Shakily, Council Will Explore Sanctuary City

Ari L. NoonanBreaking News, News1 Comment

Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

With more of a stutter step than a burst of enthusiasm, the City Council agreed last evening to place the proposed labeling of Culver City as a sanctuary city on its March 27 agenda.

In other high-profile matters:

  • Deftly, the Council temporarily handed off a complex of questions about the parameters governing growing of marijuana, use of it, sale of it, taxing of it to the Planning Commission and the Finance Advisory Committee.
  • On the night of the first reading of a popular environment-oriented ban on certain forms of polystyrene by restaurants, minor adjustments in language and policy passed to the irritation of the ban’s strongest advocates, especially Councilwoman Meghan Sahli-Wells.
  • The Council voted 5-0 to support County Measure H on the March 7 ballot that seeks to end homelessness.
  • The Council agreed to lend financial support to the May 13 Car Show at Vets Park and the CicLAvia event.

Responding to a heavily detailed 7-point pro-immigrant, anti-deportation letter sent to each Council member, both Mayor Jim Clarke and Vice Mayor Jeff Cooper expressed hesitation about enacting a resolution.

It is not yet clear what had changed from earlier in the day when Mr. Clarke seriously had doubted the possibility of bringing a sanctuary city designation before the Council.

The mayor, a traditional liberal, is a law-and-order guy. He accented the importance of subscribing to the law while repeating an earlier assertion that Culver City already is acting as a kind of sanctuary city. Implied but going unspoken was the notion that such a label may be a stain on the community’s image.

Mr. Cooper, a centrist, objected to social justice-style topics in the letter, including proposed obligatory contributions to the L.A. Justice Fund.

With the exception of Ms. Sahli-Wells, no one on the dais indicated more than a passing interest in hurrying the subject to a Council agenda.

One Comment on ““Shakily, Council Will Explore Sanctuary City”

  1. George Laase

    Here is a group of well-meaning citizens asking city council members to publicly discuss how our community can become a “sanctuary city;” not whether we should become one. I guess they feel that has already been settled. They want our city to become and be seen as an immigrant haven. But, before we get too deep into this discussion, we need to establish what our becoming a “sanctuary city” legally means. Is there an actual legal definition describing what a “Sanctuary City” really is. What are the costs of becoming a sanctuary city? How would these costs be paid? Who would pay for them? Would taxpayers vote on a parcel tax to foot the bill? Would we go out and recruit immigrants or just wait for them to come to us for help? There are still so many questions that need to be addressed before our city takes such a large step.
    As of now, their ideas seems to be made up of well-intentioned, all-encompassing, yet, mostly legally undefined precepts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA: Please Answer Question Below: *