Hint: This Post Isn't About Mansions
Have you ever been homeless? It’s no fun. When I first got out of college— like the next day— I flew to Europe to pick up a camper van at the VW factor in Westphalia (Rheda-Wiedenbrück I think) so I could drive around Europe and North Africa. Living in the van was super convenient and also helped me feel like a free spirit. The coolness factor dissipated after a year or two, especially when I got back to Europe after visiting India, Ceylon, Nepal, Afghanistan… Once I was living in Amsterdam, basically penniless, living in the van was a drag and I eventually acquitted a “cracked house” from the city. In the winter of 1943 the Nazis had stripped all the wood out of the houses in the old Jewish neighborhood near the Waterlooplein and for a guilder a year (about 30 cents) you could rent one of these derelict houses as long as you made it livable by putting in floors, doors, windows, electricity, plumbing, etc. So I did. I learned so much— and a filmmaker even used me in a movie about American ex-pats avoiding the Vietnam War and living in Amsterdam. The whole interview he did with me was filmed while I was on ladder plastering and painting a wall.
It wasn’t my only experience with personal houselessness, but it was the longest, lasting for years. It’s made me sympathetic when I see homeless people living rough in L.A. Yesterday, the L.A. Times published a disturbing report by Liam Dillon, Venice Homeless Housing Development Continues In Limbo As Councilmember Declares The Project Dead. As my friend Dorothy, a member of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party executive board, noted, “Who needs Elon Musk when you have Traci Park?”
“The fate of a large proposed affordable-housing development along Venice’s famed canals,” wrote Dillon, “remains murky this week after one regulatory decision cleared the way for final approval just as another [thanks to Park] left it all but dead. The continued uncertainty adds to the eight years of public debate over the Venice Dell project, which aims to provide 120 apartments for formerly homeless and low-income residents on a city-owned parking lot in the once working-class and now wealthy beach community. Even among contentious affordable housing proposals, Venice Dell stands out in the intensity of litigation from all sides, confusion over the project’s status and the machinations of Los Angeles politicians determining if it will break ground. A former staffer for Mayor Karen Bass responsible for expediting affordable housing developments told The Times that his superiors directed him to stop advancing Venice Dell through city bureaucracy two years ago after local elections ushered in project opponents in key roles. He called the direction ‘highly unusual.’”
The project’s years of limbo was supposed to be clarified this week after a hearing in front of the California Coastal Commission, which governs development along the coastline. On Wednesday, the commission voted in favor of Venice Dell after negotiations with developers, Venice Community Housing and Hollywood Community Housing Corp. led to a reduction of 20 units to better accommodate public access on the site to a boat launch in the canals. Besides the housing, the project includes 278 parking spaces in garages to replace the existing public surface lot and provide for residents.
Though the project has not lined up its financing, the coastal panel’s approval was considered one of its last major regulatory hurdles.
Yet the commission’s decision came a day after the city’s Board of Transportation Commissioners, which oversees city-owned parking lots, voted to deny transferring the land to the developers. The board instead called for expanding parking, shuttle services and other mobility options on the site while allowing affordable housing on a separate nearby city-owned parcel.
This action effectively killed the project, said Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Venice and opposes the development.
…The Venice Dell saga began in 2016 when the city asked for developers to propose building affordable housing projects and replacement parking on the site. Six years later, the council approved a development agreement for Venice Dell with support of then-Councilmember Mike Bonin, who represented the community.
Later that year, Park and City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, both of whom opposed the project on the campaign trail, won their elections as did Bass, who did not specifically weigh in.
Once they took office, the city’s work on the project stalled, said Azeen Khanmalek, who served in roles to advance affordable housing developments in the mayoral administrations of Bass and her predecessor, Eric Garcetti.
Venice Dell was handled differently than the more than a half-dozen other projects he oversaw under both mayors, Khanmalek said. He said that his superiors told him to not to follow typical procedures to further its approvals based on perspective from the city attorney’s office and that the mayor acceded to that view.
“The communication was basically to hold off and discontinue normal activities that I would normally undertake to try to move the project forward,” said Khanmalek, who left Bass’ office in late 2023. (Khanmalek now works as executive director of Abundant Housing LA, a pro-development organization but emphasized that he was speaking in his personal capacity.)
Khanmalek said he pushed internally to continue working on Venice Dell but was rebuffed.
…This summer, low-income housing advocates sued the city alleging that Feldstein Soto and Park, with the tacit support of Bass, violated fair housing laws by slow-walking the project. The case is ongoing. That action followed two unsuccessful suits by Venice neighborhood groups challenging its approval.
This week’s post by Judd Legum and his team, 5 Facts Elon Musk Should Learn About Homelessness, could have well been titled “5 Facts Elon Musk And The People Of Los Angeles Should Learn About Homelessness.” Musk is a scumbag; we all know that already. On Tuesday he posted “In most cases, the word ‘homeless’ is a lie. It’s usually a propaganda word for violent drug addicts with severe mental illness.” Plenty of otherwise-liberal Californians agree.
Musk, who has very severe mental problems that prevent him from feeling empathy due to excessive drug use, “was commenting favorably,” wrote Legum, “on a post that claimed providing shelter to unhoused people was counterproductive. The post ostensibly cited a San Francisco Chronicle article published in April 2022. The article does not support the contention that providing shelter to people who need it is fruitless or that all unhoused people are criminals. Rather, the article details how the converted hotels in San Francisco were ‘underfunded and understaffed,’ leading to substandard living conditions. The city outsourced the management of the buildings to non-profit groups, but failed to provide any oversight. The safety issues resulted from inadequate maintenance and ‘a small group of tenants who do not receive the support they need.’ If Musk is going to advise the president on government spending, he should educate himself on the reality of homelessness.” Legum offered the 5 key facts alluded to in the title.
17% of unhoused people are children undertake age of 18. Nationally that’s 111,620 kids Musk was smearing as “violent drug addicts with severe mental illness.”
Tens of thousands of unhoused people are veterans— at least 22 out of every 10,000 veterans, over 35,000 a night. “Veterans experience homelessness at a higher rate due to multiple factors,” noted Legum. “Frequent and extended deployment can make finding and maintaining stable, affordable housing more difficult. A large number of veterans also live with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and struggle with substance abuse.”
Unhoused people are much more likely to be crime victims than perpetrators
Many people lose housing to escape domestic violence— 11% of all beds in shelters.
Affordable housing is scarce, even for people with jobs. In part that is because robber barons like Musk don’t pay their fair share of taxes. If just Musk alone did, there would be no homelessness.
“For people making extremely low wages (either at or below the federal poverty line or 30 percent of their area’s median income),” wrote Legum, “there are only 34 affordable rental options per 100 families in need of housing. Working full-time, even for higher than minimum wage, is no guarantee that permanent housing will be attainable… There is nowhere in the country where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford to rent a two-bedroom home at a regular market rate. Even accounting for states and localities that have set their minimum wage above the federal level, the average minimum wage worker would have to work 113 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom home or 95 hours to afford a one-bedroom home.”