New York’s mayor says half of the city’s hotel rooms are being used to house asylum seekers. Los Angeles said: hold my beer.
In March, voters in LA will consider an ordinance requiring hotels to report their number of vacant rooms each day, and make those rooms available to the homeless (for compensation).
- This was proposed by union UNITE HERE Local 11, which represents workers at area hotels, restaurants, airports, sports arenas, and convention centers.
- Since their petition received enough signatures, it forced a city council vote – to either pass it or refer it to a citizen referendum. They put it on the March 2024 ballot.
Hotels reportedly would have to inform the city about open inventory each day at 2 p.m. But that’s even prior to check-in time at most hotels, and many continue to sell rooms even after midnight. Customers increasingly book hotels last minute, and airport hotels often get surges of demand in the evening during storms or other major airline cancellation events.
How would they verify homelessness and how can I go to the Alila Big Sur or Rosewood Miramar? https://t.co/RmocL3TKxH
— iflyplaces (@iflyplaces) July 6, 2023
Will homeless be put up at the Four Seasons? No matter what you think of someone’s ‘right to housing’ it will inevitably conflict with a property’s brand experience that then diminishes its ability to hold revenue premiums. That not only reduces the income-generating potential of a hotel, but jeopardizes its ability to repay debt. And riskier hotel debt makes it tougher to finance new hotel projects in LA.
Some critics have argued that politicians should have to report vacancies in bedrooms of their homes by 4 p.m. each day and make those rooms available to house the homeless. However, and while the homeless aren’t soldiers, this might run into third amendment problems. (The third amendment has been deemed to have been incorporated against the states by the 14th amendment. While it limits quartering of soldiers in private homes even during wartime, it shows that requiring boarding in someone’s home even in wartime is limited by the constitution.)
Fundamentally, though, for this to make sense you’d need to believe that,
- The problem of homelessness is primarily about lack of a place to sleep and shower
- And that there’s no way to voluntarily purchase or provide shelter in the market
I’m not suggesting LA buy hotels and operate them for the homeless, there are probably better operators. But hotels which are geared towards traditional guests aren’t going to have the services many in the homeless population need – either to assist them out of their situation, or to deal with their experiences in the moment.
It seems far better to (1) contract with hotels for blocks of rooms for housing, as an alternative to shelters. Pay a rate that entices some hotel owners, package that with social services, and prepare to deliver rooms in a way that helps the homeless and manages the experiences of other guests at the same time.
Requiring hotels to take in homeless people on a one-off basis, when they happen to have a room available, seems like the least effective way to address the problem of homelessness. The program is based on same-day availability of rooms, so homeless will often be forced to move from hotel to hotel every night, too, which hardly seems the best way to address the problem – for the homeless themselves, or for the city administering the program, since presumably many of those staying won’t just be checking out, hopping in an Uber, and then showing up at the next hotel on their itinerary (and waiting at the pool or bar until check-in time?).
What it does seem to do is require a lot of work for UNITE HERE Local 11 housekeepers, who would need to clean a lot more rooms after these one night stays.
Democrats destroying America, one motel room at a time.
Anybody suggesting putting homeless in hotel rooms is uninformed. There was once a big project to put homeless people in Motel 6’s for free. Within 3 months over half of them left voluntarily. Many homeless want to be on the streets. The solution is to setup emergency Red Cross shelters outside of cities basically as refugee centers and requiring them to go. Giving them hotel rooms accomplishes nothing as that is very expensive and they will just leave
I would support requiring Celebrities to open up their vacant homes to the Homeless.
Hotels will just take rooms out of service – as they should – if they don’t expect to fill them w/ paying customers.
Put in work orders for broken toilets etc and the room is OOS
How stupid do they have to be to not see the inevitable consequences of that decision if they do it? Tourists won’t want to share space with the homeless. So they will stop paying for rooms. Which are then used to house more homeless which drives away more tourists. Eventually the revenue from tourists ends. But they can’t allow the hotel to close so the taxpayers will have to come in and cover the costs. Which in LA are extreme. In the end it will cost taxpayers over $100k/year per room.
Would be easier and faster to pay the homeless person $50k/yr salary to sweep the street instead of sleep on it. Which most won’t do. But hey, at least it would be a real attempt to help someone.
So the mansion tax didn’t bring in enough revenue to house the homeless? What about the incoming 15% Airbnb/VRBO tax, which is going to result in 30% tax on holiday rentals. At some point California just needs to go full communist and nationalize everything.
Stayed at a first class hotel ($200. per night). More homeless than paying guests. Buffet breakfast all gone as homeless stole all the food. Also parking lot filled with used needles, empty wine bottles etc. makes you not want to travel to large cities.
Marxist philosophy: to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
You hotels have spare room; you must house homeless.
