Our Neighbors Without Shelter

The nexus between global trade, gentrification and homeless

By James Preston Allen, Publisher
I recently read an article in a daily paper that explained how increasing property values have matched the growing homeless population in Orange County. It would seem obvious that, as real estate prices rise in areas with no rent control, some people will be priced out of the market. But who knew the O.C. had a homeless problem?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the words we use to frame the discussion about homelessness, and how those words color our thoughts and solutions to the matter.

The term “homeless” itself connotes a being without a place; an outcast or a vagrant. At the very start, the word “homeless” denies that these economically displaced persons are a part of our society, our city or our neighborhood—when in fact these folks are as native as anybody else. Some were born and raised here while others came, like so many of you, from other places. In the end they are our neighbors, who just happen to be without shelter.

The truth is, there are many thousands more who are just one paycheck, one health crisis, or one financial disaster away from sleeping in their cars or having to choose between paying the utilities or buying groceries.

Yet, we’re happy as long as they’re not camping out on the sidewalks or in our public parks where they could be an affront to our common sensibilities. So from here on out, I’m going to use the term “our neighbors without shelter” because in the end there is only one solution for these neighbors—shelter.

Putting a roof over their heads is the only civilized thing that a wealthy nation should provide and there are plenty of studies proving that it’s a more cost effective, more efficient and definitely a more humane solution. For so many reasons, a shelter-first philosophy is better for our neighborhoods, our business districts and our common safety and public health. Stray and abandoned dogs and cats are shown more sympathy on Facebook than people panhandling at a freeway offramp.

Once we stop blaming these people for their own circumstances (for which there is plenty of blame to go around), perhaps then we’ll be able to cozy up to the idea that this is a human problem completely within our collective ability to solve. After all, Americans are still really good at building things and solving big problems. We put a man on the moon, constructed a 400-mile aqueduct to bring water to the desert of Los Angeles and built the largest harbor complex in North America. When we stop arguing with ourselves and put our minds to a project, amazing things get done.

Providing shelter for our less fortunate neighbors shouldn’t be that difficult, but it is. Why? The reason is that there is no “economic imperative” to solve this problem.

But, there are an ample number of imperatives that are animating the continued expansion of the industrial basis of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars will be spent over the course of the next decade to modernize and expand industrial port operations to accommodate an ever-increasing global import market—a market based on domestic outsourcing and foreign manufacturing that has cost American workers dearly, contributed directly or indirectly to the plight of neighbors without shelter, and continues to negatively impact portions of the Harbor Area both environmentally and economically.

While the two ports boast of handling more than 40 percent of the nation’s imports, creating 1.5 million jobs in Southern California and even more nationwide, still within a few miles of these two ports reside some of the deepest pockets of poverty in Los Angeles County. Such disparity between POLA’s $200 billion trade business and the US Census figures of areas near this “economic engine” seem to be at odds with each other.

Clearly, many of the jobs created by the import trade are remote from the harbors, with distribution warehouses out in San Bernardino or out past Tehachapi—far enough away from the reach of the waterfront unions where land is cheap and workers willing to work even cheaper. The impacts of this are both environmental and logistical, causing more travel time and pollution in the region, while transferring jobs that could be had locally to boost employment near the harbor to other regions.

POLA, by mandate of the State Tidelands Trust, is perhaps the largest landlord in all of LA County, granting the City of Los Angeles and the port control over these tidelands for the benefit of California’s citizens.

So, just who should benefit most from the use of these tidelands? I would argue that the people who live closest to the tidelands in this state should be considered first, rather than second or last.

It would seem that if POLA, understanding this mandate, were to build on its own property more near dock distribution warehouses­—more industrial manufacturing buildings to attract new innovation technologies and export companies—it would solve more of its current logistical problems. And, in the process reduce pollution and address more of the economic disparities.

In the end this would provide more of an economic imperative than attempting to gentrify Ports O’ Call Village or subsidizing automated technologies on terminals that will ultimately cost more jobs than they will save in time. The benefit to Los Angeles in taxes raised and jobs created could be immense.

This may just be part of the solution to ending the problem of our neighbors without shelter also. The best way to keep people from becoming homeless is to create more good paying, secure jobs. This is a plan both Mayor Eric Garcetti and POLA Executive Director Gene Seroka could get behind.