L.A. Wants To Commandeer Vacant Hotel Rooms as Homeless Housing
Los Angeles voters will decide in March whether to force hotels to report empty rooms to the city and accept vouchers from homeless people.

To solve its worst-in-the-nation homelessness problem, Los Angeles is considering the novel and legally suspect approach of commandeering empty hotel rooms as shelter housing.
Come March, city voters will decide on a ballot initiative backed by the hotel union Unite Here requiring hotels to report their empty rooms to the city's housing department. The homeless would then be given vouchers to rent the vacant rooms. Hotels don't have to leave those rooms available; they just can't refuse service to homeless customers paying with housing vouchers.
The idea has its roots in Project Roomkey, a federally funded, state-run initiative during the pandemic that moved the homeless out of superspreader congregate shelters and into empty hotels. Project Roomkey and similar programs in other states worked smoothly enough because the feds were willing to pick up the tab, few business travelers or tourists were looking for rooms, and hotel participation was voluntary.
Now that people are traveling again for business and pleasure, hotel owners are less eager to rent rooms in normally operating hotels to the homeless. They are especially not happy about being required to do so by law. They complain that the ballot initiative wouldn't provide hotels and hotel staff any help dealing with disruptive homeless guests they'd be forced to house.
"Unite Here is fighting to fill all LA-area hotels with the same types of activities you see on Skid Row. If they succeed, they'll jeopardize the safety of both hotel guests and workers, virtually destroy the city's tourism industry, and cause massive job losses," said Chip Rogers, who runs the trade group American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA), in a recent statement.
Not all hotel workers like the idea either. A number testified against the proposal when the L.A. City Council was first considering it, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The Unite Here Local 11, whose members are in the middle of a two-month strike, is still vigorously pushing the plan. One of its demands is that hotel owners endorse their ballot initiative. That seems unlikely, as does passage of the ballot initiative itself. A poll conducted by the AHLA found that 86 percent of Angelenos "believe the city should not prioritize housing homeless people in hotels."
Whether or not the ballot initiative is merely a cynical bargaining chip, it's certainly misguided. Forcing hotels to accept homeless guests is just another game of musical chairs played with the city's insufficient number of beds, rooms, and homes. New construction is needed. Thankfully, that can happen without worsening hotels for workers, guests, and owners.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
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
Empty hotel rooms? How about all the empty rooms in mansions owned by tech and Hollywood types?
The good people of Los Angeles have been kicking this idea around for at least 5 years. So your idea is very progressive.
Now that everyone's a populist, bipartisanship should be easy!
Didn't SF do this like ten years ago? I think Reason covered it. I'll have to do some googling.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by follow instructions on this website……………..> > http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
That happened in Charlotte too.
The city council was so shocked when the hotel was trashed.
Let me know when The French Laundry accepts EBT.
I'd settle for all the empty rooms owned by the hotel union leaders pushing for this ballot initiative. If they're good enough people to live free next to me while I'm on a vacation or a business trip, they should be plenty good enough to live with you at home, right?
"Not all hotel workers like the idea either."
Scraping shit off the walls and stepping on used needles is only fun for a while.
I'd say the owners are being very shortsighted as well looking for that subsidy. I swear the people who talk the loudest about helping the homeless haven't spent any time with them. The ones who want to get out of the situation usually aren't really a burden on others to begin with. The remainder are some combination of physically disabled, mentally incapable, or most often lazy addicts. Most aid to them enables destructive behavior
The ones who want to get out of the situation usually aren’t really a burden on others to begin with. The remainder are some combination of physically disabled, mentally incapable, or most often lazy addicts. Most aid to them enables destructive behavior
Yep. And then there's a small percentage who could pull themselves up by the bootstraps if they wanted, but they like the hobo lifestyle.
I suspect the % isn't as small as you suggest.
Yes, the problem is the law does not and cannot easily make a distinction between the various types of homeless. It is going to mandate that these hotels take in the most irresponsible drug addict who has all but given up on life along with those who want to be in a better spot and are down on their luck for the moment. It is the former who make things dangerous and destroy the rooms.
