Dwelling⛺️

About Dwelling⛺️

Survival, justice and belonging for The Unhoused, 100% made in public By Ruth @roofless, host of weekly X Displacement Spaces (Sundays 7pm PST), an ongoing discussion for and about global displacement and local housing and homelessness roofless.substack.com (https://roofless.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Ruth @roofless

Category

business · news

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

6 Dec 2023

Latest episode

27 Sept 2026

Latest episodes

37 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   27 Sept 2026

   Hollywood’s HIGHLAND GARDENS Hotel has been housing the homeless since 2021...how’s it going?

   The Los Angeles Mayor’s race between incumbent Karen Ruth Bass and District 4 Councilwoman-challenger candidate Nithya Raman largely boils down to nuances in their homelessness strategies. Bass’ signature Citywide Inside Safe program “ISP” and Raman’s single CD4 hotel shelter site, Highland Gardens “HLG,” their respective interim housing programs, are, by most measures, quite similar. Exclusive data obtained from these two “homeless housing” hotel experiments reveals differences in strategy and cost, and raises questions about equity and accountability. Thanks for reading roofless! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Landmark Lore Hollywood’s Highland Gardens hotel, originally called the Landmark Motor Inn, is infamous for being the place Janis Joplin checked into at age 27 while recording Pearl at Sunset Sound, and never checked out. As Eagles’ Hotel California warns: “‘Relax’ said the Night Man. ‘We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.’” —Eagles’ Hotel California (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09839DpTctU&list=RD09839DpTctU&start_radio=1) (Hotel California, 1976) The lore goes: Joplin passed away of a heroin overdose in Room 105 on October 4th, 1970, immediately after purchasing cigarettes from a vending machine after getting change from the front desk. She was found unresponsive on the floor by the bed, a half-smoked cigarette in the ashtray. Days later, The Beatles’ John Lennon and Yoko Ono received a posthumous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Trails_(song)) tape from Joplin singing Happy Trails to Lennon for his October 9th birthday. Three months after her unexpected death at the hotel now called Highland Gardens, on January 11th, 1971, Pearl was released to critical acclaim, topping the Billboard 200 for nine weeks. Roomkey to Roadmap to Raman Located near the Magic Castle at 7047 Franklin Avenue and Sycamore, the Highland Gardens is the subject of an $18M contract (https://www.rampla.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069Ql000010wrd6IAA?operationContext=S1) between the Housing Department of the City of LA “LAHD” and LA Homeless Services Authority “LAHSA” (as the vendor). The contract ends on October 31st, 2027, costing roughly $105 per bed, per night. That puts the price of shelter in Nithya Raman’s program at a fraction of Mayor Bass’. Additionally, LAHSA has a contract (https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/lacontroller-2b7de.appspot.com/o/AllianceInsideSafeDetail%2FAlliance%2Fcontract-pdf%2F2022BHRIH023.pdf?alt=media&token=957bcc1e-96aa-4bbb-bec5-236d1526b5d2) with service provider People Assisting The Homeless “PATH” per the LA Alliance Roadmap Program and Settlement Agreement. HLG operated as a Project Roomkey site from July 2021 to October 2022, then it was de-mobilized and reopened by CD4 as an interim shelter site on December 19th, 2022. Therefore, it has been housing local homeless people and families on an “interim” basis continuously (except during November 2022) for over six years, despite being a commercially zoned property. Currently, 78 people have been staying for over two years each. From the hotel’s 72 rooms, there have been a wide range of outcomes tracked by service provider PATH. On average, each bed has turned over four times since the site opened. HIGHLAND GARDENS Participant Statuses & Outcomes Data period: 12/27/22 (Opening)–9/10/26 * Rooms: 72 x2 beds each * Turnover: 4x/bed since opening * 559 intakes from 12/19/22 (opening) through 9/10/26 (https://app.box.com/s/8teas2sw26v27a4q8nvhdxlqnghppucp) (+134 since 7/2/25 (https://app.box.com/s/ai5wtyfrtj7ht69rgavl4a63p9obk3ln)) * 78 Permanent Housing outcomes (14%) * 48 Permanent Supportive Housing “PSH” (+38) * 9 Time-Limited Subsidies “TLS” (no change)* * 16 reunifications (+2) * 5 market-rate housing exits (+2) * 155 Interim Housing statuses (28%) * 138 currently in hotel (+8) * 17 transfers to other shelters (+5) * 209 Program Exits (37%) * 160 exits to street (+12) * 41 incarcerations (+20) * 8 deceased (+1) * 47 readmissions (8%) * (+12 since 7/2/25) * 70 unaccounted for (13%) * Average length of stay: 295 days (+31 days) +380% PSH placements in the past 14 months, no TLS The great news is 38 people have obtained PSH units in the last 14 months, an increase of 380% compared to the period from 12/19/22—7/2/25. However, an additional 20 people exited to incarceration, a nearly 100% increase. Nine people have exited HLG to Time-Limited Subsidies “TLS,” although none have had this outcome, also called Rapid Re-Housing or shallow subsidy, in the last 14 months. More or all may be eligible for TLS, but they will first need to find a landlord who will accept it, and it pays rents for up to two years. 160 HLG intakes resulted in exits to the street, or 29%. Unlike permanent “Mission”-style shelters, which do not get funding from the government, non-congregate hotel and motel accommodations like HLG and the Inside Safe shelter sites will eventually be “de-commissioned” regardless of individuals’ housing progress unless accommodations are secured in advance of every exit. I’ve written about the LA Alliance for Human Rights at length with Zachary Ellison (https://substack.com/profile/109111292-zachary-ellison). Here is my most recent piece on Alliance’s settlement with the City: In 2024, I calculated (https://roofless.substack.com/p/checking-out-las-shelter-motels) the nightly cost of ISP and compared it to “the LA River program” in CD4: 47 participant-tenants out of 559 total intakes have returned to HLG at least once, or 8% of intakes, whereas ISP does not appear to track re-admissions. Still haunted by Joplin’s heroin demise, HLG now has a robust Narcan distribution system, including a free naloxone vending machine, rather than the old one selling cigarettes. The HLG shelter program operates with a strict double-occupancy rule, facilitating the harm reduction “buddy system” philosophy: “Never use alone.” (https://neverusealone.com/resources/) Still, eight people have passed away in the Highland Gardens’ transitional housing program, with one of those deaths occurring in the past 14 months. Why are 70 people who did intakes at HLG seemingly unaccounted for? 70 HLG participant-tenants have no recorded statuses, with 36 of them having completed an intake between December 19, 2022 and July 2nd, 2025 and the other 34 entering the program sometime on or after July 3rd, 2025 through September 10th, 2026. I asked Nithya Raman’s Homelessness Deputy, Patrick Siggins why 14% of unduplicated intakes have no recorded status, and he suggested that perhaps some housing outcomes were not properly recorded by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, “LAHSA.” He did not directly respond to my request for an official comment for this article. It is unclear on what basis, if any, CD4 have to challenge LAHSA’s data, which were produced by service provider People Assisting The Homeless “PATH,” Siggins’ former employer. 