Justice on Skid Row

Where the Light Doesn’t Reach: 

At sunrise, Los Angeles’s skyline glows with billion-dollar towers and beautiful high-rise buildings, but the light never seems to reflect the thousands of tents gathered at their feet. The wealth gap is growing, but homelessness legislation is crumbling. 

Over 70,000 people in LA County are unhoused, living in rough conditions on the streets with little substantial help coming from the government. The city’s homelessness problem has become bigger than just a legal issue; now, it's a moral crisis with no clear end in sight. Conflicting court rulings and ineffective projects have contributed to the evident lack of progress on LA streets, and while public order and safety are at the forefront of the issue, human dignity must remain intact for solutions to be viable. California and the federal government need to work together to clarify laws, enforce them, and prioritize housing as a right, not a privilege. 

How LA got Here (a timeline): 

LA’s housing crisis didn’t appear overnight. It’s a deep-rooted issue woven into the city’s history, but it can be reversed. 

1800s–1990s: 

Homelessness is historical: after World War II, hundreds of thousands of families lived in tents, cars, and garages due to housing shortages. Shortly after, in 1967, the Laterman-Petris-Short Act pushed many mentally ill people into homelessness by limiting long-term psychiatric hospital stays. By the ‘70s, housing costs had sharply increased, and by the early ‘80s, 30,000 people were homeless in LA County, with one-third of them living on Skid Row. 

1990s–now: 

Fast forward, the Crack Epidemic in the early 1990s, and mass incarcerations left many without stable housing in Downtown Los Angeles. Between 2015 and 2025, the average home price in LA doubled, and currently, LA (amongst many other major cities) is facing an incredible increase in fentanyl and drug usage. More recently, cases like Martin v. Boise and Grants Pass v. Johnson have conflicting rulings on whether cities can enforce camping bans on people for sleeping outside. 

Overall, limited mental health resources, conflicting court cases, and rising housing costs all contributed to LA’s history of homelessness. 

Legal frameworks 

Legally, LA’s crisis is a maze. Its local Municipal Code section 41.18 bans camping near schools, parks, and sidewalks, and sparks discussions over the importance of safety versus compassion in the legislature. Statewide, Senate Bill 1380 set California’s “Housing First” policies in stone and prioritized permanent, immediate housing without prerequisites of sobriety or employment. Additionally, voters from all over backed Measure HHH – the Homelessness Reduction and Prevention, Housing and Facilities Bond – which approved city bonds to fund new housing infrastructure. These overlapping efforts show that while California recognizes the need for more housing, a lack of coordination is preventing that from happening. 

Many projects have also been implemented to combat low housing shelter availability. Project Roomkey was a COVID-19 response consisting of temporary housing from spare hotel rooms for the homeless, and it worked to protect all members of the LA community from the disease. Similarly, Project Homekey provided funding for hotels to be converted into permanent housing. Although it ended, its successor Homekey+ is currently running. Quick housing solutions work, but the lack of long-term funding stops the situation from truly improving. 

Mental health initiatives have also been founded and are acknowledged as a severe cause of homelessness. Homeless Outreach and Mobile Engagement (HOME) is a program run by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. It serves adults experiencing housing challenges in the county who have extreme mental health illnesses and are not engaging with traditional services. It meets clients where they are on the streets and offers medical and psychiatric assistance. Properly treating mental health is the key to making a real impact in the housing crisis, and is a step that must be prioritized. 

Looking at federal legislation, there are two major cases with conflicting decisions that are creating confusion amongst state legislators and civilians alike. Martin v. Boise (2018) ruled that cities cannot criminalize sleeping outdoors if they cannot provide enough shelter beds. On the other hand, Johnson v Grants Pass (2024) took the opposite stance. The Court ruled that cities can enforce limited camping bans, even if there aren’t enough shelter beds available. They claimed it is constitutionally allowed and gave the government more power to clear encampments, while also leaving cities divided over how to tackle this social justice issue. 

