HUD Advised Costa Mesa to Delay Policy on Aliens

After examining Costa Mesa’s controversial anti-illegal alien funding policy, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development advised the city not to implement it “until further notice,” according to a Sept. 1 letter made public Thursday.

In the letter, which was not received until after the City Council voted Tuesday to make the measure voluntary, a HUD official said the policy’s constitutionality is still being reviewed and that the outcome could jeopardize federal grants to the city.

Mayor Peter F. Buffa released copies of the letter Thursday in explaining why he did an about-face and led a 3-2 vote to effectively shelve the measure, which would have withheld city funds from groups that assist illegal aliens.

He said he led the reversal, making the ban voluntary for at least this year, so the city would not risk losing vital Community Development Block Grant funds, which HUD oversees.

Although Buffa said Thursday that he knew the letter was forthcoming when he voted, he made no mention of it to the council. He said he didn’t actually receive the letter until Wednesday.

“I did not want to refer to the letter (during the council meeting) because then I would only be speculating in terms of what might be in it,” Buffa said during a news conference. “This was at least to some degree my motivation, because I had been told about a rather clear directive from HUD not to implement the policy until further notice.”

In the three-paragraph letter, HUD advises the city not to pursue the anti-illegal alien funding policy while its Washington headquarters determines whether it is constitutional.

“Several questions have been raised concerning its constitutionality, particularly with respect to the Community Development Block Grant program,” wrote Benjamin F. Bobo, HUD’s regional manager in Los Angeles. “We are therefore advising the city not to implement the policy as it relates to CDBG funds until further notice.”

At stake is $809,000 in HUD funds that the city is expected to receive in 1989-90, $121,350 of which is allocated for public service grants to a wide range of civic and social-service organizations. Block grants are given to cities and local governments by HUD, which issues guidelines on how the money can be used.

“We don’t know what is unconstitutional at this point,” said Scott Reed, spokesman for the agency’s Los Angeles office, which serves Southern California. “We felt it was important enough to forward to our central office.”

Reed said HUD might know as early as today whether the policy is legal.

Buffa’s policy reversal had drawn fire from fellow Councilman Orville Amburgey, who originally proposed the funding policy, with Buffa and Councilman Ed Glasgow in support. And the HUD letter did nothing to soften Amburgey’s criticism.

“Mr. Buffa should have enough guts to say the real reason he’s rescinding the policy,” Amburgey said Thursday.

Amburgey said the letter that influenced Buffa to change his mind is nothing new.

“It’s nothing more than we knew from Day One,” the councilman said. “I think we’ve all said since Day One that if they would withhold the funds, then we would consider strongly that we would rescind. But (HUD) hasn’t said that.”

Buffa said he still supports some sort of measure barring funds to organizations that cater to illegal aliens, provided it can pass HUD’s muster and if the council can give “clear-cut guidance” to city staff on implementing the plan. In the original policy, health clinics were exempted. But beyond that, the council had never discussed whether the policy would have applied to all nonprofit organizations, which would include cable television, cultural arts and public service groups.

Buffa said the city has received an “overwhelming positive response” for the proposal from residents.

While HUD is trying to determine whether the policy violates federal guidelines that prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin, Buffa said people are seeing the issue wrongly.

“What we were trying to address here is people who are in the country illegally,” the mayor said. “That immediately became associated in some people’s minds with national origin. At least in my mind this wasn’t a question of national origin. It’s a question of people registered, which, in my opinion, puts it in another category.”

Buffa also wondered why the measure is seen as a constitutional issue.

“To view this as a constitutional issue, you have to have the logic to assume that it’s going to be implemented in a discriminatory fashion,” Buffa said.

The fact that he is up for reelection next year had nothing to do with his reversal, Buffa said.

“If I had a change of heart I would have voted simply to rescind the policy,” Buffa said.

Nor did he bow to pressure from opponents of the policy.

“The outcry was not the point,” he said. “The point was we’re not going to do anything that would put the city out of compliance, particularly when we depend on an agency for our programs.”

In defending the proposal, Amburgey said that by supporting groups with illegal aliens, the city would be in conflict with Immigration and Naturalization Service regulations.

“It would be strange to me that HUD would recommend anything that would conflict with INS,” he said.