But any honest and decent individual can probably do a pretty good job figuring out who is just down on their luck and who is a crazy addict.
Doesn't help that a lot of bleeding heart types seem to assume that all of the addicts, etc. are also just down on their luck, or victims of capitalism or something, keeping the issue nice and muddy.
Ha, ha, ha ha ha, snort!
Ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha.
Putting homeless in a hotel with paying customers is the quickest way to destroy the tourist industry.
I would not let my family stay in a hotel where homeless get in the elevator with them.
I’m certain most other tourists would feel the same
Anyone on in LA thinking hotels should be forced to accept street trash is currently free to house those guests. Why isn’t the Unite Here Local 11 taking these folks in?
Why not use the manorial system to solve homelessness?
1. We don't live in medieval Europe
2. See the Thirteenth Amendment
3. Your sarcasm meter is broken.
Please follow these steps to unsubscribe yourself.
First, ask your Internet Provider to mail you an Unsubscribing Kit. Then follow these directions.
The kit will most likely be the standard no-fault type. Depending on requirements, System A and/or System B can be used. When operating System A, depress lever and a plastic dalkron unsubscriber will be dispensed through the slot immediately underneath. When you have fastened the adhesive lip, attach connection marked by the large "X" outlet hose. Twist the silver-coloured ring one inch below the connection point until you feel it lock.
The kit is now ready for use. The Cin-Eliminator is activated by the small switch on the lip. When securing, twist the ring back to its initial condition, so that the two orange lines meet. Disconnect. Place the dalkron unsubscriber in the vacuum receptacle to the rear. Activate by pressing the blue button.
The controls for System B are located on the opposite side. The red release switch places the Cin-Eliminator into position; it can be adjusted manually up or down by pressing the blue manual release button. The opening is self-adjusting. To secure after use, press the green button, which simultaneously activates the evaporator and returns the Cin-Eliminator to its storage position.
You may log off if the green exit light is on over the evaporator. If the red light is illuminated, one of the Cin-Eliminator requirements has not been properly implemented. Press the "List Guy" call button on the right of the evaporator. He will secure all facilities from his control panel.
To use the Auto-Unsub, first undress and place all your clothes in the clothes rack. Put on the velcro slippers located in the cabinet immediately below. Enter the shower, taking the entire kit with you. On the control panel to your upper right upon entering you will see a "Shower seal" button. Press to activate. A green light will then be illuminated immediately below. On the intensity knob, select the desired setting. Now depress the Auto-Unsub activation lever. Bathe normally.
The Auto-Unsub will automatically go off after three minutes unless you activate the "Manual off" override switch by flipping it up. When you are ready to leave, press the blue "Shower seal" release button. The door will open and you may leave. Please remove the velcro slippers and place them in their container.
If you prefer the ultrasonic log-off mode, press the indicated blue button. When the twin panels open, pull forward by rings A & B. The knob to the left, just below the blue light, has three settings, low, medium or high. For normal use, the medium setting is suggested.
After these settings have been made, you can activate the device by switching to the "ON" position the clearly marked red switch. If during the unsubscribing operation you wish to change the settings, place the "manual off" override switch in the "OFF" position. You may now make the change and repeat the cycle. When the green exit light goes on, you may log off and have lunch. Please close the door behind you.
Lol
LOL!
Never thought of that. I kept looking on Google for instructions.
Thanks a lot.
Team Blue: We are so compassionate towards the homeless that we will use government coercion to force everyone else to take care of them whether they like it or not.
Team Red: The homeless are a blight on society and they should be thrown in jail, rounded up into camps, or otherwise taken out of sight of polite society.
What I support: Most homeless people don’t want to be homeless, so find a strategy for each person that addresses that individual’s issues that lead to homelessness, whether it is mental health or addiction or poverty. A one-size-fits-all government bureaucracy cannot do that, and throwing them into jail or some camp won’t do that either. It takes individual attention to the issues of each person, and it takes a spirit of compassion and volunteerism to do this.
