Faced with a novel coronavirus which could prove deadly to the city’s unhoused residents, Los Angeles’s mayor announced Wednesday that city crews are working to turn 42 recreation centers into temporary housing to get LA’s most vulnerable residents safely inside.
The plan is to house 6,000 people, with 1,600 beds opening at 13 locations by Sunday night, for the estimated 11,177 people living in vehicles, tents, and makeshift shelters in the city of Los Angeles.
The 13 rec centers are located across the city, from Hollywood to Northridge to Westwood, and the first are scheduled to open as soon as this evening, says Ashley Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the recreation and parks department.
Mayor Eric Garcetti called the accelerated effort to house people “unprecedented.”
“We are taking immediate, urgent action to slow the spread of COVID-19 by helping people who are experiencing homelessness come indoors,” he said.
The city’s overall homeless population totals 36,165, up from nearly 26,000 five years ago, two years after took office.
A COVID-19 case has not been documented in the city’s homeless population, but the disease poses a serious threat, as homeless residents are more likely to have compromised immunity or reside in living situations that prevent recommended social distancing practices. Three homeless residents of Los Angeles County die each day, according to public health data.
The mayor said residents who move into the shelters “will be fed, they will be warm... their lives will be protected.” The first 4,000 residents will be prioritized, he said, based on their age and pre-existing medical conditions.
The announcement was made the night before an emergency hearing is scheduled to take place in federal court as part of a lawsuit accusing the city of negligence in responding to the homelessness crisis.
The mayor said plans to set up the beds are part of the city’s emergency disaster response and had been in the works for 2.5 weeks, before he knew about the court hearing.
The beds be paid for with a mix of city and state dollars, as well as FEMA reimbursements, Garcetti said.
Rodriquez says recreation and parks staffers are leading the shelter effort and will provide beds, offer personal hygiene kits, and make showers accessible at nearby city-owned aquatic facilities. Meals will be provided by other government agencies and nonprofits, she says.
But many homeless residents are very wary of temporary shelters, in part because they fear that beds are too close together and could be conducive to spreading the virus. Asked whether the city would be able to implement critical social distancing measures in the shelters, Garcetti said “distancing will be there,” based on “strict guidance” from public health officials.
The mayor also said tonight that nearly $37 million in newly allocated state funding is “on the way” to Los Angeles to help with homeless housing, plus extra money to buy or lease hotels and motels. Additionally, he said LA will get 660 travel trailers to isolate homeless Angelenos who might contract COVID-19.
The last point-in-time count conducted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found 11,177 people living in vehicles, tents, and makeshift shelters in the city of Los Angeles.
Comments
Why could this not have been done three months ago? The city has 30,000 – 60,000 homeless. That does not include people living in their cars.
At yesterday’s meeting the county told the council that the best policy was to allow the homeless to shelter in place. But today the mayor announced that the homeless will be moved to recreation centers, and hotels and motels. He said the city has received $37 million from the state and they will be providing 1,000 beds across the city.
I wonder why he did not obey what the county said and where will the staff resources come from to move the homeless? At the meeting, housing testified that there had not been one case of the homeless testing positive for the virus. I think moving the homeless under the circumstances will come back to haunt Garcetti.
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 8:31pm
FEMA could have constructed massive tents to house the homeless tents throughout the city. Think of a military camp—how do they do it? Same could be done here for money we already have set aside. It’s the lack of will—activists feel they need Circa level accommodations for all homelss—an impossible task.
By surfnspy on 03.19.20 8:59am
First, they start with a sizable chunk of land, much bigger than almost all city parcels. Second, they have virtually unlimited funds to build necessary infrastructure like roads, sewers, water, electricity and data. Third, military camps house only those in the military, that is, a population that is subject to control and bound to follow orders. Civilian life has an analogue: jails and prisons that hold those that have been duly adjudicated.
By LosFeliz$ean on 03.19.20 10:19am
$ean-Your stupidity knows no bounds.
FEMA does relief assistance in many forms large and small depending on the emergency.
So if the Governor declared a state of emergency regarding the homeless, the president signs off and FEMA enters the equation – you don’t think they can figure out a solution and quickly?
By Ravid Dyu on 03.19.20 11:27am
I’m assuming this wasn’t considered before because those recreation centers were used by the population, and those who used them didn’t want them converted to homeless shelters.
Now that they aren’t being used, they can be temporarily re-purposed during this time of crisis. But eliminating neighborhood recreation centers is not a sustainable way of solving the homeless crisis.
By Greyvagabond on 03.19.20 10:59am
Without any real details, Garcetti claims the homeless are at risk in this COVID-19 crises. But if seniors and the mentally and physically handicapped and those with pre-existing conditions are most at risk, Garcetti gives no figures as to why he feels this applies to most of the homeless. He does not even cite that he was told by housing officials that not one homeless person has tested positive for the virus. If most of the homeless have not tested positive, and most are not at risk because of medical reasons or age, why does Garcetti feel they should now be moved into hotels and recreation centers? Numerous residents protested such move at the recent council meeting March 17. It was even claimed that in moving the homeless, it could put them more at risk, not less, and exposing them to the virus while in transit. In other words, the homeless could still receive medical testing one by one without being moved from their tents, for those that are in tents.
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 8:32pm
Living in cold, filthy, rat infested hovels would seem to lower one’s immune system.
