1 David Yakobson
From: Mathew Millen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 8:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Oscar de La Torre; [email protected]; Christine Parra Subject: Reject 12 A/ Stop Segregation of the Pico Neighborhood Attachments: 12A.pdf; 20thHomeless.pdf
EXTERNAL
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
The effect of this is that bringing an FHA claim reverses the usual burden of proof in challenging the substance of a land use regulation. The FHA makes it unlawful to "make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Basically, applying the employment discrimination analogy, if the plaintiff adequately pleads statistical evidence that a local government policy has caused a disparity in housing patterns along lines protected by the statute, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify the regulation.
In the context of land use regulation, this analysis reverses the burden of proof in challenging the substance of a land use regulation. In a traditional substantive due process challenge, there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and establish that the regulation is irrational. Now, in an FHA case, where the plaintiff can establish that there is disparate impact, the local government has to prove that the regulation is rational.
I HA VE DONE THE RESEARCH FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY
Of course in Santa Monica limiting the funding for low income housing projects ONLY in the Pico Neighborhood establishes the action by the City was an intentional violation of Fair Housing laws. Based on Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 304 F. Supp. 736 (N.D. 111 1969) enforcing 296 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 1969) and Gautreaux v. Landrileu, 523 F. Sup. 665, 674, (N.D.111. 1981);425 U.S. 284; Otero v. NY Housing Authority, 484 F.2d. 1122 (2nd Cir. 1973), United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 624 F.Supp. 1276 (S.D.N.Y.1985). NAACP v. HUD, 801 F.2d 593(1 st Cir. 1986) , 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987), Thompson v. HUD 348 F. Supp. 2d 398 (Md. 2005), Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (201 5), 42 U.S.C. Section 3608(e)(5) and 24 C.F.R.
1.4(b )( 1 )(iii)( &(iv) and of course Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas the City housing policy violates Fair Housing laws, this project must be rejected.
In the Yonkers court case the Court held, "While placing low cost housing in low income neighborhoods might have made perfect sense to an earlier generation of public housing officials, [Judge] Sand found it unjustifiable." The initial Housing Element was rejected because the State determined there was a "pattern of segregation" of the Pico Neighborhood and dumping more low income housing in the Pico Neighborhood "perpetuated segregation".
TELL , THE FOLLOWERS OF GEORGE WALLACE PROPOSING
ANOTHER LOW INCOME HOUSING IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD
VIOLATES FAIR HOUSING LAWS AND CANNOT BE APPROVED.
4 Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
1 David Yakobson
From: Kim Wooden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 2:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Application to Divide Lots
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am sure you know from a close reading of my years of emails to you, that:
I strongly oppose the application to divide lots contained in yesterday’s Agenda item 12A Also:
I strongly oppose any and all actions that promote multiple family dwellings in what have been single family zones.
I strongly oppose high rise buildings and want to return to SM’s former height restrictions. I strongly oppose the Council disregarding the livability and transit times in the City in favor of developer’s proposals to overbuild the City.
We are not props in a tourist trap.
The alleged benefit of revenue for the City is vastly overweighed by the loss of living standards, the traffic and crowds that prevent residents from enjoying the City they have invested their lives in.
Best,
Kim L. Wooden
President
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet. 11835 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite1210E
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Main: 310.576.6906
Fax: 310.395.0142
Email: [email protected]
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024
Item 12-A
October 8, 2024