So, which team will support this strategy, or something close to this?
You can't force someone to quit an addiction. If they like what they're doing they're not going to quit. So forcing people into rehab or making them see them addiction/mental health counselors is a waste of time and money. Help is readily available to anyone who seeks it out.
No one is stopping you from doing that. Keep us posted about how your efforts are going.
Sure, we should hire 600,000 butlers to escort the hobos thru life in a personalized fashion.
Chen Jeff,
You are completely wrong about “most homeless people don’t want to be homeless”
If they were of normal mental status they would take advantage of the welfare programs that provide housing and food and cash assistance.
The people living on the street are not regular citizens down on their luck.
These are severely mentally ill or drug addicted people.
They prefer living in a tent as they do not want treatment.
You're kind of right. Some homeless people like the lifestyle. They can't be helped. Others were living paycheck to paycheck and got laid off. Most of them will get back on their feet.
The ones who need help are the addicts and the mentally ill. Problem is that you can't force help upon people who don't want it. If you insist then they will just waste it or abuse it.
There aren't any easy answers.
Had a family member who was periodically homeless for several decades. She had a loving home, but ultimately there were expectations placed on her - some as simple as staying on her bipolar meds. She would ultimately always escape her comfortable life with her parents, and go back to her “family” of homeless who never placed demands on her. Sometimes (off her meds) she might be a bit crazy, but there was always someone down the block even crazier.
Who is going to adminster this strategy?
The same Homeless Industrial Complex non-profits that have zero incentive to make any sort of dent in the "homeless population"?
The government, who can't seem to do anything right?
The problem is the safety net is a hammock. You want to be "homeless"? Great, have at it, but you're not getting any assistance whatsover unless it's from volunteers/charities.
We'll see how quickly the "homeless" population drops.
Most homeless people don’t want to be homeless
That's true only of the short-term homeless—people sleeping on their brother's couch for a few weeks while they're between jobs, or someone sleeping in their van after relocating and before finding housing. Most of the chronic homeless in effect do choose to remain homeless, in that their behavior makes availing themselves of opportunities for housing or employment impossible. Shelters, public housing programs, training programs, and employers all of necessity have rules and behavioral expectations. The chronic homeless are largely pathologically uncooperative, inconsiderate, rude, and disruptive. That in fact is WHY they end up chronically homeless. They prefer living on the streets to doing what anyone else asks them to do or moderating their behavior in a civilized manner.
I like this idea.
You gather all the vagrants up, and I'll go get my magic wand.
"throwing them into jail or some camp won’t do that either."
But didn't you just mostly describe the prison system?
Parole Officers 1-on-1, work release, and all. Some being more equipped than others of course.
No mention of who picks up the bill when these people trash the hotel rooms.
The same people who paid for the hotel rooms in the first place. People who pay taxes are suckers.
^^THIS^^. Work and get robbed blind or join the robbers-gang.
It amazes me how so many can keep lobbying for more socialism when it's so obvious that socialism is the very consequence of what they aim to cure. It's like "How to build a house with a wrecking ball."
Taking?
The voucher means they are being compensated, unless the owner can prove that the damage done to the hotel both physically and reputationally is more than the voucher money.
I wonder if this sort of thing might qualify as a 3rd Amendment violation?
Can those hotels charge $3000 or so for each "available" room they're forced to report?
Maybe if they provide hookers.
I’d be willing to bet the ‘voucher’ is below market rate compensation that also doesn’t address little things like damages to the property or the inevitable deaths from overdose.
Fact is, it’s an either/or situation for the hotels. Do they want paying guests, or do they want to be a homeless shelter?
You can’t do both, since most human’s are not going to pay good money to stay in a homeless shelter.
Why doesn't LA do what sf did? Sf got their homeless population down to 0 in 1 day
It’s easy to Xi how easy it was.
