local official

A proposal to explore removing Los Angeles police officers from traffic enforcement is stuck in gridlock. Again.

The initiative to take the job of pulling over bad drivers away from cops is months behind schedule, frustrating reform advocates and some city leaders who argue that Los Angeles is missing an on-ramp toward the future of road safety.

Local officials first raised the prospect during the national reckoning on racial injustice that followed the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, but the plan has progressed in sluggish fits and starts since then. Backers thought that they had scored an important victory with the release in May 2023 of a long-promised study mapping out how most enforcement could be done by unarmed civilian workers.

Last summer, the City Council requested follow-up reports from various city departments to figure out how to do that and gave a three-month deadline. But more than year later, most of the promised feasibility studies have yet to materialize.

“I’m very upset about the delay,” said Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, one of the proposal’s early champions. “Generally speaking, when you try to do a big reform like this, at least some portion of the people who want to do the work are very motivated to change the status quo — and I don’t think we have that here.”

He said there was blame to go around for the continued delays, but that he’s encouraged by his conversations with officials from the involved departments that studies will be completed — a precursor to legislation that would allow for re-imagining traffic safety.

At the same time, he said that he still saw a role for armed police in certain traffic situations.

“I don’t even think we need to be pulling people over at all for vehicle violations, especially for those that don’t pose any public safety risks,” he said, before adding: “If somebody’s going 90 miles an hour down Crenshaw Boulevard, that person does need to be stopped immediately and they do need to be stopped by somebody with a gun.”

In a unanimous vote in June 2024, the council directed city transportation staff and other departments to come back within 90 days with feasibility reports about the cost and logistics of numerous proposals, including creating unarmed civilian teams to respond to certain traffic issues and investigate accidents. Also under exploration were ideas to limit fines in poorer communities and end stops for minor infractions, such as expired tags or air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror.

Of the dozen or so requests made by the council, only two reports by the city’s transportation department have been completed so far, officials said.

Both of the studies — one assessing parking and traffic fines, and the other looking at how so-called “self-enforcing infrastructure” such as adding more speed bumps, roundabouts and other street modifications could help reduce speeding and unsafe driving — are “pending” before an ad hoc council committee focused on unarmed alternatives to police, according to an LADOT spokesman. The committee will need to approve the reports before they can be acted on by the full council, he said in a brief statement.

Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso, the council’s top policy advisor, said she understands frustration over the delays. She said the protracted timeline was also at least partly caused by difficulties in obtaining reliable data from some of the participating departments, but declined to point any fingers. Two additional reports are in the final stages of being finalized and should be released by the end of the year, she said.

Although top LAPD officials have in the past signaled a willingness to relinquish certain traffic duties, others inside the department have dismissed similar proposals as fanciful and argued the city needs to crack down harder on reckless driving at a time when traffic fatalities have outpaced homicides citywide.

Privately, some police supervisors and officers complain about what they see as left-leaning politicians and activists taking away an effective tool for helping to get guns and drugs off the streets. They argue that traffic stops — if conducted properly and constitutionally — are also a deterrent for erratic driving.

A recently passed state law allowed the use of use of automated speeding cameras on a pilot basis in L.A. and a handful of other California cities.

Some advocates, however, are leery of relying on technology and punitive fines that can continue historical harms, particularly for communities of color.

“It’s been just a big bureaucratic slog,” said Chauncee Smith, of Catalyst California, which is part of a broader coalition of reform advocacy groups pushing for an end to all equipment and moving violation stops.

While L.A. has spent more than a year finishing a “study of a study,” he said, places such as Virginia, Connecticut and Philadelphia have taken meaningful action to transform traffic enforcement by passing bans on certain types of low-level police stops.

He cited mounting research in other cities that showed road improvements along high-injury street corridors were more effective at changing driver behaviors, ultimately reducing the number of traffic-related deaths and serious injuries more than the threat of being ticketed. But he also acknowledged the difficulty of making such changes in L.A.’s notoriously fragmented approach to planning and delivering infrastructure projects.

Smith and other advocates have also argued for an outright ban on so-called pretextual stops, in which police use a minor violation as justification to stop someone in order to investigate whether a more serious crime has occurred.

The LAPD has reined in the practice in recent years under intense public pressure but never abandoned it. Further changes could require legislation and are likely to face stiff opposition from police unions such as the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which has been highly vocal in its criticism of the pretext policy change.

Leslie Johnson, chief culture officer for Community Coalition, a South L.A.-based nonprofit , said that despite the delays the organization plans to press ahead with efforts to reimagine public safety and to keep pressure on public officials to ensure the study results don’t get buried like past efforts. She said that there is renewed urgency to push through the changes after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that critics says has opened the door to widespread racial profiling.

“Even though we’re a sanctuary city, we’re concerned that these prextexual stops could be leveraged” by federal immigration authorities, she said.

Two Senate Republicans have opened yet another investigation into the deadly Palisades fire, adding to a long list of ongoing probes aimed at determining whether local officials prepared sufficiently for the emergency.

The investigation will look at whether emergency preparations were sufficient, including an examination of whether there was enough reservoir water to respond to the deadly wildfire.

Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin announced Monday that they were leading the congressional investigation, which they said is necessary to “uncover and expose the truth” about how the state and local governments responded to the major blaze, which broke out amid hurricane-force winds and quickly overwhelmed firefighting resources.

“Families in this community deserve answers and accountability,” Scott and Johnson wrote in a joint statement.

The new probe is the latest in a string of ongoing investigations into the start of the fire and how officials responded. It comes almost nine months since the fire broke out on Jan. 7, killing 12 and largely destroying Pacific Palisades. That same day, the Eaton fire erupted in Altadena, killing 19 people and devastating the foothill community.

The congressional investigation appears to focus only on the Palisades fire, and will look specifically at what water resources were — or weren’t — available, and why.

The Times first reported that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, located in the heart of Pacific Palisades, was empty when the fire broke out, and remained that way as firefighters experienced dry hydrants and water pressure issues. The 117-million-gallon water storage complex had been closed for repairs to its cover for nearly a year, officials said.

After The Times’ reporting on the reservoir, Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered an investigation into the city’s water system and how it may have hampered firefighting efforts.

Times reporting also exposed poor preparation and deployment by the Los Angeles Fire Department, even as city officials were repeatedly warned about life-threatening winds and red flag conditions. Top brass at the agency decided not to deploy roughly 1,000 available firefighters and dozens of water-carrying engines in advance of the Palisades fire.

The announcement of this federal investigation comes a few weeks after Scott — the former governor of hurricane-prone Florida — met with former reality star Spencer Pratt to tour some of the areas destroyed by the Palisades fire. At the time of their meeting, Pratt, who lost a home in the fire, was demanding a congressional investigation — an action that Scott said he would do his “best to make sure it happens.”

Pratt has also sued the city, alleging it failed to maintain an adequate water supply and other infrastructure.

In recent weeks, Scott has sent letters to several agencies seeking answers about how California used federal funds for wildfire management and response. In an August letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Scott said it appeared that the state and the city of Los Angeles had not used the agency’s funds “wisely or appropriately.”

The response to the January firestorm, particularly in the Palisades, has become a polarizing topic — and rife with misinformation —among national and local political leaders, from President Trump to developer Rick Caruso, a former mayoral contender against L.A.’s current mayor, Karen Bass. Caruso, who owns Palisades Village mall, became an immediate critic of the city’s response, blasting officials for struggling to meet water demands during the fire fight.

But fire and water experts have repeatedly said that the conditions during the fire were unprecedented, and one that no urban water system could have been properly prepared.

Still, understanding what, if anything, went wrong during the Palisades fire appears to have struck somewhat of a bipartisan note. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday said his team will “absolutely welcome” this additional review.

“It complements the thorough investigations already taking place — including by the federal government, the state, and an independent review by the nation’s leading fire experts,” Newsom said in a statement. “From day one, we’ve embraced transparency because Californians deserve nothing less.”

Los Angeles officials last month delayed releasing one of those reports, so as not to interfere with a federal investigation into the cause of the Palisades fire.

The new congressional investigation, which will be led by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, will give senators the power to issue subpoenas and seek documents for the committee’s review.