90 participants have been there for 730 days or longer, or 65% of the 138 people currently staying at the hotel. CD4 operates HLG, which borders on CD13, as an alternative model to the Mayor’s Inside Safe program. Unlike ISP, HLG maintains a long waitlist, offering little to people currently on the street who are acutely actively experiencing displacement at the hands of the City. Since HLG produces relatively few housing outcomes, it offers little more than a bed, food and a temporary reprieve from City sweeps for the 138 people who were staying there as of September 10th. A bed, food and relief from removal can feel like the world when you are on the street, and I don’t mean to downplay the importance of this resource, which is much more dignified than congregate shelter models like A Bridge Home “ABH.” In addition to having one of the only interim shelter sites in the City, with the other being the Mayfair in Eunisses Hernandez’ CD1, CD4 has more ABH locations than any other district in the City. I wrote about the “Interim Housing-Homeless Services” (IHHS) funds attached to ABH locations, and how this funding benefits the Los Angeles Police Department “LAPD”: The current re-housing system requires formerly homeless people to return to the streets if they leave or get kicked out, if they want to access non-congregate shelter again. People with documented histories of homelessness should be able to reach out to a caseworker and re-enter shelter immediately. If our politicians truly want “clean” streets, shelter programs will have to work harder to retain their participant-tenants in their placements until permanent housing can be obtained. CD4 has only participated in three Inside Safe operations, with two of them occurring at Fwy 101 and Cahuenga. A planned ISP operation was supposed to shelter people living on the LA River in CD4 at the infamous Park Motel (now NOX) for the entire year of 2024 at a cost of $600,000, or roughly $70 per bed, per night (at double occupancy), but it was cancelled. I wrote about that doomed CD4 Inside Safe operation on the LA River: Despite cancelling the Inside Safe operation and not having immediate noncongregate shelter, and sometimes having no shelter whatsoever available to people being displaced, CD4 still carries out sweeps, including along the Los Angeles River wash, public access to which is supposed to be Constitutionally-protected at all times. Inside Safe is Mayor Bass’ signature Citywide interim shelter program. Inside Safe is Karen Bass’ effort to shelter homeless people in motels and hotels without a huge waiting list. The controversy over her program’s execution comes from its incorporation of encampment removals as a crucial element to the program’s process. ISP enrollment involves offering unhoused people an immediate opportunity to move indoors…although it is often not clear where exactly, or for how long, as the Mayor refuses to give people anything in writing, and makes no promises that caseworkers will provide a subsidy or match to a sustainable unit. * 136 Inside Safe program operations as of 7/31. 6,258 total ISP intakes as of 6/31: * 1,584 in permanent housing “PH” (25%) * 749 Permanent Supportive Housing * 529 in other subsidized PH * 140 on Time-Limited Subsidy* * 108 in unsubsidized PH * 58 reunified *TLS is not a permanent subsidy like Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. TLS, sometimes called Rapid Re-Housing or a “shallow subsidy” is for 6-24 months. 12% of ISP intakes result in PSH, compared to 9.8% of deduplicated HLG intakes. No HLG intakes resulted in “other subsidized PH” like Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers “HCVs,” but 529 ISP intakes achieved this permanent affordable housing outcome (8.5%). * 1,654 in interim housing (26%) * 1,200 in motels * 213 in the Mayfair * 166 in other interim housing * 48 in ISP San Pedro * 19 in Pallet shelters * 8 in A Bridge Home * 3,020 program exits (48%) * 2,712 are back on the streets * 1,843 returned to homelessness, and have had no contact with service providers * 869 are working with providers * 150 incarcerated * 121 deceased * 37 in medical/psychiatric facilities The Mayor’s Inside Safe program doesn’t appear to be tracking re-admissions, but I spoke to one person who claims to have been in four separate ISP operations, including the one on Aetna Street three years ago. Her testimony matched de-identified data I obtained from the City Administrative Officer “CAO” via lacity.NextRequest.com (http://lacity.NextRequest.com). Here’s my most recent Inside Safe audit (https://roofless.substack.com/p/inside-safe-audit-by-independent), which I published last year: Conclusion ISP houses more people than HLG and retains them longer, but ISP comes at double the cost and unnecessarily incorporates the trauma of “clean-up” removals into the process. A redesign could move people into permanent housing more quickly and facilitate voluntary upgrades to one’s housing. Any program where 30% of participants end up right back where they started cannot ethically require destruction of survival items as a requirement to entry…unless that is the real purpose of the program. About the exclusive data I originally requested Inside Safe documents from the City Administrative Officer “CAO” on April 12th, 2023, and the oldest Inside Safe participant data (https://app.box.com/s/fyx49bawk7k04l08vveet3h0je2wx6m4) I have came from the CAO in response to CPRA 23-9670 (https://lacity.nextrequest.com/requests/23-9670). That ISP spreadsheet, dated September 15th, 2023, formed the basis for the first article (https://roofless.substack.com/p/inside-safe-participants-sheltered-stressed-success-1c677443372d?r=gqrm3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web) I published on Inside Safe three years ago: I wrote about the difficulty obtaining information about ISP later that year: I originally requested HLG data from CD4 while residing in my miniature home on the streets of Nithya Raman’s district on June 18th, 2025, about a week before I also requested it from the CAO. Walter King, who no longer works for CD4, answered: Request 25-8638 (https://lacity.nextrequest.com/requests/25-8638) closed Hello, Our office cannot release these records as they would violate the privacy of the participants at the site, who are currently receiving services there. Releasing their records may deter others from accepting housing placements or other services from the Council Office in the future. Best, July 14, 2025, 3:08pm by Staff Walter King Around a week after my initial requests for HLG data from the City, June 24th, 2025, (http://pra@lahsa.org)I requested the participant statuses and outcomes from pra@lahsa.org (http://pra@lahsa.org). Since then, I’ve been removed by City workers at the direction of CD4 well over a dozen times. I got the HLG data from December 19th, 2022—July 2nd, 2025 on July 18th, 2025 from pra@lahsa.org (http://pra@lahsa.org) per CPRA 2425RR-11. (https://app.box.com/s/ai5wtyfrtj7ht69rgavl4a63p9obk3ln) I requested an updated version of the same data on April 24th this year and received seven replies from LAHSA notifying me of delays. LAHSA finally disclosed the update (https://app.box.com/s/8teas2sw26v27a4q8nvhdxlqnghppucp) with data from September 10th on September 16th. 👀 Exclusive raw program data👇 Highland Gardens metrics from pra@lahsa.org (http://pra@lahsa.org) 🔗 Click here (https://app.box.com/s/8teas2sw26v27a4q8nvhdxlqnghppucp) for 9/10/26 update. 🔗 Click here (https://app.box.com/s/ai5wtyfrtj7ht69rgavl4a63p9obk3ln) for 12/19/22–7/2/25 data. Inside Safe statuses from lacity.NextRequest.com (http://lacity.NextRequest.com) 🔗 Click here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VLdDV_cx4QcNCM0lVCqDHgLMnJl2hI7G/view?usp=drivesdk) for 1/31/25 PDF. 🔗 Click here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m3iX_h1n7vZCiLXMKZOBpJuVwIRLx-gh/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=100034561700046662025&rtpof=true&sd=true) for 12/31/24 data. 🔗 Click here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J2CWk4B99DLWhHU47MnMLmIvNL39QFRO/view?usp=drivesdk) for 10/31/24 PDF. 🔗 Click here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tLOeu7fgsnDBrfewruW67F-38m443QYl/view?usp=drivesdk) for 8/31/24 PDF. 🔗 Click here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17bBGJWa7ymJY5cXUGcw_CIXCWxqZJYXW/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=100034561700046662025&rtpof=true&sd=true) for 3/31/24 data. 🔗 Click here (https://app.box.com/s/fyx49bawk7k04l08vveet3h0je2wx6m4) for 9/15/23 data. All data obtained per FOIA/CPRA Please credit Ruth (https://substack.com/profile/28122699-ruth) if you use this data in your work. Thank you! Draw your own conclusions and let me know what you think in the comments!👇 Thanks for reading roofless! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Please come to this art show closing ceremony WE LIVE IN PUBLIC in Van Nuys from 4-7pm tonight! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit roofless.substack.com (https://roofless.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   22 Aug 2026

