Parks to Shelters: A Los Angeles Discussion
Parks to Shelters: A Los Angeles Discussion
Last week, we took a trip to the Los Angeles State Historic Park to perform an urban lab. The park is a 32-acre space meant to provide “an extraordinary opportunity for recreation and education in the heart of Los Angeles.” We learned that the site of the park is where the Zanja Madre used to be located and where the Southern Pacific Transportation Station once was. Sean Woods and the people of the neighborhood fought to keep the land un-industrialized, and in 2001, the land was declared a State Park. When the recession in 2007 was affecting America, Los Angeles began to sell land for profit, and the 32-acre plot of land close to Downtown Los Angeles presented an opportunity for the city of LA to make a lot of money. Woods began to use the land for art shows like the cornfields and events like the FYF music festival to make sure the city did not sell the land. Eventually, after 16 years of delays, in 2017, the Los Angeles State Historic Park had its grand opening.
During the day, the park serves as a place for people to run, bike, play soccer, and spend time in the outdoors, and at night, the park closes to the public. Now, the Governor of California is looking to make the park a place where the homeless population can sleep at night. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), there are approximately 50,000 to 60,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County and around 37,000 in the city of LA. These people have to find places to sleep on the streets and are often removed from wherever they are by the police. The Governor’s office believes that allowing the homeless to sleep in parks will help them get off the streets at night and provide them a safe place to sleep. California would essentially be converting parks into homeless encampments at night.
- Do you think it should be made legal for the homeless to sleep in parks at night?
- If parks become places for the homeless to sleep, will it be safe for the people sleeping there? Will it be safe for the people who use the park recreationally?
- Why devote a 32-acre plot of land to a park rather than using it to help the housing crisis?
- Is a place for the public to participate in recreational activities more important than providing affordable housing or more homeless shelters?
- Do you think there was an opportunity for the land to be used for affordable housing or homeless shelters? If so, do you think that would have been helpful?
I am currently unsure if it should be made legal for the homeless to sleep in parks at night. I think it essentially is a great idea with great intentions but there are definitely some unsolved problems with this solution. For example, from what time to what time would be considered night? In the morning, are the homeless just going to be woken up and schlepped elsewhere? In regards to safety, because I know that a high percentage of homelessness is due to mental health issues, I wonder if there would be something like a checking system to filter out the potentially dangerous. However, I feel like this system would go against why public parks are created; public parks are free and open to anyone. To answer the question about devoting a 32 acre plot of land to a park rather than using it to help the housing crisis, I think parks answer a different crisis, one that could be as equally as important. I think there definitely was an opportunity for the land to be used for affordable housing or homeless shelters, and without a doubt, it would have been helpful. I think a place for the public to participate in recreational activities is not more important than providing affordable housing or more homeless shelters; however, parks are not just a place for the public to participate in recreational activities. Parks have environmental benefits, providing habitat for wildlife, economic benefits, providing money for the local economy, and social benefits, keeping young teenagers off the streets and provide gathering places for the people of the neighborhood community.
ReplyDeleteTo quote teddy roosevelt: “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation." So if we get rid of this space, or did not transform it back into a space that could be used and appreciated because it’s replicating or attempting to be apart of nature, we further pollution and loose nature. Also in LA there is so little green space for the public to use there would be greater harm in its lack of presence than if it was there. And who's to say that the space wouldn't be developed by some developer for upper class people to live in anyway? On the subject of whether or not parks should be places for the homeless to sleep: personally I think as long measures are put in place to make sure the homeless are ok and not doing bad things in the park that are harmful to themselves or others then I see no problems.
