A recent city council plan to spend $100 million to alleviate homelessness in Los Angeles sparked criticism from several UCLA experts who don’t think the funding can provide a permanent solution.
Seven Los Angeles City Council members and Mayor Garcetti said Sept. 22 they would declare a “state of emergency” and spend $100 million to resolve issues related to homelessness in the city.
Gary Blasi, a professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, said he is skeptical the city will fulfill its promise because its funding source, among other details of the proposal, are ambiguous.
“Show me the money,” he said. “Mayor Garcetti has yet to officially declare a state of emergency, and despite all the talk, there is still no money.”
Blasi said the announcement is the first action the city has taken to address homelessness, rather than relying on police to make homelessness less visible.
“Providing housing to the homeless is a much better solution than pushing people off the sidewalks and removing their belongings,” he added. “I’m skeptical about the plan, but I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.”
Homelessness in Los Angeles county has increased more than 12 percent since 2013, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.
Andrew Thomas, executive director of the Westwood Village Improvement Association, also known as the BID, said the number of homeless individuals in Westwood has decreased in the past couple of years, from about 20 individuals to 10. He added only one third of homeless people who panhandle in Westwood during the day sleep in the Village, most of whom are assigned to case managers from People Assisting the Homeless, or PATH.
“The city’s proposal is sorely needed,” Thomas said. “The mayor was right – this is an emergency situation.”
Jasper Cump, outreach program manager for PATH West L.A., said he thinks the city’s proposal is a positive development.
He said the $100 million will be used to fund emergency winter shelters and incentivize landlords to provide housing to homeless people with vouchers, which guarantee the housing authority will pay the majority of their rents.
Toby Hur, a UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs faculty member who studies homelessness, said the voucher system does not help chronically homeless people who are suffering from substance abuse, mental illness or domestic violence. He said he thinks these individuals need to be in a facility that offers access to counselors and medical attention.
Hur said he thinks the proposed $100 million pales in comparison to what other cities have paid. For example, New York City has spent more than $40 billion on housing for homeless individuals.
Los Angeles has the second-largest homeless population after New York City, but two thirds of Los Angeles homeless individuals, compared to less than 10 percent of New York City’s homeless, live on the street, Blasi said.
“We have not paid enough attention to this issue,” Hur said. “Now we have to face the problems that we have swept under the rug for several decades.”
Most homelessness experts believe the permanent supportive housing model is the best long-term solution.
Jeremy Sidell, chief development and communications officer at PATH, said the city should tackle homelessness in Los Angeles by making housing more affordable, creating more opportunities for employment and offering support for homeless individuals with mental health issues.
“Putting someone in a shelter doesn’t make them less homeless, it just makes them less visible,” Blasi said. “At the minimum, we need to offer these individuals a room with a door and a lock, where they are stable and have the opportunity to rebuild.”
Blasi added he thinks it would be cheaper to provide housing for homeless people, because it would cost three times as much to pay for their needs if they lived on the streets.
Hur said he doesn’t think the proposal will supply enough funding, but the city’s proposal is a good start.
“There’s no single solution, so any effort is better than nothing,” he said.