for five decades — is disin-
genuous, given that several candidates have
chosen not to do so. That includes former
California Gov. Jerry Brown when he sought
the Democratic nomination in 1992 and
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000.
For now, at least, the law is dead. It would
be best for it to remain so. This is one
Trump-inspired law that California’s law-
makers should not have passed.
Certainly, it was an affront to the voters
when Donald Trump bucked the tradition
of presidential candidates releasing their
tax returns. But it was up to voters to punish
him for the omission, and they didn’t.
This law was conceived by legislative
Democrats still reeling from the 2016 elec-
tion. How likely is it that such a law would
have been proposed, let alone passed, if Hil-
lary Clinton had ended up winning? Brown
vetoed the Legislature’s attempt in 2017 to
demand candidates’ tax returns, soberly
pointing out the troubling precedent that
might be set if partisan state lawmakers
were allowed to apply new requirements for
getting on the ballot. But the bill was revived
when Brown left, and Gov. Gavin Newsom
signed it enthusiastically in July.
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla
said shortly after Tuesday’s ruling that he
would appeal England’s decision, a move
supported by Newsom. But for what pur-
pose? Besides, it would be difficult for a
higher court to decide the case, which in-
volved five separate lawsuits and multiple
overlapping arguments, before the Nov. 26
deadline the law set for determining who
qualifies for the 2020 ballot. If the require-
ment isn’t in place in time to force Trump’s
hand in 2020, will anyone care by 2024?
Despite what lawmakers are saying
about protecting democracy, this law was all
about punishing Trump, just as a 2011 pro-
posal in Arizona to require candidates to
submit birth certificates to be included on
the state’s primary ballots was aimed at
President Obama. Arizona’s Republican
Gov. Jan Brewer wisely stood up to her par-
ty’s overt partisanship and vetoed it.
But this law doesn’t stick it just to
Trump, it punishes the 4.7 million Califor-
nians who are registered Republican voters
as well. Since the president will most likely
continue to ignore calls to release his re-
turns, his name would not appear on the
March primary ballot, thus depriving Re-
publicans from showing their support for or
opposition to the incumbent. Nor will it have
any bearing on Trump’s chances for reelec-
tion, since the law does not apply to the gen-
eral election.
To be clear, we aren’t endorsing Trump’s
decision to keep his tax returns secret. Of
course we want to see the returns of every
presidential candidate. Trump’s failure to
do so only serves to reinforce suspicions
about his conflicts of interest. We also want
candidates to be transparent about their
dealings and honest about their intentions,
but would not support primary ballots be-
ing designed to punish those who aren’t.
That’s a job for voters.
We hope that state officials will eventu-
ally see the folly of spending their time and
the public’s resources fighting this indefen-
sible law. (Losers in appeals can be required
to pay legal fees for the winners too.) The
Founders set few requirements on presi-
dential candidates, leaving it up to voters to
apply their own standards within the histor-
ical and cultural context of each election.
And that’s the way it should remain.An anti-Trump law to dump
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 ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITORI live in the San Fer-
nando Valley, and on cer-
tain streets you will find RV
after RV parked for days at
a time. They are usually
older vehicles, and it’s
obvious that people are
living in them.
While it would be con-
sidered a nuisance to some,
I don’t think it’s the worst
idea in the world for help-
ing homeless people. They
have a roof over their
heads, hopefully a bed and
some storage for all their
belongings. At least they
are not sleeping on the
streets.
I wonder if the city could
provide a large lot where
these vehicles could be
parked long-term so they
do not have to be moved
every few days. It could be
a place with bathroom
facilities and maybe even
some form of security. The
city could look into obtain-
ing more used vehicles to
provide to some homeless
people who cannot afford
them.
This is a way to provide
some form of housing, and
it could be done quickly
and cheaply.
Gary Askenaizer
Sherman Oaks::I hope Gary Gallerie
expands his business to the
San Fernando Valley. Any
underpass beneath the 101
Freeway would be a good
start.
And should he decide to
run for mayor or City
Council, he has my vote.
Jean Anker
Woodland HillsDusting off the
25th Amendment
Re “House issues threats,
Trump rages,” Oct. 3If there was any doubt
whatsoever that President
Trump is unfit to hold
office, he dispelled that
doubt with remarks he
made on Wednesday. In a
profanity-laced Twitter
diatribe totally bereft of
facts, he incoherently
raved about traitors and
enemies. In a news confer-
ence with the president of
Finland, he labeled himself
a “stable genius.”
Trump’s antics pose a
threat to the nation.
Enough of this lunacy. Any
competent executive
would have ample cause to
fire an employee exhibiting
Trump’s behaviors.
Impeachment takes too
long; the immediate use of
the 25th Amendment to
remove him is now a moral
and political imperative.
Sandra Perez
Santa Maria::Trump’s shameful
antics have grown from a
national disgrace to a
global one. His appearance
at the United Nations last
week and his recent tele-
vised meetings with the
leaders of Ukraine and
Finland were utterly nau-seating and should have
embarrassed every Ameri-
can.
It is incomprehensible
that the leaders of the
Republican Party are
either silent or abetting
Trump in destroying the
reputation of our country
on the international stage.
The damage to our
standing in the world be-
came sadly apparent dur-
ing my summer travels,
when I had the opportunity
to ask people from around
the globe what they
thought of our president.