   DEAD MEN DON’T SETTLE: #LAAlliance Resurrect Deceased Plaintiff in $2.2M City Deal

   LA Alliance for Human Rights claims to hold the “homeless(ness) industrial system” accountable, a mission that appeals to the majority of people in Los Angeles, (espescially readers of @roofless (http://roofless.substack.com)!) regardless of housing status. Audit The Government (https://substack.com/profile/379250216-audit-the-government) recently wrote (https://www.auditthegovernment.org/investigations/kahn-scolnick-federalist-society-los-angeles-homelessness-fraud) about a City defense attorney’s conflict-of-interest in the LA Alliance case, claiming on a Substack livestream (https://substack.com/@auditthegovernment/note/c-314074965?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=gqrm3) that homeless people are deprived a voice in court, as well as access to basic resources. Thanks for reading roofless! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. I agree, which is why I write roofless (https://open.substack.com/pub/roofless)… How did Alliance treat an unhoused person to whom they actually owed care and attention? Six years after their original complaint (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.1.0_2.pdf) was filed on March 10th, 2020, LA Alliance, to me, are just another nonprofit making millions of dollars off the struggle of the unsheltered. “The L.A. Alliance is our best hope” —Unattributed Testimonial on LA Alliance’s website (https://laalliance-jge.nationbuilder.com/) In an illegible 2024 990 filing, Alliance admitted to the Internal Revenue Service that they assist zero people, and they do so at a great expense to the public, costing $6.825M in plaintiff attorney fees and at least $8.5M for outside defense. The City’s hired (https://www.rampla.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069Ql00000Sh7z6IAB?operationContext=S1) defense attorneys, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP claim they are working at a “discounted” rate of $1,295 from their usual hourly rate of up to $2,650/hour, making them some of the most expensive attorneys in the universe. GDC may be retained to defend the City, but they are not defending its unhoused population. Theano D. Evangelis Kapur, the lead attorney fighting Alliance on behalf of the City, successfully argued (https://youtu.be/xNxM1fJ_llU?is=nVOBNH7LB7kQdbjl) for the City of Grants Pass, Oregon to criminalize resting in public at the U.S. Supreme Court in case 23-175, City of Grants Pass v Gloria Johnson. In 2024, Alliance forced the City to purchase a $3M audit* and in 2021 they agreed to put a court monitor on payroll for nearly $1M, bringing the total for attorneys, the audit and a monitor to $19.325M, or 426 pounds of $100 bills, 100% covered by taxpayers. -$19,325,000 = attorneys + audit + court monitor *Full Disclosure: Zachary Ellison (https://substack.com/profile/109111292-zachary-ellison) and I met with Alvarez & Marsal’s audit team to consult on their 2025 report (uncompensated) and inform our journalism. The amount that has been spent on Alliance could pay rent for 900 households for one year. City Controller Kenneth Mejia would have been happy to audit for free, backed by the trust and support of the people who elected him. No one in Los Angeles voted for LA Alliance for Human Rights or U.S. Judge David O. Carter, yet they are controlling homeless policy behind closed doors with no public participation, and sticking us with the bill. Most of the politicians that originally aligned with Alliance are no longer around. Joe Busciano, Nury Martinez, Mike Bonin, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Mitch O’Farrell, Gil Cedillo, Eric Garcetti, Ron Galperin, Mike Feuer, Herb Wesson, Kevin de León, Paul Koretz and Rick Cole are all history, as are many high-ranking officials in the City Attorney’s office. Promotiona [sic] nd [sic] engageement [sic] to and by the citizens [sic]…of Los Ange [sic]… Explaining Alliance’s purpose “in a clear and concise manner,” Executive Director Paul Webster offered the IRS lorem ipsum. Promotion and engagment [sic] to and by the citiens [sic] of Los Angeles…to demand accountabilty [sic], policy, and program change in the Los Angeles region regarding homelessness and the humanitarian crisis it created. Support for ongoing lawsuit and settlement monitoring against the City and County of Los Angeles. —IRS (https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/details/) EIN 87-1471488 (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/871471488) 2024 Form 990-EZ (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/871471488/202503219349206400/full) ProPublica’s (https://www.propublica.org/?_gl=1%2A15blegy%2A_ga%2AMTg1NzEyMjcyMC4xNzc5NTU5MzY5%2A_ga_K9RW8M6GL5%2AczE3Nzk2NDgxNTEkbzQkZzEkdDE3Nzk2NDgzOTEkajU3JGwwJGgw) Nonprofit Explorer (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/) The settlement between LA Alliance and the City was illegally (https://laist.com/news/judge-finds-city-of-la-violated-public-records-law-on-homelessness-issues) modified in 2024 to demand the demolition of 9,800 tents and recreational vehicles—a scale of dwelling destruction that surpasses the 9,418 structures burned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaton_Fire) by the Eaton fire. I wrote about Alliance’s “Milestones” encampment reduction plan: It is no surprise—to the IRS, or the unhoused—that another homelessness-themed nonprofit became multimillionaires off a scheme to make our desperate living conditions much worse. LA Alliance’s “HUMAN SHIELD” Initially, LA Alliance claimed to have unhoused member-plaintiffs—homeless people to whom their attorneys and the Court would have owed a fiduciary duty. One of the individually named member-plaintiffs of Alliance was Gary Whitter. Mr. Whitter’s name appears (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=docket_id%3A16950209%20whitter&type=r&order_by=score%20desc) on 163 docket entries (400 when 8 related cases are considered (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%E2%80%9CGary%20whitter%E2%80%9D&type=r&order_by=score%20desc)) starting with the caption of Dkt. 1 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.1.0_2.pdf). Take a look: LA ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, an unincorporated association, JOSEPH BURK, HARRY TASHDJIAN, KARYN PINSKY, CHARLES MALOW, CHARLES VAN SCOY, GEORGE FREM, GARY WHITTER, and LEANDRO SUAREZ, individuals, Plaintiffs 2:20-cv-02291-DOC-KES (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16950209/la-alliance-for-human-rights-v-city-of-los-angeles/) (3/10/20) Mr. Whitter’s name also appears throughout a 2026 appeal by the City to the Ninth Citcuit as a “Real Party in Interest,” despite the fact that he died without legal representation in 2025. Who’s Gary Whitter? Mr. Whitter is described, in great detail, as a destitute man who is sleep-deprived and under the influence of alcohol daily while struggling with multiple severe health issues. GARY WHITTER has been homeless on and off in the Los Angeles area for the last 13 years. He struggles with alcoholism, depression, bipolar disorder, chronic back pain, and hypertension. While he was living on the streets, he would sleep wrapped up in a blanket, usually on hard cement or a blanket. He could not get more than an hour or two of sleep at a time because of fear of attacks, noise, people asking him to move, physical pain, or exposure to the elements. Sleep deprivation caused his mental state to spiral, exacerbating his depression, bipolar, and hypertension conditions. The hard sleeping conditions and constantly carrying all his belongings everywhere he went lead to severe back pain. The facts of the complaint were never challenged in Court because there was no discovery, and, unfortunately, there are no direct quotes from Mr. Whitter describing his own situation, so this description is all we have. Was Mr. Whitter capable of providing the informed consent necessary to be named in federal litigation? To use medical terminology, it can’t be determined whether Mr. Whitter is “oriented to time and place” or a “reliable narrator.” He was never given an opportunity to demonstrate that he “possessed insight” as to his own situation, because he never got to speak for himself. The complaint describes a generic experience that rings true to the life of an unsheltered person. It seems real enough, except that we get no sense of who Gary is. Is he funny or serious? Is he sharp or incoherent? Is he flamboyant or stoic? Our enigmatic plaintiff is described as deeply affected by society’s superficial preoccupation with appearances. Embarrassment and shame are at the forefront in the only information we have about him. The stress of the stigma of being homeless was also significant, adding to his depression and hypertension. As hard as he tried, he understood that he always looked and smelled terrible. It was impossible to keep his hygiene up and as a result he was constantly sick. Due to his unpredictable living and sleeping conditions, he lacked regular medical and dental care. He frequently encountered persons attempting to scam him or victimize him in some way. All of this caused his mental and physical state to further decline. If Mr. Whitter could consent to being named in litigation, did he? Were the lawyers steering Alliance among the “persons attempting to scam or victimize him in some way”? Did Alliance attempt to notify Mr. Whitter of court events? Where did they send notices? Were they returned? It appears that Mr. Whitter did not sign any documents in the LA Alliance docket and my research has uncovered no proof that he participated in drafting the complaint, attended any court hearings, or ever participated in settlement negotiations. Was Mr. Whitter’s identity outright stolen? There’s no real way to know when Mr. Whitter’s participation ended if it never legitimately began. Mr. Whitter’s story continues. In the middle of March 2019, he entered into a program at the Union Rescue Mission, and has now been there for almost a year. He is able to get a full night’s sleep which has significantly increased his mental stability and reduced his hypertension. Sleeping on a bed, and not having to carry his worldly possessions on his back has helped his back pain tremendously and he