A controversial $177 million City Hall vote to help fund Los Angeles’ tenant-rights legal apparatus was abruptly postponed Tuesday with virtually no public explanation for the sudden move.
The action came without discussion during the council meeting, offering little insight into what prompted the delay.
Lefty councilmember Nithya Raman, a mayoral contender, has been the chief architect of the package. Earlier this month, her Housing and Homelessness Committee approved the plan, clearing it for what many expected would be routine final approval by the full council.
Her office told The California Post on Tuesday that the item was continued by the Council President’s office but offered no further details. The Post reached out to the Council President’s office for clarification and comment but has not received a response.
The proposal would deliver one of the largest infusions of housing-related funding in recent city history to a tight cluster of politically influential nonprofits that dominate L.A.’s eviction-defense landscape, including activist groups that have pushed anti-Olympics campaigns, called for police abolition and repeatedly sued the city while advocating sweeping policy changes.
The contracts would channel money to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, the Liberty Hill Foundation and the Southern California Housing Rights Center — groups that together form the backbone of the “Stay Housed L.A.” network.
Legal Aid, slated to receive the largest share of the funding — more than $106 million— was recently at the center of a high-profile lawsuit against the city. Its lead attorney, Shayla Myers, won a court ruling blocking Los Angeles from towing and dismantling inoperable RVs used by the homeless, a move that frustrated some City Council members as reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Funded largely by Measure ULA’s mansion-tax revenue, the agreements would lock in three-year deals through March 2029 to provide eviction defense and homelessness-prevention services across Los Angeles.
Supporters portray the spending as a critical lifeline for renters at risk of displacement in an increasingly unaffordable city.
Critics argue the plan would effectively bankroll activist groups with taxpayer funds.
The motion is now scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, March 3.