ReplyDeleteIf the City cannot find any other way to help the homeless, then I think they should convert the parks to shelters. Angelenos opted to pay additional taxes so that the government could help the homeless. Parks are already so rare in LA and so many Angelenos, especially the low-income and marginalized, benefit from using parks. If parks become places for the homeless to sleep I think that there should probably be some sort of security put in check for the safety of the homeless and the people who use the park recreationally. Also, if a homeless person is doing something to harm themselves or others I think they should not be allowed to stay in the park. If parks do become shelters, some questions that come to mind is whether or not California will provide the homeless beds or other basic necessities. I also wonder if the City will hire people every morning to clean the parks of any trash or forgotten items that may be left over from the night before. I am also curious whether or not the City will turn parks in wealthy, predominantly white neighborhoods into shelters. I think parks are so important, especially in large cities, because they provide a space for people to relax, enjoy nature, or spend time with loved ones. Many low-income families may not have a backyard or big enough space to throw a party or family get together. Parks provide a space for low-income families to get together with friends and family. Additionally, parks provide a safe space for low-income children to play. I believe play is so important, especially for children, because it allows them to be creative, let out stress, and have fun. I believe this is a basic human necessity that everyone, not just the wealthy who can maybe even afford to build play sets in their backyard, deserve.
ReplyDeleteThere are several questions that come up when considering the option of converting parks into homeless encampments at night. Would there be formal sleeping arrangements? If so, where would the funding for the endeavor come from? The city, or whoever is managing the park, would have to pay workers to manage the homeless encampments at night and set up the sleeping arrangements. How would the city decide which people to let in and which to turn away? There is surely not enough space in parks for all 37,000 people. Although I believe it is important for the government to support people experiencing homelessness, I think enforcing and managing parks as homeless encampments would be hard while still maintaining the purpose and atmosphere of parks. Although parks are just seemingly empty plots of land, I think it's so important to keep them open and green rather than selling the land to development companies. Although it is tempting to use every single space productively, parks provide necessary relief to the crazy congestion and fast paced nature of life in Los Angeles. I personally spend a lot of time in parks, and I believe if a park is open to someone, it should be open to everyone. To me, this means that anyone can use the space for what they need, but if the park is closed to someone, it should be closed to everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn August of this year, city leaders met to discuss new parameters on the homeless "bedding down" in crowded areas, in driveways, in tunnels, near schools, and in parks. Spokespeople for the city said that policy makers have to be compassionate to the homeless but also compassionate to business owners and homeowners. While the constitutionality of such policies have been proven ("everyone should have the right to all public property, sidewalks shouldn't be occupied territory, anyone in a wheelchair must be able to pass, etc."), such confinement of homeless populations have major social repercussions. First off, there's the idea that homelessness is only legal in certain drawn out zones; this internment would isolate the homeless economically and socially from LA's housed. If implemented, all of these zones would be far from public parks (though I wonder if this would be enforced in all neighborhoods or only in affluent ones) in order to uphold the integrity of a community space for picnicking, playing, and gathering (an interesting prioritization considering the expansion of the homeless population and the inhabitation of parks by the homeless that disinclines neighborhood engagement). This also isolates the homeless from any community (racial, ethnic, gender-based, age-based) outside of the homeless community. What I'm trying to say is that the legislative inclusion of homeless populations in public parks could return green space in LA to its history of offering economic, social, cultural, political, and recreational benefits for an entire community and all communities, not to the exclusion of the homeless. The question is whether a homeless population and a housed population can equally uphold and deserve a place to sleep and a (green) place to live. Notwithstanding the mental illness, substance abuse, and stigma that plagues LA's homeless population, I don't think public parks have to be one or the other.