Rahm Emanuel, former Bill Clinton political strategist and mayor of Chicago, is famous for saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

Emanuel thought that the 2008 financial crisis provided the new Obama-Biden administration the opportunity to “do things” they couldn’t otherwise. As a result, the federal government engaged in a trillion-dollar spending spree. Later, President Biden employed Rahm’s Rule to justify his administration’s college debt cancellation plan, despite how financially – and morally – suspect.

In Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors just dusted off Emanuel’s advice with a slight addendum: “Never let a crisis go to waste, even fake ones.” The Board passed a motion to declare a state of emergency in L.A. County ostensibly due to the Federal ICE Raids. This “emergency” appears to be a pretense for a moratorium on rental housing evictions. 

If you have difficulty understanding the logic of this, join the club.

The Board’s tortured reasoning is that the tactics used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have “created a climate of fear, leading to widespread disruption in daily life and adverse impacts to our regional economy.” Whether that is true or not – most of the proffered evidence is anecdotal – it appears that the proposed “remedies” are more performative than substantive. 

Emily Covington, an ICE spokesperson, bristled at the County’s actions, arguing that “Perhaps the board should ‘supervise’ funds to support law-abiding fire victims who still haven’t recovered, instead of criminal illegal aliens seeking refuge in their sanctuary city. While they publicly fearmonger, I would be shocked if they didn’t agree with ICE removing a child rapist from their neighborhood.” 

Whether or not one agrees with the hyperbolic statements of either side, the more fundamental question is whether the proposed “remedies” are counterproductive to the interests of county citizens generally or to taxpayers and property owners specifically. 

The only dissenter on the Board of Supervisors was Kathryn Barger who injected some sanity into the controversy by noting that her opposition was based on “good governance” and not any alleged efficacy of the ICE raids. More specifically, she rightly questioned whether the immigration enforcement actions met the criteria for a true emergency and if the board action could entangle the county in costly litigation.

Local business and rental housing owners are justifiably concerned. Like Barger, they have framed their opposition only on the issue of eviction moratoriums, not the ICE Raids. Their concern is that an eviction moratorium eventually would compound the financial hit on landlords after an extended ban on evictions and rental increases during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It is a step toward a countywide eviction moratorium,” said Janet Gagnon, who represents the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles.

During last week’s hearing, the board was briefed by county counsel on the scope of its authority to implement a moratorium. Expressing some uncertainty, they said any moratorium would have to be preceded by a declaration of a local state of emergency. However, the provision of rental assistance would not be so conditioned. 

But even providing rental assistance would have a negative impact on the county’s precarious financial situation. According to the county itself, its $45 billion budget is under “enormous pressures” from the January 2025 wildfires, a flood of sex abuse lawsuits, and a threat of federal funding cuts.

Regardless of what the county decides to do in response to the ICE raids, taxpayers and landlords should demand that their interests not be put in jeopardy. After all, they’re the ones that provide both tax revenue and housing in Los Angeles County. 

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Originally Published: October 20, 2025 at 2:46 PM PDT