Beverly Hills Council--what Happened According to Ben Lehrer

The meeting kicked off late, at around 7:30, and there were several items on the agenda before the urgency ordinance came up for discussion. The Council chamber was packed, mostly with people there to speak out against the ordinance. As at the court hearing last week, the Stray Cat Alliance passed out red ribbons which opponents of the ordinance fastened to various body parts one way or another.
The discussion of the urgency ordinance was kicked off by a report from George Chavez, the Assistant Director of Community Development for the City of Beverly Hills. George's report was given as support for the ordinance and focused on two primary issues: first, that an anti-feeding ordinance had been in place in Beverly Hills for years until very recently when it was supposedly accidentally deleted from the municipal code after Beverly Hills contracted with the City of Los Angeles to handle animal control in the city; and second, that there has been an increase in coyote sightings all over the City, with the suggestion that feeding ferals attracts these coyotes.

The report also stated that feral feeding attracted other unwanted critters (roaches, rats, raccoons and crows), and that it generated complaints from local residents.
Then came the public comment period. All told, 105 people spoke. Of these, three spoke in favor of the ordinance and 102 were against it. This took over three hours. A fair number of people slipped out during this time but a good many of us stayed on well into the morning.
The three proponents of the ordinance were all residents who lived in a small area where Katherine Varjian has been TNRing and feeding feral catsfor years. Their claims were that the feeding was an attractive nuisance and causally linked to an increase in coyote sightings, fleas, cockroaches and the like. They all claimed to have nothing against the animals, but just didn't want them fed where they live.
The 102 people who were against the ordinance were pretty much all over the board, but the main themes were that (a) prohibiting feeding would not result in the disappearance of rats, cockroaches, fleas, coyotes etc., (b) there is no causal link to feral feeding and coyote appearance, as suggested in Mr. Chavez's report, (c) feral cats are a part of the urban landscape, even in Beverly Hills, and the only way to contain and manage a feral population is through TNR + maintenance, including feeding, and (d) to prohibit the feeding of cats would be unnecessarily cruel. Public comment went for nearly four hours and I know I'm really cutting things down in summary. You should be thankful.
Then the Mayor and each Councilmember gave their opinion. The one thing that everyone agreed upon is that the feral cat issue goes beyond the problem (or perceived problem) of food being left in public alleyways, and they welcomed having the rescue community help craft a comprehensive program to address the issue in a progressive and humane fashion. But aside from that, the council was split on what to do about the ordinance and how to address the complaints of the people upset at Katherine for feeding ferals in the alleyways behind their homes.
The most outspoken opponent of the ordinance was Vice Mayor Jimmy Delshad, who did not support the urgency ordinance and wanted to give the rescue community a few months (he suggested 90 or 180 days) to help design a comprehensive feral cat maintenance program. Leaning in this direction was Councilmember John Mirisch, who also wanted to include an adoption component in the program for adoptable cats, as well as mandatory microchipping in the City, presumably for feral and non-feral cats alike. On the other side, Councilmember William W. Brien spoke out strongly in favor of the ordinance, saying he believed that the feeding of ferals does represent a public health risk and that the interests of the residents are more paramount and their wishes should be heeded. Farther towards the center was Councilmember Barry Brucker, who seemed to lean slightly in favor of the ordinance as a temporary measure while a bigger-picture cooperative solution could be crafted.
Mayor Krasne had the unenviable job of trying to manage the proceedings, which at this point - after 1 am - were getting a little unruly. It certainly did not help that any statement that echoed any of the positions taken by the pro-ordinance people was met with loud jeers by the anti-ordinance people in the crowd, leading her at one point to threaten to support the ordinance if they didn't keep quiet. When it came time for her to state her position, she seemed to split down the middle. On the one hand, she was very affected by photos provided by the pro-ordinance people showing food dumped on the ground in the alleyway, saying that this was an unacceptable mess. (Several people tried to point out that Katherine used to put dishes down but the residents kept throwing them away, but that didn't seem to really register.) On the other hand, she expressed sympathy for the cats and ultimately decided that she was not ready to support the ordinance without giving the people on all sides - the residents, the rescue community and the City Commissioner - an opportunity to come up with a compromise solution.
The Council ultimately decided, after much back-and-forth, to table the vote on the ordinance for now. Over the course of the next couple of weeks, Mr. Chavez will meet with resident cat advocates and the heads of a couple of rescue groups that focus on feral cat caretaking in order to construct a proposed feral cat management plan that the City Council would discuss, and, if approved, turn into an ordinance.
This portion of the meeting ended just shy of 2 am. The poor Council still had several items on the agenda ahead of them as all of the cat peoplefiltered out and left them to their business.
This is not a bad result, but it is too early to declare victory on behalf of feral cat caretakers in Beverly Hills. I think it is fair to expect the people who were in favor of the ordinance to continue to put pressure on the Council to ban feeding. Even if they are unsuccessful, it doesn't seem likely that the pendulum will swing the other way so that feeders would be protected, and without this protection, local residents could and likely will still sabotage feeding & caretaking efforts on the ground.
Nonetheless, we'll proceed optimistically, and right now, the goal is to come up with a plan where if everyone is able and willing to cooperate, there will be peaceful coexistence between local residents and feral cats and their caretakers. And our work may even lead to a progressive ordinance that puts Beverly Hills at the forefront of the movement to institutionalize TNR as the most humane and effective manner of dealing with feral cat populations.