can move uninhibited which has itself improved his mental stability and hypertension. He now has regular access to medical and mental health clinics, and his mental and physical health has improved markedly. This is the third time he has been through Union Rescue Mission’s program and he is unsure about what will happen in the future once he graduates. He is aware that permanent housing is difficult to find, but he is fearful of living on Skid Row or returning to living on the streets. It may be the case that Mr. Whitter was viewed by his lawyers and fellow plaintiffs as a dependent of a non-plaintiff who is prominently named in the complaint, Reverend Andrew Bales, CEO of the Union Rescue Mission, board member of the Central City East Association and an LA Homeless Services Authority Commissioner. When I checked with the County Office of the Public Administrator, they said Mr. Whitter was not under any conservatorship or guardianship that they had record of. But all three of the unhoused plaintiffs named in the complaint are said to reside at URM under Bales’ control. Plaintiffs Charles Van Scoy and Charles Malow are described as being participants in URM’s Ambassador Program for two and three years each, whereas Whitter is said to have arrived off the streets in March 2019, making his tenancy the most precarious. I know from staying at URM myself in 2017 that unless Whitter was sleeping on the floor of the chapel and/or staying less than 30 days, he would have been paying URM any income he had, such as General Relief or Social Security, for “savings.” I confirmed my recollection of this practice in a public interaction with Rev. Andy Bales in which Bales blocked me before eventually answering. I have discussed URM’s policy with multiple people who stayed there around the same time, who also said they were charged $150/month, effective by their second month staying there. One floor, our 2nd floor Gateway Program, pays program fees and saves $2 per day —@abales to @rooflesser on Twitter (now X) on 4/25/21 Supporting the assertion of a financial relationship between URM and all named unhoused Alliance plaintiffs is an entry on the State’s Unclaimed Property Division website that documents a 68¢ unredeemed gift certificate owed to Mr. Gary Whitter with the address of URM. The undisclosed financial relationship between Rev. Bales and the unhoused plaintiffs is relevant as it can be seen as an issue of “undue influence.” Bales is essentially landlord, employer, spiritual leader and more to those sleeping at URM. Plaintiff Whitter’s narrative continues with an explanation of life on Skid Row. Staying on Skid Row has its own dangers. He often has to walk in the street because the sidewalks are completely blocked with tents and possessions. Even when there is room to walk on the sidewalk, he often must walk in the street anyway or risk harassment for walking in a person’s “backyard” (the area in front of the tent). Other than walking to Rite-Aid to pick up his prescriptions or to the Department of Public Social Services office to get his General Relief check, he stays inside because he is too afraid to leave the building. At night he can hear gunshots and sirens all night long, and on the roof, it isn’t uncommon to witness people getting attacked on the street, including women getting beaten or raped. Amended and Supplemental Complaint Dkt. 361 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.1.0_2.pdf) CA C.D. 2:20-cv-02291-DOC-KES pp. 91-2 (11/1/21) While there is no evidence whatsoever that Gary Whitter understood that he was named as a plaintiff, he was absolutely the star of the oral argument in front of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 7th, 2021 in Honolulu, Hawaii, a three-judge panel peppered Alliance attorney Matthew Donald Umhofer with questions about the facts of the case, which were never subject to discovery. The arguing parties mention the mysterious Mr. Whitter eight times and do not discuss the other seven plaintiffs. [3:55] Justice Michelle Friedland: “Could I bring you back to the beginning, to the standing issues? Could you explain why Gary Whitter, who is one of the individual plaintiffs, lacks standing, in your view?” County counsel Jennifer Mira Hashmall of Miller Barondess LLP: “Because he has stated that he is in a shelter.” “But…he has been in and out of homelessness, and the shelter is temporary?” “He has.”… “Isn’t he at imminent risk of being unsheltered again?” “I think everyone in the emergency shelter environment may, at some point, may be at risk of being back on the street…” In the oral argument at 25:30, when Ninth Circuit panel Justice Jacqueline Nguyen asks Alliance’s attorney Matthew Umhofer to address the issue of the factual record, Umhofer incorrectly refers to his client as “Whittier.” Justice Nguyen asks Umhofer to address the issue of standing. Nguyen: “Can I have you circle back and address the standing issues, particularly the associational standing of Alliance, and Mr. Whittier…?” Umhofer twice mispronounces Whitter’s name as “Whittier” in his answer to her. Umhofer dances around the fact that his plaintiff is not participating by offering statements from additional allegedly unhoused members of LA Alliance who are not named as plaintiffs individually and do not appear in the complaint. [42:42] Friedland: “At the PI stage, you submitted declarations from multiple people but not Mr.—I thought it was “Whitter”, but everybody saying ‘Whittier,’ so whether it’s ‘Witter’ or ‘Whittier’—” “Why is there no declaration from Mr. Whitter?” —Ninth Circuit Justice Michelle Friedland (7/7/21) Umhofer: “Those allegations…we can satisfy our our standing requirements through other declarations or allegations in the complaint, of course, and so we have very detailed allegations in the complaint from Mr. ‘Whittier’ and that, plus these additional pieces [statements] were the basis of the district court’s factual findings that the association…” [43:30] Nguyen: “How are their interests germane to the organization’s purpose? You still need to show that, for purposes of associational standing, assume that Mr. Whitter has his own standing because he suffered an injury-in-fact. That still creates a problem in terms of associational standing. There’s a mismatch there.” “There’s no mismatch at all because the LA Alliance exists to address homelessness in Los Angeles to try to find meaningful solutions to homelessness in Los Angeles. So Mr. Whitter’s participation in that, and everybody else’s participation is germane and directly connected to why the LA Alliance exists.” Ninth Circuit Case No. 21-55395 oral argument (https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/video/?20210707/21-55395/) (7/7/21) According to the Ninth Circuit, the District Court found merit in 6 of the original 14 claims. But the Ninth Circuit said only one of the six actually holds water. Justice Nguyen confirmed Mr. Whitter’s importance to the only valid claim in a September 2021 written opinion (https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2021/09/23/la_alliance_for_human_rights_v._county_of_los_angeles.pdf), in which the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case is attributed solely to Whitter’s inclusion: Plaintiffs also have not clearly shown that any individual Plaintiff has standing to bring the state-created danger claim that the district court fashioned. The district court grounded its state-created danger claim in a risk of premature death of those living in encampments. “Only Plaintiff Whitter may have suffered a relevant injury-in-fact….” —Ninth Circuit Justice Jacqueline Nguyen (9/23/21) …because he has been chronically unhoused and is merely temporarily sheltered at a Skid Row mission. However, neither Plaintiffs nor the district court have explained how the relief ordered would help Whitter. For example, the Order requires that the County and City offer “shelter or housing” to unhoused individuals in Skid Row within 180 days, but Whitter is already in a shelter and nothing in the record suggests he will lose his shelter in time to receive an offer. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (observing it must be likely, not merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision). Thus, Plaintiffs have not made the required “clear showing” that any individual Plaintiff has standing to bring the district court’s version of the state-created danger claim. Yazzie, 977 F.3d at 966. …The fact that LA Alliance may have broadened its membership after filing this action to include currently unhoused individuals—even ones who were unhoused at the time of the Complaint—does not factor into the standing calculus. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) LA Alliance… v. County of Los Angeles, 14 F.4th 947 (9th Cir. 9/23/21) Nguyen, J. 21-55395 (https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/23/21-55395.pdf)/55404/55408 Written opinion pg. 26, footnote 9 The Ninth Circuit rejected Alliance’s request for associational standing, cementing Whitter as the “jurisdictional hook.” When Did Mr. Whitter Go Missing? The Ninth Circuit vacated (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-55395/21-55395-2021-09-23.html) U.S. Judge David O. Carter’s preliminary injunction, cancelling an order that everyone on Skid Row be offered housing within 180 days. They remanded the case back to the District Court, and the parties ended up announcing (https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-settles-sprawling-lawsuit-over-homelessness-crisis/) a settlement on April 1st, 2022. The first version of the settlement explicitly preserved the claims made by Gary Whitter, but the final settlement contained a footnote that he did not participate in the settlement. Most disturbingly, the final version indemnifies (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.421.1.pdf) the City against Mr. Whitter’s claims, should he ever manage to bring them to court again. Plaintiff Gary Whitter is not participating in this agreement. LA Alliance for Human Rights agrees to indemnify the City against any damages, attorneys’ fees, and/or costs incurred by the City in the event Plaintiff Whitter pursues his claims against the City. Dkt. 421-1 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.421.1.pdf) Settlement