Why LA’s approach hasn’t been that successful 

While these initiatives sound impressive, they haven’t achieved what they were intended to. Let’s break down what and why. 

To begin, billions of dollars have been spent without substantial change, leading to the lack of success in LA’s approach: 

Measure HHH: retained a $1.2 billion bond dedicated to its work. However, the housing construction took years to build, resulting in a very slow and low completion rate. This meant that the already expensive per-unit costs only increased with time, ultimately being around $500-600k each. Additionally, permit issues contributed to construction delays and ultimately led to the lack of concrete results from this measure. 

Project Roomkey: estimated to cost $300 million, and while it helped thousands of people get shelter, it was unsuccessful in the long run. It had short-term victories, but many people went back to living on the streets after it ended. Roomkey was also expensive to run and only provided temporary shelter, meaning the total number of unhoused people in Los Angeles County still increased. 

Project Homekey: calculated to be as expensive as $3 billion, helped to move 58,000 people off the streets, but was ultimately expensive and ineffective. It cost $200k per unit, but the project as a whole was spoiled by delays and unfinished projects. Its funds were rumored to be misused, and while it wasn’t a total failure, it serves as a reminder to be careful about where taxpayers and states put their money. 

Additionally, Housing First hasn’t been as effective because it can’t keep up with demand. In relation to the number of unhoused individuals, there aren't enough houses. LA simply doesn’t have enough housing to make this feasible.  

Mixed rulings on big Supreme Court cases have also played a role in how LA has unproductively addressed its homelessness. Martin v Boise said cities can’t punish camping, but Grants Pass gave cities the power to enforce camping bans. This creates confusion on what constitutes a legal ban on camping, and what doesn’t, perpetuating the cycle of exclusive and ineffective policy. 

Finally, HOME has struggled to reach its full potential due to its low capacity. While it has been extremely successful thus far, it doesn’t have enough mental health professionals or long-term housing units to meet the needs of all of LA. Many of its clients also cycle in and out of services and don’t have stable recovery facilities.

Necessary Reforms 

To make LA the glamorous, Hollywood–filled lifestyle so many envision it to be, it needs some serious policy reforms. 

First, it requires a unified framework that harmonizes Martin v Boise and Grants Pass to focus on public safety with compassion. Cases need to utilize due process and push counties and states to prioritize housing, so camping bans don’t need to be enforced. 

Second, LA County must speed up construction on its existing projects. These initiatives are great and have strong goals that have the potential to be met, but they lack proper management. Long-term housing must be developed quickly, so more units are available and aren’t as costly. This means focusing on quantity over quality and reducing expenses for all parties involved. 

Third, it has to prioritize mental health and addiction care to truly tend to the needs of unhoused residents. The county and state as a whole should create treatment centers and more mobile teams to put people in need in contact with medical officials. LA must focus on expanding medical teams to keep up with demand and effectively address one of the root causes of homelessness.

Lastly, it must expand short-term, bridge housing while permanent housing is being built. The county should focus on quick and safe shelters for people to access while waiting for permanent housing. This will put pressure on permanent housing to be built. By working with nonprofits, food banks, and other local organizations to help with this process instead of relying solely on government funding, progress will be seen faster, and will immediately help unhoused civilians get help.  

Conclusion

As LA’s skyline continues to grow, so too must policies that meet the needs of its population. Skid Row and other Los Angeles cities serve as a reminder that policy without humanity is just meaningless paperwork. Although measures and initiatives currently in place are hard at work to provide for the expanding homeless population, they are just not enough. Misused funds, slow construction rates, a lack of emphasis on mental health support, and simply not enough housing infrastructure are all conditions that hinder success. The path to ending homelessness isn't paved with more high-rises; rather, it's rooted in urgency and prioritization. The state of California and the LA County government must work together to accelerate long-term housing, align federal rulings, expand addiction services, and provide more compassion and care towards those struggling on the streets. LA must continue to fight on until the glow of the sun reflects hope for all those living under it.

Image Source: La Times