Audit: L.A. Spending as Much as $837,000 per Unit of Housing for Homeless
Despite apportioning over $1 billion for homeless housing, cost overruns and sluggish pacing threaten to jeopardize the city project.

Los Angeles has been called the "homeless capital of America" by housing advocates. More than one in 10 homeless Americans reside in Los Angeles County. In 2016, the city's voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition HHH, a ballot initiative that would put $1.2 billion toward building thousands of housing units for the homeless and at-risk, plus facilities which could treat addiction, mental illness, and other potential causes of homelessness. Now, with more than five years elapsed, the program is falling far short of expectations.
According to a new city audit, the program is "still unable to meet the demands of the homelessness crisis," and the total number of housing units built so far is "wholly inadequate." While the project is more than halfway to its projected completion date, the city is nowhere near halfway done building, and costs are skyrocketing. The initiative was pitched as delivering 10,000 housing units, but so far, only about 1,100 have been built. And even though more than 87 percent of the planned units are studio or one-bedroom apartments, the audit found that some units are costing more than $700,000 to build, with some costing as much as $837,000 apiece.
Or, as the city's mayor, Democrat Eric Garcetti, put it in a tweet, L.A. is "producing more units than promised, at a lower cost than expected."
In December 2019, Reason TV reported that after three years, only 1 percent of the total Proposition HHH housing stock had been built, and despite initially budgeting for each housing unit to cost around $350,000, the costs were exceeding $500,000.
Now, costs have only continued to increase, casting serious doubt on whether it is even possible for the city to achieve its goal.
The issues California faces with these housing units are the same ones it has always faced. The pandemic may have increased the costs of labor and materials, but California's cities have a long history of regulatory hurdles which artificially inflate the costs of not just construction, but also rents and mortgages. Regulations like minimum lot sizes or mandatory parking spaces make housing more expensive and price people out of the market, which further exacerbates the homelessness problem.
If L.A. truly wishes to tackle homelessness, then it should relax its zoning restrictions. This would allow more units of housing to be built more easily and without as much hassle as is currently involved.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I want pics of the $500,000 squat.
Ha. Ha.
This is such a fraud it's amazing people are not in jail over this
I guarantee they’d rather take the cash.
It's simple math really. If your objective is to just hang around shooting heroin all day, take the $800k and move to bumfuck Iowa. You can shoot heroin in air conditioning with cable TV for years with that kind of seed money.
If you stay in LA all you get is some shitty apartment and way less subsidized heroin, what a bum deal.
Absolutely. Even the lower end range of $500,000 can get you a full home anyplace east of I-5 and west of I-95. And plenty of places where you can live for a decade or two on that in a comfortable apartment.
But for the most part, the homeless live in a dense urban areas and the affluent areas, because that's where the panhandling is the best. And they're not panhandling to make money, it's for the drugs and the knowledge that no one in those places is going to tell them to move on.
Should somethign happen and I become homeless, I might stick around those areas for the slim prospect of landing a decent job. But once it sunk in that I couldn't, I would be moving out of the city where it's cheap and I could get a job pushing a broom. But I would have to push the broom because panhandling outside of the cities just don't cut it.
A full home? $800k can get you a full-on McMansion in a good chunk of the country. How are they spending so much on studio apartmens?
Its not that. You know how the mob got the unions in the 1970s and the cartels have the Mexican government. The cartels have most of California now. Nothing better than to stash foot soldiers and dealers and some coyote traffickers and illegals in luxury apartments, while they flip the next vacancy after an OD. They have the cities now. Thats the reason for $600/month to homeless, clean needles, free Netflix etc. They’ve taken NY and Chicago too. It’s purely a rational business decision on the cartels and illegal trafficking networks.
Well, here's a different consideration:
The average winter low temp for Des Moines, Iowa: 17 degrees F
The average winter low temp for LA, California: 49 degrees F
Now, if you were going to be homeless either way, which city would you rather live in?
