Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Affordable south Los Angeles: survival, support, and different futures
(USC Thesis Other)
Affordable south Los Angeles: survival, support, and different futures
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Affordable South Los Angeles:
Survival, Support, and Different Futures
By
Sean Timothy Angst
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT)
August 2022
2022 Sean Timothy Angst
ii
“do you know what it’s like to live
someplace that loves you back?”
- Danez Smith
iii
Acknowledgements
Foremost, I want to thank all the community members and organizations that helped make this
project possible especially Community Coalition, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE),
Community Development Technologies (CD Tech), Esperanza Community Housing,
T.R.U.S.T. South L.A. (Tenemos que Reclamar y Unidos Salvar la Tierra), and Strategic
Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE).
Next, I want to thank my wife, Eden Ferry, who gave me the love and care to endure throughout
the writing process. And my son, Porter, who gave me the courage and motivation to finish.
My family—Denise, Tim, Maggie, and Casey—showed unconditional love and support
throughout this process as well. I also had so many friends who helped along the way—
creatively, emotionally, and intellectually—especially Kev, Mo, and Jocelyn.
iv
Tables of Contents
Epigraph ................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ v
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction
Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................... 26
Context
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................ 49
Methods
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................ 73
Conditions
Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................................. 152
Displacement
Chapter 6 .............................................................................................................................. 190
Survival
Chapter 7 .............................................................................................................................. 255
Conclusion
References ............................................................................................................................ 271
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1 ................................................................................................................................. 57
Sample Statistics
Table 2.2 ................................................................................................................................. 62
Qualitative Codes & Coverage
Table 2.3 ................................................................................................................................. 65
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) Questionnaire
Table 2.4 ................................................................................................................................. 66
Baseline Variables
Table 2.5 ................................................................................................................................. 67
Conditions Variables
Table 2.6 ................................................................................................................................. 69
Mobility Variables
Table 2.7 ................................................................................................................................. 71
Survival Variables
Table 4.1 ............................................................................................................................... 119
Conditions Variables by Group
Table 4.2 ............................................................................................................................... 121
Baseline Regression
Table 4.3 ............................................................................................................................... 123
Fully Specified Model
Table 4.4 ............................................................................................................................... 126
Conditions Regression
Table 5.1 ............................................................................................................................... 171
Displacement Variables by Group
Table 5.2 ............................................................................................................................... 174
Displacement Regression
Table 6.1 ............................................................................................................................... 217
Survival Variables by Group
Table 6.2 ............................................................................................................................... 220
Survival Regression
vi
Abstract
This dissertation examines the conditions, tactics, and infrastructure underlying the
processes of affordability and neighborhood change. Using South Los Angeles (South L.A.) as a
case study, it details the mechanisms that push renters toward the threshold of instability and the
stress produced from their everyday conditions. More specifically, I use a framework of housing
precarity to analyze how the current rental crisis reproduces inequality and exposes people to
stressors resulting in decreased life spans, lower quality of life, and social death. Through the
framework of precarity, we can observe the interaction between structural conditions and the
behaviors of landlords, employers, and tenants at the local level. Rather than identifying the
attributes that predict a particular outcome, the project interrogates the actors, institutions, and
systems that undermine residents ability to maintain secure housing. In spite of the obstacles,
residents in South L.A. have consistently struggled against discrimination, exclusion, and
violence by forming their own institutions and fighting for policy changes that acknowledge
their right to live.
The book begins by investigating the histories, structural forces, and precarious
conditions that produce the situational context tenants navigate day-to-day. Then, I analyze how
those conditions are experienced, navigated, and resisted by residents in their daily lives.
Finally, I propose a new index of survivability that incorporates economic, environmental,
social, and political dimensions of housing insecurity, and reflects the tactics and supports
tenants use to maintain housing stability.
The study was composed of three interrelated phases. First, 17 focus group
conversations were facilitated with residents consisting of a 20 minute survey followed by a 75
minute conversation. Second, a door-to-door survey was collected from 402 households using
vii
stratified randomization at the census block group level. The survey was administered as a
semi-structured interview taking roughly 45 minutes. Third, 104 hours of participant
observation was conducted by walking the study neighborhoods, conversing with residents,
attending community meetings, and photographing the built environment.
Leveraging this unique primary data, the dissertation seeks to answer the following research
questions:
1. How do tenants describe the conditions of the rental crisis?
2. Do displacement and sense of belonging contribute to the stress process model?
3. What survival tactics and infrastructures of care do residents use to navigate the rental
crisis?
4. How do those conditions and tactics impact stress and accumulate?
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic threw the consequences of unequal housing and labor
conditions into stark relief. As the world shutdown, Black and Latino/a adults were
overrepresented in ‘essential’ jobs that did not transition to remote work and were more likely to
live in overcrowded housing (Brown, 2020; Green & McCargo, 2020; Cimini & Botts, 2020).
Consequently, those households experienced greater risk of exposure to the virus, higher rates of
community spread, and excess mortality (Chen, et al, 2021; Feldman & Basset, 2021; Pathak, et
al., 2021). While there has always been a hierarchy of value applied to human life in the United
States, the disparate impacts of the pandemic and the need to quarantine within our homes
highlighted the particular importance of housing to the reproduction of unequal health outcomes.
Our country’s legacy of structural racism leaves communities of color more vulnerable to harm
during times of crisis as well as in their day-to-day lives (Jacobs, 2019).
As people re-enter the outside world in the summer of 2022, demand for housing has
fully rebounded with rents and eviction filings surpassing pre-pandemic highs across the country
(Bhattarai, et al., 2022). Rental assistance and renter protections have begun to expire initiating a
new period of stress and uncertainty for tenants (Ludden, 2022). This is especially true for
communities of color who were more likely to be behind on paying rent, took on more debt, and
reported greater risk of eviction during the pandemic (Ong, et al., 2021; Reina & Goldstein,
2021; Weeden, 2021). The debt and eviction records that have accumulated will create persistent
obstacles in maintaining stable housing moving forward. Moreover, the majority of tenants were
already in precarious living situations prior to the pandemic (JCHS, 2020; Albelda, et al., 2020;
Brockland, et al., 2019). In the wake of COVID-19, policymakers must address the immediate
2
needs of tenants so that they may remain sheltered throughout a volatile recovery period as well
as address the long-term structural issues that have consistently impeded their everyday survival.
Housing affordability has long been an issue for working class renters across the United
States with rents rising faster than incomes for the past twenty years (JCHS, 2019; CBPP, 2019).
Specifically, affordability refers to imbalances between housing costs and incomes (Stone, 2006;
Quigley & Raphael, 2004). Those imbalances are the result of an overall shortage in the supply
of housing, the rise of unstable and precarious work arrangements, and the withdrawal of public
sector resources. In 2018, nearly half of all tenants paid more than 30 percent of their income
each month toward rent (JCHS, 2019). Additionally, unaffordability has become more pervasive
over time and increasingly affects middle class households as well as rural and suburban areas
(NAHB, 2021; Henderson, 2019; NAR, 2019). Black and Latino/a communities are
disproportionately burdened across the board due to the durable legacy of segregation, which has
restricted access to wealth, power, and opportunity for generations, and forced them to subsist
off low wages while being overcharged for low quality housing throughout the 20th century
(Robinson, 2010; Molina, 2006; Villa, 2000; Daniels, 1975). As imbalances between incomes
and rents have grown more severe, it has become exceedingly difficult for tenants to maintain
stable housing anywhere, let alone the areas where resources are concentrated.
Over time, residents have been forced to allocate more of their monthly budget toward
housing due to rising costs, stagnating wages, and the proliferation of precarious work
arrangements (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021; JCHS, 2019; Chapple, 2017). The issue of
affordability is problematic because tenants must reduce spending on other basic necessities
required for survival–such as food, clothing, and health care–or make functional adjustments to
their housing and work arrangements to alter budget constraints (Gabriel & Painter, 2019). Those
3
survival tactics restrict the material sustenance available to households and have the potential to
introduce new sources of harm. As a result, prolonged experiences with unaffordability cause
stress in the lives of tenants, depletes their physical and mental health, and puts them at greater
risk of displacement and instability (Slater, 2021; Meltzer, & Schwartz, 2016; Bentley, et al.,
2012; Pollack et al, 2010). Past research has made the consequences of affordability clear
although they are rarely articulated plainly. By limiting access to basic needs and heightening
exposure to stressors, affordability reduces people’s quality of life, obstructs their ability to
survive, and ultimately leads to early death. Importantly, it is not the outcome of falling above or
below an arbitrary threshold that generates those effects. Instead, the harm of unaffordability
stems from the ways households must adjust their lives in order to survive and the conditions
they endure in pursuit of stable housing.