Ted Carmely
Sherman Oaks::“Where’s My Roy
Cohn?” is a riveting docu-
mentary currently playing
at a limited number of
theaters.
From the film, we learn
that Cohn, as a brash
young lawyer, was Sen.
Joseph McCarthy’s whis-
perer and later went on to
become Donald Trump’s
attorney and mentor. Cohn
imparted his foul-mouthed
outspokenness and take-
no-prisoners philosophy to
clients like Trump, whom
he warned never to admit
mistakes or to apologize
for his indiscretions.
Toward the end of his
life — Cohn died of AIDS in
1986 — he was disbarred in
New York for “dishonesty,
fraud, deceit and misrepre-
sentation.”
Trump’s recent ex-
pletive-laden outburst and
his ad hominem attacks in
the wake of sordid revela-
tions about his contact
with the president of
Ukraine remind me of
Cohn. There may be a
parallel here: Cohn was
ultimately disbarred, and
Trump may be impeached.
Harold N. Bass
Porter RanchCongratulating
communists
Re “China military display
elicits boasts, tears,” Oct. 2China celebrated 70
years of communist rule on
Monday. President Trump
tweeted, “Congratulations
to President Xi and the
Chinese people on the 70th
Anniversary of the People’s
Republic of China!”
It clearly didn’t occur to
him or he didn’t care that
he was congratulating a
government that has bru-
tally repressed human
rights for seven decades.
One of his advisors should
have shown him a video
clip of the Tiananmen
Square massacre 30 years
ago.
My parents came here
after Soviet tanks cleared
the way to build a commu-
nist government in Bulgar-
ia. America has been a
beacon of hope for so many
who believe that in this
messy, often chaotic
democracy, people can
shape their own destinies.
Trump’s tweet was
posted shortly after the
news that police in HongKong shot a protester for
the first time since the
pro-democracy demon-
strations began six months
ago.
Thirty years ago, Ger-
mans tore down the Berlin
Wall, a symbol of commu-
nist tyranny. And now
“Lennon walls,” named
after John Lennon, are
going up across Hong
Kong. People are attaching
sticky labels to the walls
with messages criticizing
China’s government.
Hopefully these walls will
also have a happy ending.
Danielle Karson
Pasadena::The only reason China
is doing well now is because
the government has em-
braced capitalism to fuel
its economy.
Communist China can
still fail if it continues to
suppress religious groups
and freedom of speech.
Eventually it must choose
one or the other.
Lee Eastwood
Las Vegas::Much credit is given to
the late Chinese leader
Deng Xiaoping for opening
his country to the world
markets, setting the stage
for China’s present-day
wealth and influence.
However, little or no
credit is given to the many
American executives and
corporate boards who saw
cheap labor, a potential
market of more than 1
billion consumers and a
positive quarterly report
that would raise their
stock’s value and their own
pay.
Oh, and the transfer of
technology and intellectual
property was also not as
important as the next
quarterly report.
It reminds me of the
quote dubiously attributed
to Vladimir Lenin: “The
capitalists will sell us the
rope with which we will
hang them.”
Herb Adelman
Del MarIt’s $750 million,
altruistic or not
Re “The flip side of Resnick
gift to Caltech,” column,
Oct. 2I do not know Stewart
and Lynda Resnick, the
billionaire couple that
pledged $750 million to
Caltech in Pasadena for
research on climate change
and the environment. I
first learned of them in a
column by Michael Hiltzik,
who paints them as a feck-
less couple.
Their donation to Cal-
tech doesn’t undo the
damage that their busi-
nesses are apparently
causing to the environ-
ment and to water re-
sources in California, but
Hiltzik’s piece is a cur-
mudgeonly attack on those
super-wealthy people who
have bestowed large gifts
for the public’s benefit.
Hiltzik seems so small
bemoaning that the donors
want to free up their guilt
or increase their chances at
some eternity belief if they
perform some major good.
The millions should not
need be looked upon as
expunging past and even
ongoing wrongs; rather,
they simply benefit
mankind. Accept the gift
and say thank you.
Bruce N. Miller
Playa del Rey::Congratulations to the
Resnick grandchildren for
nagging their grand-
parents into attempting to
mitigate some of the dam-
age done by their industrial
agricultural practices.
Their wealth should
allow them to make multi-
ple similar grants and
maybe they might even
discontinue Fiji Water,
possibly the most environ-
mentally insensitive prod-
uct ever conceived by the
mind of man.
John Sherwood
TopangaThe law is losing
Re “One man’s illegal strategy for combatting
homelessness,” Opinion, Oct. 2Columnist Robin Abcarian describes a man in Venice
renting out 13 vans in which homeless people can live.
She states plainly that this business is not legal,
something he apparently knows too.
I am not making any judgment as to the nature of this
man’s activities. However, what is happening to our
society if laws can be broken with such impunity?
Here is a man describing what he is doing and
implying that he knows it is illegal. Furthermore,
Abcarian prints his name and the newspaper even
publishes his picture. What happens now? Does nobody
do anything? Do the police authorities not do anything?
Is breaking the law so common and so accepted that
this is now done? What is the point of having laws if they
can be broken with such impunity?
Robert Schechter
Los AngelesAl SeibLos Angeles Times
GARY GALLERIEwith one of the 13 vans he owns
and rents out to homeless people in Venice.