MASTER’S THESIS

Project Abstract

In the City of Los Angeles, over 42,000 residents are experiencing homelessness, with nearly 70% of them being unsheltered (i.e., living in tents, vehicles, and makeshift shelters). City officials have long attempted to invisibilize homelessness through punitive measures that displace unsheltered individuals and destroy their property. More recently, the City has invested in the Comprehensive Cleaning and Rapid Engagement (CARE) program to enforce municipal code sections and conduct encampment “cleanups.” Research shows that such enforcement does not deter criminalized behaviors but rather perpetuates a context of “pervasive penality” in which frequent and punitive interactions with government officials cause material and psychological harm. Yet, this encampment management strategy remains one of the City’s standard practices. This study examines the City's treatment of encampments as a strategy in the class struggle over public space for capital accumulation, as framed by Marxist scholars. Through individual and collective efforts, housed and unhoused Angelenos have taken it upon themselves to resist the harmful effects of the City’s behavior. While previous research demonstrates the negative impacts of criminalizing homelessness, there is limited understanding of what happens when housed organizers work in solidarity with unhoused residents to oppose the government in this class struggle over space.

Drawing from semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled grassroots organizers (n=17) and unhoused residents (n=8), the findings illustrate the back-and-forth battle over public space by examining the interactions between the City and housed residents, and unsheltered residents and organizers. As organizers recognize punitive encampment sweeps have become a matter of life and death for their unsheltered neighbors, they mobilize alongside encampment residents to resist and mitigate these adverse effects. As a counter-responses to effective efforts, the City criminalized such resistance. Organizers have developed counter-strategies to navigate their own criminalization while supporting the lives of others. The discussion demonstrates how sweeps and subsequent City actions are policy choices that prioritize capital accumulation over human lives. The discussion also frames sustainable solidarity in the context of this class struggle as a path toward collective liberation. The conclusion offers recommendations for rectification for the City and sustainable solidarity for grassroots organizers.