Landowners Take Drastic Measures in Protecting Property Values from Homeless-induced Declines

In America, having unhoused people, sheltered or unsheltered, can drop the values of nearby properties and landowners are reacting. 

(Note: Throughout this article, the phrase “Unhoused” is used in lieu of “Homeless.” This is due to it being the preferred term amongst many unhoused Americans and advocates for unhoused people)

In San Pedro, California, from January to February, a “Multi-Use Filming Space” owned by Jerico Development became a site of controversy after 12 unhoused people encamped themselves on the streets surrounding it. In an effort to force the encamped people away, Jerico Development played the “Barney and Friends” theme song without stopping––the music itself sometimes reaching decibels which would interfere with one’s ability to sleep. This all came to a close on February 5th, after a social media campaign successfully pressured Jerico Development to stop the music. 

Jerico’s released apology reads as follows:

Yet, despite attributing the actions taken to “frustration,” statistical evidence points to other possible considerations and motivations by the development company. 

In Manhattan, New York, the Independent Budget Office conducted a study that would suggest shelters for unhoused people reduced the value of any surrounding residential properties. Homes within 500 feet of one shelter appeared to experience a 7% decrease in value, compared to homes that were not near such shelters. Homes within 1,000 feet of numerous shelters reportedly sold at 17% less than similar properties. This concern is just as common in Los Angeles––Griffith Park, Koreatown, Sherman Oaks, and even Venice have notably resisted efforts to shelter the unhoused in their communities, citing concerns about rising crime rates and decreased property values. 

Despite how common the concern is, it’s often scrutinized. New York City Hall met the IBO’s studies with skepticism, citing that it failed to take into account external factors in the drop in property value, the values of the property before the establishment of the shelters, and that the study only focused on a small section of New York’s total real estate.  “…This is an empirical question. Typically, this will depend on the type of housing in question, such as shelters or supportive housing. In general, the data do[es] not support the negative effect of shelters on property values,” says Doctor Gary Hytrek, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California Long Beach, mirroring New York City Hall’s doubts.

LA is not an extremely concentrated city. It has a few notable spheres of influence, such as Downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Hollywood, with surrounding areas reserved for small businesses and housing. This patchwork approach to zoning has also made LA a convenient target for unhoused exclusion. Instead of unhoused people living primarily in the “center” of the city, they are often pushed into low-income neighborhoods. 

The process of moving the unhoused out of wealthier areas is one that takes many forms. Jerico Development’s tactic of blasting the encamped unhoused with music has been done before––the city of West Palm Beach in Florida raised quite a lot of controversy after local parks and recreation officials began continued playing of children’s music to keep the unhoused away from a public park, which produced the city a steady supply of income via event fees. 

Other times, the police are called to do “sweeps”––forcibly relocating unhoused people, at times destroying tents, and taking away sleeping bags and bicycles, among other hostile methods. When this action is not taken by the police, there’s a chance that the general public might take it themselves––2019 marked a rise in violent crimes towards the unhoused. One of the most common efforts taken to force the unhoused away is hostile architecture––prevalent instances of this are armrests on park benches, which make laying down on these structures close to impossible. 

When asked about his stance on hostile architecture, Doctor Hytrek is disapproving: “This is just mean and wrong and does nothing to address the underlying causes…these strategies to push houseless folks out of sight, affect all city residents. As my colleagues at the housing justice organization, Long Beach Residents Empowered (LiBRE), tell me, there is no longer comfortable public access seating for any residents in large swaths of Long Beach…This means seniors, young families with strollers, and others walking to markets, dry cleaners, or other neighborhood services have no comfortable seating to rest or visit with neighbors…these efforts destroy any ambiance to encourage pedestrian traffic, use of remaining-but-shrinking public space, shopping local, among other issues.” Doctor Hytrek’s concerns about hostile architecture affecting everyone aren’t exclusive to him either––this February, New York’s Metro Transit Authority faced controversy after it removed its station’s benches to deter unhoused people from sleeping on them––in doing so, inconveniencing many others. 

Hytrek continues “…there is a deep-seated fear of individuals who appear to have mental illnesses. Additionally, folks who are unhoused and do not have access to showers, bathrooms, and affordable laundry services, and often have visible physical challenges, are uncomfortable to be around. Finally, we can’t discount the fact that the unhoused remind us of our collective failures to care for every resident in our community.  Our intensely individualized society places the blame on the individual for being houseless and absolves us of any responsibility and eliminates any space for empathy,” explaining as to why negative sentiment toward the unhoused was so prevalent; providing an explanation as to why businesses, which need to be appealing to the consumer, would feel emboldened to employ anti-unhoused architecture. The bias against the unhoused is prevalent. 

A popular narrative presents Los Angeles’s unhoused population as being part of a kind of diaspora of the impoverished towards Los Angeles––this narrative, amongst many others, creates an “other” out of the unhoused, and is a falsehood. Research by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found that 65% of Los Angeles’s Houseless have lived in LA County prior to becoming unhoused. The same study also found that only 27% of Los Angeles’s unhoused population were suffering from a serious mental illness; only 15% from substance abuse problems; and many of them became unhoused due to poverty and housing costs. 

When asked about what the ideal response to the prevalence of houselessness would be, Doctor Hytrek makes many proposals: citing the recognition of housing and healthcare as human rights; the increased availability of necessities like toiletries, clothing, and work; and an end to anti-unhoused narratives as major steps that should be taken towards resolving the problem. Specifically, Doctor Hytrek advocated for community benefit agreements, saying, “…Research shows that including affordable housing projects as part of broader development projects—and integrated into the city—are an efficacious, cost-effective approach to integration and improving the lives of the poor, with reasonable cost and no drawbacks for the community at large.” Doctor Hytrek also advocated for more affordable rent, citing that 50% of renters in Los Angeles were rent-burdened––spending over 50% of their household income on rent and utilities. 

Hytrek believes the current system is unsustainable. “In a city where 3 out of 4 LA households surveyed were rent-burdened, meaning they spent over 30% of household income on rent and utilities, and nearly 50% of renters surveyed were severely rent-burdened, spending over 50% of their household income on rent and utilities the existing system is not sustainable.” As houselessness, rent, and the cost of living rise in Los Angeles, there may be credence to that claim. Will the future of Los Angeles be the poor, huddled masses, pushed further and further from places they used to call home?