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure I have a solid response for these questions, but I will do my best to come to some sort of conclusion. The homeless crisis in Los Angeles is important and one that needs to be addressed. I appreciate the fact that ideas are being suggested, but I do not think that this is the right idea. A goal of the LA State Historic Park was to create a public space for people to use recreationally, for students and young children to have an open space to play after school, and for Los Angeles to have some much needed green space. I think the goals of the LA State Historic Park are important and many people can benefit from them. With Los Angeles having the homeless population that it does, we cannot just leave to to the streets, but if we took nearly every park in Los Angeles and turned it into a homeless shelter, we would be sacrificing much more than just a simple recreation space. I’m not saying that one problem is more important than the other, but we do have to take into consideration the effects of both. Maybe some of the money brought in by the LA State Historic Park can go to building homeless shelters or affordable housing. I’m not sure if it is safe for anyone to be sleeping on the streets at night in Los Angeles. I think it is unsafe for people who use the park recreationally because many homeless people suffer from mental health issues and are unable to receive the care they need. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty cites one of the main reasons people end up homeless is because they cannot afford to pay for both their housing and needed medical services. Something that could help the homeless situation in Los Angeles is providing easily accessible and proper care for the homeless.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I think it should be made legal for the homeless to sleep in parks at night. On one hand, it might be a good idea so as to provide a safe environment, avoid action by the police, and potentially provide services, but on the other hand, I think there might be many logistical problems that arise from this solution. I do not have a firm stance on whether or not this should be made legal, but I do think it is an interesting solution to a very serious problem. To address the question of whether or not the park should be converted to affordable housing, I think the issue of affordable housing and the issue of creating and maintaining public land are equally important urban issues that demand our attention and problem solving skills. However, I’m not sure one problem can be solved with another. It is certainly important to dedicate time, resources, space, and money to the creation of affordable housing, but I do not think that should be done at the price of public parks. As Mr. Woods told us on our urban lab, science has proven that time spent outdoors increases health, and that public parks with engaging programming promotes that crucial time outdoors; in short, parks improve a community’s health. So while affordable housing is important, I think there are myriad other ways to achieve it without sacrificing public land. I do not think that public parks are more important than affordable housing, or vice versa, but I do think we should not dismantle a government initiative that we know supports and unites communities, in the name of solving the housing crisis, a crisis that we know was not caused by the creation of parks in the first place.
ReplyDelete(FYI: My comment is mainly (?) in response to Question #4)
ReplyDeleteJackson’s blog post is really interesting because, at least in my opinion, it asks the reader to consider the tension and possible outright conflict between two important municipal subject matters: affordable housing and public/open green space (parks). I think that both of these subject matters are inherently important things/goals for any city to work towards achieving, but it would be very difficult for me to say that having affordable housing is more important than having parks or vice versa, especially after meeting Mr. Woods and learning new things about parks from him. A takeaway from our discussion with Mr. Woods was the idea of parks being necessary for any healthy city. In the way that Mr. Woods described it, it appeared that parks were essential for improving urban inhabitants’ physical and mental health. Parks help humans in so many different ways, especially in a smoggy, cramped, and hyper-urban city like Los Angeles; their trees remove carbon dioxide from the air around us, the services offered at parks give locals an opportunity for recreation and education, and their open space (and occasional playgrounds) give children and adults alike a chance to have fun, play, and move their bodies. With this new and important background information I have thanks to Mr. Woods, it is hard for me to deem these health benefits of parks as being negligible in comparison to the potential benefits of affordable housing. Yes, affordable housing is extremely important — if not essential — in the process of getting people off the streets and into safe housing, but if we continue to build new housing and new units, will there be any room for parks? Where will the public/open green space go? I’m not sure. The homelessness issue needs to be addressed, but I do not think that it should be addressed/solved at the expense of public green space and, as a result, public health as a whole.
