The Martin decision means homeless encampments are here to stay until we provide alternatives
By Michael Rapkin
The writer is a local homeowner, part owner of a restaurant on Ocean Front Walk and a longtime attorney who advocates for the homeless population.
A significant court decision last week has made it clear that as long as there remains insufficient housing, Los Angeles and other cities cannot prosecute homeless people for living in encampments.
In Martin v. City of Boise, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from imposing criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.
“Just as the state may not criminalize the state of being homeless in public places,” the court explained, “the state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying or sleeping on the streets.”
There are about 23,000 homeless people in the city of Los Angeles, which far exceeds the roughly 10,000 beds available in shelters or supportive housing. We need to bridge this gap. The court has told us that until we do, encampments will and must be allowed to persist no matter how much people complain about them.
Bridging the housing gap may seem like an insurmountable challenge — particularly in Venice, home to 45% of our city council district’s homeless population — but to do so is in the best interests of both residents and people who are without homes.
Residents want to feel safe in their community. They want to eliminate tent encampments, forbid individuals from living in alleys and sidewalks, and get rid of personal property in public areas and human excrement on streets and sidewalks. At the same time, people who are homeless almost unanimously want housing — a bed, toilet and shower — and a safe place to sit, lie or sleep. I submit that these concerns will only be alleviated with more housing.
Those who oppose shelter housing or affordable housing or permanent supportive housing in their immediate neighborhoods have concerns, including whether an increase in housing will bring an increase in crime and negatively affect their housing values. It would be wrong for pro-housing activists to dismiss these fears and feelings out of hand.
However, those that oppose shelter must understand that there are already about 845 homeless people in Venice on any given night and, pursuant to this court decision, they will not be going anywhere. Therefore, a choice must be made: create the necessary housing or continue with hundreds of people living on the streets in Venice, including people who are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs, seniors who became homeless because their rents skyrocketed, homeless youth who come from a dysfunctional home and childhood, and women who escaped domestic violence only to now live on the streets. As L.A. City Councilman Mike Bonin, whose district includes Venice, was quoted after the Martin ruling: “It’s either provide the housing and shelter, or allow people to sleep on public property.”
The choice, it seems obvious to me, is for the entire community to work together and proceed to intelligently design and build permanent supportive housing for these real human beings and, in the interim, to provide temporary or “bridge” housing. As it stands now, in Venice there is not one emergency shelter.
The Venice Chamber of Commerce agrees. It stated: “We support the city of Los Angeles’ commitment to provide long-term solutions for housing. The chamber supports using the bus yard as a short-term option, as it provides a solution to addressing the immediate needs of housing the homeless.”
This article is not intended to advocate for or against using the Metro bus stop; it is to say “enough is enough.” It is time for all of us to understand and accept that under the Martin case, unhoused people will be able to continue to live in and around our streets. “Not in Venice” should no longer be a battle cry; we must work together for “beds not sidewalks.”
My wife and I recently put our discomfort aside and decided to bring into our house a young married couple who, until last week, had been homeless and sleeping in their car. They were complete strangers to us until a few weeks ago.
This young man works full-time, and his wife just began a 15-week training program to prepare her for a good job. The plan is for them to save enough money so they can afford to move into their own affordable housing unit in three or four months.
In the meantime, they are now safe from those who might want to harm or intimidate them, and now have the basic elements of life that most housed people take for granted: a bed, a toilet and a shower.