Agreement p 15 fn 3 Why would Mr. Whitter’s attorneys voluntarily indemnify the City against their client’s claims, when those claims were the strongest ones in their entire case? A Sloppy Switcheroo Absent from the final settlement between Alliance and the City is a signature from Mr. Whitter. Curiously, another unhoused man, Wenzial Jarrell, a Black disabled Air Force veteran, is included as a signatory, despite not being named in the caption. Mr. Whitter was never properly substituted for Mr. Jarrell and for this reason Mr. Jarrell is owed no fiduciary duty by the Alliance attorneys. His introduction on the final City settlement appears to be a smokescreen designed to obscure Mr. Whitter’s disappearance. But unhoused people are not widgets that can be swapped for one another without following the proper procedures granting them the protection which valid parties are owed in the legal process. Whitter Left CA, Conflicted PI Concludes. On May 27th, Umhofer and Mitchell formally informed (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.431.0.pdf) the Court that they would be out of the country and unreachable for three weeks (Dkt. 431) from June 19th–July 9th. Plaintiffs hereby provide notice that plaintiff’s counsel will be out of the country with very limited access to e-mail or cellular reception on the following dates: * Elizabeth Mitchell: June 19 until July 7, 2022 * Matthew Umhofer: June 28 until July 9, 2022 Plaintiffs respect that any and all dates and deadlines set hereinafter be set prior to or after said dates. On June 1st, 2022, leading LA Alliance lawyer Elizabeth A. Mitchell, along with private investigator Paul Bonin, of Irvine-based Paul Bonin & Associates, got in contact regarding Mr. Whitter. How could Mr. Whitter’s anttorneys establish contact with Mr. Whitter if they were not reachable themselves due to taking an international vacation? Case 2:20-cv-02291-DOC-KES Document 450-2 Filed 07/11/22 DECLARATION OF PAUL BONIN I, Paul Bonin, do state and declare as follows: 1. I make this declaration under oath and could and would so testify if called upon to do so. 2. I am a California licensed private investigator and have been so since September 2015. I am the owner, operator and President of Paul Bonin and Associates, Inc. From 1995 until 2015 I was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Prior to that, from 1985 until 1995, I was an Officer and pilot with the United States Marine Corps. 3. On June 1, 2022, I received an email from Elizabeth Mitchell from Spertus, Landes & Umhofer, LLP requesting that I assist with finding information on a client of the firm who is, or was, experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles, California. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she had called his mobile telephone several times, emailed him several times, and had sent hard copy letters to all of his last known addresses. She indicated that she had not received a response to any of her attempts to contact him. 4. Based on the email address that Ms. Mitchell provided from which she had previous been able to communicate with Mr. Whitter, I was able to determine that he was born in 1957 and that his full name is Gary Wayne Whitter. I found what appears to be his current address which is outside of California. I also found three other email addresses potentially belonging to Mr. Whitter, and provided that information to Ms. Mitchell. 5. I called the number identified for his current address but was told he does not reside in that location; however, the person I spoke to did appear to be able to contact Mr. Whitter. I left a message requesting an immediate call back to myself or to Elizabeth Mitchell, but I have not received a response and to my knowledge neither has Elizabeth Mitchell. 6. Through my research, I discovered seven individuals who appeared to be related to Mr. Whitter. I spoke to two individuals who both confirmed they are related to Mr. Whitter, but both indicated they have not spoken to or been in contact with Mr. Whitter in years, nor did they have current contact information for him. I left messages but the other five individuals but did not receive return phone calls. 7. I discovered one social media account I believed belonged to Mr. Whitter and confirmed with one of the relatives that was Mr. Whitter’s photograph. I provided that account to Ms. Mitchell. 8. I also discovered several other email addresses that appeared to be connected to Mr. Whitter. I provided those email addresses to Ms. Mitchell. 9. As of today’s date, I have not been able to locate Mr. Whitter, nor have I received any return phone calls from him. To my knowledge, neither has Ms. Mitchell. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on July 8, 2022, at Irvine, California. Paul Bonin On July 8th, 2022, the day after Ms. Mitchell returned from out of the country, Bonin signed his statement. July 11th, 2022, Ms. Mitchell made a statement about Whitter. Mr. Whitter’s counsel withdrew from representing him Bonin, and Mitchell claimed they couldn’t get in touch with Mr. Whitter, despite calling him 20 times in two months, presumably the two months from May 11th–July 11th. As an unwashed, intoxicated unhoused person, Gary Whitter would likely not be allowed to go into their offices in-person. Mr. Whitter is unlikely to run into his attorneys on the street and they won’t recognize each other if they happen to cross paths because they never met. Did Mr. Whitter’s attorneys leave special instructions the security guards in their office buildings to alert them of any unhoused visitors? What if he attempted to reach them and was turned away or escorted off the premises? Bonin and Mitchell’s statements, submitted two days after the attorneys returned from traveling internationally, concluded that Mr. Whitter most likely permanently left the state of California, with Ms. Mitchell’s statement oddly being signed on this 29th day of July 11th. On July 22nd, Judge Carter approved (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.458.0.pdf) an ex parte request (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720/gov.uscourts.cacd.775720.455.0.pdf) from July 11th (Dkt. 455) for Mr. Whitter’s attorneys to withdraw from representing him (Dkt. 458). The attorneys seemingly not consider the legal implications of severing their case’s Article III standing, which they seem to have only ever viewed as an obstacle to overcome and not a requirement that keeps the facts of the case rooted in reality and representation. The Alliance case has thus barreled on for six years like a runaway train, without the participation a legitimately affected plaintiff, but plenty of funding and political support. The inequity in our judicial system is that valid complaints brought by cooperative, affected but indigent plaintiffs have the reverse problem. They lack visibility and funding, therefore justice remains out-of-reach. These sworn statements reveal that Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Umhofer probably never met with Mr. Whitter. Mr. Bonin claimed to have identified Mr. Whitter’s birthday and verified a photo through a distant relative he was able to track down. If Mitchell and Umhofer had no clue what he looked like, and needed to hire a private investigator to find out in 2022, then it is unlikely that they ever met in-person, and it is quite clear that they never even learned how to pronounce his last name from the transcript of the oral argument, when the Ninth Circuit justices corrected his attorney. Santa Ana Conflict Another issue with the selection of Mr. Bonin was his contract (https://publicdocs.santa-ana.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=1&id=124271&page=1&cr=1) with the City of Santa Ana at this time. This undisclosed conflict-of-interest lies with Judge Carter’s “Special Master” (a terrible title, in my opinion) Michele C. Martinez, who unsuccessfully ran (https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/19/santa-ana-councilwoman-michele-martinez-announces-mayoral-run/) for Mayor of Santa Ana in 2018 and served as an elected councilwoman and vice mayor of the Orange County City from 2006-18. INSURANCE NOT ON FILE • WORK MAY NOT PROCEED CLERK OF COUNCIL DATE • CAO (David Quintana) CITY OF SANTA ANA CONSULTANT AGREEMENT N-2020-199 Page 1 of 8 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 23rd day of October, 2020 by and between Paul Bonin & Associates, Inc. a California corporation (“Consultant”), and the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”). … 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES a. Consultant shall perform private investigation services including but not limited to, witness interviews; locating witnesses; background checks of witnesses or parties in criminal/civil litigation, administrative hearings or other quasi-judicial hearings; drafting reports regarding services performed; conducting surveillance; serving hard to locate witnesses or parties to criminal or civil proceedings; and gathering information necessary for prosecution of criminal/civil matters or defense of civil matters, administrative hearings or other quasi-judicial proceedings. b. Consultant will be retained for specific matters via a letter or email from the City Attorney or her designee containing sufficient information to describe the nature of the services requested and the name or description of the matter. c. Consultant agrees, subject to reasonable notice from the City, to make himself available as needed to testify in court or any administrative hearing regarding services performed pursuant to this Agreement. 