Three Versions of Storage

One man’s refuse is another man’s treasure, never more so than in the backyard, where the hoarder goblin is allowed to run off leash.

Here’s Van Nuys in a single frame. On the right side, 6537 Columbus Avenue, every inch of lot given over to vehicle storage.  Whose cars? For what purpose? Why boats? Mysteries. It’s been going on for years.  On the left, the footprint for 6530 Sepulveda, formerly the brothel known as the Voyager Inn, now known as SkyLA Tower, with 2 bedroom apartments leasing at $2750.

Two hundred people utilizing a lot proportional to the one next door housing dozens of used cars, while people are camping on the same street.  Perhaps a pretty good argument for eminent domain?

Unfortunately, this wouldn’t resolve the storage issue. In all three cases, someone is making a lot of money off things as they are.  Servicing the indigent is literally a billion dollar business now, in Los Angeles alone.  You could seize the car house,  put up a shelter over the anguished wailing of the KesterRidge Neighborhood Association and it wouldn’t make a dent in the tents on the street.  We pay them to be here. Until we stop doing so, the Laws of Entropy prevail.

4 thoughts on “Three Versions of Storage”

  1. Okay… A couple things.

    First, I’m not a huge fan of committees of upright citizens deciding what other people should and shouldn’t be doing with their own back yards. I had kept earthquake emergency water on the back patio for a dozen years with no incident or complaints until a new member of the HOA branded it contraband and labeled me a hoarder. I moved the water containers over to a friend’s house beyond his jurisdiction. Meh. https://granolashotgun.com/2017/01/30/the-dreaded-hoa/

    Second, I completely sympathize with your assertion that public and private agencies suck up massive amounts of money on boondoggles that theoretically serve the needs of the homeless population. In reality, the money pays salaries, funds studies, and keeps a huge collection of bureaucracies humming while the homeless persist in ever greater numbers.

    However… the situation is more complex than a knee jerk Libertarian reaction. Genuinely affordable market rate privately built housing (old style boarding houses, rooms to rent, backyard cottages…) is illegal primarily because existing property owners freak out and block it at every turn. So instead of small inexpensive accommodations being supplied naturally by mom and pop we get tent cities and outraged homeowners demanding 1) the authorities “do something” and 2) kvetch about the ineffectiveness of wasteful billion dollar bureaucracies. Shrug.

    1. “Genuinely affordable market rate privately built housing (old style boarding houses, rooms to rent, backyard cottages…) is illegal primarily because existing property owners freak out and block it at every turn.”
      The city of LA has taken a step in this direction by permitting garage conversions. Permit being the operative word, with all the $$ and red tape that goes with that.

    2. It seems to me that what homeowners tried to prevent, with all of these use restrictions, has arrived anyway with the median-strip tent cities.

      Perhaps the parties involved are just in denial, and will come to an agreement once they acknowledge what is in front of them?

      1. There is really only one party running this and that would be the City itself. Servicing the homeless is an entire department now. The City can’t be in “denial” because definitionally they are already “helping”.

Comments are closed.