Jeff de la Rosa's Request

I have only followed this story from a distance because it appears complex legally, but also all so unfortunate. This letter from Jeff is heartbreaking. If one of my cats' had been in such a situtaion, I would not have been so laid back as Jeff has been.

I really have no idea why Stu has not been released long ago, but this story had a life even while I was engaged in campaigns with Ron Mason and others, and I think I underserved this story.

July 7, 2009

Linda Barth

Commissioner Tariq Khero, President

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT. OF ANIMAL SERVICES

Re: Stu

Dear Commissioners and Ms. Barth :

Please recall that I made a request to have Stu killed by my personal veterinarian at your last Board meeting on June 22, 2009. I have received no response, nor have I received any communication which states that Stu will not be killed, or that the Board has resolved to make any recommendations regarding Stu to the City Council.

While this matter may be of no importance to you, it is very important to me and I would appreciate the courtesy of a response. I understand that it is the practice of your department to ignore requests and correspondence; and that no answer is most often the answer to requests made to your Board and Department. However, in this instance your IMMEDIATE response is requested. I have reserved time on Thursday, July 23 2009 for the vet to carry out this death sentence. I am not available on any other day.

To repeat, I am requesting that Stu be killed by my own vet and in my presence. Any officer may also be present. I choose Helen Brakemeir as she would certainly be the officer whom would be most satisfied by attending the death of Stu. I would also like to have Stu cremated and have made arrangements for this to be done immediately following the execution of Mr. Stuckey destruction order. Obviously, I understand that your department will want to transfer the remains. I am confident that you will deem this request as reasonable under the circumstances. Please be informed that you will have Stu’s body “rendered” over my dead body.

Regarding fees owed for Stu’s boarding and (lack of ) care for the period prior to his transfer to Bobby Dorafshar, please include with your response a statement of the charges due.


Will Beverly Hills Feral Ordinance Void Their Contractual Agreement With LAAS and the CITY?

LETTER TO LAAS STAFF AND CITY:

Dear Kathy Davis, Linda Barth, Mayor Villaraigosa, Jim Bickhart, Jim Blackman, Carmen Trutanich,

I understand that as a condition for Los Angeles Animal Services to take over the animal care and control function for the City of Beverly Hills, that the latter had to remove an ordinance prohibiting feral cats.

On Tuesday, July 7, Beverly Hills City Council is considering adding on a new ordinance prohibiting feeding feral cats because it is a claimed health problem. This would allow them to enact it immediately on an emergency basis.

They are doing this because a woman, Katherine Varjian, was cited for feeding feral cats in an alley off Palm Drive. At the time cited, apparently the ordinance was still on the books. She is going to court within two weeks and in order to stop her from feeding, Beverly Hills staff has decided to make this a public health issue.

But be advised, it is only because 30 residents want to stop one feral colony manager.

If Beverly Hills puts that ordinance back on their books, will Los Angeles continue to provide animal control services for Beverly Hills even though they would be in violation of preconditions for LA assuming that function?

I send this to you because they have notified you of this measure and you do provide animal control services for Beverly Hills.

This is from their "staff" report:

In January of 2009, the City of Beverly Hills established a contractual agreement with the City of Los Angeles for field services and animal sheltering in their West Los Angeles facility. A requirement of this agreement was to adopt the City of Los Angeles animal related codes by reference.During that process, the existing section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code dealing with feeding of certain animals was inadvertently omitted; adoption of this ordinance will simply reinsert this omitted code section.

