This is a difficult topic and I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a viable solution about how to solve the homeless crisis in the United States. But I do know that a new proposal about hotels in Los Angeles housing the unhoused isn’t a good idea. But could it inadvertently end up working in favor of consumers?
According to Fox News, “Los Angeles voters will cast their ballot on a proposal that could force hotels to house the homeless, a policy that has many hotel owners concerned about how it will impact public safety.”
The president of the Northeast Los Angeles Hotel Owners Association Ray Patel went on Fox & Friends Weekend on Sunday and said: “This is not a solution, it’s just a temporary fix.” He went on to say: “And during Project Roomkey, a great example, they housed the unhoused in the hotels – but the government never provided an end solution. They never provided transitional services to permanent housing; and simply issuing hotel vouchers impacting our hotels and our marketability of those rooms to the pain tourist, corporate travelers and locals is not a solution now.”
What’s crazy is that if this passes in 2024, “the voucher program would require hotels to send information on their vacant rooms for the day by 2 PM daily, but Patel stressed that many guests have not yet checked in by that time.”
Patel is right. I often don’t book hotels until the late afternoon or evening since I wait to see if any hotels put their rooms on sale, although this tactic has backfired on me before so I don’t recommend it unless you have a backup plan.
This is not a volunteer program so it appears that all hotels will be included in the mix, including luxury hotels like the Four Seasons, Ritz-Carlton and The Peninsula. You know those hotel GMs are really going to be up in arms. But even the lower-end hotels like Motel 6 or mid-range ones like Residence Inn will be, too.
What kind of background checks will be performed when checking homeless people into hotels? Who’s going to pay if they destroy or steal things from the room? The hotels make consumers plop down a valid credit card to ensure paying customers don’t. How about if they smoke in the room? Most hotels don’t allow it and you know some homeless people won’t care if they aren’t going to lose their deposit. Listen, I know that talking about homeless people in broad strokes is unfair. Especially these days, when the pandemic uprooted life for so many people. According to NPR, HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge said, “we know the pandemic has only made the homelessness crisis worse.”
However, I also know that I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable having my wife or kids stay in a hotel that doubles as a homeless shelter. I’m a fairly big guy so I can defend myself but I think this is a terrible idea.
According to the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, “According to a 2015 assessment by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. At a minimum, 140,000 or 25 percent of these people were seriously mentally ill, and 250,000 or 45 percent had any mental illness. By comparison, a 2016 study found that 4.2 percent of U.S. adults have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness.” These are sad statistics and there’s no question that something needs to be done to help anyone suffering from mental illness. But I think using hotels as temporary shelters is a short-sighted, short-term solution to a much, much larger issue.
And if hotels do end up going this route, it will be yet another reason more and more travelers will start to turn to home rentals when looking for accommodations. Travelers have already seen the many benefits of booking a vacation rental instead of a hotel (more space, more privacy, easy social distancing) and this will give them one more reason to do so.
2021 was already a record year for US vacation rentals. According to Rental Scale Up, “Overall, demand was 10% higher than pre-pandemic levels (2019), the industry generated 40% more revenues thanks to record-breaking ADR (average daily rate) levels, all with 10% fewer listings available.” Those numbers will continue to rise in LA if hotel safety becomes questionable for guests.
I know there’s no easy solution but this is not a viable long-term solution and is going to come with some pretty hefty pushback from hotel executives and consumers alike.
BUT: Silver lining? If this does happen, you can bet that hotels will start having huge last-minute, one-night sales the day before to avoid having any vacant rooms so they don’t have to participate in this program.
Do you think it’s a good idea for L.A. to house the homeless in unsold hotel rooms? If not, what do you think is a good idea?
LA could start by every elected official taking in a homeless or maybe two every night. From there they move on down through the ranks of pay so that each salaried person earning $100K/yr. gets at least one homeless per night. That will provide rooms for about 9300 homeless every night, unless, of course, these good people could two or more.
I can be fairly certain that many if not all of the LA Council members as well as the large unions who have supported this, have substantial front / backyards at their homes. Allow them to use that space first. Telling owners of private properties with huge $$$ investments that they are required to go along w this idea is ludicrous at best.
It’s too risky to stay somewhere that’s housing the homeless, so I won’t. Then what happens?
People in the know, that work with the homeless will tell you it’s all about addiction. Until that’s address it will never be solved. As of last week the Cecil hotel in LA was empty, as the homeless population doesn’t want to follow rules, and they especially don’t want to give up their addictions.
It’s meth that quickly destroys their brains……
Pure lunacy! Absolutely disgraceful. That’s just what I want when I check into a hotel is to have a mentally challenged or addict homeless person come out and hurt me or my family! Not much different than the Los Angeles Council members who voted against the proposed law that Homeless Encampments should not be within 500 feet of a school or a religious institution!
Absolutely disgraceful. That’s just what I want when I check into a hotel is to have a mentally challenged or addict homeless person come out and hurt me or my family! Not much different than the Los Angeles Council members who voted against the proposed law that Homeless Encampments should not be within 500 feet of a school or a religious institution!
Personally, I generally stay at 4 or 5 star hotels and if I found out that I was paying top dollar for a room and they were hosting homeless I’d check out and demand a refund. I am a 100 lb. single female and would not feel safe with possible drug addicts and mental individuals could be staying next to me, riding the elevator, sharing the hall and possible recreational areas. I realize that paying customers can have some of these issues, but I’m sure the numbers are smaller. Also, and I know this sounds horribe, but how well sanitized are the rooms after these homeless stay in them? This is one of the craziest ideas ever. It’s beginning to feel like “unhoused” individuals rights are prioritized over “housed”.
To Kirsten: while I appreciate and understand your view, let me ask you this: would you want to stay in a Ritz-Carlton or other high end hotel knowing homeless people could be staying in those rooms zdjacent to and across from your room? My guess is you’ll probably say No. Los Angeles needs to come up with a better solution that will not potentially do great damage to its tourism trade.
I didn’t want to visit CA before, but this would seal the deal. I would never pay to stay in a place that doubles as a homeless shelter. Nor would it be safe to. I do think the hotels have a fighting chance, because I can’t help thinking that some of the 1% own or have stakes in a lot of these hotel brands.
Terrible idea!!
Perhaps those that are pushing this madness should first be made to open up all the vacant bedrooms in their own homes so that they would more deeply understand the inadvisability of their own woke proposal.
I certainly would not subject my wife to the risks of having a homeless person prowling the corridors. And if I had small children I would be even more concerned. Many of the homeless are there because they do not seem to fit in with normal society. Why would anyone think that putting them up for a night in a luxury hotel will change anything for them?
I think that if LA even tries to implement this crazy idea many people will just totally avoid LA thus dramatically hurting the economy of the city.
I understand some of your objections and this is a complicated issue without easy answers but we have to do something to help people who are unhoused and struggling legitimately because of circumstances often beyond their control which a lack of support – nay in fact often abuse that I’ve seen firsthand in LA – from cops, local and federal gov’ts that’s causing people to fall into a situation where they cannot afford to be housed no matter how hard they work. The stereotype that all people who are unhoused are dangerous, mentally ill or unfit to be around other people is dangerous at best and extraordinarily cruel at worst. I hope for a more nuanced take from our industry as a whole and respect for the reality that people need our help. Instead, much of what’s being written about this everywhere comes across as very NIMBY and it makes me sad to read what feels like that from you too, Johnny.
I absolutely think this is the craziest idea I have ever heard of! I definitely feel for those less fortunate, but think the idea of putting them up in luxury, or even midstream hotels is not the answer. Build small homes for them and forget this idea!
Only in California!!!
One of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard!