The 'parking lot' homeless of Santa Barbara

This one is a bit off-topic for an L.A. housing blog, but it caught my eye: a CNN story about a woman who can't afford to rent any longer in Santa Barbara who now lives in her car in a city-sanctioned parking lot for the homeless.

The woman, a former loan processor named Barbara Harvey, is 67 years old and lives with her dogs in a Honda SUV. "This is my bed, my dogs," she said. "This is my life in this car right now."

The L.A. Times profiled parking lot residents in Santa Barbara on New Year's Eve last year: "All are beneficiaries of the city-sanctioned Safe Parking program, which allows people to live -- sometimes for years -- in cars or RVs in about a dozen parking lots that belong to the city, the county, churches, nonprofits and a few businesses in industrial areas."

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.

Photo: Boyd Grant 63, prepares to spend the night in his 31-year old GMC motor home parked at the food bank parking lot in Goleta. (L.A. Times)

Comments

[puckhead]

If she could have just held out for a few months longer she could have caught the bottom and bought a house in Santa Barbara for $100 and a big gulp.

[Cal]

The lady in the CNN story just can't afford So. Cal. (much less Santa Barbara) and doesn't want to move away from her daughter (they covered this in the video more than the online story). It isn't "forced" to sleep in a parking lot as it is unwilling to accept that she should be living and working in a much cheaper area. I am not being unsympathetic here, it would be like living in Beverly Hills parking lot because you didn't want to live in Lancaster. Their are affordable alternatives to the predicament, she just refuses to accept them. It is Southern California or nothing for some people.

[Rob Dawg]

This will become so commonplace it won't merit mention. It will be interesting whether the State can effectively carry out their threat to close the Parks this summer.

[JW]

This is a sad story but the cynical side of me says:
*Why is she staying in Santa Barbara? If she gets Social Security and works part time for $8 an hour, she could go to many other places and afford a small apartment. Santa Barbara is VERY EXPENSIVE! I just don't understand why someone in her position would pick SB to live and work for $8 an hour. Doesn't make sense to me. Is there something that wasn't told in the story?

[Stay Positive]

Look at the bright side - they dont have to pay for home owners insurance or property taxes. LOL

[Rich]

It's been written elsewhere the years, but bears repeating: the average American doesn't have savings and is only a paycheck away from disaster. The one bright spot about having mortgages is that I learned to be a saver, it was just too uncomfortable not to have a mortgage payment tucked away somewhere. I suspect the foreclosure disaster we're slogging through is going to create a whole generation of savers, at least among those who will fight to recover their dignity...

[Karen Lee]

OH, so an employer in Santa Barbara can pay 8$ an hour but then that employee can't live in Santa Barbara. Is there an irony here?

[xtine]

I'm sorry - what was that about not needing rent control?

You see what happens when it's the wild west for landlords. People who have $8 an hour jobs need to move (and this lady really needs to move away).

People who can afford $3k/mo apartments do not do $8/hr jobs. Until everyone in SB can make $25/hr, the rents need to be capped, or regulated, or something.

Y'all can start cussing me now.

[mike]

what is the problem??? her parking spot is worth way more than a similar parking spot in riverside!!!!!!!!

i can see the profile now

parker says unload now all offers considered. parking spot with extra 6 in. on each side. brand new cement parking stop and freshly painted lines with handicapped overlay zoning. why stay in the inland empire when this beautiful spot in temprate santa barbara awaits you.....

[Tombstone Realty]

I know I am probably four paychecks away from homelessness. I make okay money, but the rents near work are outrageous. The only reason I can save, is that I dont have a car to feed.

Sure, I can pick up and go somewhere else, provided I have a job lined up that will pay enough for me to afford rent *there*. People just make the assumption that if I can make X here, I can make X in say, Atlanta and get a bangin crib. Not true. There is no guarantee that a job even has health benefits anymore, never mind living wages.

Most people who say "Oh, they should just find somewhere else" are those who probably have a house. When you add the whole "renters being thrown out due to owner-foreclosure" situation - it makes owning your own place all that more necessary.

The real issue with this woman is probably that she can't find a place that will take her dogs. Santa Barbara or not.