You have a spare bedroom in your house; you must be taxed or even forced to house homeless.
There was a low income project costing $26M in Oregon. New residents were so happy. Within months,they were terrified by homeless and bad neighbors within the complex.
Some homeless are just temporary unemployed but are resourceful and get back on track. Some are so destructive and crooks.
The measure needs to be amended to also include city council members with spare bedrooms and large houses (sleep in the family room or dining room).
Homelessness must be solved at the federal level, or municipalities will be overwhelmed by bad actors – namely Republican governors of Republican states of uneducated, uncultured people – who put persons experiencing homelessness on a one-way bus to those municipalities.
As a Los Angeles County resident I’d sooner pass this measure nonetheless, rather than submit myself to the whims of uneducated voters who want to roll back the country to a more bigoted era.
no politicians not stupid, homeless counts1 popular vote as everyone. to chase votes with policy is 19th century, doing so with tax money is quick and easy; some homeless are a lifestyle choice leave them alone
@Alison – there is no danger of California being taken over by Republican politicians, and the homelessness problems facing California aren’t the result of busing in the homeless.
Alison,
I take no sides in this argument since I’m part of the uninformed and uneducated.
But out of curiosity I ask you: as a LA resident why you’re not more welcoming of these homeless? As a sanctuary city you welcome immigrants. Wouldn’t you prefer they be bused to you rather than remain in the uneducated republican states?
Also, can’t you help by taking in a few at your house?
Having your high morals sound good… until you live with it on a personal level. Your comment confirms your hypocrisy.
I cannot “take in a few” at my home. My home is not a hotel. My preference is for the uneducated states to become educated. The problem of homelessness is solvable with policy, such as, to start, single-payer healthcare.
@JetAway – totally agree. Not just celebrities. Politicians should open up their primary and vacation homes.
@Nick – CA doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Just keep wasting money, provide handouts to secure votes, and raise taxes.
@Allison – please lead by example. Open your home to the homeless, open your yard to encampments. Donate any extra $ you have to Franchise Tax Board so CA politicians have more money to solve…I mean waste on the problem. Don’t be generous with my CA state tax dollars.
@Allison – Politicians will never “educate” the public. Keeping the masses uninformed, provide handouts, and securing their position/power is the name of the game. Single-payer healthcare? Sure. Who is going to pay for it?
How about a flat tax?
Send the homeless back yo whichever forsaken state they came from: RETURN TO SENDER!
CA does not want to deal with your issues.
“My preference is for the uneducated states to become educated.”
Physician, heal thyself!
Also, I long for the day when we could use words that perfectly described a particular situation. For example, “bums” instead of “homeless”.
I love hearing from NPR listeners like Alison (NPR MOTTO: we are just better than you) who have the Sanctuary City welcome mat shining but have every excuse for not doing what she advocates.
Alison the world laughs at phonies like you. Take your racist beliefs elsewhere.
As of 4:00 pm yesterday, I became “HOMELESS “. Where is my free room at Four Seasons
This is crazy beyond comprehension
Alison says “My preference is for the uneducated states to become educated. The problem of homelessness is solvable with policy, such as, to start, single-payer healthcare.” I guess if you are not a progressive / socialist living in California you are uneducated. Alison said in prior posts she was a highly educated, well payed attorney living in a multi million CA home. She made her money as a capitalist but endorses Socialist principles. What a hypocrisy.
But who cares what I say as a resident of a red state ( Alaska) I must be uninformed, uneducated and a bigot !
@Alison – Thanks for such a laugh this afternoon. The hypocrisy in your statements is just mind-blowing.
I do have a question for you though: If the problem is so easily solvable, why has the Socialist Republic of California not solved it?
If I were to go even further, why is it actually worse in California than in most other major US cities?
The hypocrisy of socialist-Alison is disgusting.
Ah Alison,
Keep on voting for your nutcase policies, I guess more pain and suffering is required by ideologues like yourself to come to the realization your policies are destroying your state. Glad I moved out of Cali when I did. You people will double down on stupid until there is no tax base left.
This is an astonishingly bad idea. Let’s for a moment overlook the valid arguments about last minute bookings not being available for actual travelers, homeless people dragging shopping carts of possessions through hotel lobbies, destruction of rooms, etc. Even if this ridiculous law passes are the taxpayers truly going to fork out millions of dollars every single day to put homeless people up in luxury hotel suites?
When you vote for socialist clowns — this is the INSANITY that you get!
Attention American citizens: the quickest way to lose your life, liberty, happiness and wealth is to vote Dem (unless you a member of the Big Guy’s family).
Quite the troll gathering. Funny how none of them have actual solutions. Then again their politicians don’t have any solutions either, relying on fear and hate through childish insults.