Local officials and advocates for the homeless are fearful that President Trump will take draconian action against homeless people, including pushing them into detention camps, when Los Angeles hosts the Olympic Games in 2028.

In recent weeks, Trump has appointed himself head of an Olympics task force and has seized control of local policing in Washington, D.C., declaring that homeless people will be given places to stay “FAR from the Capital.”

“Based on everything that has happened so far … I think you would have to be irrational not to worry about a worst case scenario [during the Games], where federal troops are effectively forcing poor people on the street to relocate to what is essentially a detention center somewhere out of sight,” said Gary Blasi, a professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law and a leading homelessness researcher.

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that for now, D.C. police and federal agents will clear homeless encampments in the capital and give people the option of accepting shelter beds and services or facing fines and jail time. The administration, she said, is also exploring how it can move homeless people far from the city.

The White House did not answer questions about whether it has a plan to address homelessness in L.A. in preparation for the Olympics. But White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said, “The people of Los Angeles would benefit tremendously if local officials followed President Trump’s lead to make the city safe and beautiful, especially as they prepare to welcome 15 million people from around the world as the Olympics’ host city.”

When hosting the Olympics, local officials typically try to present the best image of their city, which can include refurbishing landmarks and sports venues or cleaning up areas where homeless people congregate.

“The eyes of the world will be on Los Angeles,” and officials don’t want “people coming to the city and see this visual problem manifest right in front of them,” said Benjamin F. Henwood, director of USC’s Homelessness Policy Research Institute.

French authorities bused homeless people out of Paris before the 2024 Games, and in 1984, the Los Angeles Police Department used mounted horse patrols to scatter homeless people into less visible areas of downtown.

This time, L.A. city and county officials said they will not deviate from their efforts to place homeless people in interim and permanent housing locally.

Last year, in an interview with The Times, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said that unlike during previous Olympics, she would not bus homeless people out of the city and instead would focus on “housing people first.”

Similarly, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors has ordered county staffers to develop an encampment plan for upcoming sporting events, including the 2026 World Cup and the Olympics, that will emphasize permanent housing solutions.

But the supervisors also noted that encampments near Olympic venues will need to be “addressed,” in part to “establish adequate security perimeters.”

In D.C., in addition to taking over the city police department, Trump has deployed the National Guard to, as he put it, “reestablish law and order.” He has threatened to resend the Guard and the military to the Los Angeles area, where they were stationed this summer during federal immigration raids, if needed to maintain safety during the Olympics.

In a statement, Supervisor Janice Hahn said that federalizing local law enforcement and sending the U.S. military to American cities is “what tyrants do.” She also noted that the Trump administration has cut social safety net programs and is seeking to withdraw support for policies that prioritize placing homeless people in permanent housing before addressing other issues such as substance abuse and mental health.

“What the President is doing in DC should concern everyone,” Hahn said. “If he really wants to solve homelessness, he needs to get us the resources we need to get people housed and keep them housed.”

Nithya Raman, chair of the L.A. City Council’s housing and homelessness committee, said in a statement that given the region’s homelessness crisis, “the repercussions of similar actions as they are threatening in DC would be staggering.”

In her own statement, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said that despite the Trump administration’s plan of “dehumanization,” the county “will keep doing what’s right — focusing on humane, lasting solutions to homelessness.”

Katie Hill, a former Democratic member of Congress who now runs Union Station Homeless Services, said she fears the Trump administration is working on “mass institutionalization of some kind” for homeless people during the Games, similar to federal immigration detention facilities, where there have been reports of inhumane conditions.

“He doesn’t care about the rules or the norms,” Hill said of Trump. “There is a lot of federal facilities and land that they could use potentially as a detention facility.”

Unlike D.C., which is a federal district where the president holds special powers, Blasi said that in Los Angeles, the federal government cannot legally lock up people for living on the streets but could “make life so miserable for unhoused people” that there are no other options besides “a camp somewhere.”

Blasi said the Trump administration could try to invoke emergency laws to incarcerate people but doubted that courts would approve.

Since she was elected in 2022, Bass has made homelessness her signature issue. In her marquee Inside Safe program, before an encampment is cleared, residents are all offered housing and services, which are voluntary, with no fines or jail time if the person rejects the help, said Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl.

Seidl said the mayor is “laser-focused on addressing homelessness through a proven comprehensive strategy” and that “this is progress she would’ve made regardless of the Games.”

Homelessness in both the city and county has dropped in the last two years, particularly the number of people who are unsheltered, which has fallen 14% in the county and nearly 18% in the city since 2023, data show. About 47,000 people live on the streets in L.A. County.

Eric Sheehan, a member of NOlympics, which opposes holding the Olympics in L.A., said he is concerned about how the Trump administration will act during the Games. But he said the federal approach to homelessness may not differ much from what local officials are already doing.

Sheehan pointed to the city of Los Angeles’ no sleeping zones, encampment cleanups monitored by police and interim housing he characterized as jail-like.

“I don’t think there is a version of this Olympics that doesn’t hurt Angelenos,” Sheehan said.

Amy Turk, chief executive of the Downtown Women’s Center, said that using the police and military to address homelessness is “an expensive intervention that is just moving someone from one place to another place.” She is particularly concerned about the impact on people fleeing domestic violence.

To mitigate the damage the Trump administration could do, Turk said it’s important for nonprofits like hers to keep working to find people permanent housing and services.

One hurdle is funding.

State and local budget constraints have reduced funding for homeless services this year, including for a temporary housing subsidy that officials said was key in reducing homelessness in the last several years.

Hill said more funds are needed so L.A. County can tackle homelessness on its own terms, not those of the Trump administration.

“Where is the money going to come from to set up something that is more humane?” she said.

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded “public benefit” programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court.

The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state’s emergency healthcare system, the officials said.

Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said.

In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate “chilling effect” on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader “ripple effects” — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as “a critical safety net” for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers.

“Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.

Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote.

Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the “chilling effect” from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to “seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.”

Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states’ lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations.

The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants.

The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

Trump’s order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

“We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out.

Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

“Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,” she wrote.

Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county’s “safety-net” care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities.

“But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”

Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county’s residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county’s children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country.

The administration’s changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote.

“The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara’s emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,” Hansen wrote.

The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court.

In response to the states’ motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.

They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies “merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,” and “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.”

The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas lawmakers on Wednesday began reviewing the Fourth of July floods that killed at least 136 people, a disaster that put local officials under scrutiny over why residents along the Guadalupe River did not receive more warnings.

The catastrophic floods in the Texas Hill Country and a partisan redrawing of U.S. House maps, aimed at giving Republicans more winnable seats in the 2026 elections, are two major issues in a 30-day special session that is already off to a combative start.

Democrats want to address flood relief and new flood warning systems before taking votes on new congressional maps sought by President Trump. They have not ruled out a walkout in a bid to derail the redistricting, which they have slammed as a partisan power grab.

State and county emergency response officials are scheduled to testify, but no officials from Kerr County, the area most hard-hit by the floods, are expected to appear.

Committee chair Sen. Charles Perry, a Republican, said local officials were not asked to come to the capitol to avoid pulling them away from their work. “Our select committee will not armchair quarterback or attempt to assign blame,” Perry said.

The head of Texas emergency management department, Nim Kidd, confirmed Wednesday that the number of deaths was 136, up from 135.

Two people remain missing, a man and a girl from Camp Mystic, according to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. At one point, county officials said more than 170 people were unaccounted for, but ultimately found that most were safe.

Twenty-seven campers and counselors, most of them children, were killed at the all-girls Christian summer camp in Kerr County, which does not have a warning system along the river after several missed opportunities by state and local agencies to finance one.

Lawmakers have filed bills to improve early warning systems and emergency communications and to provide relief funding. Legislators are scheduled to visit Kerrville on July 31 to hear from residents.

Democrats have left open the possibility of filibusters or walking out in the coming weeks to block the proposed congressional map redraw. On Monday, most of the party’s members in the House signed a letter to the speaker stating that they would not engage in any work before addressing flood relief.

But Democrats have few paths to resistance as the minority party in both chambers. Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton has threatened to arrest those who attempt to walk out on top of the $500-a-day fines lawmakers face for breaking a quorum.

Lathan writes for the Associated Press.