Why not Fresno? (Fresno being a popular Hollywood stand in for Des Moines). Yes, Fresno also has a big homeless problem. All cities have it. But it's still better than Los Angeles. Or no need to go that far north, what about Bakersfield? Or Tulare? Or any of the tiny towns in between?
The answer is they'll be told to move along. The panhandling sucks in Tulare. All three prime panhandling spots at the outlet mall have already been taken up. Most bums just move on to Fresno.
So how much of this $800k is going to "politically connected" people and groups and how much is actually being spent on the units?
There is a joke. A City in Illinois needed to build a fence. They requested that three contractors look at the specifications and submit bids. The City Official handling this invited contractors from Ohio, Indiana and Chicago. The contractor from Ohio comes in, is shown the specifications, crunches some numbers and says "My bit is One Million Dollars." The contractor from Indiana comes in, reviews the specifications, crunches the numbers and says "My bid is Three Million Dollars." Then the guy from Chicago comes in and doesn't review the specifications and says "My bid is Five Million Dollars." The City Official says "You didn't even look at the specifications. How did you come up with your bid?" The guy from Chicago says "Easy. Two million for you. Two million for me and we hire the guy from Ohio."
It's looking less and less like a joke every day. Homelessness is big business in California. When you look at things like this, non-profits running shelters and social workers, there's a lot of people making a lot of money.
Your observation that, allow me to paraphrase, non-profits and government are in an unholy alliance to allegedly "help" the homeless, while helping themselves instead, is spot on.
I'd like to add, a lot of that money came from the homeless in LA in the taxes they pay. Every penny they spend is part sales tax, part of the taxes the business pays, and part of the income of the people working for the business. The point being, high taxes plus freebies to the homeless, creates more homelessness. If you build it [non-profit homeless services], they will come.
I much prefer private charities (not supported by taxation) give out charity as they see fit, rather than false charity from government which is immoral to start, because the government takes money from people via force to do it. Private charities require no use of force to deliver charity, which makes them so much superior to government welfare; morally, financially, and in the success of their efforts.
Are you sure you’re not taking about New Jersey?
Watch us tax the fuck out of housing to pay for housing.
"Despite apportioning over $1 billion for homeless housing, cost overruns and sluggish pacing threaten to jeopardize the city project."
I'm shocked by this. I was absolutely certain that a government project to end homelessness would be wildly successful.
Depends on your definition of "successful".
It's wildly successful in putting tax money into the pockets of non-profit for homeless management businesses, who also kick back enough to the politicians directing the spending, in campaign cash. That's where the money's going. And look how successful they are at it!!!
If 10 percent of the nation's homeless are in LA, can't they just spend ten times as much (a paltry 10 billion) and solve the problem for everyone?
Sounds about right.
I bet they could build them "not in LA" a lot cheaper, but then how do you get the bums to stay there?
On the other hand, many union workers got a good gig.
And many unions got more dues money.
And many (D) politicians got larger contributions.
Many lower and middle class people moved out of CA, most of whom were white.
Win, win, win, win.
To paraphrase Ms. Thatcher
The problem with places like California is eventually you run out of other people's money.
Or import so many people that live off the state while driving out the tax base that eventually you are upside down on the ledger sheet. Fortunately, the Democratic nation of America can funnel our federal dollars their way to help out.
They could always just soak the big employers and the highly paid tech workers. Until "work from home" became reality, about 2 years ago.
They just need more. It's not enough. If we just give them MORE it'll work.
I'll sell them my house for $837,000. It has 4 bedrooms and I'll even buy bus tickets for 4 homeless people to leave LA to come live here
I bet your neighbors will be happy.
Doesn't matter; they won't be his neighbors anymore.
So the question is- Who is collecting and how are they tied to the politicians that created this initiative?
Look, anyone who thinks the goal of all this spending is to end homelessness is a fucking moron.
We are well into decades of a social services homeless industry, that employs thousands of people in government, NGOs, and contractors. Why would they want to end their careers by solving the problem?
So weird a city that subsidizes homelessness to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars has such a huge homeless problem. Who'da thunk.
Yet again, government is not the solution and California takes the results of its votes square to the face.