As mentioned, the adoption of the Los Angeles City Code relating to animals was required as part of the agreement with the City of Los Angeles Department Animal Services prior to their provision of field and sheltering services. During the adoption process, the Beverly Hills Municipal Code was reviewed, renumbered and reorganized with the intent of eliminating redundant or duplicate language. During this process, the section dealing with feeding of certain animals was inadvertently omitted.

Staff finds that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety because the placement of food on public property and in publicly accessible areas attracts not only domesticated animals, but raccoons and coyotes, vermin such as rodents, and insects. This Ordinance prohibits the feeding of certain animals on public property, including but not limited to, stray dogs, and feral and stray cats. Staff finds that the Los Angeles Municipal Code does not adequately address the health and safety issues that arise from feeding of animals on public property.

Adoption of this Ordinance will prevent the proliferation of predatory mammal, rodent and insect populations, thereby reducing the spread of disease and prevent expansion of non- domesticated mammalian predator populations by limiting their access to food. The Ordinance will take effect immediately.

Why Does Boks Five Year Plan Accept Failure?

I have not calculated the City Shelter stats in well over a year. Sometimes it just hurts to see how much death there is. Also, I didn't know when to begin holding LAAS' new management accountable for the system's poor performance since Boks did not officially leave until June 30, 2009.

So this following brief, brief analysis is still totally on Boks', even though he probably did not have much to do with operations for the last two months.

For the past 12 months ending May 31, 2009, the live save rate for dogs and cats was 58.6%, but for cats alone it was only 39.9%

Over 60% of all cats that came in were killed. Last year the live save rate for cats was 43.7%.

Compare this with New York City. NYC impounded far more cats than LA Animal Services during the past 12 months (28,704 for NYC versus 23,709 for LA City), yet saved 59% compared to LA's 39.9%. New York City saved 16,587 cats, while LA saved 9,457. Why? NYC had less than half LA's budget when I last checked 18 months ago.

During the past 12 months, there were 3,059 more cats impounded in LA compared to the year before, but killing increased by 3,138, meaning that more than 100% of the new cats were killed. The system couldn't handle the increase and killed all of the new larger marginal total, and then some. Performance was FAR WORSE than last year.

Partly this is due to the economy and to foreclosures, but also it is due to the larger number of new facilities. More animals are being turned in because it is easier, and the increased staff has not been able to cope. I don't know if field intake numbers have expanded or not; these figures are not published.

But you can't just blame the economy. LAAS has failed catastrophically compared to the year before, and is a miserable failure compared to NYC. The expanded LAAS under Ed Boks has FAILED Los Angeles during the past year.

This is why Boks Five year plan accepts failure because Animal Services, under Boks, has gone backwards.

New York City has pulled well ahead of Los Angeles with less than half LA's budget.

New York statistics: http://www.nycacc.org/stats.htm


Ed Boks New Blog

Ed can't write a five year plan, but he can take a leadership role in fighting Beverly Hills attack on feral cat colonies.

BH's staffer are trying to make this into a phony health issue so that they can get an immediate passage of this garbage ordinance as an emergency so that they can punish Varjian weeks later when she goes to trial.

In his latest post at his new blog, http://latopdog.blogspot.com, Boks brings up the broader issue of TNR. I think he is being naive if he thinks that the snobby Yahoos on Palm Drive care about anything except exercising their power of a really, really wimpy, weak-kneed City Hall staff that apparent got their logical and medical arguments from one of the dimmer 30 people who signed a petition against Varjian. At least the staff didn't bring up the specter of plague, AIDS or swine flu as a consequence of feeding cats.

I wish Ed and other supporters of TNR would address the bogus, non-existent health risk claim made by the BH city staff, because that is alleged basis for the ordinance. Beverly Hills = Compassion?

Yet, I can see a future for Ed as he addresses many of the issues that are of concern to the LA animal community.

Boks Last Act: A Five Year Plan to Nowhere

Animal Services has just posted its five year plan signed by Ed Boks and dated his last day in office, June 30, 2009.


It is an incredible disappointment.

Remember his promised five year plan to No Kill that never happened? Well, this is a five year plan to a more efficient bureaucracy with not the slightest mention radically reducing the number of animals killed or animals adopted.

It does not even mention no kill. Doing a search on the five year plan, I could not find, "no-kill," "save rate," "euthanasia," "kill rate," or even "adoption rate."