Note to ‘Christian’ the commenter:
The only hate and fear are coming from the thugs in Democrat-run cities like San Francisco who prey on women and children. These are the same thugs that Democrat District Attorneys REFUSE to hold accountable or put in jail. ‘Progressive’ types…like Christian.
When you reward bad behavior, this is the result. And it is playing out in NY, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, DC, etc. What’s the one thing they all have in common??? Hard-core leftist Mayors who don’t give a damn about the people of their city.
@I Told You So – Nice self-awareness!
A silver lining could be that actual paying customers should get easier upgrades at these hotels. Why should a homeless person receive the executive suite for free over a paying customer who booked the cheapest room at 400 bucks at the Westin!
And a couple ways that can make this idea make more sense is to change the reporting time for unsold rooms to midnight rather than 2pm (the homeless can wait till then), make the stay length so that after entering after midnight, the checkout time needs to be by 12 noon. Thirdly they need to provide some specified amount of work for the hotel such as housekeeping or washing dishes at breakfast service (should scare of 95% of prospective homeless guests). Also a card system against each homeless person where any misbehavior anywhere will disqualify them from further free stays anywhere.
Let’s remember that, according to this article, the initiative – to house homeless in hotels that have vacancies – was put forth not by policitians but by the hotel workers’ union.
In fact, the L.A. City Council members didn’t vote on the proposal when it went before them and passed it to a referendum, according to this article.
Many posters on this thread are crediting or blaming L.A. politicians, especially Democratic politicians, with the idea. If it was Dem Council members’ proposal, they would have voted on it in Council.
That is an unfounded assumption or some misguided interpretation, from just the information in this one article.
No matter what you think about California or L.A. and its Democratic politicians, I think it is unfair and untrue to blame them for this.
@ I Told You So
“When you vote for socialist clowns — this is the INSANITY that you get!”
But, dude, the policy under discussion is not been adopted by the LA CC. As Gary alluded to in the article, the LA CC is required to respond to a petition of a threshold number of signatories and then is required to decide between two options, pass the resolution or refer to the people. they chose the latter. It’s’ called democracy.
You are certain other poster exemplify the misinformed and uneducated right wing stereotypes identified by Allison.
@ Richie L says:
“The hypocrisy of socialist-Alison is disgusting”
The sociopathy of the right wing-VFTW commentariat herein is disgusting. Well, perhaps not disgusting, but profoundly lacking in any human decency. You double down on all of your ill informed prejudices about homeless people with a juicy serving of Incel worthy internet bullying on. woman is is (most likely) far smarter, more educated, successful and articulate than many herein.
Hint – Allison doesn’t need to turn her home into a shelter to add valid points to the discussion any more than you have to grab women by the p—y to prove your credentials as a MAGA-muppet.
@ CMorgan
“But who cares what I say as a resident of a red state ( Alaska) I must be uninformed, uneducated and a bigot”
Yes, you’re correct that nobody actually cares what you say (after all, it is never evidence-based or well considered). Your lack of eduction and bigotry are well evidenced by your posting history there’s no need to default to state-based demographics.
@ Red Stater
You could bypass your hysterical prejudices and ask more relevant questions. For example, 5 minutes on Google searching out causes of homelessness might open your mind.
I challenge you to come back and post just three links to studies and statistics on root causes of homelessness from actual research sources not some idiotic right wing magazine). Surely, that’s an easy task, even for someone who identifies as a “Red Stater”. The results of one such study were reported just a couple of weeks ago.
In fact, that one action would make you more evidence-based and erudite than any of the other ignorant commentators posting their right wing drivel on the above article.
My suspicion is that one homeless chap I spoke to in Santa Monica a couple of weeks ago, who commented politely on the fact my wife and I walking happily hand-in-hand, has more manners and respect than your good self, and that another, who was reading Charles Dickens among the pile of his collection of English Literature, is most likely far more educated and cultured than your good self. But who knows.
Either one of them would have been preferred hotel neighbours to the obnoxious young self entitled American men who were dining in the BA Concorde Room a few weeks ago, or the ignorant twat middle aged American on my recent SQ biz flight who coughed through the flight without making or any attempt to stifle the projectile mucous spluttering al over the cabin.
“…It seems far better to (1) contract with hotels for blocks of rooms for housing, as an alternative to shelters…”
Are you freakin’ serious Gary? Been living in Austin too long? The problem is mental health, the lack of enforcement of laws, and the unwillingness for government to spend money on mental health facilities.