[the problemwithcaring]

Their are affordable alternatives to the predicament, she just refuses to accept them. It is Southern California or nothing for some people.

Posted by: Cal |

I concur, but one note Cal - we don't know the deets of this woman situation. I have a friend who is diabetic, with renal failure and she is forced to spend much of her limited government funds in a expensive area of SoCal simply because her medical conditions really forces her to live near relations. Without a support network, she would have very little life, indeed. Lancaster maybe a death sentence to someone with no transportation and little resources and whose social and support network is far away.

This isn't an excuse, these are just facts. In our society, for some of the least well-off people, it is more rational to live in the street near a family or social network, than minus that network, and solely dependant on the government. “Housing Affordability” is sometimes not as simple as the “just move” perscription.

[HulaGirl]

Santa Barbara, Santa ("Home of the Homeless") Monica, San Francisco and Honolulu have some the highest homeless populations.

Little Rock, Arkansas; Arlington, Texas; Bend, Oregon have some of the lowest homeless populations.

I don't blame the "homeless" for wanting to live in better zip codes. But I do believe their homelessness is exacerbated by their geographical preferences.

The homeless situation is a long-standing problem, to be sure. And, with the new declining economy, it's only going to get worse.

And it's hard enough to find (free!) parking in any of the
"better" zip codes. Good luck with that.

[Jason M]

Dude, why is this news? When I lived in Echo Park, every evening all of the parking spots surrounding Echo Park Lake were filled by old vans, SUVs, and campers with shutters on the windows. The mobile homeless population in LA is huge, adding a few more to their numbers isn't a story.

I guess we all have to take Chris Farley's advice and work harder, or "We'll be livin' in a van, down by the river!"

[Santos]

Xtine-If you are interested in subsidizing rent, go ahead and buy a building and rent it for less than market rate. Soon you would be homeless too. I own a four unit building under rent control and the income does not cover expenses. Why is the burden of socialized housing placed on me to provide low income workers for private industry? Why the discrimination against landlords? I don't get it.

[BottomFisher]

Do those spaces have an ocean view?......Cool...fillin up the ole suv right now....is no dogs ok?

[Rainman]

Life's not fair. There are plenty of places I'd like to live but can't afford, either because I don't make enough money or don't want to pay what it costs to live there. It's hard to believe that a person with his or her wits about her can't find another place to live besides a parking lot.

[TakeFive]

Mom forced to live in car with dogs.

BS

First thing - get rid of the DOGS! I see this in the market all the time and it drives me nuts. People paying with food stamps who then use the cash that has been presumably freed up to buy pet food. Or bottled water!

Second - would that $8/hr, SS check & a roommate get her an apartment a little farther inland, or does she just prefer the squatter's rights she gets at the taxpayers expense?

And I love this reasoning: that we need rent control because jobs only pay $8/hr. So we'll force landlords to subsidize restaurants so they can pay busboys minimum wage. What do you think those Santa Barbara businesses will do if they can’t hire employees for poverty wages? Any guesses?

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

Just another wrinkle on RV parks;
this lady did miss out on the boom.
She missed the boat (Salton Sea,
North Shore, Slab City).
Even Huell Howser beat her to that zip code.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

It ain't Santa Barbara; but....
check out the 3700 block of Durango
between Exposition and Venice Blvd.
in the 90034 along side of Albertsons.
And, you don't even have to move your
"man's home is his castle" on Wednesday
and Thursday for street sweeping.

[Teresa]

-----If she gets Social Security and works part time for $8 an hour, she could go to many other places and afford a small apartment.-----

Where? Mexico?

I live in Delaware. You can call Delaware a lot of things, but "expensive" is NOT one of those things. The cost of living here is less than it is in North Florida (which is also not an expensive locale). Still, if you're only making $8.00/hour, you can't afford to rent an apartment here. You'd be hard-pressed to afford to rent a ROOM on that salary.

Cal said these people can't afford to live in So Cal. I agree, but I must also point out that the vast majority of them can't afford to live ANYWHERE. I'm NOT suggesting that the gov't should take care of them--I am rabidly against welfare--but the sad reality is that some people are just financially impotent to the point where they can't take care of themselves. Some people are always going to fall through the cracks.