Not in Venice! Are you kidding me? How dare you suggest that Venice residents are NIMBYs. Not only do the vast majority of Venice residents support homeless housing, Venice itself is home to almost ALL the homeless services and housing in our entire district. This, in addition to that fact that MORE homeless housing is coming to Venice, including 136 units on the Venice Median, 98 units in the Oxford Triangle, and 34 units on Rose. Yet, there are virtually NO plans for new homeless housing in any other community in Bonin’s district. The problem isn’t that Venice doesn’t want Bridge Housing in our back yard. The problems is that OUR backyard is already past FULL. Let’s look at the virtually EMPTY backyards of Mar Vista, Westchester, Playa Vista, Playa del Rey, Brentwood and the Palisades. If you compare the number of homeless housing unit and services relative to the populations of every town in District 11, Venice is already carrying a staggeringly disproportionate share of this burden. We can not do it all. And we shouldn’t have to. Why isn’t Bonin asking these other communities take Bridge Housing? To suggest that Venice should have to take MORE homeless housing because the homeless are already here is a slap in Venice’s face. The homeless go where the services are. Venice was one of the earliest and strongest responders to this homeless crisis — we built homeless services and housing and the homeless came to access those services. To say that we are now obligated to build even MORE housing just produces a vicious downward spiral that punishes Venice for our compassion and generosity — and conveniently lets every other community off the hook. Venice can not be the only community to shoulder this burden. It is past time for Mike Bonin to ask the other communities in District 11 to step up and take a FAIR share of this burden. But Bonin keeps beating the NIMBY drum, pointing his finger at Venice. Let’s just be honest: that whole tactic is ugly and political. It simply provides cover for the fact that Bonin is unwilling to force this burden on his OTHER communities, so he won’t have to fight all of them. This way he just has to fight Venice. And with only 40,000 residents we don’t have the votes to stop him. It’s gerrymandering 101. And it’s killing our town. It’s time to say NO. If Bonin wants more homeless services in Venice, the only one we need is a BUS SERVICE. A bus service that would take some of the homeless from Venice to a newly built shelter in Mike Bonin’s backyard — Mar Vista.
I want to factually correct two of your statements, Maryjane. You stated that “the problem is that OUR backyard is already past FULL” regarding housing in Venice, and there are “no plans for new homeless housing in any other communities in Bonin’s district.” Here are the facts and you, and others, can draw your own conclusions. I begin by stating the obvious: Venice has more unhoused people than any city west of Skid Row, and, of course, the highest homeless population in Bonin’s district (CD 11). Here are the numbers which I have gathered from they City and the largest permanent housing developer in Bonin’s district.
1. Del Rey has over 80 housing units, all built within the last 5 years or so. Venice only has 42.
2. All 15 Council Districts have set a goal to build at least 222 housing units within each district. In CD 11 there are now 190 units which have been approved for building- but not one has been approved in Venice! West L.A. just approved 78 housing units, for example.
3. The Veteran Administration’s West LA campus plans to build 1200 housing units.
4. Playa Vista has developed a decent amount of affordable and workforce housing.
5. Santa Monica, which is not in Bonin’s district, but is its neighbor, now has over 350 housing units.
6. The Neighborhood Councils for Westchester and West LA have unanimously voted to support safe parking lots (where RVs and cars can safely park their vehicles at night). Del Rey is about to vote on allowing for safe parking.
7. There are more than 6000 supportive housing units in LA and lot’s more in the pipeline.
Thus, other communities within Bonin’s district are providing housing and shelter, and have voted to support much needed housing in the near future. No supportive housing in Venice has, as of today, been approved for future development, although there are projects on the drawing board.
Should we bow down to more inept governance?
Total BS
Putting a shelter at the MTA lot, which is surrounded by residents on all four sides and a block from three schools is very dangerous. Putting a shelter two blocks from the beach is the worst idea in the world. This is going to attract transients, vagrants and druggies from all over the country to Venice. This is the dumbest most reckless idea I’ve ever heard. Why bother working when you can live at the beach for free?
Thanks to you and your wife for your personal generosity!
Mr. Michael Rapkin Who did you talk to at the Venice Chamber of Commerce? Their President George Francisco says there has been no public statement from their organization for or against the MTA Bridge Proposed project. Thats Bullshit We never took a position at all. His exact words to me.
Total BS! Venice Chamber of Commerce said that? Who are you kidding? LMAO
Interesting read on your article… Rapkin Article in Argonaut Makes Incorrect Statement Regarding Venice Chamber Endorsement of MTA Lot for Bridge Housing; Francisco Explains What Happened https://veniceupdate.com/2018/09/13/rapkin-article-in-argonaut-makes-incorrect-statement-regarding-venice-chamber-endorsement-of-mta-lot-for-bridge-housing/