The motion was first introduced days after violence outside a Jewish synagogue in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood.
A planned vote by the Los Angeles City Council on a controversial plan to pay for security at religious institutions amidst ongoing tension over the Israel-Hamas War was tabled after a new proposal was introduced to make the money available to all faith-based organizations, not just Jewish institutions.
The latest proposal, introduced on Tuesday, July 2, would open up the grant application to all religious groups and increase the pot of money from $1 million to $2 million. It won’t be voted on until after the City Council returns from its three-week summer recess, which starts this week.
City Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Bob Blumenfield initially introduced a motion to fund security at Jewish institutions and nonprofits days after a June 23 clash outside a synagogue in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood between pro-Palestinian supporters and supporters of Israel.
Yaroslavsky, who represents Council District 5 which includes the Pico-Robertson neighborhood, warned that what happened just over a week ago won’t be the last of such incidents.
“It was an escalation of tension felt across the country, and we need to take it seriously and act swiftly,” Yaroslavsky said during Tuesday’s council meeting as members of the audience opposed to the motion booed. “The threats are real, and the fear of a proxy war for what’s happening in the Middle East spilling onto our streets here in L.A. is real.”
She said she decided to amend the initial proposal by making the security grants available to all faith-based groups after conversations with the mayor, city attorney’s office, fellow council members and interfaith leaders.
“It became apparent that this funding is needed beyond the scope of the initial motion,” she said.
Not everyone agrees with the need for security funding, however.
Dozens of pro-Palestinian supporters gathered at City Hall on Tuesday – first rallying outside the building ahead of the council meeting and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, then making their objections known to the proposal from Yaroslavsky and Blumenfield during the meeting.
Estee Chandler, a spokesperson for Jewish Voice for Peace, said in an interview that members of her group and others object to the councilmembers’ proposal because they believe the money would be better spent to address other needs that Angelenos have – from addressing homelessness and education to services for struggling families.
“Putting more cops and more weapons on the street doesn’t make people safer. … Our city has so much need that to pour more money into policing” is wrong, Chandler said.
So many people showed up for this council’s last meeting before it goes on break — to speak on this issue as well as other topics — that security guards turned away people hoping to enter the Council Chamber after it reached maximum occupancy.
About two dozen pro-Palestinian supporters sat outside the chamber at one point. The crowd in the hallway appeared peaceful.
Because the latest council motion was only introduced on Tuesday, and it had changed substantially from what was initially proposed, the council was legally barred from voting on it immediately. Under the Brown Act state law, adequate public notice is required by local legislative bodies before they vote.
Because Tuesday was the last meeting before the City Council recess, the earliest the council can vote on the proposal will be at the tail end of July.
At one point during Tuesday’s meeting, there was discussion about whether to have two council committees – the Civil Rights, Equity, Immigration, Aging and Disability Committee and the Budget, Finance and Innovation Committee – review the proposal before it’s forwarded to the full council for a vote.
Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who sits on the budget committee, had asked that the budget committee also get a chance to review the proposal, which calls for allocating $2 million for the proposed security grants program.
In the end, a divided council voted down Rodriguez’s request to have the budget committee review the proposal, in a 7-7 vote.
Yaroslavsky raised concerns that sending the proposal to two committees would further delay the ultimate vote by the full council – and at a time when tension has already escalated.
“The more committees we send this to, the longer this takes, I think the less safe all of our religious institutions will be,” Yaroslavsky said. She had already voiced disappointment that the council couldn’t vote on the motion this week. She added that LAPD has “serious concerns” about public safety in L.A. this summer.
She said she understood that $2 million was a lot of money, but that “the longer we screw around” by having multiple committees review the proposal, the longer it will take to get the money out the door.
Yaroslavsky and Blumenfield said they expect the city to get reimbursed for the money through a security-related state program set to launch in the fall. But until state funding becomes available, they said it’s critical to provide funding sooner to communities in Los Angeles that have been on heightened alert.
Some people in the audience started booing and interrupting as Yaroslavsky spoke.
“The temperature is high on all sides, as you see here today,” she said.
