Council Withdraws Support for Changes to Fair Housing Act

Congressional politics spilled onto the floor of the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday, and the local lawmakers--desperate to avoid offending either of two powerful members of the House--extricated themselves by agreeing to withdraw their endorsement of legislation they never supported in the first place.

Confusing? Well, when you’re an L.A. City Council member, a stinging letter from Rep. Maxine Waters, the powerful South Los Angeles congresswoman who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, can have that effect.

Waters’ letter blasted the council for supporting amendments to the federal Fair Housing Act designed in part to restrict the location of so-called group homes and removing key protections against housing discrimination.

But the city’s chief legislative analyst, Ron Deaton, summoned to the council table to explain the city’s support of the amendments, said that although the council had supported previous amendments to the bill, it had not endorsed the current version.

The latest incarnation, however, was co-authored by Rep. Jane Harman of Torrance, a candidate for the California Democratic Party’s gubernatorial nomination. Her congressional seat is coveted by Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr., who, strangely enough, was the only council member to cast a dissenting vote against the council’s formal opposition to the legislation.

Svorinich denied, however, that his political ambitions were the reason, citing instead philosophical differences with his colleagues over the amendments. Among those differences may be the existence in San Pedro--the vote-rich heartland of his council district--of a well-organized community group that strongly backs Harman’s legislation.

Other council members spoke at length to demonstrate their opposition to the legislation, which would restrict group housing for neglected and abused children and the disabled, among other things. The lawmakers, reluctant to say they were reacting to Waters’ missive, preferred instead to focus on what they viewed as outrageous, discriminatory housing amendments.

“I think what’s really going on here is an expression of outrage--entirely appropriate outrage,” Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said.

Or maybe something more.

One council observer said: “No one wants to offend Maxine Waters. That’s it.”

Waters said in an interview: “I don’t think it’s me as much as the issue. This issue is bigger than me.”

Further, she said, “I think I know enough about the city of Los Angeles to think this would not be the direction of the city, and I was very surprised.

“What I know of most of the members of the City Council is that they’re pretty fair-minded,” the congresswoman said. “They’ve never attacked fair housing this way, and I don’t think they would want to be recorded as such.”

Waters’ aides said they heard from the city’s lobbyist in Washington that the council reluctantly supported the legislation. It was then, the aides said, that Waters fired off her letter.

“It is beyond my comprehension why the city of Los Angeles would support an initiative that would turn back the clock on our nation’s fair housing laws,” Waters wrote to each council member. “I have attached a copy of the legislation for you to see what you have chosen to support in the chance that you were misinformed or didn’t understand the text of the bill.”

But Deaton, the city’s chief legislative analyst, repeatedly told the council that the city has not gone on record supporting the legislation, despite Waters’ letter to the contrary.

“The answer is no,” Deaton said after one particularly testy exchange with Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas. “We did not support it.”

Asked later about Waters’ assertions, Deaton said he believes there might have been some miscommunication, but that the city certainly did not support the housing amendments.

Housing advocates spoke out, too, concerned about the legislation and the city’s apparent support for it.

Heather Corrigan of the American Civil Liberties Union told the council before the vote that it would set back hard-won housing rights.

Council members agreed. Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who brought the matter before the council, said it would revive segregation and remove anti-discrimination protections for children, people with disabilities and others.

Waters went further, saying the legislation would weaken the protections against coercion and intimidation in housing and is yet another attempt to weaken civil rights efforts.

When asked how she viewed the council action Wednesday, Waters said: “I think it was important. Definitely.”