Properties in Eagle Rock, Lincoln Heights & Los Feliz could be used to ease homeless problem

Screenshot 2016-04-25 at 8

Lincoln Heights parking lot is a potential housing site

Mayor Eric Garcetti’s city budget  calls for spending $138 million on homeless services, a sharp increase from previous years. But where would that money come from?  A significant chunk – about $47 million – would come from selling or using 14 city owned properties for affordable housing or for storage facilities reserved for the homeless. Some of those city owned properties are located in Eagle Rock, Lincoln Heights and Los Feliz:

  • Eagle Rock: Housing is proposed for nearly 40,000-square-feet of maintenance yards used by the city and the L.A. Department of Water and Power at 2239 Fair Park Avenue near Eagle Rock Boulevard.
  • Lincoln Heights: Public parking lots that serve the neighborhood’s North Broadway business district  could be used for housing. The lots, which occupy more than 114,000-square-feet of space, are located north and south of Broadway at  136-164 S. Avenue 24 and 216-224 S. Avenue 24.  Also in Lincoln Heights, a sanitation facility at 452 N. San Fernando Road could be used for storage facilities for the homeless.
  • Los Feliz: The nearly 30,000-square-foot Friendship Auditorium property and ancillary buildings at 3201 Riverside Drive near Griffith Park could also be used for storage facilities for the homeless.

It’s far from certain if those properties will be able to be used or developed as proposed in the budget. Also, city officials said the list is not final and that other properties could come up for consideration.

The proposal met with a mixed reaction, with some questioning the feasibility of the site and wondering how neighboring residents and property owners will react. Kerry Morrison of the Hollywood Property Owners Alliance, which operates two business improvement districts, told KPCC:

“Where are these properties located? Will the neighbors readily accept (affordable housing) projects there?” …. “Will there be emergency provisions passed that will allow expedited development?”


The Eastsider’s Daily email digest includes all new content published on The Eastsider during the last 24 hours. Expect the digest to land in your in email in box around 7 p.m. It’s free to sign up!

Once you submit your information, please check your email box to confirm your subscription.


  1. I agree that the city needs to ease the homeless problem… but does Eagle Rock really need 40,000 square feet of housing right next to the new Sprouts (can you imagine the panhandling scene?) We already have a brand new building for the homeless on ER boulevard and another one is coming up down the street. This problem is real and needs to be shouldered by all. Not just NELA and the Eastside. Affordable housing needs to be spread out and integrated throughout the city so we don’t turn certain neighbordhoods into homeless cantons.

    • Seriously? I think you’re the only one worried about homeless ppl panhandling @ a freakin supermarket….Not to worry about the homeless ppl panhandling @ overpriced supermarket sunshine most would be more concerned about a rise in crime… Not about who might steal my kale!! SMH?

    • No one has said the homeless will get to move in there. Garcetti is claiming it is for the homeless benefit, but he considers any housing at any price to be a benefit for the homeless – even though the homeless somehow remain homeless and even increase in numbers in the face of housing built for the wealthy.

      This is not being called housing exclusively for people coming off the street, it is simply being called housing because that is all it is, not something reserved for the homeless. This is NOT housing for the homeless; this is just housing.

      But you can be guaranteed it will be seriously overbuilt and out of whack with the surrounding neighborhood, in violation of existing zoning and community plan – because that is always what Garcetti pushes, whether housing development or any other development (like the Target project at Sunset and Western, which he behind people’s backs pushed Target to double the size of the project, completely in violation of the zoning there and the community plan).

  2. We held my daughter’s wedding at the Friendship Auditorium. It’s a beautiful place. It would be a loss to the City to change it into a storage facility.

  3. What ever happened to the FEMA trailers? Didn’t the government have something like 140,000 of them
    after Katrina? Except for the formaldehyde, I hear they were quite nice…

  4. Plenty of room for these all over town… http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469054634/la-officials-bring-the-hammer-down-on-tiny-houses-for-homeless

    Unfortunately we care a lot more about subsidized parking than we do subsidized housing in this city.

  5. Eagle Rock is a great community, but unfortunately a bit complacent and a bit naive and I think the politicians including possibly Mayor Garcetti have decided that they are an unorganized community of pushovers and so this homeless housing complex is very likely to go through. A project like this would NEVER be proposed to be built in the heart of Silver Lake, as an example, because the community here is organized and would put up an unbeatable fight.