I see two goals in my brief reading which has any real numbers: a goal to have New Hope partners adopt an additional 264 animals in 2009 vs. 2008, and a gaol to reduce returns by 10%.

This plan is filled with empty words, meaningless program outlines that have no attached real goals in terms of anticipated increases in save rates or reduction of killing.

This is a plan that outlines future programs and plans and nothing about reducing the number of animals killed. This is an awful, awful plan that puts the focus on a bureaucracy's ability to create a more efficient bureaucracy in the future and nothing about saving lives.

THIS PLAN MUST BE SCRAPPED IMMEDIATELY. IT IS PURELY A COVER MY ASS DOCUMENT WHERE THE GMs OF THE FUTURE CAN SAY: We met every goal in the plan, therefore we are performing at 100% of our commitment, but unfortunately, we are still killing 18,000 animals a year.

This plan is an acceptance of failure.

The Proposed Ordinance to Criminalize Feral Cat Colony Management

The below is the actual proposed ordinance to outlaw feeding feral cats in Beverly Hills.

It contains all kinds of fuzzy reasoning such that attracting insects and possum at a handful of locations causes a health hazard, and furthermore attracts coyotes who apparently will kill the cats and dogs owners let roam free at night. There is no mention whether coyotes have been seen in the Palm Drive area where Mrs. Vajarian feeds on even an irregular basis, nor any statisitics that correlate ants in an alley in B.H. with higher hospiral admissions or with plague or some other straw man disease.

The idiot, George Chavez, the city staffer that prepared this piece or garbage legislation, opines that there is no anticipated cost to the City of this ordinance despite already years of legal conflict and July 1 and July 7 trials for just one colony manager. Apparently he thinks court costs and litigation are not costs to the City, and that Ms. Varjian is the only feeder in the City.

Chavez says preventing feral cats eating will eliminate insects and rodents, diminishing a health risk. What, Mr. Chavez, is the health risk? Unless Mrs. Varjian is massively overfeeding the cats, leaving scads of uneaten food, the cats are more likely killing far more rodents than any small amounts of leftover food attract. Small rodents are one creature feral cats do eat.

Mr. Chavez raises a spector of a straw man health risk. There is no demonstrated health risk. He doesn't even know how many cats are fed, in how many areas, and thus what the real potential risk is. He hasn't done even minimal research. He has no idea what he is talking about. There are no quoted authorities, studies, mentioned experiences at other municipalities. There is no research at all, merely unsupported speculations based on fear mongering.

Does he even think about the health risk of many hungry and starving cats wandering the neighborhoods, with their dead and rotting bodies? Does he consider the pick up fees for dead animals, or the cost of litigation and prosecution of these cat feeding scufflaws?

Hopefully the ex head of Los Angeles' Animal Services, Ed Boks, will be allowed to speak at length about Los Angele's real experiences regarding feral cat feeding and colonies, and address B.H. almost medieval fear of insects, urban wildlife and cats.

This would be real research, not scare talk out of some bureaucratic sycophant.

Everyone knows the real reason for all this ninsense are a few cat-hating Beverly Hills residents who have contempt for any rights other than their property rights, are demanding that the City stop Kathryn Varjian from feeding cats in the Palm Drive area.

This is pure spite of residents like Darian Bojeoux who want to show "outsiders" who is boss and how much power they have over City staff and B.H. City Council. This is the same sick, Republican entitlement attitude I had always encountered in the more wealthy areas of Santa Monica, "Look at my beautiful property, envy me and mine, but don't get too close, AND kill any four legged mammal who dare treads on my garden."

Have Chavez and Council yet realized how small, petty and meanhearted this act's passge would make their city look? "Beverly Hills Starves Homeless Cats and creates a crimal class of cat ladies."

I wonder if people from outside Beverly Hills start coming in to feed the feed Varjian's cats. Talk about outsiders. I have already heard from two people who swear they will travel to feed Mrs. Varjian's cats. Should this act pass, I will also see what I can do to find others who will keep Mrs. Varjian's strays alive.