This proposal was not put forth by Democratic politicians but rather by the local hotel worker’s union. The primary reason is not that they want more work because it would increase turnover in hotel rooms but that some of their members have experienced homelessness because of wages that are too low. This is why they’ve been striking. A spokesperson made the point that not every homeless person is an addict or mentally ill. Some are homeless because of financial issues. They are not dangerous. This is a reality, like it or not, and to dismiss all homeless as “bums” as one poster did here truly does show ignorance. The problem, of course, is that if the proposal became law then it would not be possible to pick and choose which people could have rooms. Whatever happens to this proposal, the homeless issue is multi-dimensional. Some people lack housing because of financial reasons and really do just need housing. Others are mentally ill and need to be off the streets in settings where they can get care. Addicts need to be off the streets as well and be treated for addiction. It is interesting, though, that a city such as Houston has had some success with housing first as an initiative. There really does need to be a solution that involves both federal and state governments and local municipalities. Given how things stand in our country, the chances of this happening are probably nil. One only has to look at the many blaming, nasty, and insulting comments in this thread to see that.
Christian you are the only “Troll “ here find another site to regurgitate your leftist views on.
Ha, the Los Angeles City Council cannot even get rid of the racists among themselves so it is no wonder that they kicked the can down the road. This may end up being a boon for Airbnb, or maybe hotels will have a list of honored guests that can fill rooms for free on short notice. Maybe I would sign up for that instead of running the air conditioner all night at my place.
Just got back from the UK. According to the government, there are no homeless in England anymore. They are now called unhoused. Makes all the difference.
While I am not an attorney, on the surface it appears the hotel property owners may have a case for a civil rights lawsuit under the “Takings Clause” of the 5th amendment. If nothing else it gives the citizens and business owners another reason to vacate California.
@Dal7910 – while not tested in court, it hasn’t passed, the relevant portion of the 5th amendment (incorporated against the states by the 14th) says,
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
This requires (1) a public use, and (2) just compensation.
Combating homelessness would be a public use. And the referendum would require the city to pay market rates for the rooms. On face it seems to be compliant.
There’s a more nuanced argument here, I think, though: that a requirement to rent out rooms one night at a time to homeless would constitute a regulatory taking of the rest of the property by virtue of how much it would diminish the rest of the value of the business. That is not a slam dunk argument by any case, but could be persuasive.
Good. The referendum will likely pass, given what is known about the electorate there. This will cause companies and individuals to avoid LA like the plague, and the good folks of LA can bask in the natural consequences of their actions.
I’d even say LAX will be avoided as a connecting airport where possible to avoid the possibility of an unplanned overnight stay with junkies as neighbors.
Not a SINGLE Los Angeles City Council member (Democrat) has come out against this proposal.
Not in public, not in private. Not…even…one. Their silence is deafening, which proves my point:
The blind ideological rage / incoherence of socialism dictates that you can never EVER deviate from the party line — no matter the human consequences or destruction of life, liberty and property.
All of this is validated by the front page / web page of every large city newspaper in America.
When the same thing happens again and again and again — it may not be a coincidence. But there I go again, using common sense and logic.
Another reason people are leaving LA in droves. AZ and Scottsdale just tried (or trying) to take 10 rooms for the same reason, but the AZ lawmaker from Scottsdale is calling foul! Let’s see where this goes in a Purple state.
Largely, our homeless problem on the West Coast is red states dumping their homeless (and convicted criminals recently released from jails and prisons) on the West Coast. Texas and Florida are the worst offenders here. It plays well politically in both states to “own the libs” and dump these problems.
I think there’s a very simple solution: We should charter 787s to Charleston and fill them with everyone from out of state. Offer them a plane ticket or jail, their choice. If they want to steal our Boeing jobs, they can have some of our problems too. I guarantee you that the second blue states engage in the same cold civil war that red states are doing to us, it’ll instantly be made federally illegal. Problem solved.
@TProphet – ” our homeless problem on the West Coast is red states dumping their homeless (and convicted criminals recently released from jails and prisons) on the West Coast.”
This is simply not true. (A) The homeless problem predated any of this stuff, and (B) the numbers are dwarfed.
“Combating homelessness would be a public use.”
But not the purview of the government. If you’re going to apply the Constitution to the issue, then apply it consistently and accurately.
@ Gary
[redacted]
Your article is mistimed (the LA CC referred this to a vote months ago – the vote is months away) – it’s a stocking filler and thereby obviously just a lazy invitation to the hate fuelled cohorts in your readers.
Your article is misdirected – you quote, up front, an historic quote from the mayor of NYC knowing full well that quote is erroneous (you even admit such in your attack on the matter), but hey, it sets the tone that you know full well will trigger the incels and other deviants who find comfort in your acceptance of their vile posts.
Your article also fails to reference any of the available research on the causes and circumstances of these people.
Your website – your choice – your responsibility.
The city council knows it’s bonkers. But nobody crosses the unions in California. The real mafia.