For my teaching project I wrote an article to be published in the student led newspaper, the Redlands Bulldog. Entitled “We Should All Be Paying Attention to the Homeless in L.A.” The purpose of my project had several facets. I first, wanted to teach people about the ways in which language frames social issues. Language is an integral way in which our society constructs social issues, and, more importantly, language limits and defines the parameters of what solutions are permitted for those social issues. Dehumanizing language is responsible for the leaf blower approach we see so commonly undertaken by municipal and county governments. To underline this point I included a report on the displacement of 700 homeless individuals from Orange County. Therefore, my analysis of language also included a critique of policy response.
Second, I wanted to show others that homelessness is not a consequence of individual failure. The construction of American Society, predicated on neoliberal ideology has created the condition of homelessness. I included a report linking rising rents to the number of people living on the street. Further, it was important to me to link identity, as well as class, to the reality faced by those living on the street. There are racial elements as well as elements that disproportionately affect members of the LGBTQ+ community.
I chose to public in the Bulldog for a few reasons. Most important is that we are at an “elite” institution. College students and faculty are no doubt part of the socioeconomic elite in this nations and often times institutions such as this university can cause people to lose touch with the real lives of many Americans. I included statistics, data, and structural analysis because I thought that to be the sort of content that may influence the minds of the intellectually elite.
Publishing my teaching project was limiting in that I received nominal face-to-face response to my piece. Upon posting about my article on my Facebook I accumulated 18 responses, which was nice to know that so many people had indeed read my writing. In person I had a few conversations about it, and I received a few first bumps in passing.
My article did succeed in stimulating conversation among a few students on campus. I had one particular interaction with a Redlands junior who had just been having a similar conversation about language as framing social issues and policy responses with a visiting professor. However, to the extent of my knowledge, my article failed to change any opinions. I presume as much because I received no push back or negative response concerning what I had written.
Therefore, if I were to do this project again I would definitely seek dissention. I know several conservatives on campus who would have disagreed with my opinions very much. Actively seeking a response from an organization such as the Young Republicans club could have gone a long way to help me understand how my project fits into the larger discussions on inequality poverty and neoliberal governance happening on this campus and throughout the United States. Additionally, I wish I could have recruited several faculty members to poll their students on my work. The piece was short for a reason.

Orange County’s plan to house the homeless is collapsing left and right. One plan to house the homeless in a central park in Huntington Beach was roundly rejected merely two days after it was proposed. Citizens cited fears of crime and of economic repercussions and homeless proliferation lowered market values for properties. All this despite the fact that a homeless youth shelter has operated in the park for over a decade with no problem. Now Irvine and Laguna Beach have reacted similarly and backed out of their own shelter plans. As the county flounders interesting developments will come from the US District Court Judge who ruled that Orange County must find housing for these people.
Municipal and local reaction is typical I think and has to be expected. I just don’t understand what the county thought it was getting out of displacing hundreds of homeless folk. Maybe they thought no one would notice as those without homes were forced to leave and relocate elsewhere. if so, then they definitely were not expecting a judicial injunction on the issue. Perhaps the county thought that local governments and residence would acquiesce to new homeless shelters in their home towns. Regardless, this is really an issue that the county brought upon themselves. To this day I am unsure just why the county of Orange felt the need to forcibly displace them in the first place. Additionally, I wonder what people in Orange County will say as the tax payers are expected to foot what is no doubt an expensive bill to house hundreds of homeless folk in motels. Overall, the issue might seem comical, if not entirely frustrating.

As we reach the end of our semester I am glad to say that I have learned a lot in this course. I would like to think of myself as an open and “progressive” person, but I no doubt held, and perhaps still hold, problematic views about homelessness in the United States of America. One such view is the idea that people are homeless through individual action more than structural consequences. Rising housing prices are a substantial factor in contemporary homelessness, but it is also important to acknowledge the structure of social welfare policy. There are not large programs or sources of funding to provided housing to the marginally housed. America’s criminalizes drug use and addiction rather than treating those issues as a public health epidemic. Medicaid is extremely difficult to get into, and, depending on your state, structurally deficient.

Additionally, I considered many to be on the street because of a mental illness. Upon examination, I’ve found reality to be more nuanced. Many on the street are mentally ill, and find it difficult to reenter society because of that disability. However, mental illness is a natural consequence of living on the street; the conditions inspire disability much more than the conditions are inspired by it. Reintegration is an important aspect of homelessness we have not touched on much.

I do have a few spots that I wish we could have covered more of. I wish this class had a more international perspective because I think a cross analysis of homelessness in other developed societies would provide substantial insight into American homelessness. Also, I wish we could have studied more about social services and policy targeted to economically marginalized communities.

At the shelter I volunteer at this past Thursday one of the girls was kicked out for having the remnants of a 4-loko in her room. She had not been drinking it, and it was most likely left over from her last group home. Because alcohol is forbidden at the shelter, she was immediately kicked out when staff found it in her room. Within a few hours a social worker arrived, the kid packed up her stuff, and she was off. I had not been informed of the situation at first and for the two hours prior to her departure we had been talking, cracking jokes, and playing cards with the other kids. As she left the building she turned back to the staff member Jason and said, “I’ll probably be back in a few weeks.” After she’d gone I asked Jason what his thoughts were on the strict nature of the shelter rules. He has worked here for some time and seen it all. “We just can’t have alcohol here. It’s not cool. It’s a problem. Alcohol has been responsible for some of our worst night,” he said. “Alcohol leads to fighting… someone slashes their wrist in the bathroom… we can’t tolerate anything.” Even though the rules seemed draconian and over the top, even thoug she probably would be back in a few weeks or months, and even though the staff really didn’t want to see her go there was no other choice. Each organization has its own rules for a reason. It’s just unfortunate that these kids are just shuffled around from place to place, from group home to group home. There is no concentrated or well-funded solution to the issues confronting homeless and runaway youth. These shelters are just a bandaid.

The LA Times, in their continuous coverage of the homeless population in the LA area released an article yesterday, Saturday March 17th, giving an update on the Orange County homeless story. After a population of homeless people living in Orange County were mass evicted from camps along the Santa Ana River Valley all homeless persons were given motel vouchers. Now, with the vouchers soon expiring, Orange County officials agreed, after a federal court hearing, to extend motel stays “on a case-by-case basis.” Andrew Do, chairman of the county Board of Supervisors, called the action a “big concession,” but warned that the county decision is “not a blanket extension.” The move can be attributed to an uncommon pushback from homeless advocates and a sympathetic federal judge, pushing one of America’s most affluent counties to face the issue of homelessness. Simply put, County policy for housing the homeless is full of problems: couples are split up, conditions often undermine the human dignity of homeless persons, and there are simply too few resources to provide for all of those who have been subject to the County’s mass eviction.
While this is no doubt a positive outcome for the homeless in Orange County, the voucher extension does not address the root problem of homelessness – housing insecurity. The County is merely extending another short-term solution, hoping, I would think, that soon this issue will go away. Most likely, it will. Out of sight out of mind is a reliable go to for local government’s confronted by homelessness. Though perhaps legal advocacy and humane federal rulings will hold the county accountable to the actions they have made. I don’t understand the logic behind County actions, however. Do they expect simply for homeless people to leave and go elsewhere? What happens if they don’t?

I’ve been thinking a lot about privilege in this course recently, specifically, the privilege of academia. I wonder if it’s okay for a cadre of college students to volunteer their time at homeless shelters, groups homes, and the like. What ethical concerns should we have when thinking about ourselves in these contexts? Is it cool to just fill your 20 hours and bounce? Do you need to pass a certain bar to be justified in volunteering? I find it difficult to find distinction between ethical work and the pitfalls of “voluntarism” and voyeurism. Upon completion, have you done any good or contributed anything significant? Perhaps just the power of contextualization is important in it of itself – both in academic and personal senses. As we know, theory is useless without application and tangible review, but to what extent are we reinforcing armchair academia, and how can we mitigate the dissonance of what we learn in class, what we read for class, and the reality we find ourselves in.
Lyon-Callo’s book, “Inequality, Poverty, and Neoliberal Governance,” makes what I find to be an adequate structural analysis of the conditions – material and discursive – that produce, maintain, and perpetuate the features of homelessness and poverty. Lyon-Callo exposes the depth and various roots inherent in neoliberal hegemony – that neoliberalism frames homelessness in terms of individual production rather than a structural feature. I appreciate his analysis, and the use of Foucault’s insight on apparatuses of power, acknowledging the ways in which neoliberal hegemon is self-enforced. Macro analysis is crucial, and invaluable in intellectual discourse about policy direction. But just how useful is Lyon-Callo’s point in real life? I can’t reconcile the imperative to advocate implicit in his writing and just how out of touch it seems.

Reading the LA Time’s reporting on the homeless population in the LA area has made me reflect on how important it is for news organizations to act as advocates for the homeless community. Their input, investigation, and overall contribution to the national discourse about homelessness in the United States is an important and irreplaceable facet in bringing exposure to an issue that many Americans would prefer to ignore. In a recently published article about LA’s homeless problem the author wrote, “skid row is — and long has been — a national disgrace, a grim reminder of man’s ability to turn his back on his fellow man. But these days it is only the ugly epicenter of a staggering homelessness problem that radiates outward for more than 100 miles throughout Los Angeles County and beyond.” The author hits a note for me, a thought that political energy only gathers when the problem becomes unbearably visible. For the “invisible” homeless community, exposure is all-important. Skid row has always been a “national disgrace” as the LA Times put it, but I think to a majority of Americans skid row and other similar settlements are a disgrace simply for being visible.
A second thought I have had recently pertains to the book I read for our last presentation. The book was “Down and Out, on the Road: The Homeless in American History,” in which author Kenneth Kusmer argues that homeless communities have been, at times, the most progressive and accepting groupings in the country. Kusmer suggests that gay men were attracted to life on the road, and that Black men faced less persecution relative to government institutions. Gender norms were also broken down as the few women who traveled on train cars assumed masculine characteristics or facades. Personally I find this to be an ideological stretch, but there is an implicit point worth some merit. Economic class is the one thing that can unite people, and money is the most powerful of all social constructions.