Talk about enforcement and litigation expense for Beverly Hills, they have no idea the kind of trouble they would be creating.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council finds that it is necessary for the preservation of the

public peace, health and safety that this Ordinance take effect immediately. This Ordinance prohibits the feeding of certain animals on public property, including, but not limited to, stray dogs, and feral and stray cats. This provision was inadvertently removed upon the adoption by reference of the Los Angeles Municipal Code Animal Control provisions. The City Council now finds that the Los Angeles Municipal Code does not adequately address the health and safety issues that arise from the feeding of certain animals. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety because the placement of food on public property and in publicly accessible areas attracts not only domesticated animals, but other animals, including vermin such as insects and rodents, raccoons, and coyotes. The City Council finds that this Ordinance will prevent the proliferation of rodent, and insect populations, thereby reducing the spread of disease. This Ordinance will also prevent the expansion of nondornesticated mammalian predator populations in the City by limiting their access to food. The Council therefore finds that it is necessary that this Ordinance take effect immediately and its urgency is hereby declared because without this ordinance food may continue to be placed in public areas attracting vermin and mammalian predators and thereby compromising public health and safety. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 2. Section 53.06.5 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, as incorporated

by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 5 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, is amended to add the following:

"(d) No person shall feed or in any manner provide or place food for any domesticated animal which is not under the ownership or legal possession of such person, including, but not limited to, dogs and cats, on any public property, or on any property open to the public, or on any private property where the providing or placement of such food is in an area not completely enclosed by a secured wall or fence of at least six feet (6') in height.

(e) No person shall feed or in any manner provide or place food for any feral or

stray cat that is not under the ownership or legal possession of such person."

Section 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or

portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this ordinance
to the Director of the City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Services.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance, being an Urgency Ordinance adopted

for the immediate protection of the public safety and health, containing a declaration of the facts


NANCY KRASNE

Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills, California


BYRON POPE

City Clerk


Video About Beverly Hills Colony Manager, Varjian

There is a possibility that Beverly Hills will vote soon to re-criminalize feral cat colony managing and feeding in 10 days. Varjian goes back to court on the 7th of this month.

The huge danger is that this will set a precedent for our own City Council and County governments. This is an important case.


I understand Ed Boks accompanied Mrs. Varjian to court yesterday. Maybe Ed can take ownership of this issue, as I am sure he still has a big voice among bureaucrats.

I couldn't find who wrote the below:

The crowd (which I estimate to be 20+) which came to support Katherine Varjian (identified with red ribbon armbands) included Ed Boks, who offered to tell the judge about the agreement LAAS created with the city of Beverly Hills. This agreement matched the animal control laws in Beverly Hills with those of the city of Los Angeles, where feral cat care taking is legal, making the anti-feeding ordinance no longer in effect.

Believe it or not, the Beverly Hills City Councilmembers are voting on an "emergency motion" to REINSTATE the inhumane ordinance at their next meeting on Tuesday, July 7th at 7 PM, so we have to make a strong showing then. The prosecutor was saying that it was a "mistake" that the cruel ordinance got deleted! The judge was not ready to make a ruling today because she says she just got the paperwork 2 days ago and needed to absorb it more thoroughly. Katherine's daughter, who is an attorney representing her, wanted a ruling today because the city council may reinstate the ordinance. So, if the ordinance will be reinstated, the judge will hear the case and make a ruling on August 7th at 1:30 PM.

If the city council doesn't vote to reinstate it, then the case will be dismissed.

Only once was feeding ferals even brought up (and it was probably a good 35-40 minutes or so of back and forth legal jumbo). No chance was given to mention how Katherine practices TNR [trap/neuter/release] and adopts out any kittens or cats that can be socialized. The city of Beverly Hills should be giving her an award, not arresting her!

Anyone who would like to tell Beverly Hills City Council how they feel about their "emergency meeting" and quest to jail a kind-to-animals senior citizen should attend:

Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 7 , 2009

Beverly Hills City Council, Rm. 400
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Mayor and City Council: (310) 285-1013

Beverly Hills Neighbor Claims Varjian Is Not Feeding Feral Cats

I just receieved a comment regarding the Beverly Hills colony manager, Katherine Varjian, who was being charged with feeding feral cats.

Darian Bojeaux, get this, claims there are no feral cats in the area Mrs. Varjian is feeding. Darian claims since there are no cats being fed by her, and she has refused to stop feeding non-existent of invisible cats, she deserves to be arrested.

Here is Darian's comment:

"First animal rights people sent out e-mails to many claiming that Varjian had been arrested for feeding cats. Now the claim is being made that they are afraid she might have to go to jail. Which is true? Are facts being manipulated to conjure up sympathy and support for Varjian?

Varjian does not live in our neighborhood, but she insists upon littering and leaving cat food in our alleys which draws coyotes, rodents, etc. She also claims that there is a colony of feral cats in our area which is not true. We residents, including animal lovers like myself, have asked Varjian repeatedly to stop her conduct, but she refuses to respect our wishes.