    Of course homelessness is a huge problem but is it appropriate to build multiple homeless housing complexes in the heart of a community that is just starting to come into its own? I think it isn’t appropriate or fair and as buster stated, the homeless should be housed throughout the city, not concentrated in just one neighborhood.

    • Let’s hope the ER community wakes up. On a more practical note, this property is in a highly desirable location — practically at the intersection of ER and Colorado Blvds. The property is probably worth millions. Wouldn’t it make
      more sense for the city to sell it at market value, then use the proceeds to buy properties in less expensive areas, perhaps closer to public transportation? Siince these is public funds we’re talking about, they should be spent wisely (ha ha). Homeless people should be given a roof over their heads, but does that roof need to be in a location that 75% of the city couldn’t afford to live?

      • Highland Parkour

        Yes! Sell it to a commercial or residential developer at market rate, that property is quite valuable and the proceeds could be better utilized elsewhere. A very good point made by Buster.

    • “A project like this would NEVER be proposed to be built in the heart of Silver Lake, as an example, because the community here is organized and would put up an unbeatable fight.”

      It’s unclear if that’s a plus or a minus for SL as compared to ER, though. The new SL is less and less appealing.

  6. The idea of providing storage facilities for homeless people seems improbable unless they are going to camp out next to them, causing the same public health and other problems the facilities are supposed to be solving. Can someone please explain how the storage units are supposed to function?

  7. Let me get this straight. They are taking the meager possessions of lots and lots and lots of people on Skid Row, near the few private homeless missions, and the proposal is to store that for them to be able to get at and either use or retrieve – at Friendship Auditorium, five miles away from where the people are, at the homeless missions? So are they really expected to spend every single day walking 5+ miles to Friendship Auditorium and then back again to the soup kitchens? This is supposed to be a REAL attempt to do something, not just yet another fake from Garcetti?

    And this after Garcetti himself made one of his earliest of many moves to roust and harass the homeless, running them out of the desolate area of Riverside Drive where for 50+ years homeless people have lived in cars away from residential areas and next to the freeway? He even had one of his big photo op announcements of how wonderful it was that he was rousting them! In other words, first run them out of the Riverside Drive area, then pretend that location is so convenient for them, right where they can easily get at their property – -but of course, he isn’t going to let them back in there or anyplace else near their property?

    Garcetti has spent more than a decade, since early in his career on the City Council, rousting and harassing the homeless to no end, he helped shepard through the city’ s policy to send in the police to Skid Row to find any excuse whatsoever to throw the homeless in jail — if they even find a homeless person with their few belongings in a shopping cart, they are throwing them in jail for that. And even when they can’t find even so much as jaywalking as an excuse to jail them, they are rousting and harassing to no end — and taking their only property away, sending it five miles away to Los Feliz.

    And now Garcetti wants to lie to us about how much he cares about and wants to help the homeless?

    And actually, no, $138 million is not a lot more. We have be spending in the budget about $100 million – but 80% of that has been for sending in the police, not for services or housing for homeless! They categorize sending in the police to find excuses to arrest the homeless a service for the homeless. In fact, abotu the same 80$ of this $138 million proposal will go to other than services directly for the homeless – it is instead being diverted to Garcetti’s long policy of drastic overdevelopment — that’s all this sale of parking lots for housing will be, they are going to sell to developers, and the developers can build completely out of whack with the surrounding area, like Garcetti is doing everywhere (for instance the 27-story building in Koreatown in a neighborhood with buildings of only 2-6 stories in height and zoned for no more than six stories and int he community plan as the same).

    Of course, all the city approves for building of housing is housing for the rich, it’s all you can do to get literally a few units built for what they call “affordable housing,” which the city classifies as a one-bedroom apartment renting for $1,600 a month!

    • You bring up a lot of fair points.

      However, I think it’s important to point out that building more housing will add supply to the market (helping stabilize rents in a very tight market.) Sure a lot of new housing is luxury, but that’s mainly because of our byzantine zoning and approvals process (multi-year approvals process from CEQA; and exclusionary housing policies like minimum parking requirements.) And anyway, most affordable housing was built as market rate housing, and only became “affordable” as it aged (and newer, more desirable housing was built nearby.)

      And ultimately, more infill development creates far greater tax revenue for the city (using existing land and infrastructure) so we are better equipped to subsidize shelters and services for those in need. What’s the alternative… higher taxes?

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *