‘Not in My City’: Local Governments and Homelessness Policies in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region

Abstract

To understand local government social welfare policies in large metropolitan areas, we need to pay attention to the processes by which amorphous social problems are translated into well-defined services amenable to local government structures of provision, and we need to place these processes within an interjurisdictional context that is more complex than a simple`city^suburb' binary opposition. In this paper I explore the interjurisdictional allocation of responsibility for social welfare in a fragmented metropolitan region, through a case study of city responses to the suburbanisation of homelessness in Los Angeles County in the 1990s. The results of a 1991 survey of all eighty-five local governments in the county revealed wide variations in the extent to which cities acknowledged responsibility for dealing with homelessness, and in the forms of actions adopted by cities. Some city characteristics (population size, median household income, and charter city status) were significant factors affecting the level of action on homelessness. However, the variation in city action must also be understood as a product of the metropolitan context, where city officials develop welfare policies with close attention to the actions of neighbouring cities, and with a keen awareness of the opportunities for burden shifting and`beggar thy neighbour' responses. Although the relative mobility of homeless people (both forced and voluntary) heightens the impact of policy disparities among cities, a similar scenario can be imagined for other social needs in a politically fragmented region.

The periphery of care: Emergency services for homeless people in rural areas

“…The non-local/passing through/visible is least likely to be accepted by these localised bureaucracies as having priority need, leading once again to a situation in which homeless people displaying these characteristics 'don't count''' (p. 26, see also Cloke et al, 2001c). As Law (2001) has demonstrated, the moral distinctions that are made around local/non-local, settled/mobile and visible/invisible homelessness are also germane in urban centres, forming part of generic anti-homeless rhetoric. Again, however, such rhetoric can play out differently in rural areas where discourses of denial can be prevalent because of the lack of 'on-street' evidence of homelessness.…”

The Revanchist Renewal of Yesterday's City of Tomorrow

“…This brings us to the idea of a “geography of revanchism”. Amsterdam's policies on homeless people are not as single‐mindedly punitive as the revanchist focus suggests: “Rather, within one city there can be multiple and even contradictory responses that ultimately produce an ambivalent homeless policy” (DeVerteuil 2006:118; see also Law 2001). The state does not neglect poverty, but rather manages homelessness and drug use to ensure social order at specific sites of control.…”

Where are the Beds? Housing Locations for Transition Age Youth Exiting Public Systems

“…As a result, shelter or supportive housing locations often become dependent upon service provider locations and lack of community opposition in those areas (Law, 2001). TAY who use these facilities may be exposed to problems or benefit from resources that are located in these neighborhoods.…”