Down and Out, on the Road The Homeless in American History, the book I was assigned for our “Book B” presentations, gives an in-depth historical analysis of homelessness throughout the history of the United States. One thing that struck me about this book is the interplay between voluntary and involuntary homelessness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many people were forced into homelessness due to changing economic realities. As post-bellum America shifted economically people were far less likely to be economic secure. Resultantly, many people adopted train hopping tramp lifestyle as an escape from oppressive economic structures and still more people were forced into economic situations where tramping made more sense. Moreover, seasonal work became very prevalent in the tramp/hobo community. People would work during the winter in seasonal jobs while returning to tramp lifestyles in the summer and spring. In addition, many hegemonic social structures were abandoned in homeless communities. Much of social hierarchy is economically enforced and thus, the author Kenneth L. Kusmer argues that traditional social constructs matter less in homeless communities. During a time when American society was becoming more institutionally segregated “hobo jungles” were arguably some of the most racially integrated communities in the United States. Further, the author reports some evidence of sexual liberation and the removal or weakening of gender constructs. Kusmer concludes then that for many people being homeless is neither a purely voluntary or involuntary state. Instead, being homeless, at least in part, presents a measure of freedom in the opportunity to escape American social and economic forces.

On February 9th the LA Times released an article explaining L.A.’s plan to build housing units for the homeless community. The idea is relatively simple: L.A. city can build multi-story housing units for chronically homeless individuals on a various number of public land, mostly bought in the two decades following World War Two. Parking lots have been zeroed in on as the best suited for the endeavor. Some 500 public land sites were reviewed, 129 were selected, and of that 129 all but 10 are parking lots. Exactly how this will be accomplished is of course dependant on a lot of variables, among them the reaction of council offices and neighborhood groups. A real estate broker from the Lincoln Heights area is quoted in the article warning about the potential impacts on local business. “Merchants are not going to have parking. People are going to move out. It’s going to hurt business.” Preliminary plans cited in the article all feature an expansion of parking spots, however. Opposition from community groups is to be expected, and similar policy proposals in the past have been derailed by political reaction and legal suits. Hence many advocates of the plan are implementing robust community outreach programs to get input from local community members and change public opinion.
Over the past week we’ve discussed how social support policy has been eroded. Specifically the L.A. Times article reminds me of skidrow, and how flophouses were destroyed to make way for development. I’m unsure if LA city’s plan will properly remedy many of the root reasons for homelessness, it feels more like a bandaid. Not that i doubt the effectiveness of the proposal, and it’s an encouraging shift in the policy conversation around homelessness. Instead I’m frustrated by reactionary policy proposals in general. Shelters and housing for the chronically homeless are inherently a response to homelessness, and are not intended to address the reasons why people become homeless. Further, I have concerns about how people may qualify for housing, the rules around shelters, and the longevity of such shelters given popular disdain for homeless people.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-parking-lots-housing-20180209-story.html

Today the LA Times published an article on the increasing number of arrests in the homeless community of LA over the past 5 years. While overall LAPD arrests decreased by 15% between 2011 and 2016, arrests of homeless people have jumped by 31% in the same time period. LA has more than a dozen “quality of life” laws, and the overwhelming majority of these arrests have been for minor offenses under within the purview of such laws, such as sleeping on the sidewalk, living in a car, and the like. To be arrested, fined, and otherwise penalized for simply existing is horribly dehumanizing and illustrates a city attempting to balance the limits of “humane” treatment and the desires of wealthy residents and business owners who overwhelmingly support such measures. City officials have said they “have to balance the rights of homeless people against the quality of life and safety of the whole community.” These laws are essentially pointless, and are constructed specifically to target and marginalize homeless people.
The fact remains that the criminalization of homelessness is a lucrative endeavor, and the city is well aware of that fact. When it’s all said and done tickets can charge up to $200 or even $300, and tickets pile up. If anyone fails to show up to their court date there’s an automatic warrant issued by the LA superior Court, “a decade ago LA Superior Court computers were spitting out 8,000 bench warrants a week for failure-to-appear charges.” In 2014 a court ruling reported that California receives an annual revenue exceeding $75 million. Large institutions are designed to make bank by taking advantage of the vulnerable homeless population who have little to no representation in government.