2. COMPENSATION a. City agrees to pay, and Consultant agrees to accept as total payment for its services for City, the rate of $250 per hour plus expenses (for example: travel, photocopies) U.S. Judge Carter’s federal courthouse is located in Santa Ana, and from there, he oversaw a series of homelessness-related lawsuits in Orange County in which the City of Santa Ana was a defendant. Martinez was Carter’s uncompensated “Special Master” in those cases and claimed in a Forbes interview (https://www.forbes.com/sites/allisonnorlian/2021/07/21/to-help-end-homelessness-in-her-city-she-had-a-radical-idea-sue-us/) that she conceived the idea to be sued so her City would control the resulting settlement. When Michele Martinez saw three cities in Orange County being sued for not providing adequate services for the homeless, she brainstormed a radical idea. She wanted her city to be sued, too. It was 2018, and Martinez had been on the Santa Ana City Council for 12 years, the last two of which she’d spent as vice mayor. Now that her term was coming to an end, she’d have to act quickly if her plan was to become a reality. And so, at her urging, Santa Ana City voluntarily entered the lawsuit, leading to a snowball effect with far-reaching consequences. Three years later, an additional two dozen cities have volunteered to be sued, too, culminating in a pivotal moment, as the country’s homelessness crisis finds footing at the federal level. Martinez herself has managed to become the right-hand woman to Judge David O. Carter, the powerful federal judge who presided over the Orange County case (https://www.ocregister.com/2019/07/23/settlement-in-homeless-lawsuit-sets-rules-for-help-and-enforcement-in-north-and-central-orange-county/). He has since begun overseeing an unprecedented case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16950209/la-alliance-for-human-rights-v-city-of-los-angeles/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc)in Los Angeles City and County, that could become an example of how to improve homelessness nationwide. —“To Help End Homelessness In Her City, She Had A Radical Idea: Sue Us” by Allison Norilan in Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/allisonnorlian/2021/07/21/to-help-end-homelessness-in-her-city-she-had-a-radical-idea-sue-us/) 7/21/21 After suing Santa Ama and Orange County, did Ms. Martinez then have the idea to sue other Cities, like Los Angeles? Bonin’s $50k contract with Santa Ana was for the specific purpose of locating parties engaged in civil litigation. Based on redacted invoices obtained from the City of Santa Ana per a California Public Records Act request, it appears that the work done under the contract occurred in October 2020, before the contract was even in place. However, I did not find any communication between the Santa Ana City Attorney’s office and Mr. Bonin in the same timeframe from a massive disclosure of emails I received. Is it possible that the search for Gary Whitter began and ended within the first eight months of the LA Alliance litigation? The documents are redacted, so we can’t know if the work done in Santa Ana was related to Mr. Whitter. Maybe it is unrelated. But all of the Alliance parties except the unhoused plaintiffs’ were already in agreement about their intentions to enter into a settlement that “manages” visibly unhoused people, as they did in Santa Ana. Alliance Attorneys Matthew Umhofer and Elizabeth Mitchell made $1.8M upon finalizing this settlement with the City of LA. Michele C. Martinez was put on payroll in the City of LA immediately following the settlement and has made $713k since, according to the Controller’s open data. There was no incentive for these parties to delay the settlement, despite the disappearance of the jurisdictional anchor, Mr. Whitter. There was a lot of money to be made by sealing this deal without him. Mr. Whitter died on March 9th, 2025, exactly on the eve of the five-year anniversary of the filing of the original Alliance lawsuit. After Mr. Whittier turned up in March 2025 deceased behind a business in the Westside, Mr. Umhofer, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Bonin were never held to answer for their perjured statements on the record regarding Mr. Whitter’s whereabouts. He can’t have permanently left California, as they implied, if he died in a Los Angeles alley. They should not have indemnified the City against his claims, settled without him, dropped him from their representation, removed his name from the caption, implied that he approved of the settlement, or dropped his claims if he was still in LA. They should have notified the Court of his death, but did not and still have not. To add insult to injury, Mr. Whitter’s cremated remains have not been retrieved from the County’s storage for the unclaimed dead. His ashes will be “disposed” in an annual ceremony in December 2028 if no one picks him up before then. Mr. Whitter came back… On February 9th of this year, 2026, a new, related case titled City of Los Angeles v United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles (26-784 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72255193/city-of-los-angeles-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-central/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=asc)) was filed in the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals, with Mr. Whitter named as a Real Party in Interest throughout the docket. It is an appeal filed by the City’s special counsel, Theano D. Evangelis Kapur of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, seeking to remove U.S. Judge David O. Carter from his role presiding over the LA Alliance litigation. But when it was time to argue in front of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Evangelis-Kapur had a scheduling conflict. She must have forgotten that about a May 22nd vacation she paid for in advance, telling the court on February 9th to avoid irreparable harm relief is needed in less than 21 days’ time. Two weeks later, she remembered her vacation and she told the court on the 25th that she wouldn’t be able to make it because of prepaid travel arrangements. So, rather than arguing in front of the U.S. Ninth Circuit on May 20th, as scheduled, the City and LA Alliance for Human Rights came to yet another settlement agreement which installs Judge Carter in an oversight position for several additional years, even though the purpose of the appeal was to get him removed entirely. The $2.2M cost of this new settlement is more than the $1.8M it would have cost the City to lose the appeal. More Conflicts Uncovered Alliance’s actions in and out of court paint a picture of an incestuous group of wealthy, connected businesspeople determined to oppress their homeless neighbors at any cost. The events that followed the filing of the 2020 Alliance complaint on the cusp of the COVID-19 pandemic were heavily obscured by press manipulation, partly because an employee of the City working for CD11’s Traci Park, Jamie Paige, who runs (https://www.westsidecurrent.com/users/profile/jamie%20paige/) a major local news outlet, The Westside Current, and now writes for the California Post, was simultaneously Alliance’s Chief Financial Officer and director; roles Alliance attorney Ms. Mitchell now holds. Ms. Mitchell herself is a rogue Deputy City Attorney III who defended Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck on the elite Police Litigation Unit of the City Attorney’s office, civil division, specifically receiving congratulations from City Attorney Mike Feuer after the family (https://www.hadsellstormer.com/newsroom/2018/may/settlement-reached-for-1-95-million-in-charly-af/) of Cameroonian Charly “Africa” Keunang settled with the City for $1.95M. Charly Africa was shot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charley_Leundeu_Keunang) by LAPD outside of Union Rescue Mission on March 1st, 2015, and the court determined LAPD were responsible for his wrongful death (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2196651-skid-row-wrongful-death-lawsuit/). I uncovered their email, dated the day following the announcement of the settlement, in a CPRA request, and I believe the congratulatory nature was in reference to the low amount the family was convinced to accept, despite the City being at fault. Initially, they had sued for $20M (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/los-angeles-skid-row-police-shooting-homeless-man-family-files-claim). She quit working for the City in August 2018, but intervened in another case about LAPD abusing homeless people on Skid Row, Carl Mitchell v City of Los Angeles, in 2019, less than a year after leaving City employment. The City did not seek her disqualification or seemingly consent to being sued by their former in-house defender. Alliance’s ability to rope a federal judge into a mission to monetize civil rights rollbacks and get taxpayers in the City and County to fund every side of the crusade is something that I believe will be studied and discussed in the future, and why I feel it is important to try to understand how this all was allowed to happen. What are we paying for? Alliance uses fees awarded by the Court not only to fund continued post-settlement litigation at a premium, but also to finance multiple commercial leases in business improvement districts downtown and on the Westside, blocks from where Mr. Whitter’s body was found in a Westwood Village alley, apparently behind a CVS. I didn’t know Mr. Whitter and don’t know what justice for him looks like. But I know that there is a problem with the way attorneys felt entitled to exploit his suffering for profit. Mr. Whitter had no funeral and no grave while he is stored by the County among unclaimed decedents for a period of three years. It is apparent to me that this court allowed him to be used to establish jurisdiction and then aided in the disposal of his claims, only to resurrect him to the Ninth Circuit when it was convenient for the parties to create the illusion that the Article III issues raised in 2021 had been resolved. Accountability grounded in objective truth is universally empowering. Homeless people in Los Angeles desperately need accountability from housing providers. But “accountability” detached from reality produces its own industrial system built around meeting meaningless metrics just to satisfy collusive settlement mandates. This is happening at the ultimate expense of the people the system is supposed to help. Maybe that’s the difference between the accountability we all want, and Alliance’s “accountabilty [sic]”. Written entirely on the streets of Los Angeles by Ruth (https://substack.com/profile/28122699-ruth) Edited by Zachary Ellison (https://substack.com/profile/109111292-zachary-ellison) PACER documents provided by Ryan Thompson Thanks for reading roofless! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit roofless.substack.com (https://roofless.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