Winner
I have already experienced the results of this type of policy. LA County provides housing to many homeless in hotels as semi-permanent housing already. I stayed in a mid-range hotel with a kitchenette, hoping to save money on meals, a few years ago, and the first night was a constant barrage of police sirens and bright lights from the police activity in the parking lot. I realized all the people hanging out on the sidewalks were not tourists, they were drug dealers operating from the hotel. I checked out the next morning and moved to a much higher priced hotel. I swore to NEVER return to Los Angeles for work or conventions ever again.
It will destroy the hotels that take in these people. They will lose all customers who are not being paid for by the city or the county. They will eventually be forced to close as the building and their reputation is destroyed by their clientele. Next, after the drug dealing and drug use, will be prostitution and organized crime. I can see it now, LA gangs buying distressed hotels to fill with rents guaranteed and paid by the city for their own prostitution and drug operations. Its the road to the bottom.
hotels hosting the correct card games need not apply.
How big is the Governor's mansion and doesn't Newsome have a palatial estate of his own anyway? Put your hobos where your mouth is Gavin.
Micro-eminent domain.
Let them camp on the lawn at the capital building.
The Pelosi’s had one as a houseguest not long ago. And that went totally well.
Yeah, watch it burn.
As long as they are doing it - apply it to AIrbnb too
I can't imagine this will improve anything on the streets either. Seems to me that cities get as much homelessness as they are willing to pay for. Who wouldn't want to move to LA if they will let you do drugs on the street all day and then put you up in a hotel?
Which they won't be able to afford.
Gavin Newsom, ersatz libertarian is on the case.
The members of the LA city council are stupid as the day is long, but they do provide a valuable service to the rest of the country:
They are poster children for what leadership looks like in a blue city with absolute single party control.
Good thing Democrats don’t have similar plans for the rest of the country.
My 100% Democrat city council (Board of Aldermen) is currently working on a 'Homeless Bill of Rights' that will legalize their ability to camp wherever they want and defecate on the sidewalk, and not get arrested for trespassing or harassing or assaulting people. (Still completely illegal for the rest of us)
Meanwhile, they are also working to import a significant number of (illegal) 'migrants' that Chicago can't handle. Apparently they felt slighted by the fact that Biden / Desantis / whoever didn't ship the border problem our way, and want a piece of the action.
This is why we should get rid of the democrats.
Hey, Britches, let's agree to disagree, and call this a novel form of "upzoning".
This is just a bargaining chip by the unions.
Of course, LA voters and politicians may just be stupid enough to pass it anyway.
In other news, BadLib Hotel has has seen a dramatic increase in rooms we can't rent out because they haven't been fully serviced yet (due to labor shortages, they seem to be missing one washcloth in each room).
So, unfortunately, we have no vacancies at the time we report our vacancies to the city.
By coincidence, once the person responsible for reporting the vacancies has completed that task, they free up to take the missing washcloths to the rooms just after reporting our vacancies.
Although we often discover, just before reporting again the next day, that our staff is sloppy and put the wrong washcloth in vacant rooms and will need to fix that before the room is available to rent. Corporate quality and inventory control requires that only "second floor" washcloths be stocked in rooms on the second floor when rented to guests.
Good help is just so hard to find...
The union is demanding that owners make a political endorsement? If this isn't illegal it should be.
This is great news for those who own, or are thinking of building, hotels just outside LA city limits. Almost like a subsidy.
Because of course ... "You didn't build that..." Hotel. [WE] did.
F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] and their armed-theft ?justice?.
Why wouldn't anyone want to be homeless in a Nazi-City? Working to own nothing or just squatting and getting freebies all day.
Maybe the very reason the USA isn't/wasn't a complete dumpsite is found in the very motivational difference between being a leech/armed-robber and a productive asset for society.
Los Angeles has no housing shortage. Please stop repeating that myth. We have over 110,000 vacancies and we are loosing hundreds of thousands of people each year. A city which is losing population cannot have a housing shortage, especially when it started with a glut of empty units
That depends on how quickly the housing stock is being destroyed. For instance, by forcing the owners to rent to mentally ill and destructive bums.