That said, the kinds of people in this article are the EXCEPTIONS, not the rule. Problemwithcaring writes:

--------have a friend who is diabetic, with renal failure and she is forced to spend much of her limited government funds in a expensive area of SoCal simply because her medical conditions really forces her to live near relations. Without a support network, she would have very little life, indeed. Lancaster maybe a death sentence to someone with no transportation and little resources and whose social and support network is far away.-----------

The fact is, the majority of people who can't care for themselves, whether it's because of bona fide illness (like the lady above) or because they're just plain stupid and skill-less (like the loser down the street from me, who's 47 and still lives off her parents) are NOT living on the streets or in their cars. Instead, they lean on relatives for help. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, as a Libertarian, I point to examples of "family helping family" as the ideal that society should strive for:

----------In our society, for some of the least well-off people, it is more rational to live in the street near a family or social network, than minus that network, and solely dependant on the government.----------

I agree completely. I am GLAD that the parents of the Loser Down the Street are supporting her financially. It's much better for THEM to pay for her upkeep than for the rest of us to pay for her upkeep. This way, she's THEIR problem, not OURS.

----------“Housing Affordability” is sometimes not as simple as the “just move” perscription.--------

I agree with this as well, because it costs MONEY to move. And it costs A LOT of money to move long-distance. I know; I've done it twice. Someone who doesn't have a pot to urinate in or a window to throw it out of cannot afford to move hundreds or thousands of miles away. They can't even afford to move down the street.

[Anon]

Cal mentions this lady does not want to move away because she doesn't want to be far from her daughter. So why is the daughter not letting her stay at her house? Why is she letting her mom sleep in a parking lot? Maybe the video clarifies this but it seems very cruel. Why should we give this woman any sympathy when her own family doesn't?

[Roger]

A note on rent control. I own 4 units. When I bought the property, the rents almost covered the mortgage. Due to rent control the rents cannot be increase by more than a few percentage. So all these landlords who say they are subsidizing is not really correct. 10 or 20 years when they bought the rents were covering their mortgage. They want market rate rents now. I don't think the landlords are really losing...they just wnat to make more. There could be affordable housing if you just allowed the building of smaller homes. In Japan, considered to be the most expensive country, everyone can find an apartment to live in. Why? because they allow the buidling of tiny studio's. Young people, as they turn 18 go to live in these. They are very convenient. tiny kitchen, tiny everything. I am not sure why these types of apts are not allowed in the US. Many of the rentals in downtown are actually shared by for or five students. They share a 2 BR luxury apt. Just that two have to share a bedroom! What's the luxury in that. Can someone please tell me why they don't allow tiny studios to be built, where the rent could be reasonable for ie a student?

[LA]

There was a time when it was common for three generations of a family to live together under one roof. If economic conditions force more people to return to that lifestyle, would it be such a bad thing? There is much to be gained by having to learn how to live together, how to get along, to share, to accept and be tolerant of others. There can be great sustenance and self-sufficiency in families.

Likewise, if economic conditions force baby boomers to continue working past "retirement" age, would it be such a bad thing? It would alleviate the anticipated labor shortage, help shore up Social Security, and keep seniors active and productive and probably healthier and happier. There is much to be said for feeling wanted and needed and having a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

[E]

Homelessness is a sad situation whatever the circumstances may be...even if by choice.

There are so many damn empty houses and condos in this country owned by a bunch of greedy speculators (and banks) that it's shameful to think that our society takes such a calloused view of the homeless. My goodness...even Teresa above referred to them as "losers".

How is someone who is mentally/physically disabled a loser? It's an unfortunate circumstance and yes...it's great when they can have a family to lean on...but most of them do not.

Do I have the answer?

Sadly...no.

But I do believe there is "enough to go around".

[Uncle Billy Climbs Mont Pelerin]

Santos, how long have you owned the building? If the rents aren't covering the expenses -- even in a rent controlled building -- you made a little booboo when you bought it. Why don't you just force out your tenants like some scumbags are doing so you can adjust to market?