3. 

   3 Aug 2026

   PITfalls of the 2026 “Point-In-Time” Count

   This article was written by Ruth (https://substack.com/profile/28122699-ruth), who lives on the streets of LA. 🆘 Councilwoman Nithya Raman has targeted me for yet another sweep on Monday, 8/3 🚜 Thanks for reading roofless! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. 🚐 If you can help move my belongings into a van on Sunday 8/2 after 5pm, I would really appreciate it! 📦 ✍️ Edited by Zachary Ellison (https://substack.com/profile/109111292-zachary-ellison), who was displaced by the Eaton Fire. 🔥 On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, January 20th–22nd, five-thousand volunteers put on high-visibility vests and set out to count the unsheltered of the Greater Los Angeles area. To use a pandemic metaphor, the counters were hoping to observe more evidence that the “curve” of homelessness in LA is still “flattening,” like those reductions seen in the 2024 and 2025 counts. Six months after carrying out the 2026 Greater Los Angeles Count of homelessness, also called the Point-In-Time “PIT” count, the results (https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=10113-2026-greater-los-angeles-homeless-count-results-presentation) are in. The counters did, in fact, observe a reduction in visible shelters, because the number of vehicles and tents went down for the fourth year in a row. 10,761 dwellings were counted. Although the total number of dwellings (tents + vehicles) is slowly but surely decreasing, the number of makeshift shelters, which can include a sleeping bag, shopping cart, umbrella, tarp, or anything else used to survive outdoors, is on the rise. Despite the decline in the number of dwellings counted in the City, unsheltered homelessness increased. In the entire Greater LA “Continuum of Care,” which includes the County and City of LA, but excludes Glendale, Pasadena and Long Beach, 10,483 presumed unsheltered people were counted outside in 2025 and 11,084 were people observed in 2026, a +6% increase. “Multipliers” move goalposts. The dwelling “multiplier” has been increased every year since 2023. In 2025, it was raised to 1.75 from 1.71 in 2024 and in 2023, it was 1.56. The 2026 demographic survey determined that more people are living in each dwelling, so the “multiplier” was increased to 1.86 estimated people per dwelling. The decision to increase the multiplier is allegedly backed up by demographic survey data, which has not been released for 2026. The 2025 demographic survey data and questionnaire (https://economicrt.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-Homeless-Count-Demographic-Survey-Questionnaire.pdf) are available through Economic Roundtable. (https://economicrt.org/publication/los-angeles-county-homeless-count-data-library/) More people living in dwellings have been a trend over at least the last four years… Year • Multiplier (estimated number of people per dwelling) 2023 • 1.56 2024 • 1.71 2025 • 1.75 2026 • 1.86 [Slide 22] In 2019, 2020 and 2022 (2021 was cancelled due to COVID-19), multipliers were calculated for each of the five dwelling types and each of the eight Service Planning Areas, and a separate set of multipliers were calculated to represent members of families living in dwellings, as opposed to individuals. For these years, total of 80 different multipliers were calculated. In 2023, this nuanced technique was replaced by one universal multiplier (1.56 people per dwelling). If one must have an unsheltered neighbor, is it not better that they at least have a tent or vehicle of their own? Un-Sheltering Tents and vehicle dwellings are targets for constant removals, such as the 9,800 “Milestone Goals.” Also called the “encampment reduction plan,” these sweeps were secretly ordered by City Council in an illegal amendment (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-10/la-violated-open-meeting-law-with-plan-to-clear-homeless-encampments-judge-rules)to the LA Alliance for Human Rights’ settlement with the City. I wrote about the Alliance and their “Milestone” removal “goals” earlier this month, as I was being removed by City workers myself: During the week of the 2026 PIT Count, I was personally targeted for an encampment removal in Council District 4. Because of this, I almost certainly did not get counted, nor did my neighbors. I am again being removed, for the fifth time this year! LA Family Housing is supposed to be helping me get a voucher while the City repeatedly attempts to sabotage with sweeps this monumental personal progress toward housing. Phoenix Tso at Los Angeles Public Press referred (https://lapublicpress.org/2026/07/la-homeless-count-2026-results-bass-unhoused/) to the modest “uptick” in homelessness as “bad news” and a “regression,” while also drawing a connection to “encampment sweeps.” The 2025 PIT didn’t detect displacement after #LAFires. The 2025 PIT was supposed to occur on January 23–25, 2025, but it was delayed to February 18th–20th because of the Palisades and Eaton fires. Therefore, the 2026 PIT was conducted only eleven months after the 2025 PIT. But how is it possible that after the physical destruction of over 12,000 structures and deaths of two dozen housed people, the 2025 PIT showed a reduction in homelessness? Is our annual counting ritual useless for detecting displacement due to disasters? 300 fewer people experiencing homelessness (“PEH”) in LA County died in 2024 compared to 2023, a reduction of nearly one death per day. On paper, numerical reductions look the same whether people exit homelessness to permanent housing or permanent death. County data released in March shows fewer people dying on the streets compared to prior years, for the first time since 2014, which seems worth celebrating. The latest report (http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2026.pdf) by the Department of Public Health - Center for Health Impact Evaluation has the freshest data available concerning deaths of people on the streets of Los Angeles County. From Data to Action • Lives Lost: Mortality Trends and Prevention Opportunities For People Experiencing Homelessness in LA County, 2015-2024 was released by “DPH-CHIE” on March 10th. Paris Barraza wrote an article (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/california/2026/03/10/la-county-homeless-rate-2026-health-department/89081764007/) for USA Today covering CHIE’s newest findings on the same day the report was released, noting the remarkable 21% reduction in drug overdose deaths. This is likely the intended consequence of tripling naloxone (Narcan) distribution between 2021 and 2023, as noted in the 2025 press release (http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/docs/CHIEPressRelease2025.pdf)of the report which contained death data for PEH from 2023. Age • The number of adults (18-54) experiencing homelessness decreased by 1.1%. • The number of older adults (55+) experiencing homelessness increased by 13.5%. Age group • 2025 • 2026 Children (0-17 years) • 6,428 • 5,605 Adults (18-54 years) • 45,718 • 45,225 Older Adults (55+ years) • 15,631 • 17,746 [Slide 31] LAHSA’s 2026 PIT press release notes a reduction of homeless children and families, but a 13.5% increase in the number of older adults (55+) experiencing homelessness. While an elderly homeless population is not exactly something for our City to be proud of, if it’s indication that the streets are slightly less deadly, then it’s bittersweet news, especially considering that LA’s unsheltered population was struggling to make it to age 50, even before the onset of the pandemic. Overdoses are declining while vehicular killings of PEH have skyrocketed 248% in a decade. Until March 2027, when the CHIE report containing last years’ deaths is going to be released, the most recent data about mortality among PEH in LA County is from 2024, when a total of 2,208 deaths were recorded, nearly six per day. While it is a shocking statistic, and double what it was before the pandemic, it is still a measured improvement compared to the 2,508, or seven per day, from the prior report (http://ph.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2025.pdf) containing 2023 deaths, released in March of last year. Who oversees the preparation of PEH death data? Over 2,000 people who died homeless in LA County from January 1st, 2000 to May 28th, 2007 were recorded in a report (https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2z4bhnvk.pdf) by the Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, Dying without Dignity: Homeless Deaths in Los Angeles County 2000-2007. The names of the deceased make up the last thirteen pages of the 44-page document. Death Data Delays Los Angeles County’s DPH-CHIE published (http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/HomelessMortality_CHIEBrief_Final.pdf) their first of three “issue briefs” on homeless mortality throughout 2018 in October 2019, when the data was ten months old. But mortality data for PEH in LA County is now lagging by over a year, with the report containing 2024 deaths coming out 15 months after the end of that year. On the other hand, annual PIT data are calculated and ready for public release within a matter of six months. 