This is not a person who deserves sympathy and support. This is a person who should direct her energy to helping cats in a sensible manner such as by feeding cats who are awaiting adoption. If she would, then she wouldn't have to worry about getting arrested.

Darian Bojeaux

123 Palm Drive

Beverly Hills


Well Darian, do you really believe anyone would believe Mrs. Varjian just goes into your neighborhood to feed invisible or non-existent cats to tick you off or because she is insane? ? Are your values so distorted you have to lie like that?


The City Attorney and the Disposable Homeless Man’s Day in Court. Will things get better under Trutanich?

I went to court today with Jimmy Nasralla who lives in a tent behind Bed and Breakfast in Northridge with 4 cats. A reporter from LA Weekly was there too, Patrick McDonald.

I had received numerous emails from Jim Dellinger, Councilmember Smith Deputy in the West Valley, who informed me he had had a sit down meeting with the neighborhood City Attorney and who he also forwarded all the parcel documents and maps regarding the County Land Jimmy was lodging on versus the Union Pacific allegation that Jimmy was on railroad property.

However, we got to court a bit late because Jimmy got the time wrong and there were traffic problems.

When we went in we were greeted by the City Attorney in the case who refused to give his name and said he didn’t have any business cards on him. He was friendly. He took the parcel map, the letter from Mary Cummins and other documents, looked at them and appeared to agree that Jimmy was not on Union Pacific property.

I informed him that Councilmember Smith’s Deputy, Jim Dellinger, had assured me he had been in contact with the City Attorney’s Office about Jimmy’s case (95R02362). However, this City Attorney, who other lawyers called Abraham I believe, said he had heard nothing from Mr. Smith Office or from Mr. Dellinger.

He gave me a number to call, with no name, so that I could give him Mr. Dellinger’s number.

I have phoned Mr. Dellinger twice to find out what has happened, and I left two messages with Mr. Abraham.

I also told the latter that I had sent all the information to Union Pacific as well as the general City Attorney email for Delgadillo, twice, with no response.

The judge had already issued a bench warrant for Jimmy, but that was reversed, and he was re-arraigned and pled not guilty to violation of CA PC 647(j) living on private property without permission.

The trial will be on August 3.

Either Mr. Dellinger never contacted the City Attorney’s Office, or that office is more screwed up than is conceivable. For example:

Jimmy was originally given a ticket by a Union Pacific RR cop in March. It told him the time and date of his appearance which was at the Van Nuys court. He went to court there, and was told that the case had been sent to the Chatsworth Court, and he had a new date to appear.

On that date—within walking distance of where Jimmy lives—he appeared I court and went to the court receptionist there and then was told that the venue had again been shifted to the San Fernando Courthouse near Sylmar, 14 miles away THAT SAME DAY.

Jimmy explained he was homeless and had to travel by bicycle or bus and couldn’t possibly make it by the 1:30 deadline she demanded. He asked her to call and help arrange a new date. She refused.

He asked if he could phone them. Again she refused.

She also told him unless he showed up at the San Fernando courthouse by 1:30, the judge would issue a bench warrant.

Jimmy stormed out of the court, but a sympathetic Sheriff’s Deputy followed him out, and after leaving the courthouse talked to Jimmy and called the San Fernando courthouse and arranged a new court date there for Jimmy.

Jimmy went there about two weeks ago. This is when I first found out about his problem with the courts and began my investigation about Union Pacific’s claim that the County land was theirs.

All this has made it very clear to me that homeless people are not well-treated by the court system. They are bounced around from venue to venue, and even the court appointed attorney he was provided for 5 minutes the first time he went to the San Fernando Courthouse, simple told him to move away, fold his tent and go away.

Will things change under Trutanich? Probably not, but we can hope.

Stay tuned for a long article on this case from Patrick McDonald from the LA Weekly.

Jimmy Goes to Court Today


Jimmy is going to court today accompanied by a reporter from LA Weekly, Patrick McDonald, and me. The local City Attorney visited Jimmy via a passenger ride in a cop car today while the reporter was interviewing Jimmy.

Jim Dellinger, Councilmember Smith's Deputy, emailed me that he passed along all my documentation including parcel maps to the City Attorney in charge.

We'll see what comes down.

Of course, there is the woman in Beverly Hills who goes to court today too. Pray for us.

I'll report the outcomes.