I’m Worried…

Today, the government said that the economy lost 63,000 jobs last month. It’s the second month in a row of declines. Couple that with another announcement today… The rate of foreclosures on home mortgages reached a historic high. In fact, of the 46 million first mortgages in our country, 3.6 million are past due or in foreclosure.

I’m not one to keep an eye on the unemployment rate or foreclosure rate. I usually keep an eye on the demand for homeless services—the people who enter the front doors of homeless agencies. That’s why I’m worried.

I think my worrying is justified. It’s a simple fact… you lose your job--and in an economy like this, the competition for another job is stiff—then you can’t pay your rent or your mortgage. The odds of becoming homeless go up.

You can’t afford your mortgage payment, and you lose your credit, and lose your home. The difficulty of getting an apartment because of bad credit is significant. The competition for rental units, when 3.6 million home owners are now seeking rental units, is high. So rents go up. (Simple supply and demand.) The odds of becoming homeless also go up.

It becomes a bad, sad cycle.

All across the country, mayors are telling us that homelessness is going down. I’m having difficulty buying that political jargon.

Sure, we can clean up downtown Skid Row. But are we putting these people in affordable housing? Or are we simply sweeping them into another community. The Los Angeles Times has been covering the new tent city that propped up in Ontario, a city about an hour east of Los Angeles. Ontario never had to wrestle with homelessness like they do now—300-400 people squatting in a tent city. I’m wondering if this is a result of sweeping.

I’m also worried, because homeless agencies across the country are being blamed for “managing homelessness.” They say that because homelessness has not been solved in the last twenty years, it’s the fault of homeless agencies.

I think it’s the other way around. Bad government policy—not building enough affordable housing, not growing a living wage job economy, allowing people to leave government institutions without a housing plan (jails, hospitals, foster care, etc.)—is increasing homelessness. And yet, when these very people become homeless, and turn to compassionate homeless agencies, the homeless agencies are the blame for homelessness.

I just don’t buy it.

We need good government and community planning. That means more affordable housing, living wage jobs, and a social service safety net to catch people when they fall. We do this, and we don’t need homeless shelters any more. They can proudly go out of business.

I’m worried… because I don’t see it happening.

(Pic from LA Times)

Is Los Angeles A World Class City?

The Los Angeles Times Magazine’s architectural reporter, Christopher Hawthorne, writes an interesting article about Mayor Villaraigosa’s role as a mayor of a world-class city. (Hawthorne also did a piece on the PATH Mall a couple of years ago.) The cities that are highlighted around the world as top-notch are London, New York, and Shanghai. These cities have led the world in innovative architecture, excellent transit systems, and a progressive movement to take their massive cities into the future.

Los Angeles, however, is not part of that world-class city level. The struggles that our mayor has encountered are massive urban problems—education, crime, gangs, traffic, homelessness, housing, etc.--as well as encounters with his own personal battles.

The solution that Hawthorne proposes is simple… Mayor Villaraigosa should solve Los Angeles’ gridlock problem—mass transit. I partially agree that traffic is a significant problem. I travel to work 3-4 days per week on the Metro train. Mainly, because traffic is a significant barrier on the quality of one’s life. If we are to be a green city, we need to embrace mass transit. If we are to have a healthy quality of life, we should not have to fight traffic 2 to 3 hours per day.

However, Hawthorne should’ve included the issue of homelessness. A world-class city does not have thousands and thousands of its citizens languishing on their streets. That is more in line with a Third World city, not a world-class city.

If our Mayor is to proudly tout Los Angeles as a world-class international city, he must show how he is reducing homelessness significantly. Until that happens, we are just a sprawling international urban hive struggling to become a London, or a New York, or a Shanghai.

(Pic from LA Times Magazine)

“Free Phone Numbers Won’t Work In SF…”

So says a writer of an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle today. She writes: “While the [phone] program may prove useful for those inclined to better their situation, it is unlikely to have an impact on the chronically homeless.”

Although I don’t agree with all of her points in her laments over homelessness in this bay city, she does touch on some hot points that I have addressed in this blog.

For example, the “false” notion that there are less homeless in SF since the city began their Ten Year Plan: “City officials seem determined to put on a happy face when it comes to combating homelessness. But it's hard to believe any of them actually live here. For the residents of San Francisco, the blight of homelessness has only gotten worse over the years, and today it has reached critical mass.”

The fact that public benches are being taken away because people who are homeless are filling them up. “It's gotten to the point where many city parks are devoid of benches or suitable areas for visitors to sit because they would all be filled with sleeping or passed-out homeless.”

What’s sad, is that this editorial piece could be published in any city in America—just change the name of the city—and it would be relevant.

(Pic from http://blog.busbank.com/)

Panhandling Standing Up Is Okay, But Begging While Sitting Is Illegal

Curbed LA points out a new ordinance being drafted in Santa Monica, as another initiative to address homelessness. The ordinance states that people can not panhandle while sitting on the benches of the Promenade, an internationally renowned outdoor mall just three blocks from the Pacific Ocean.

The justification? The benches were designed for shoppers to rest, not for homeless people to hit up shoppers for a hand out. An ordinance would prevent people from begging while sitting. Even though people homeless in Santa Monica still have their constitutional right to ask for a handout while standing.

This is another initiative that certainly reinforces the fact that Santa Monica is no longer “The Republic of Santa Monica.” It’s more like Santa Monica Inc.

Until just a couple of months ago, Santa Monica was my home. For ten years, I have experienced the gradual attitudinal drift from “welcoming arms for people who are homeless” to “not-in-my-backyard” in this wonderful beachside community. My neighbors used to pat me on the back telling me how wonderful it is to help the homeless and poor. Now, they want to know how to take back their streets.

But Santa Monica is no different than hundreds of other cities around the country that want to deal with homelessness in a less compassionate approach, and a more business-oriented direction. That means programs or housing that clearly show successful outcomes that are taking people off the streets. Communities are overcome with compassion fatigue.

As I have stated in numerous previous postings, a balanced approach between compassion and law enforcement is fine. As long as hurting people on our streets are being housed, and not being criminalized.

So is it okay for Santa Monica to discard the title of “The Republic of Santa Monica”, and embrace “Santa Monica Inc.”? I think so.

(Pic from la.curbed.com)

San Diego’s Version of “Clean Streets Not Mean Streets”

A San Diego Councilmember is proposing that if the city builds a permanent homeless shelter to provide enough beds for homeless people in the downtown area, then the SD Police would be able to “ticket” people who do not access the shelter. They call it “sleeping tickets”.

Last year, the city of San Diego stopped issuing tickets to people on the streets for “illegal lodging” when homeless advocates sued the city stating this practice was unconstitutional. Like most cities in the country, this is a struggle between law enforcement/city officials wanting to clean up the streets going against advocates who call the actions “mean” because there are not enough shelter beds

It is estimated that 220 people sleep in the city’s temporary winter shelter, and 100 are turned away. That means the city needs to provide enough shelter for at least 300 people.

This reminds me of the op-ed piece I wrote in the LA Times in May, 2002 called, “Going For Clean Streets, Not Mean Streets.” My premise was that a jurisdiction should be able to keep their streets clean, but only when they provide enough housing or shelter.

San Diego is trying to put this into practice. They want to build enough shelter for the people on the streets, in exchange for keeping their streets clean and secure.

Let’s see if the infighting among advocates, law enforcement, city officials, business, and community leaders can overcome their petty agendas, and find a solution that will actually help people get off the streets, along with keeping their streets clean.

(Pic from http://www.wildnatureimages.com/)