Ruling could alter day laborer law

Jennifer Kho

COSTA MESA -- A city ordinance prohibiting day laborers from

soliciting work on a street or highway could be in jeopardy now that a

federal judge has ruled a similar Los Angeles County ordinance is

unconstitutional.

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge George H. King said the Los

Angeles County law that bars day laborers from soliciting work or money

from passing drivers was too broad, too vague and in violation of the 1st

and 14th amendments.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles and Sindicato

de Tabajadores por Dia, represented by Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund attorneys, challenged the ordinance.

The ruling has led some local activists to question the validity of

Costa Mesa’s ordinance, adopted in 1997, which prohibits people from

standing on a street or highway and trying to solicit work from an

occupant of a motor vehicle.

“The reality of the fact is these people perform all the services we

want and we need,” said Karen McGlinn, a Costa Mesa resident. “I go by

the day labor center every day and see an endless stream of people using

their services. On the one hand, we’re saying we want them to do all our

hard work, and on the other hand, we’re saying we don’t want them to be

visible. We need to be realistic and make it easier for them to be

employed.”

The city operates a day labor center at Placentia Avenue and 17th

Street.

However, McGinn said she is pessimistic about anyone challenging the

city ordinance.

“I don’t feel it will happen in the city of Costa Mesa,” she said,

adding that the city has been gravitating toward more code enforcement,

not less. “I don’t think anyone in the city will challenge the law, but

it’s time we recognize that these people live here, have families and

have the opportunity to do valuable things for the community.”Officials

at the city attorney’s office said the federal ruling might affect the

Costa Mesa ordinance if it is sufficiently similar to the Los Angeles

ordinance, but added that they had not yet had the chance to review the

case.