A Southern California city is doubling down on its crackdown against the poor and the unhoused, even after Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to sue the city over its actions.

Newsom chastised Norwalk, a city of 103,000 residents located 15 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, for passing an emergency measure that takes an extreme approach to homelessness: It bans new homeless shelters, temporary housing, supportive housing and single-room occupancy hotels.


A day after the threat from Newsom — who himself has taken a hard line against street encampments — the city on Tuesday voted to extend the ban for another 10 months.

But Norwalk’s measure is even more far-reaching than the state’s condemnations let on. On top of banning new shelters, the ordinance bans a whole host of other types of businesses that service low-income clientele, including liquor stores, discount stores, payday loan establishments, car washes and laundromats.

The tension over the ban underscores the state’s challenge as it works to address a crippling housing and homelessness crisis, along with anger over tent and RV camps. Over the past decade, state lawmakers have passed a number of measures aimed at removing local governments’ ability to reject new housing or shelter options.

“It sounds like what the city is trying to do is zone out extremely poor people in every way they can, by not just saying there can be no homeless shelters but there are also going to be no businesses that provide services to poor people,” said Chris Elmendorf, a professor at UC Davis School of Law who focuses on California land use and housing policy.

It’s not clear how the city settled on the types of businesses singled out in the measure. The city’s mayor and City Council didn’t discuss the decision during the Aug. 6 meeting when they approved the initial 45-day freeze.

The ordinance itself cites a state code that allows cities seeking to “protect the public safety, health, and welfare” to “adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission, or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.”

At the Tuesday meeting in which the Council voted to extend the ban, resident Christina Sanchez urged officials to reconsider, “because I don’t think it makes Norwalk safer.”

“For many years I worked in the hotel industry and so many of our coworkers have experienced homelessness at one time or another. Many people are only living one paycheck away from sleeping in their cars, from couch-surfing and housing insecurity,” Sanchez said. “The city needs to think creatively about addressing the housing crisis.”

Norwalk Mayor Margarita Rios did not respond to a question from the Chronicle about why the ordinance singles out certain types of businesses and housing, but said in an emailed statement that Newsom should recognize the work the city has done to address homelessness and offer more state resources to combat the issue.

“Governor Newsom’s threats of a lawsuit overlook Norwalk’s long-standing and effective efforts to address homelessness. The city has made significant strides, including opening affordable housing for homeless veterans, supporting L.A. County’s Homekey project, funding its own homelessness engagement teams, and being one of the few cities in L.A. County with a dedicated Social Services Department to assist people experiencing homelessness,” Rios said. “We urge Governor Newsom to recognize Norwalk’s proactive measures and provide direct resources to support its ongoing efforts.”

Though Norwalk’s measure passed unanimously, not every local official thinks it’s the right approach.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, whose district includes Norwalk, urged the council members at the Aug. 6 meeting to back local efforts to open new facilities serving the homeless.

“We won’t be able to address our homelessness crisis in a meaningful way without our cities helping us. I want to work with the city of Norwalk to address their concerns because we have a plan right now to house people living along the 105 (freeway) in Norwalk and we won’t be able to help these people if this ordinance is approved,” Liz Odendahl, a spokesperson for Hahn, told the Chronicle.

The state Department of Housing and Community Development wrote Monday in a warning to the city that the measure violates numerous state housing laws.

“By specifically targeting emergency shelters, SRO housing, supportive housing, and transitional housing for a moratorium, the City is prohibiting — and appears to be discriminating against — housing because of the method of financing and/or the intended occupants,” the letter says.

The letter denounces the fact that the measure “explicitly lumps housing for low-income people with liquor stores as having a ‘detrimental impact on the City.’ ”

Elmendorf said the provisions of the measure that target shelter and housing options appear to be illegal.

“They can’t ban homeless shelters completely, because they’re required to zone for some amount of shelters under their housing element,” he said, referring to the state-mandated plans cities must submit to the state laying out their plans to accommodate new and existing residents.

If the state does ultimately sue, Elmendorf said, “the litigation will probably result in the measure being deemed preempted by state law, at least insofar as it prevents a city from doing what it has to do to adopt a compliant housing element.”Vegetarian Stew Recipes