Hope on Homelessness?

0

Give the Los Angeles City Council

and Mayor Eric Garcetti credit for doing something on homelessness

with the recent unanimous passage of two

new ordinances.

Both laws are designed to ease restrictions on development of “permanent supportive housing.”

One of the laws gives developers who meet certain requirements the chance to avoid environmental reviews and public hearings. The key requirements seem to be that all units of housing be “affordable” and half be designated for otherwise homeless folks.

The other makes it easier for motel owners to convert their properties from short-term rentals to standard housing, at least on a temporary basis, providing ready-made shelter.

Doing something, as the City Council did, means scrutiny and possible criticism – especially when one of the things you do potentially takes the option for scrutiny or criticism away from the people you represent.

That doesn’t sound right to us, and we suggest city officials think hard before taking advantage of the room they’ve created to cut back on the public’s opportunity to review plans for homeless housing. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should – certainly not on a blanket basis.

We offer that thought because we find something both vague and possibly dangerous in reports that the ordinance involving new developments will allow “permanent supportive housing” structures to be higher and denser than typically allowed.

It sounds wrongheaded to concentrate some of the hardest-pressed among us in dense high rises as a matter of policy. It calls to mind the housing projects that dotted big cities on the East Coast and in the Midwest in the latter half of the 20th century, when the terms “slum” and “ghetto” became synonymous with inner-city in the minds of many.

This is not to suggest that no tough decisions should be made on homelessness. We do, however, suggest they be made in full light, with the public weighing in on the front end, even if that process is difficult politically.

We urge the members of the council and Garcetti to think deeply about how they might ensure transparency and still avoid the pitfalls of NIMBYism when it comes to housing for the homeless.

This will likely entail a harder road for elected officials, who might have to disappoint folks face-to-face in public hearings. But we see it as the best path forward for the city.

The other law, which would make it easier for motels to serve in a stop-gap role as the city grapples with the immediacy of the problem at hand, seems to be a sound idea.

There are plenty of motels throughout the city that are not fancy but basically sound and sanitary. A good number might be relatively well positioned to serve as homeless housing with a minimum effect on surrounding neighborhoods.

We believe all involved should keep a keen eye out for how these new laws play out, in any case, keeping in mind the special concerns that can come with density and height waivers on new construction.

No posts to display