I do think it is perhaps a step in the right direction to allow homeless people to sleep in the parks overnight, but I don't think it is any sort of solution to the problem. I cannot really speak to the safeness for the people sleeping there as it would mean that I would assume that some homeless are violent and/or bad people who would want to harm others. I think it would be interesting because I know that there are certain "homeless encampments" where a lot of homeless people do sleep/"live" together, more or less in the same area (like a neighborhood of sorts). Would the parks be a place for the homeless that aren't part of a "established" (quotes because it’s not like the encampments are homes or actual neighborhoods) encampment or reserved for the more wandering souls? The execution of this plan/idea would bring up many logistical questions that the city will have to handle correctly or it will quickly fall apart (and I'm not sure they would be able to handle such a thing). As for the safety of the parkgoers, I think it shouldn't be an issue. However, people are prone to assumptions and jumping to conclusions, so I have a feeling it would negatively affect how the general public would view the parks. I know that I am told to avoid and also just tend to avoid places where I know homeless people hang out, and I'm afraid that is what will happen to the parks when they're used as a place for the homeless to spend nights. In reality a park would not be any less safe than a public park is at this moment, but I think it will be a challenge for city officials to overcome the bias and preconceived notions that people will have about the parks-turned-homeless-nightcamp. Also, just a more logistical observation, I am not sure how they will be able to get the homeless to leave the areas in the morning? And is it just sending a message that we acknowledge the homeless problem but aren't really doing anything about it (since we're kicking them out) — just "pretending" to do something?
ReplyDeleteThere are both advantages and disadvantages for the use of parks for homeless individuals to sleep in. Homelessness in Los Angeles is at a staggering high with more and more people becoming homeless everyday. Parks do provide a large and open space where many homeless people could camp out and spend the night. However, the argument against this is that it would make parks less safe and people would stop using them. Personally, I think that the city should make “parks” around Los Angeles where homeless individuals are encouraged to go to if in need of a place to sleep. This would allow for parks to still be used by anyone who wants to go while allowing the homeless population a place to sleep. Due to being very unlikely to happen however, I do think that some parks should allow homeless individuals access at night because of their being no where else to go to.
ReplyDeleteLike many others, I am conflicted by whether or not parks should be converted into sleeping centers for the homeless at night. On one hand, the conversion gives the homeless a relatively safe and reliable place to sleep at night. As of now, there are 8,100 beds available to the over 27,000 homeless in LA. On top of that, the long list of illegal places to sit and sleep in the city has made it so there is virtually nowhere for homeless individuals to settle. The park presents a convenient solution to the issue, but does it really make a difference or just act as a band aid solution? On the other hand, I believe that parks are extremely important to the community. During the day, it provides a place for kids to go and play and for community meetings to take place. How would the sleeping situation be regulated so the park could continue to serve a dual purpose? Because 45% of homeless suffer from mental illness and according to the National Coalition of Homelessness, 38% are alcohol dependent and 26% drug dependent, inviting homeless into the park understandably makes the community uncomfortable and fearful. If done correctly in a way that benefits both the homeless population and the people of the community, then in theory the idea is great, but there are so many individual cases and issues all trying to be fixed by this one solution that I think there are many places where it can go wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to see the benefits and the flaws of turning parks into sleep zones for the homeless. One perspective is that due to the extreme homelessness crisis occurring in Los Angeles, a band-aid solution like this is needed. Whether or not it could succeed in the long-term, something must be done about the unbelievably high amount of homeless people in an effort to start helping fix the problem. Another perspective could point out the holes in this plan: at what times during the day would the homeless population be let in and taken out of the park? If they aren't required to leave, how would one counteract a potential decline in popularity with the rest of the community? Questions like these make it clear the answer isn't quite so obvious. According to the speakers during our urban lab, an extremely important role of the Los Angeles State Historic Park is to provide families a green space in their neighborhood no matter where they may stand socioeconomically. Some people can't afford houses with lawns, so the park serves as a place where people can take their children, relax, or partake in other activities. The park is obviously important to the community, but could it provide an even more important positive impact to the homelessness crisis?
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard about the idea for the parks to be opened up to the homeless at night, I
ReplyDeletethought about how problematic this could be: Safety, how the parks would be available
for the rest of the community during the day, and how the park would be maintained. I
am very invested in the wellbeing of the homeless, and while this may give them a place
to sleep other than a sidewalk, I don't think opening up parks as camps would be the
solution, and would invite more problems. I think the ultimate solution is to create more
programs to get the homeless off the streets permanantly, getting jobs, homes, and
getting their lives back on track.