By LATEACHER1X on 03.25.20 5:23pm
We don’t have a lock down in Los Angeles. But we have voluntary shelter in place, to the extent that we can still go food shopping, go to work, go to the doctor, use the trains and buses, etc. So my questions is if we still allow people to congregate, even with social distancing, why is there a rush to somehow move the homeless, as if they are at more risk than the rest of us who can voluntarily not totally comply with shelter in place? After all, many of the cases of infected persons are coming from the quarters of pretty high profile people. Do we suspect this illness is affecting the affluent more than the poor?
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 8:32pm
Your article says: "A COVID-19 case has not been documented in the city’s homeless population, but the disease poses a serious threat, as homeless residents are more likely to have compromised immunity or reside in living situations that prevent recommended social distancing practices. " How do you arrive at that assumption I wonder like you have an agenda? If they are more likely to get it, why is everyone else getting it but them? Liar, Liar, pants on fire.
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 8:35pm
GJJ I think you are missing the main point.
This isn’t so much about COVID-19 as it is about the city being sued (trial date set) by the LA ALLIANCE regarding negligence in handling the homeless problem.
This is a quickly thrown together & sloppy action step. Which of course needs further funding from the tax payers & FEMA. Imagine how many beds could have been bought with 1.2B from HHH!
These actions could have and should have been done years ago.
As I’ve said prior. At this point, FEMA needs to come in with one person leading the circus. Temp shelters on city owned land. No encampments allowed on the streets, parks. No more breaking and entering into homes and claiming them as their own. Enough already.
By Ravid Dyu on 03.19.20 8:45am
I agree, I agree Ravid Dyu. I have read parts of that 92 page lawsuit. it is damning evidence against the homeless and the city and county government. Yes, the lawsuit is coincidentally happening at the same time as COVID-19 and the city (not me) has said they are responding the the homeless situation not in spite of COVID-19, but because of it, in their words. Of course, the city will have the opportunity to present the other side of it in the lawsuit. COVID-19 or not, the 6,000 or so beds will not cover the 36,000 plus homeless. Even the Judge in the transcripts said he does not expect more than 60% of the homeless to be helped by the city and county. There are plenty of homeless assistance groups, and enough money, but the government lacks, as you say, the leadership. We need to have zero tolerance to homelessness, but we do not have anyone aiming for that.
By GJJ3000 on 03.29.20 9:32am
Has one single test been performed on a homeless person. There is absolutely no way to tell if the population has been hit. No one is testing them.
By surfnspy on 03.19.20 8:58am
Just this week one homeless person tested positive LA. Not just the homeless, but a lot of people are not being tested, and some are being turned away by doctors.
By GJJ3000 on 03.29.20 9:35am
You’re right why didn’t this city just kill them all ages ago. I guess we’ll have to help them now.
By Mildred Fillmore on 03.18.20 8:38pm
Very astute, thanks.
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 8:55pm
I’m interested to see how much demand there is…
By LosFeliz$ean on 03.18.20 8:49pm
60,000 homeless I believe but may not include those living in their cars. As with anyone, homeless many try to locate near where the services are like food and restrooms. If you put the homeless in buildings, the buildings will have to be staffed with workers, etc, making the city in effect the property managers. Are these recreation centers or hotels near services? This will be a massive undertaking on such short notice to the homeless. Is this temporary or permanent housing? Thanks for your input that helps all of us.
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 9:00pm
The article says, Garcetti "said LA will get 660 travel trailers to isolate homeless Angelenos who might contract COVID-19." So when do we isolate the rest of the population, which is at over 4 million people compared to the 60,000 homeless persons?
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 8:50pm
Wow, that’s a lot of words to use in those post without proving any type of point or making any coherent statement . Are you running for office in LA ?
By Mr Balls on 03.18.20 9:00pm
I guess I was coherent enough for you to make your statement. This section is called "comments". If you have anything else to contribute, I’d like to hear it but let’s not make this a debate. As far as running for office, been there and done that. Thank you, Mr. Balls.
By GJJ3000 on 03.18.20 9:07pm
"Many homeless residents are very wary of temporary shelters, in part because they fear that beds are too close together and could be conducive to spreading the virus." – That’s the funniest thing, but they don’t fear the rats and dirt and bacteria and stench (and drugs) where they hang out now!
By oceantern on 03.18.20 10:52pm
"Wary"
I read that, too. Sheesh. "Wary" isn’t a good enough reason not to be part of the solution to a worldwide pandemic.
But, as always, Curbed wants everyone to tip-toe around the wants & desires of the vagrants and mentally ill eroding this City from within.
By Cleavon Little on 03.19.20 1:20pm
as they say, where there is a will there is a way. Get them access to showers and clean clothes etc.
By LAoneWay on 03.19.20 6:15am
Yes, this is what should have been done all along. Our leadership and the far left extremists only want one solution—very expensive permanent housing for all homeless. Complete with gyms and rooftop amenity decks. It’s absurd. Now, due to their extreme views, many homeless people are at great risk. Of course being on the streets is the worst place for people to live. It’s unacceptable and could be solved in months at costs we can afford with money already committed to the effort.
By surfnspy on 03.19.20 8:56am
Nothing makes for clear eyes like a crisis.
By corner soul on 03.19.20 9:11am