The NOlympics LA Coalition is republishing this analysis of the proposed Koreatown shelters by our partners at LA CAN who have fiercely followed this issue and the issues of shelters and criminalization for decades. The Koreatown shelter comes to city council today with likely many anti-homeless being bussed in by their NIMBY sponsors. But there will also be those there present to defend the unhoused and make the demands below. We hope you can join us or join us in spirit.
The Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN) has always maintained that housing is a human right — and that temporary fixes will not end homelessness. A case in point: Mayor Eric Garcetti’s emergency shelters plan, dubbed “A Bridge Home.”
While agreeing with the Los Angeles Times that the mayor’s proposal is “an acknowledgement that the city has been unable to keep pace with the number of people falling into homelessness” (4/16/18), we believe it is a necessary option for Angelenos who have nothing left to lose but the sidewalk for a bed. That said, the proposal should be re-crafted to ensure that participation is “voluntary” and to eliminate its emphasis on quid pro quo criminalization.
The Plan
On its face, the plan seems straightforward although limited in scale compared to the size of the problem. $20 million from July through January 2019. 15 shelters, $1.3 million per council district, 100 beds per shelter, 1,500 new shelter beds. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority will contract the shelters to local community providers.
According to the 2017 homeless count, the City of Los Angeles has roughly 25,000 “unsheltered” people living in tents, vehicles, and on sidewalks. There are currently 7,474 interim housing beds in the city, which amounts to 29% of the actual need. The present Koreatown shelter debate illustrates those gaps in real time. The 2017 homeless count identified 368 homeless people living in Koreatown. The proposed sheltered is estimated to hold up to 65 beds, which is roughly 18% of what’s needed. Increased enforcement is a signature feature of the plan.
Quid pro quo
The reward for communities that house a shelter is the promise that the city will keep it clear of encampments. Council districts are not required to provide shelter commensurate with the number of people in need before enforcement begins. The only thing a community needs to do to qualify for increased enforcement is house a shelter.
Communities that don’t build a shelter will not get the “benefit” of increased policing and encampment removal. In other words, go along with the plan or your district will continue to receive current levels of service. Or, more aptly stated: you’ll be forced to suffer the consequences of a city lacking the political courage and leadership to address its housing crisis.
Cost
“To fund enforcement, Garcetti is proposing a $29 million boost in homelessness spending [for] special LAPD Homeless Outreach and Proactive Engagement (HOPE) teams and Bureau of Sanitation (BOS) workers who would keep the area free of encampments.” (Radio 700)
Tellingly, the price of enforcement is higher than the investment in shelters –$29 million for the former and $20 million for the latter. The $29 million represents an increase in current spending for the BOS and LAPD. A 2016 City Administrative Office (CAO) report noted that Los Angeles spends more than $100 million a year coping with homelessness, including as much as $87 million that goes to arrests, skid row patrols, and mental health interventions. (Holland, Times).
Lastly, this enforcement remains heavily racialized. By 2016 there was one houseless arrest for every two houseless people in L.A. This is 17 times the arrest rate among the local population of the city. African Americans represent the majority of all houseless arrests (37%) and the majority of the houseless population (43%). Arrest rates of houseless Latinos doubled between 2011 and 2016, accounting for 53% of the increase in all houseless arrests. (MDH 2017)
Recommendations/Demands
- Eliminate enforcement as a core strategy of the proposed shelter plan. Los Angeles must stop this failed policy of attempting to arrest its way out of homelessness. LAPD must be immediately relieved of all homeless outreach and related duties.
- Reallocate the proposed $29 million enforcement increase to provide short- and long-term housing options. Numerous local housing strategies are being employed and could use additional investment.
- Direct the CAO to audit current spending related to homeless enforcement and sanitation and provide a detailed report within 90 days.
- Proposed shelters must operate on a 24-hour basis and include accommodations for families, pets, gender nonconforming, and disabled guests. Additionally, shelters can’t limit entry based on race, religious belief, substance use, or other restrictions designed to exclude potential guests.
- Proposition HHH resources must not be used to fund shelter and enforcement efforts. Prop. HHH initially estimated a total of 10,000 permanent supportive housing units would be built in a decade under the $1.2 billion Bond Authority. New estimates put that number closer to 6,000 units, only if the remaining authority is used solely for housing construction. The only way to end homelessness is to house people. We must not use resources earmarked for housing on temporary shelters and policing.
- Do not proceed in a manner that pits communities against one another. The proposed shelter in Koreatown has reopened levels of deep anti-Black resentment not seen since the 1992 Rebellion/Saigu. This sentiment definitely does not represent the entire Korean community, many of whom stand in strong solidarity with black people in Los Angeles. Proceeding haphazardly jeopardizes decades of work that extends well beyond the building of a shelter.