16,197 deaths of PEH in LA in a decade (2015–2024) No public data seems to exist for the period from May 29th, 2007 to December 31st, 2012 and California Public Records Act requests to the LA County Medical Examiner’s office did not produce any additional information. Deaths of PEH in LA County increased to two per day in 2014, and three per day in 2017. Average daily deaths of PEH leapt to five per day in 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparison: 256 PEH died of COVID-19 in LA from 1/1/20-11/1/21 DPH-CHIE attributed (http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2022.pdf) 179 deaths of PEH in 2020 to the COVID-19 virus, and an additional (http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/chie/reports/Homeless_Mortality_Report_2023.pdf) 44 in 2021, for a total of 223 in 2020-21 combined. A different report (https://watermark02.silverchair.com/porter_2022_oi_221278_1669731211.94099.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAzIwggMuBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggMfMIIDGwIBADCCAxQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMw5AepAXWpe2vQYtYAgEQgIIC5XbTKzNwF1Vt59GjWjYfBgeYpAZUxLalFRaIElglsM4_F0oqhqUUM8fAQx_HaRIk5qV4ozocIKEb1r2pbBE89TzntD6GwqvRjnvSVNIZS4KKP8vdLzSwK6BnT9Z5ZTKY0sR7hIS23ZXru9rCMeq96cTqO40ogPiGKM64iEZdnVKXBbRktfuhwDk338XVoztmoLdwGx9QQyJRUZqiPTPejQxajpg2LrUsFcjdrDhH4O1K4DUuEsibPP_6NzPOcxHZVNnMcmIOF1ZZntiJ23V0mbUWpOGecpMuEpJ0r1dXwMBQeLCK4aReQzSH6M_ya1diOiPoLHje0ZEeYqEgpsKjvY0icTd1vatcOhylxngnUw7AZsnVosTUdP1J1WbkLNDGn8XBl2ug7HKsSkIrSkznVUiOvxMTVWU2INEE7zZsRAiZ74-pep8SvMde-BypNxBKlZu6KKYmXE68CTJFvG_vvNL1c1AIIdfsCXnz4u9waZONXAjgL3U9nLWx3QzYLArU2TkCGTscgRMvlOPEeALRpWJN3OFlXWxt0mdcyqqQeigtrkb0CJGQi0KIFz4QkTJ5yDeV0wBKiwz9c3dNPfkhSwZIXw34DUMNIFsg1xwrkBrPo0l8EWt58TT6H5pDcLlu7UgfiIc_YhwlENzOAXogyNexZH3RqVSgyYBHiPXOiZ4IrLigwd5IbgCumP3uIjksUPCTkXGYyit5DJvPxsL3wcIyqpiLkhjZkj9QYT9ICowcDyA9YoD4ZcZ1rk-0UWKNmqyqrBFo_57vUmBRLlrPpHup1R_NunADr-DzbTEJng3mSKq4ee3Q-2fwhSqxIgZVIUsVo0wSbuCaZk1EIKe-TAs4FqNUsxcRp4WgBFdTHobhnGsDg52QWae7IMXXBNwxebHCqLgBHtbZcNA2v4wu5Wz8cyKFrMgcJcVVM1V-j_w4J69WmqnVoe0bJT7oZVOHCIDkq1oTsUX-qTHgXlLPVHIp_TLWqw) by Kuhn Porter of University of California Los Angeles, Ben Henwood of University of Southern California and Chang Brosnan from LA County DPH, published by JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association, found 256 deaths of PEH in LA County due to COVID-19 from January 1st, 2020–November 1st, 2021. COVID-19 doesn’t fully explain why deaths continued to accelerate from five to six per day in 2021 and six to seven per day in 2023. Thankfully, pandemic programs like Project Roomkey gave way to non-congregate hotel shelters, like LA Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe and challenger Nithya Raman’s CD4 Roadmap program at Hollywood’s Highland Gardens hotel. However, without ongoing funding commitments, people end up sitting in hotels for years at a time, at double the cost of housing them. Many “permanent housing exits” are not permanent. Even though housing is cheaper than shelter, it’s also not consistently funded. Lack of funding for Rapid Re-Housing vouchers, also called Time-Limited Subsidies, are the primary reason LAHSA provides for the increase in homelessness in 2026. RRH/TLS are considered “permanent housing” because they pay the majority of market-rate rents on qualified private units for up to two years. Unlike federal Section 8 vouchers, they are not permanent. The story of the Homeless Count is mainly the story of TLS. * A Time-Limited Subsidy (TLS), formerly known as a Rapid Rehousing, is a low-barrier, short-term re subsidy that helps unhoused households quickly move into affordable housing. * Participants are provided rental assistance for 24 months. * TLS pairs rental assistance with housing-focused case management and stabilization services. Goal after 24 months: help participants become housing self-sufficient of transfer them to another permanent housing subsidy that meets their needs. [Slide 7] Loss of TLS funding forced a program pause. TLS is still frozen. * Starting in 2022, TLS was a major factor in the increase of people in permanent housing . * Funding reductions forced a pause on new TLS enrollments. * As a result, the number of new TLS move-ins dropped by. 3,718 in 2025. Data source: HMIS - LAHSA System Key Performance Indicators Year • Newly Housed Using TLS 2022 • 7,329 2023 • 8,286 2024 • 10,308 2025 • 6,590 [Slide 8] The critical shortage of TLS resources and other factors contributed to a 5,093-person drop in the number of people housed in 2025. 98,204 People Permanently Housed since 2022 2022 • 21,849 2023 • 24,198 2024 • 28,625 2025 • 23,532 Note: Data provided courtesy of LA County Department of Housing and Homeless Services. For the first time, permanent housing data shows people instead of placements. [Slide 9] Formerly homeless participants who can not fully take over their leases are left without any additional support and some ultimately end up back on the streets. Participants who manage keep up with their portion of the rent apparently also end up back on the streets due to lack of TLS funding. 300 families were displaced (https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/12/homeless-los-angeles-displaced/) from housing they obtained on vouchers from nonprofit service provider Special Services for Groups “SSG” HOPICS Homeless Outreach Program Integrated Care System under the leadership of former Democratic Congresswoman representing the Santa Clarita Valley Katie Hill, who was later promoted to the LAHSA Commission. LAHSA says the story of the increase in homelessness in 2026 is that of TLS. But the displacement cycle caused by two-year subsidies expiring is not necessarily detectible in this annual count, and we might not see the full consequences of defunded TLS until the 2027 PIT. If TLS are still not funded, then we can only expect numbers to get worse. Additional data is not necessarily more accurate or useful. LAHSA conducted the first PIT count in an “even year” in 2016, marking the start of LAHSA pulling off annual counts. Even-year PIT counts go above and beyond the federal requirement of biennial counts (every two years). There’s no real reason why LA does twice as many PIT counts as the federal government requires. The counts are a logistical undertaking, sometimes recruiting 8,000 or more volunteers, plus they each cost millions of dollars and have involved the development of multiple specialized mobile apps for digital data collection. Census-type data is notoriously best-suited for observing macro-level trends over time, which is why the U.S. Census takes place only once per decade. Repeating the survey more often would waste resources without adding accuracy and cause hysteria over statistically insignificant fluctuations, ultimately working against the Bureau’s mission (https://www.census.gov/about.html): to serve as the nation's leading provider of quality data about its people and economy. The disparity between LAHSA’s over-production of PIT data and DPH-CHIE’s sporadic and delayed release of PEH mortality reports is an encapsulation of LA’s preoccupation with aesthetics over actual human welfare. Want ALL the raw PIT data? Economic Roundtable has a repository at Economicrt.com (http://Economicrt.com) You can request anything you don’t see there from pra@lahsa.org (http://pra@lahsa.org) Reach out if there’s anything you can’t get, because I may have it! 😒 Who’s ready for good news? 😏 🎉🥳 It’s Zach’s birthday! Happy 40th birthday, Zachary Ellison (https://substack.com/profile/109111292-zachary-ellison)! 👏🎈 💥👫 Zach is getting married to his incredibly supportive longtime partner! 👰♀️🤵♂️ 💍 Congratulations to the beautiful bride and groom! 🎊 Data visualizations made with Flourish and illustrations made from prompts with Gemini and Grok for iOS (all free versions) Thanks for reading roofless! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit roofless.substack.com (https://roofless.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

Who has been a guest on Dwelling⛺️

Names identified in recent episode analyses. Showing up to five guests.

• Ruth
• Benito Flores
• Nithya Raman
• Matt Szabo
• John Wickham

Podcast Authority Score: 24 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

47

Social presence

0

YouTube

0

Engagement

0

Contact Dwelling⛺️

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.