Additionally, renters’ access to secure housing is not purely dependent on economics.
The relationship between housing and health goes beyond consumption and also entails the need
for safe, clean, and healthy environments, space to grow and replenish, and protection from
outside harm and abuse (hooks, 1990). Homes are deeply personal spaces that help foster a sense
of identity and belonging with one’s self and surrounding community (Elliott-Cooper, et al.,
2020). They can either provide security and facilitate residents’ ability to seek out opportunity in
other aspects of life, or be experienced as a set of stressors when habitability requirements are
not met (Clark, 2012; Burdette et al., 2011; Evans, et al., 2000; Marsh, et al., 2000). Moreover,
these material conditions are socially and politically constructed (Peake et al., 2020; Butler,
2013; Han, 2018; hooks, 1990). Tenants rely on the private sector to produce fair and adequate
housing, the public sector to implement and enforce policies that ensure a baseline standard of
living, and their community to provide care and support in times of need. As with COVID-19,
4
the public sector designates an acceptable level of suffering by failing to intervene and alleviate
the mechanisms reproducing unequal exposure to harmful conditions. Affordability is part of a
larger shift toward precarity that working class households encounter in a variety of aspects of
life.
Using South Los Angeles (L.A.) as a case study, this dissertation examines the
conditions, tactics, and infrastructure underlying traditional measures of affordability and
displacement. While many studies have analyzed the effects of housing affordability and
instability on health, there are far fewer documenting the mechanisms generating those
connections. The book begins by investigating the histories, structural forces, and precarious
conditions that produce the situational context tenants navigate day-to-day (Sharkey, 2013).
Then, I analyze how those conditions are experienced, navigated, and resisted by residents in
their daily lives (Elliott-Cooper, et al., 2020; May, 2011). Finally, I propose a new index of
survivability that incorporates economic, environmental, social, and political dimensions of
housing insecurity, and reflects the tactics and supports tenants use to maintain housing stability.
Through the framework of precarity, this dissertation details the mechanisms that push renters
toward the threshold of instability and the stress produced from their everyday conditions
(Muñoz, 2018; Han, 2018; Butler, 2016; Rigg et al., 2016; Waite, 2009; Butler, 2004). Rather
than identifying the attributes that predict a particular outcome, the project interrogates the
actors, institutions, and systems that undermine residents ability to maintain secure housing.
In the following manuscript, four dimensions of housing are analyzed: 1) economic -
affordability considerations and structural forces; 2) environmental - exposure to harms and
hazards; 3) social - experiences with exploitation, care, and support; 4) political - enforcement
of rights and capacity to resist unfair practices. Residents take each of these dimensions into
5
account when deciding how to navigate their everyday conditions (Desmond, 2016; Edin &
Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010). They have agency through their actions, adjustments, and
behaviors, which both shape and are shaped by the conditions encountered. A multi-faceted
approach is necessary not only because it is how people think about their homes in real time, but
also because many communities of color are confronting additional cost and displacement
pressures from neighborhood change which compound issues related to affordability (Slater,
2021; Rucks-Ahidiana, 2021; Fullilove, 2016).
Since the Great Recession of 2007-08, neighborhood change has accelerated across the
City of Los Angeles and expanded into South L.A. (Urban Displacement Project, 2020;
Barragan, 2020; Ong, et al., 2018; Chandler, 2018). Shifts in the area’s population, services, and
aesthetics have introduced new stressors, brought in long overdue resources, and altered social
dynamics (Slater, 2006; Freeman, 2005). The term neighborhood change describes an influx of
new development and people into previously disinvested neighborhoods that result in alterations
to the built and social environments (Bunten, 2019; Atkinson, 2015). While those changes can
result in positive impacts for some renters, negative effects are also felt by the most vulnerable–
older adults, Black tenants, low-income families, and women–through diminished health
outcomes and higher rates of displacement (Izenberg, et al., 2018; Gibbons & Barton, 2016;
Dragan, et al., 2019).
Affordability and neighborhood change represent distinct yet related issues. Affordability
relates to the region-wide housing shortage and rise in precarious work that has affected tenants
across the board (Angst, et al., 2021). In contrast, neighborhood change speaks to changes in the
social and built environment that affect particular neighborhoods. Both of these issues
correspond to rising rent prices, heightened stress, and the reallocation of wealth away from
6
working-class tenants toward landowners. However, each requires specific interventions aimed
at their underlying root causes. Throughout this text, the term rental crisis is used to refer to the
intersecting issues of affordability and neighborhood change. Whenever possible, I also highlight
the specific mechanisms driving a particular issue. Together, unaffordability and neighborhood
change put South L.A.’s status as a center for Black and Latino/a Los Angeles under threat
(Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021).
The convergence of pressures experienced by tenants in South L.A. makes it an
important case study to investigate the connection between stress and housing across multiple
dimensions. Through the lens of housing, we can observe the interaction between structural
conditions rooted in the past with processes of survival, precarity, and resistance occurring today.
In spite of the obstacles, residents in South L.A. have consistently struggled against
discrimination, exclusion, and violence by forming their own institutions and forcing policy
changes that acknowledge their right to live (Liptsitz, 2011). As policymakers set a vision for
moving beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, we have the opportunity to rethink our approach to
housing policy, learn from local communities, and reorient toward an ethics of care. This new
approach needs to focus on holistic interventions aimed at reducing tenants’ exposure to stressors
rather than managing the harmful effects of affordability and neighborhood change after they
occur.
The relationship between housing and health
Disparities in health have long been observed across race and socioeconomic status.
Although unequal access and availability of medical care certainly play a role in disparate health
outcomes, even after controlling for these variables much of the gaps in overall health, chronic
7
disease, infant mortality, and life expectancy remain unexplained (Turner et al., 2017). In the
field of public health, socio-economic status is considered the ‘fundamental cause’ of health
inequities because of its role in shaping social, environmental, and behavioral determinants of
wellbeing (Link and Phelan, 1995). Collectively, those determinants cause significant differences
in the prevention, occurrence, and treatment of diseases (Link and Phelan, 1995). Inequality—
produced through the mutually constituted relationship between racism and capitalism—allows
certain individuals to avoid disease altogether, mitigate sources of harm that may arise, seek
legal redress after harms are committed, and access technology to treat once diagnosed (Lutfey
& Freese, 2005). The mechanisms producing health inequities change across time and space, yet
inequality remains the underlying cause of disparate outcomes.
Due to generations of oppression and the on-going presence of structural racism, race and
class are deeply entwined in the U.S. and must be considered in relation to one another (Bailey,
et al., 2017; Ray & Seamster, 2016; Phelan & Link, 2015; Sharkey, 2013). Research has revealed
that environmental conditions are primarily defined by race rather than socio-economic status
(Sharkey, 2013; Massey & Denton, 1993; South & Crowder 1997). For example, Black families
earning more than $100,000 a year live in similar neighborhoods to whites making less than
$30,000 signaling their constricted access to healthy, high opportunity neighborhoods (Sharkey,
2013). Throughout history, racialized policy decisions have directed jobs and resources toward
White communities while offering them protection against toxic and harmful elements (Gibbons,
2018; Liptsitz, 2011; Molina, 2006). In contrast, communities of color have contended with
limited mobility and targeted practices of exploitation, harm, and exclusion by both the public
and private sector. This unequal distribution of resources and stressors has led to significant gaps
in income and wealth between racial groups as well as disparities in their abilities to achieve
8
upward social mobility (De La Cruz-Viesca, et al., 2016). Socio-economic status is therefore
conditioned by race–or in the words of Stuart Hall (1980), “race is the modality in which class is
lived.”
The stress process model offers a useful framework to study the mechanisms contributing
to unequal health outcomes. The model consists of three domains: 1) the sources of stress, 2) the
mediators of stress, and 3) the manifestations of stress (Pearlin, 1999). In this framework, stress
exposure is not only the product of the number of stressors encountered and the magnitude of the
responses triggered, but also the availability of coping resources used for reducing threats and
managing stressors (Turner, 2009; Pearlin, 1999). Empirical studies testing the stress process
model have shown that it accounts for 83 percent and 46 percent of health disparities across race
and socio-economic status respectively (Turner, 2009; Thoits, 2010). Furthermore, previous
research has observed a stress gradient across socio-economic status for White communities
while Black people with higher socio-economic status continue to face elevated stress similar to
peers with fewer resources (Williams, et al., 2019; Turner et al., 2017; Williams, et al., 1999).
This reflects the continuing importance of race in determining an individual’s neighborhood,
housing, and overall exposure to environmental stressors (Halpern, 2014; Bratt, 2002; Ellen, et
al., 2001).
Stressful experiences are incorporated biologically and cause the body to release the
substance cortisol resulting in negative impacts on physical and mental health (Thoits, 2010).
The human body is well-designed to deal with concerns that arise throughout life. Being in a
state of constant alert, though, causes long-term damage to health and wellbeing. Chronic
stressors are responsible for the majority of variance in health outcomes across groups (Turner,
2009; Thoits, 2010). The environmental conditions an individual encounters daily can result in
9
prolonged exposure to harm and accumulate over time causing biological ‘weathering’
(Geronimus, et al., 2006). Regional, city, neighborhood, and household conditions each
contribute to the risk, uncertainty, and harm an individual experiences as they navigate their
surroundings (Pearlin, 1999; Turner, 2009; Elliot-Cooper, et al., 2020). Those conditions are the
result of differential power, wealth, and racism, which translate into disparate exposure to
stressors at home, at work, and in between (Pattillo, 2013) .
There is robust biological research demonstrating the relationship between housing,
stress, and health outcomes through the indicators of allostatic load and telomere length (Thierry,
2020; Ribeiro, et al., 2018; Robinette, et al, 2016; Park et al, 2015; Schulz, et al, 2012).
Allostatic load relates to cumulative wear and tear on the body, and is typically measured as an
index composed of cortisol, epinephrine, blood pressure, and other biological markers (McEwan,
1998). Telomere length serves as a proxy for biological age by measuring the DNA-protein that
caps chromosomes, which shorten naturally over time as cells replicate or prematurely due to
cortisol exposure (Turner, 2009). A large body of literature has used those indicators as well as
self-reported metrics of mental and physical health to detect elevated levels of stress among
tenants with high housing cost to income ratios, lower housing and neighborhood quality,
experiences with consumption cutbacks, precarious employment arrangements, and limited
social support (Niño, 2021; Prior, et al., 2018; Park, et al., 2015; Geronimus, et al., 2015;
Benach, et al., 2014; Turner, et al., 2014; Dowd, 2009; Schnorpfeil, et al., 2003). However, much
of the academic literature has focused on testing the existence of these relationships as opposed
to detailing the complex and multiple mechanisms that underlie and reify the relationships. Both
the stress process model and theory of fundamental cause emphasize the need to examine the
10
convergence and interaction of stress mechanisms to understand the reproduction of unequal
outcomes.
The processes of affordability and neighborhood change provide a critical entry point to
study the mechanisms perpetuating health inequities because of the foundational nature of home
to everyday life. The U.S. market system of housing has tied an individual’s geographic location
to their access to health care, education, employment, wealth, safety, and space (Gibbons, 2018;
Trounstine, 2018; Rothstein, 2017; Sharkey, 2013; Bailey et al., 2017; Sewell, 2016; Krieger,
2012; Baum et al., 1999). Additionally, housing-related stressors are particularly harmful
because they result in consistent exposure that is difficult to avoid and must be consistently
managed (Huang, et al., 2021; Hertzman & Boyce, 2010; Marsh, et al., 2000). By structuring
people’s exposure to opportunity and stressors over the life course, secure housing is both
derived from inequality and reproduces it. This dissertation examines the impacts of the rental
crisis across multiple dimensions of housing and tenants’ resulting exposure to stress. Resident
experiences reveal the mechanisms through which socio-economic status and race shape the
economic, social, and political environment people interact with on a daily basis.
The Case of South L.A.
Los Angeles is a high-demand, coastal metropolis that is increasingly representative of
global, “superstar” cities experiencing accelerated rent growth, widening economic inequality, a
shortage in housing, and large amounts of investment capital interested in redeveloping the urban
core (Slater, 2021; Scott, 2019; Small, et al., 2018; Sims, 2016; Lees, et al., 2016). Those
pressures extend to South L.A., which represents one of the last pockets of naturally occurring
affordable housing in the Los Angeles basin. In 2019, the median rent for the area was roughly
11
23.4% lower than the city overall (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates).
Additionally, South Los Angeles was disproportionately home to Black and Latino/a residents
who composed 20.0% and 71.6% of the population respectively. The neighborhoods of South
LA. are critical because they provide a place for working-class renters of color to access jobs,
housing, friends, businesses, and infrastructures of care needed to survive. However, access to
affordable and adequate rental housing has long been an issue for renters in South L.A. due to
decades of disinvestment, deindustrialization, and discrimination. Residents have built power
and belonging through community institutions that help make the city livable amidst public
neglect and racialized policy decisions (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021; Lipsitz, 2011;
Pulido, 2006; Valle & Torres, 2000).
South L.A. has experienced a significant surge in development since the Great Recession
evidenced through large-scale transit improvements like the Expo and Crenshaw rail lines,
multiple new stadiums and museums, numerous mixed-use and Transit Oriented Community
(TOC) development projects, and other scattered construction sites across the area (Flores, 2019;
Chandler, 2018). The influx of investment capital compounds cost pressures associated with the
regional housing shortage and creates incentives for landowners to push out long-time residents
to capitalize on rising market rents. From 2010 to 2018, market rent in South L.A. jumped from
$1,750 a month to $2,400 according to Zillow
1
(2021)–an increase of more than 37%– while
contract rents hovered around $1,100 (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates).
Meanwhile, the median income in the area increased only 2.7% from $37,301 to $38,323.
Despite these pressures, much of South L.A. is still in the beginning to middle stages of
neighborhood change because residents are fighting to stay and many of the construction projects
1
Zillow is an online database and marketplace for residential real estate.
12
listed above were recently completed or still in construction phases. There are now zero
affordable neighborhoods left in the City of Los Angeles for the typical Black and Latino/a
household current market rents and median incomes (Le, et al., 2022). Cost and displacement
pressures produced by the rental crisis are particularly stressful for communities in South L.A.
because residents have deep ties to place and the community infrastructure they have constructed
over decades (Lipsitz, 2011; Robinson 2010; Valle & Torres, 2000; Villa, 2000).
The far majority of residents in South L.A. are renters composing roughly 70.2 percent of
the population in 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019 5-year estimates). Wealth and
income gaps stem from exclusionary practices of the past and precarious labor arrangements in
the present with renters in South L.A. earning approximately 44.0 percent less than the city
median. While Black residents in South L.A. are older on average and have higher rates of
unemployment, Latino/a tenants are more likely to be part of younger families and
underemployed (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021). Additionally, more than 40% of Latino/a
residents are undocumented, which creates obstacles in accessing information, public resources,
and policy protections.
The combination of rising housing costs and precarious employment conditions drives
traditional measures of affordability–57.8% of residents in South L.A. are considered rent
burdened and 31.6% severely rent burdened (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019 5-year
estimates). Furthermore, working class Black and Latino/a renters are disproportionately
impacted by rent burden within the City of L.A. and those rent burdened households are
geographically concentrated in the South and East sides. The term rent burden is used by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to describe this 30 percent
threshold and severe rent burden to distinguish those paying over 50 percent. The rent burden
13
indicator signals that households are likely forced to 'choose' between shelter and other essentials
needed to survive. Examining the residual income–the income left over after paying for housing–
of rent burdened tenants further confirms those financial constraints. On average, rent burdened
households have only $1,037 left over at the end of each month on average after paying for
housing–for those severely rent burdened this number fell to just $95 (IPUMS, ACS Micro-data
2015-2019 5-year estimates). With an average household size of 3.5 people, rent-burdened
tenants are stretched extremely thin.
Precarity & Survival
The conditions described in this text do not solely relate to escalating housing prices,
underemployment, or poverty. Instead, they relate to the intersection of these issues as the
working class is increasingly impoverished and unable to afford the basic resources needed to
survive. Affordability–and the market logics which underpin those metrics–have insufficient
explanatory power for the conditions tenants confront. Precarity offers an alternative framework
to describe the instability residents experience across multiple spheres of life–economically,
emotionally, and socially. The concept of precarity is clear that the conditions experienced by
working class households are not naturally occurring and instead the result of an economic,
social, and political system that manufactures disparate outcomes (Han, 2018; Butler, 2016B).
Moreover, the framework of precarity seeks to uncover the converging and cumulative
mechanisms of nature of stress, risk, and uncertainty that stretch across multiple aspects of life
(Waite, 2009). Housing precarity refers to the ways growing instability specifically manifests in
relation to home. The rental crisis has produced stress and anxiety because it puts tenants’ homes
and connections to their communities under threat.
14
The term rental crisis is used to describe the housing conditions tenants confronted in this
project because people were literally struggling to survive. Declining affordability and
accelerating neighborhood change have introduced new stressors and constraints, which require
tenants to expend additional time and energy to secure basic needs such as food and housing. As
renters are forced to endure growing insecurity, they are left depleted and indebted–through
debts in time by neglecting sleep and missing out on family, debts in health through reductions in
material sustenance and the accumulation of stress, and debt of money as bills accumulate and
household budgets are stretched thin (Peake, et al., 2021). As a result, residents require social
support and political protections to survive because they cannot provide everything needed to
survive through their own labor and require assistance to withstand the harmful aspects of their
environments (Lorey, 2015). The framework of precarity asks us to recognize this vulnerability
as universal, we all share the need for outside support to survive. The difference between social
groups, then, stems from the unequal distribution of public goods and public protections (Butler,
2004). A governance of precarity formed through coordination between the public and private
sector determines whose lives are valuable, who is deserving of resources and protection, which
in turn structures their exposure to stress and instability.
Through precarious work and living conditions, capital has shifted the costs of survival
back onto households. Working class tenants are expected to internalize the risks and uncertainty
associated with unpredictable work schedules, accelerating rental prices, displacement pressures
that incentivize their removal, and disruptions in their relationships. With fewer resources
provided through labor and greater instability at home, tenants must exert more energy on
reproduction and actions required for survival (Peake, et al., 2021). Consequently, residents also
have less time to contribute to supporting others in their community, which leads to the
15
deterioration of social bonds and belonging. Therefore, precarity affects the material resources,
quality of life, social support, and future life chances of residents. Furthermore, precarious living
and work conditions are at the root of fundamental disparities in health because they structure
unequal exposure to environmental stress. The material and affective impacts of precarity
translate into stress and anxiety, which make it difficult for individual’s to replenish themselves
materially and emotionally. Ultimately, the literature in public health makes clear that
accumulation of stress, anxiety, and deprivation leads to premature death (Turner, 2009).
The framework of precarity extends past traditional framings of affordability and
neighborhood change. The reason people cannot afford housing is not just because housing is
expensive or because wages have stagnated. There is a specific market system that tenants must
participate in and power imbalances within those markets make it easier to dispose of workers
and tenants as well as withdraw services, benefits, or hours. The rental crisis has only worsened
those power imbalances by reducing the outside options renters have available. There is
exorbitant demand for stable employment and affordable housing, yet a severe shortage of both
which forces people to agree to arrangements they otherwise would reject. Working class tenants
must accept insecure housing and labor conditions because they face an extremely limited choice
set.
Moreover, the retrenchment of government support–in terms of social spending and
enforcing tenant and worker protections–is a central component to precarity. Our political and
social systems allows precarious conditions to persist by failing to intervene either through the
provision of basic resources needed for survival to residents that the private market is unable to
cover or by through the provision of protections against harm perpetuated as a result of unequal
16
power relations such as rent spikes, landlord harassment, deferred maintenance, reductions in
work hours without notice, and exclusionary development in marginalized neighbors.
Rent burden metrics help identify households vulnerable to instability, however, it is the
underlying housing and work conditions that shape residents’ lives. The ways people respond to
the rental crisis–by working more, living with additional people, moving to lower quality units,
or seeking out public resources–alter the affordability metrics typically studied. The adjustments
residents make to survive change the inputs to affordability calculations. Consequently,
traditional studies of affordability miss all the actions people take just to remain cost burdened.
Those actions have potential to not only alleviate stressors, but also produce new ones. Tenants
may fall below the rent burden threshold but only because they are extremely overcrowded or
working around the clock. Alternatively, a tenant may have made the choice to spend more on
housing to escape a harmful situation or to pursue their passion, which helps negate the
economic stress of paying more toward rent.
Constraints can also be modified through social means of support and resistance. Tenants
alleviate pressures to internalize a greater portion of reproduction costs by sharing food,
transportation assistance, and information. These practices help reduce expenses and expand the
wide community’s ability to resist through the diffusion of knowledge. Because these tactics do
not specifically relate to income or rent, they too are not registered with traditional affordability
metrics. We are concerned about affordability because of the stress and instability it creates. If
traditional measures are not able to capture the stressors and instability associated with
affordability nor the ways residents’ alleviate those issues then we must find a new framework
to analyze the rental crisis.
17
In this text, I propose the formation of an alternative index of survivability. Survivability
represents a multi-scalar and multi-dimensional index of well-being that could be used to
evaluate the various stressors residents endure at both a household and community level. The
index would help researchers and policymakers understand how structural housing and labor
market conditions are experienced by residents and give us information on how those macro-
level conditions influence actions and behaviors on a local level among tenants, landowners, and
government officials. This index is also more closely aligned to the literature in public health,
which emphasizes the need to understand the complex environments that influence people’s
exposure to stress.
To begin, an index of survivability would incorporate both structural market conditions
and local housing characteristics. This includes consideration of the quality and quantity of
employment and housing required for residents to meet their needs. In addition, survivability
would assess exposure to stressors that emerge from the environmental and social dimensions of
home as well as how individuals respond to and resist those stressors. These factors include
unfair landlord practices, deferred maintenance, and overcrowding as well as access to support,
care, and belonging. Next, survivability accounts for residents’ mobility which is structured by
the availability of homes that meet their economic, social, and cultural needs, and the agency
they have in the decision to leave their current unit. Finally, survivability evaluates the policy
and political environment, which grants access to protections under the law through court
enforcement, government monitoring, and accountability processes.
The language we use to discuss the policy issues affecting human lives is important
because discourse dictates how we govern crises. We need to be more explicit in policy and
planning discussions as to what is at stake with the ongoing rental crisis. Affordability is already
18
an explicitly political measure that requires some concept of justice–by setting an acceptable
amount of income left over after rent to spend on basic necessities. An index of survivability
more explicitly names what this designation signifies–a level at which people can literally no
longer afford the consumption needed for survival. By using the framework of precarity to
ground this index, the measure of survivability also speaks to the foundational nature of home
and the multiple dimensions–economic, social, environmental, and political–that must be secure
in order for tenants to thrive. The concept of survival is not only about basic needs being met, but
also whether someone can continue to exist in the future without new systems emerging to
reproduce the same outcomes. This orientation toward the future is important because it demands
different types of interventions. An index of survivability will bring together each of components
necessary to lead a whole, healthy life.
In the past, policymakers have addressed scarcity and inequality–in housing and other
core areas of American life–through incentives to the private market and injunctions that limited
specific activities. These interventions did nothing to address underlying causes, enact
institutional change, rectify power imbalances, or meet the material needs of those affected. As a
result, their effectiveness eroded quickly as racism and economic exploitation evolved and
persisted. An index of survivability seeks to call attention to the multiple and dynamic obstacles
that working-class residents face in their pursuit of stability. By understanding how these
stressors and constraints interact with one another, we will be better equipped to target
interventions at the situations giving rise to stressful problems rather than managing the
symptoms of affordability and neighborhood change after they occur. Furthermore, the
framework of precarity demands that we center power and social relations which raise important
19
questions as to how the public sector can best influence and mitigate risk through distribution of
protections and public resources.
Walk-Through
This dissertation details how the processes of affordability and neighborhood change
contribute to housing precarity. Additionally, I examine the tactics and infrastructure of care
people use to survive those conditions. Using the stress process model as a framework, the
project analyzes the housing and employment conditions, survival tactics, and social support
residents navigate amidst the on-going rental crisis. This analysis leverages a unique, mixed
methods data-set composed of 17 focus groups, a geographically randomized door-to-door
survey of 402 residents, and 2 years of ethnographic research. The original dataset provides an
opportunity to look at economic, environmental, social, and political dimensions of housing
simultaneously. Moreover, information is provided at both the household and neighborhood level
which has not been available in the past via a singular dataset. By using qualitative and
quantitative data, I pursue an intersectional approach to studying housing precarity in order to lift
up the ways mechanisms of stress cluster together and compound one another. This research
approach is specifically geared to investigate how mechanisms of stress are jointly or mutually
determined which quantitative models often have a difficult time evaluating. Because the dataset
is multi-dimensional and multi-scalar, we can more easily observe the converging mechanisms
that influence people’s ability to survive.
20
Conditions
In the first section of this dissertation, I explore the housing and neighborhood conditions
residents of South L.A. experienced in 2018-19. This situational context was shaped by both an
on-going rental crisis as well as structural conditions derived from the evolution of racial
capitalism in the United States. The conditions documented in Chapter 4 include a shortage of
affordable housing, escalating costs, lack of housing space, development pressures, unfair
landlord practices, and precarious work arrangements. Many of these conditions are made
possible through unequal power relations between tenants and landlords. This chapter further
examines the social conditions which allow housing stressors to materialize and make it difficult
for residents to respond. I find there are inadequate formal policy protections in place for renters,
limited knowledge around the policies that do exist, and a lack of enforcement to ensure
reasonable living conditions.
Through the examination of economic, social, and political conditions that impact
residents’ access to secure shelter, I also identify problems with traditional affordability
measures. Mechanisms of stress exposure are produced by the actions tenants’ take to navigate
around those thresholds. Furthermore, tenants’ ability to secure housing was not only based on
cost and income considerations, but also the power imbalances between landlords and tenants.
The uncertainty tenants faced were not constrained to the issues of housing costs, stagnating
wages, or poverty. Instead, this chapter demonstrates that housing stressors cluster together and
reinforce those found in other aspects of life. The concept of precarity offers an alternative
framework to analyze the growing uncertainty in residents' lives, which intersects and extends
beyond their housing. Additionally, a framework of precarity also integrates the environmental,
21
social, and political aspects of housing into evaluations. This chapter details how precarious
conditions at home and at work impact stress.
Mobility & Belonging
The next section of this book explores how the rental crisis has altered residents'
mobility. I examine how the stress from environmental conditions accumulates over time and
pushes residents out. Previous research has demonstrated that most evictions do not occur
through formal channels. This chapter seeks to uncover the informal mechanisms used to push
tenants out and the stress produced from those strategies. Additionally, past research has
demonstrated that changes in the social composition of gentrifying neighborhoods stems
primarily from turn-over and replacement of long-time residents by wealthier in-movers as
opposed to direct displacement. Little is known, though, about how units become vacant and
available to those new clientele or how long-time residents experience the process of community
and neighborhood replacement.
To analyze the constraints on mobility introduced by the rental crisis, I incorporate a
theory of belonging into study of affordability and neighborhood change. This theory
acknowledges the multi-faced nature of home and incorporates the environmental, social, and
affective dimensions of housing. By using the theory of belonging, I tease apart the social versus
physical aspects of neighborhood change to understand how each component uniquely structures
exposure to stress. As family members and neighbors have moved out of South L.A., residents’
sense of belonging has deteriorated spurring additional stress and anxiety. The influx of
unfamiliar faces and outside investment has created new boundaries of exclusion which recreate
the harms of past policy and reduce community members’ feelings of agency over their
surroundings.
22
Survivability
Residents consistently work to create opportunities and construct safe spaces to survive.
Understanding the processes of racial capitalism also requires acknowledgement of the ways
communities of color have consistently struggled against unfair practices, built their own
institutions, and forced policy change through social movements and localized resistance.
The final section of this dissertation investigates the survival tactics renters use to modify
stressful situations, reduce threat, and manage the consequences of shocks that cannot be
avoided. In Chapter 6, I also explore how residents have come together to form infrastructures of
social support to meet their needs and access public resources. Given the foundational nature of
home, decisions related to living conditions can result in additional or different stress moving
forward (Bratt, 2002). The ways an individual responds to housing stressors also has the
potential to alleviate or magnify environmental and social conditions further.
Residents internalize the costs associated with precarious labor and housing to retain a
degree of stability by cutting back on consumption goods, taking on extra work, or living with
additional people. In turn, this shapes income and housing indicators used to calculate traditional
affordability measures. This chapter introduces the term functional adjustments to describe how
residents alter their living and work conditions. Those adjustments are functional because they
change the inputs to income to rent ratio computations and alter the conditions that structure
tenants’ daily functioning in the world. These strategies—while life-preserving in the short-
term—can make residents even more precarious over time as they exhaust available coping
mechanisms and the impacts of these decisions accumulate. Furthermore, this chapter examines
how people use infrastructures of care through family, friends, organizations, and government
services to access social support, resist harmful practices, and achieve a sense belonging. Rising
23
unaffordability and neighborhood change are notable because they have disrupted these
infrastructures of care and reduced the material resources households can offer to others.
Purpose
This dissertation provides an evaluation of both the direct and indirect mechanisms
through which unaffordability and neighborhood produce stress and instability. More
specifically, I use a framework of housing precarity to analyze how the current rental crisis
reproduces inequality and exposes people to stressors resulting in decreased life spans, lower
quality of life, and social death. The framework of precarity integrates macro forces that underlie
the rental crisis as well as the ways those structural conditions influence the behaviors of
landlords, employers, and tenants at the micro level. The project centers around housing because
of its complex relationship with income and opportunity. It is therefore a key area where local
governments can intervene and systematically improve residents’ daily lives. The COVID-19
pandemic and spiraling rental costs have brought renewed attention to housing, but we have only
begun to fully acknowledge the impacts of the increasingly precarious conditions that most
tenants occupy.
Research around housing stability has traditionally used secondary data to track outcomes
related to rent burden, overcrowding, displacement, and gentrification. While these metrics are
helpful for identifying residents vulnerable to instability, they provide less information on the
underlying social and economic relationships that produce those outcomes at the household
level. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide a more nuanced understanding of the
converging and cumulative stressors that endanger tenants. The project investigates affordability
and neighborhood change from the perspective of local tenants in South Los Angeles. Listening
24
to resident experiences reveals the mechanisms through which housing stressors impact health,
well-being, and belonging. The project also examines how those experiences differ across class,
race, and family status so that interventions can meet their diverse and unique needs.
The experiential impacts of day-to-day living provide valuable insight into the
mechanisms that ultimately lead to housing stress and instability. It is in the accumulation of
daily experiences and the strategies residents use to navigate them that unequal health outcomes
are reproduced. Tenants have an intimate understanding of the forces that are pressing hardest on
their lives and the areas where relief would serve the greatest need. Policymakers can learn from
resident experiences and work alongside them to design interventions that prevent the impacts of
the rental crisis from spreading further. Tenants have already innovated outside the current racial
capitalist systems to build infrastructures of care that allow them to survive and resist. This
community infrastructure can be nurtured through the redistribution of public resources and also
offers useful examples of supports that can be modeled in public interventions. By lifting up
local perspectives, this research seeks to shift the dialogue away from isolated decisions of
individuals toward a wider set of spatial, institutional, and structural factors that influence
residents’ capacity to secure shelter.
The right to survival for working class households has quickly become a bipartisan issue
with researchers and politicians across the ideological spectrum worried about the impacts of
precarious work and housing on residents’ quality of life (Cass, 2006). Therefore, there is strong
potential for organizing across identity and place as these conditions become more widespread
and our mutual need for one another to survive becomes more acute. An index of survivability
offers a means to track how issues related to precarity and the rental crisis intersect and differ
across various populations so that diverse coalitions can be formed from a foundation of
25
understanding. Housing policy will not resolve disparities in stress and health alone, but
represents an impactful area to intervene given the foundational nature of home and its
significance to nearly all other aspects of life. Policymakers must concurrently address
historically rooted racial structures and the new mechanisms that arise to uphold those conditions
for meaningful change to happen.
26
Chapter 2: Context
The purpose of this chapter is to situate the on-going rental crisis in the historical context
of South L.A. This history shapes who experiences unaffordability and where neighborhood
change occurs. Moreover, it provides a foundation on which opportunities and amenities or
harms and stressors cluster together and accumulate. Affordability and neighborhood change
reproduce inequality by contributing additional mechanisms of stress exposure to the daily life of
tenants, which disproportionately impact working-class Black and Latino/a communities. Those
stressors not only cause depleted health outcomes, but also further widens gaps in wealth and
income because of the fundamental nature of housing to residents’ overall livelihoods. More
specifically, research has shown that the primary driver of wealth inequality in the United States
is housing because of disparities in both ownership levels and neighborhood trajectories (Adkins,
et al., 2021; Rognlie, 2016). In addition, property has served as a “race-making institution” by
attaching white people to white places where amenities and opportunities were concentrated
while communities of color were targeted with practices of disinvestment, dispossession and
erasure (Zaimi, 2021; Bonds, 2018). Although the conditions surrounding non-white spaces were
the by-product of the racial capitalist system, they were nonetheless used to justify difference
and oppression. Inequalities in wealth, status, and power that were manufactured from these
differing treatments of space serve as primary drivers of the rental crisis today. The spatial
processes of racial capitalism and history of South Los Angeles–which have laid the foundation
for affordability and neighborhood change–are explored in brief below.
Capitalism and racism are mutually determined through economic, political, and social
systems (Robinson, 2000; Hall, 1980). Whiteness is the unnamed system that has made the
modern world and carved out the spatial distribution of people and industry in urban areas across
27
the U.S. (Mills, 2003). It derives its value from being measured against non-whiteness and serves
as an act of exclusion both spatially and socially to materialize constructed racial differences
(Razack, 2014). To quote Stuart Hall (1980): race is "the modality through which class is lived."
Racial capitalism frames unequal opportunities and outcomes as economically necessary and
culturally justified. More specifically, race and class shape urban places through processes of
disinvestment, dispossession, and erasure in two primary ways. First, the system of racial
capitalism imposes real and imagined boundaries in the built environment and across identity
groups (Smith, 1984; Gilmore, 2002). Second, racial capitalism leverages those boundaries to
manufacture vulnerability and extract value through uneven development (Fraser 2016;
McKittrick, 2011; Smith, 1984).
In Los Angeles–and the United States more generally–commodification of land and
private development begins with colonialism. Settler colonialism, and the associated force of
racial capitalism emerging during that time, imagined "nature" (inhabited lands, towns, cities) as
an empty, blank slate that could serve the interest of white landowners. Consequently, the first
act of development involved the violent dispossession of many indigenous peoples by Spanish
then U.S. armed forces (Woods, 2017; Cronon, 2011; Razack, 2002). This development project
required legally legitimizing strategic plans, maps, legislation, and war through policy and
planning to enable expropriation and convert land to private property. Throughout the formation
of the United States and California land parcels were distributed according to a racialized social
hierarchy that created monopolies and formed white power blocs (Shannon, 1936).
Across U. S. history, development has unfolded unevenly according to the hierarchy
demanded by racial capitalism (Taylor, 2019; Gibbons, 2018; Trounstine, 2018; Rothstein, 2017;
Woods, 2017; Hirsch, 2009; Robinson, 2000). In this dissertation, I define development as any
28
process that fosters value and imposes meaning on land. The development process consists of
private and public interventions that create boundaries, mediate investment flows, leverage local
resources, and construct buildings to spur economic activity and impose meaning on land.
Under-development describes locations where racialized populations subsist on low wages, high
unemployment, and cheap land (Smith, 1984). These conditions are not inherent; instead, they
result from a lack of value attributed to racialized populations and places.
While communities actively fight for value, often, they lack the regulatory and
institutional infrastructure to enforce livability standards and self-determination due to
differential power relations (Bhattacharyya, 2018; Fraser, 2016). Under-developed places are
required to sustain the capitalist system as locations experiencing positive flows of development
become associated with higher costs, and capital must shift to preserve the rate of profit (Smith,
1984). Over time, under-developed areas are also converted into new markets and new
consumers, which depletes the rate of profit and creates a seesaw effect as capital moves to
different locations. The opposing tendencies of consolidation and differentiation create a circuit
through which capital shifts across places to take advantage of over-and under-development,
navigating between accumulation and crisis. Racial capitalism provides cover for these inequities
by explaining the necessity of under-developed places in the production chain and claiming
conditions as deserved given the racialized cultures and histories of local residents (Hall, 1980).
In Los Angeles, segregation and disinvestment originated in municipal zoning codes
aimed at improving sanitary conditions. At the beginning of the 20th century, waves of
migration by non-White populations sparked racial fears of muddying the image of Los
Angeles as a “white garden city” which was used to sell the area to outsiders (Axelrod,
2007; Molina, 2006). Los Angeles’ connection to health and cleanliness was crucial to
29
narratives built to sell the city to the broader U.S. In order to keep the threats associated
with these populations from spreading, containment was imposed through zoning, racial
covenants, and eminent domain, which carved physical differentiation into the landscape
(Gibbons, 2018; Cuff, 2000). This began with zoning laws targeted at laundromats and
stables owned by Chinese and Japanese immigrants. These types of laws proved effective at
regulating where residents could live and work as well as containing the negative
externalities of capitalist production (Molina, 2006).
The City of Los Angeles would go on to use zoning repeatedly in this way with
influxes of Mexican immigration in the 1920’s and 1930’s as well as during the great
migration of Black southerners from the 1930’s to 1950’s (Morrow, 2013; Robinson, 2010;
Molina, 2006). Immigrants were positioned as a threat to property values and the overall
quality of the city when their labor was no longer required. Non-whites were constrained to
certain sections of the city where exploitation and externalities of the racial capitalist system
could be concentrated and whites were able to escape through the protections afforded by
the state. Decisions related to development were framed through the issues of ‘blight’ and
‘disease’, which were constructed through public policies and attached to racialized
populations and the neighborhoods they inhabited (Herscher, 2020; Gibbons, 2018; Molina,
2006). The protection of health provided a public explanation for the protection of economic
value, which underwrote those policies.
Before 1930, Blacks made up a relatively small proportion of the overall population in
Los Angeles (Robinson, 2010). Although Los Angeles had deep ties to the confederacy and
Black residents remained a counterfactual of whiteness, race was constructed alongside the
demand for labor of Chinese, Japanese, and Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles (Molina, 2006;
30
Villa, 2000). Through varying degrees of incorporation into society and access to opportunity,
city government and private boosters pushed to define race according to the needs of capital and
the state. These populations filled labor needs before and during the World War I and II efforts–
and thus were justified economically–but the city failed to provide necessary investments in the
infrastructure and social services needed to support new arrivals with constricted resources. With
limited housing mobility and employment options, racialized, working class residents were
forced to subsist off low wages while being overcharged for low-quality housing and targeted for
exploitation and harm (Lipsitz, 2011; Daniels, 1975). Neglect and overcrowding brought about
by disinvestment was used to grant legitimacy to the narratives that framed these groups as
threats to property values and public health. These conditions made it difficult to survive, but
preserved cheap, surplus labor in desperate need of economic resources (McKittrick, 2011).
From 1910 to 1920, the Black population in Los Angeles doubled from 7,500 to 15,000
people when Los Angeles had roughly 320,000 and 577,000 respectively (Robinson, 2010).
Black residents had relative economic and housing freedom up until this time and still
represented a relatively small proportion of the population. However, the Great Depression and
an influx of Mexican immigrants in the 1920’s sparked sharp racial backlash. Government
officials and private sector used zoning, exclusionary development, devaluation, and racial
steering to segment housing and restrict non-white residents to certain sections of the city
(Gibbons, 2018; Morrow, 2013). Zoning set the limits for development and channeled toward
specific areas of the city. While zoning created a healthier city for white middle class residents
by separating out land uses, it exposed others to harm. Although explicit racial zoning was
banned in 1917, non-white areas continued to be zoned for heavier industrial usage, toxic
entities, and denser housing so that white space could be reserved for residential living and
31
positive amenities (Whittemore, 2012). Race neutral language replaced explicitly racist language
in both industrial and residential zoning, but allowed a racialized spatial organization of the city
to persist and directed flows of capital accordingly (Shertzer et al., 2016; Molina 2006).
As governing forces recognized a need for more efficient organization and control of
space for development, planning and policy became the means by which racial capitalist
development could materialize (Herscher, 2020). Zoning provided mandated police power in
most cities across the country as an important tool to maintain the system of private property
necessitated by capitalism. It also became a tool for the elite to maintain property value and
reinforce dominance (Whittemore, 2017). By the mid- 1900s, urban planning had become widely
integrated into the public sector across the United States with regulations and funding backed by
the courts and politicians (Williams, 2020). The tools available to policymakers and planners
included zoning, tax credits, subsidies, taxation, public investment, social safety net spending,
and law enforcement, which was allocated according to a racial hierarchy and controlled by
white residents (Lipsitz, 2011).
In Los Angeles, city departments of planning and public health shaped the location of
development through zoning and carved segregation into the city’s built environment (Molina,
2006). This was not accomplished by the public sector alone, however. Zoning became the first
formal tool used by the Los Angeles Realty Board (LARB) to keep their developments reserved
for whiteness (Redford, 2017; Whittemore, 2012). Racially restrictive covenants were pioneered
in Los Angeles during an initial suburban shift in development that occurred in the 1910’s and
1920’s (Whittemore, 2017; Morrow, 2013). Community builders in Los Angeles carved out
entire neighborhoods from large tracts of unused land and blanketed them in racial covenants to
breathe life into appraisal theories and materialize economic predictions in the landscape. These
32
communities included numerous parcels throughout present day South L.A. (Weiss, 2002; Cuff,
2000).
Prior to the 20th century, South L.A. was predominantly farmland before being
developed into explicitly white working class neighborhoods outside the developing city center
(Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021; Ochoa & Ochoa, 2005). The technology of racial covenants
were incredibly profitable in the hands of the private market and new monopolies formed. In Los
Angeles, the Title Insurance & Trust Co. was estimated to process the deeds of 90 percent of all
restrictive covenants in the City (Gibbons, 2018). At that time, The Los Angeles Eagle estimated
that 95% of the city was covered by racial covenants. Barriers in space were also upheld by
force via the police and private acts of terror. Additionally, an estimated 18,000 Klan members
lived in Los Angeles across the 1920’s through 1940’s (Gibbons, 2018). Cross burnings and
beatings were used repeatedly to stop the advancement of the Black community to other areas of
the city.
The real estate industry played an essential role in structuring the layout of Los Angeles
and preserving Los Angeles’ image of whiteness (Morrow, 2013). Using the pseudoscience of
real estate appraisal, the L.A. real estate board justified racialized zoning and segregation
through housing economics. To protect investments, restrictive covenants were used to bar
industrial operations, toxic land-use, apartment buildings, and racialized groups—each of which
were viewed as detrimental to development (Gibbons, 2018; Morrow, 2013; Roithmayr, 2010;
Harris, 1992). Real estate boards consulted with planners to promote ‘responsible development’
through deed restrictions and the creation of homeowner associations. Entire cities were carved
out of the Los Angeles basin around ideas of exclusion–Inglewood incorporated in 1908, Beverly
Hills in 1918, Torrance in 1921. The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers–an associated
33
research institute of the National Real Estate Board–produced white papers and guides that built
in the presence or absence of non-white residents as part of the equation for value (Taylor, 2019).
Private sector actors further altered housing market dynamics by commanding agents not to sell
across racial lines and filed lawsuits against owners that broke those rules because of the
supposed threat this held to property values. These ideas continued to infiltrate public life as
leaders of the National Real Estate Board went on to author the underwriting criteria for the
Federal Housing Administration (Rothstein, 2017). The “science” of appraisal granted further
credibility to theories of racial valuation in which whiteness served as the baseline for value.
With soldiers returning home from World War II and industry winding down from the
war effort, a new era of American politics was ushered in to establish new consumers and the
white middle class (Lipsitz, 2011). Mass welfare programs like the GI Bill and subsidized loans
from the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) were used to redistribute wealth and power under the
growing definition of whiteness (Katznelson, 2005). These programs also reduced risk for the
private market by backing private development with public credit and public power. The FHA, in
particular, extended home loans that established the rapid expansion of the suburbs and
accelerated the racial wealth gap across the country (Massey & Denton, 1997) . This intervention
expanded an older technology–the mortgage–to mass consumption. The practice of redlining was
used by the FHA to designate certain neighborhoods as high risk of racial infiltration and
negative externalities from the production process by marking them in a red outline (Trounstine,
2018; Rothstein, 2017). Redlining extended credit to areas associated with whiteness and helped
them acquire positive amenities, public infrastructure, and wealth. Through redlining, the
language of racial valuation was further infused into public life. In the case of the GI Bill–which
included both subsidized college tuition, home loans, and insurance–devolution to the local
34
government and the private market ensured benefits accrued according to the racial hierarchy
(Katznelson, 2005). The expansion of housing loans to an emerging white middle class was
legitimized as inclusive by incorporating Jewish and European immigrants not previously
associated with whiteness (Villa, 2000). It also ensured that space associated with whiteness
continued to appreciate in value over time by manufacturing demand and scarcity in the newly
forming suburbs.
Meanwhile, the Black population of Los Angeles had swelled to 134,000 by 1944
(Robinson, 2000). Driven by the Great Migration and demand for labor by defense contractors in
the lead-up to WWII, Black residents formed the next generation of surplus labor for the city and
began to formulate their own middle class (Lipsitz, 2011). Most Black residents and migrants,
however, served as the economic engine of the city by taking up low-wage jobs. Black residents
were restricted in mobility by the ‘Alameda Curtain’ and clustered around Central Avenue–an
area just south of downtown (Gibbons, 2018). Residents were constricted to low-quality housing
within strict geographic boundaries which limited the overall supply available amidst a surging
number of in-migrants. Whites were able to escape the negative externalities of racial capitalism
in the suburbs and instead fix them as social flaws to racialized populations (Lipsitz, 2011;
Weiss, 2002). Neglect and overcrowding were used to create a visible other and granted further
legitimacy to the real estate industry’s narratives around racial valuation. Given the role of public
governance in establishing livable conditions for residents, the departments of planning, public
health, and building and safety made choices that allowed these conditions to persist and put
little pressure on the private sector to alter their practices (Davis, 2006). Throughout the 20th
century, racial exclusion was upheld and codified through the courts, property titles, lending
practices, real estate steering, state violence, and white terror (Brooks, 2011).
35
An urban property regime also emerged in Los Angeles around the value of whiteness.
This consisted of politicians, the chamber of commerce, real estate, universities, homeowners
associations, community builders, speculators, the Los Angeles Times newspaper, and city
government employees (Gibbons 2018; Seamster 2015; Morrow 2013). Los Angeles always
grew as a multi-nodal city and had strong anti-growth activism to protect white property rights.
This differed in some ways from Chicago and New York where traditional ‘growth’ regimes–or
machines–concentrated development in a single downtown (Whittemore, 2012; Logan &
Molotch, 1987). Instead, industry and capital was dispersed throughout Los Angeles and
accumulation was driven by the growth in property values of white enclaves. Elites extracted
their wages and wealth in areas outside their own homes and neighborhoods, where the negative
externalities of the capitalist system were experienced most acutely (Morrow, 2013; Fischel,
2004). Suburban enclaves were monetized by connecting them to the larger metropolitan area
(Weiss, 2002). There were certainly downtown boosters throughout the growth of L.A., but the
city center served more as a power center through which public funds, favors, and zoning were
distributed (Molina, 2006). With wide ranging motivation, these groups worked to separate and
protect white neighborhoods from the perceived threat of non-whites and the impacts of
industrial capitalism (Gibbons, 2018; Lipsitz, 2011). In turn, this perpetuated growth in property
values and the growth in economic activity, which was made possible through the exploitation of
a racialized labor force that was now physically separated in space.
Through their actions, the white property coalition provided an economic and cultural
justification for control and racialization. Those in proximity to whiteness were able to erect
boundaries that allowed them to flee collective obligations and take the accumulated wealth of
the racial capitalist system with them. In the 1950’s, the Lakewood Plan set a public precedent
36
that allowed for new cities to split away from the central city of Los Angeles taking their tax
dollars with them and contracting out needed services to private contractors or the larger county
Morrow, 2013). Public resources were reallocated away from vulnerable communities toward
infrastructure and private development that was used to boost profits. Efforts by the private
sector were backed by planners and policymakers as highways, roads, rail lines, power lines,
sewer systems, subsidized home loans, and municipal incorporation were extended to places
associated with whiteness (Cuff, 2000). An expansive private street-car system, then public
highway infrastructure was used to transport White residents to and from their homes while
minimizing interactions with other portions of the city. Over time, white flight,
deindustrialization, and disinvestment ensured that wealthy, white enclaves emerged outside the
city center while Black and Latinx neighborhoods were impoverished and exploited. This
allowed individuals and institutions to frame social problems as the by-product of racial flaws
rather than an outgrowth of destructive policy decisions.
From the 1920’s to 1960’s, hostile politicians and government officials repeatedly
blocked local and federal funding designated for improving living conditions, building social
housing, and directing resources to the city center (Gibbons 2018; Morrow 2013). This resistance
culminated in state voters passing Article 34 in 1950 which effectively banned publicly funded
housing projects without a vote by local residents. Over 15,000 units were rejected as a result of
Article 34 during the 1960’s alone (Cuff, 2000). State-wide Proposition 13 followed in the
1970’s, which capped property taxes and occurred in tax revolt against the equalization of social
and education spending between wealthy white neighborhoods and the rest of the State.
(Redford, 2017; Whittemore, 2012). Each of the technologies associated with segregation and
wealth accumulation were motivated by a material investment of whiteness. They were created
37
to assist in the hoarding of resources in white enclaves despite these gains being made possible
through economic development and exploitation in the larger metropolitan city. Unequal access
to wealth facilitated domination and the control of property and power in the city among white
residents.
Japanese American residents were the first non-white residents to move into the South
L.A. area (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021). After returning from World War II internment
camps imposed by the U.S. government, they slowly began to move west from downtown to the
neighborhoods now associated with Exposition Park and the Crenshaw Corridor (Villa, 2000). In
1948, the Shelley vs Kraemer U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down the legality of racially
restrictive housing covenants (Lipsitz, 2011). Racial boundaries persisted past this period, but
mobility for Black and Latino/a residents expanded significantly throughout the 1950’s to 1970’s
westward to View Park and Baldwin Hills–the hill surrounding the Crenshaw corridor
(Robinson, 2010). As the defense industry grew significantly and spurred wider job growth in
steel, automobile, and tire manufacturing sector, Black residents were able to establish middle
class communities in South L.A. (Pastor, 2001)
The Black population in Los Angeles continued to double in both the 1950’s and 1960’s
alongside the rapid expansion of the city overall (Sides, 2004). However, planning from the
public and private sector continued to lag and much of Los Angeles remained off limits to Black
residents as white residents retreated further into suburban enclaves in the surrounding San
Fernando Valley (Gibbons, 2018). The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)–well-known its
civil rights organizing work in the American South–had a local office in Los Angeles, which
estimated in 1960 that only 2% percent of new buildings were available to non-white residents
(Morrow, 2013). Black residents experienced relative stability in South L.A. but remained locked
38
out of further economic opportunity, geographic mobility, and their communities devalued by the
private and public sector. Throughout this period, support systems developed informally amongst
community members and neighbors as well as through the creation of organizational resources
(Lipsitz, 2011; Pulido, 2006). Although discrimination and violence restricted residents’ housing
options, it also allowed for new institutions, businesses, and services to emerge that specifically
catered toward the local community.
From the 1920’s to 1980’s, South Los Angeles had active chapters of CORE, Urban
League, Black Panthers, and Brown Berets as well as numerous more localized resistance efforts
such as Negro Victory Committee (NVC), Crenshaw Neighbors, and El Centro de Acción Social
y Autónomo (CASA) (Gibbons, 2018; Pulido, 2006). These groups pushed back against the
racial boundaries that were imposed on Black and Latino/a communities and seeded ideas from
free land, free lunch, and universal amnesty for immigrants to the need for improved jobs,
homes, and an end to racial discrimination (Gottlieb, et al., 2006; Pastor, 2001). Moreover, these
movements protected non-white space and non-white residents (Pulido, 2006). Resistance to
oppression also included independent press, which served a crucial function of documenting the
conditions local residents navigated and the ways racial capitalism was affecting areas of the city
that other publications ignored (Gibbons, 2018). The Eastside Sun and The Eagle pushed back
against segregation upheld by white violence as well as called out the origins of low-quality jobs
and housing relegated to Black and Latino residents (Abdullah & Freer 2010). After decades of
fighting, political representation was also achieved in 1949 with the election of Edward Roybal
to City Council–the first Mexican representative since the 1800’s–who was directly succeeded in
1963 by Gilbert Lindsay as the first Black member.
39
From the 1930’s to 1970’s, the federal government played a more active role in the
formation of cities by providing funds to local governments for investments in infrastructure
(Cuff, 2000). Redevelopment projects at this time occurred at a massive scale and resulted
in a literal remaking of the city as well as massive profits for landowners given the
economic activity the projects facilitated. The social and economic costs of these projects
were passed onto those viewed as expendable–predominantly non-white communities
(Avila, 2004). Large-scale redevelopment and slum clearance was declared economically
rational due to low land values and socially appropriate given the residents' supposed
inability to make improvements on their own because of cultural deficiencies (Herscher,
2020).
Redevelopment was positioned as the only possible remedy for the behavioral
failures of non-white residents . This pattern was exhibited consistently throughout history
with the demolition of Chinatown for the construction of Union Station in the 1930’s, the
razing of Chavez Ravine and Bunker Hill for ‘slum clearance’ in the 1950’s, and the
destruction of large portions of East and South Los Angeles for highways in the 1960’s
(Cuff, 2000). As mentioned previously, L.A. rejected a large portion of the federal funding
they received for slum clearance and public housing construction because of a fear for
communism and racialized beliefs around deservingness (Morrow, 2013). Redevelopment
funds were focused in the City Center to spur commercial activity. In relation to housing,
politicians and homeowners refused to survey the city by claiming there were no slums in
the city that contained no white people; no need for public housing because non-white
communities should be forced to survive on their own.
40
Resources were accepted for highway development, however, and implemented
extensively in Los Angeles (Scott & Soja, 1996). These mega projects had tremendous
impacts on the surrounding communities by creating physical boundaries in the built
environment, destroying homes and communities for construction, and linking outer
suburban areas to the city center. The construction of the I-10 highway physically separated
South Los Angeles from the rest of the City including the downtown city center (Cuff,
2000). Construction also destroyed numerous historic Black communities including Sugar
Hill, which was an upper-middle class Black community filled with movie stars, doctors,
and large Craftsman and Victorian homes. In 1965, the I-105 Freeway further segmented
South Los Angeles destroying more than 7,000 homes and displacing 27,000 people (Sides,
2004).
In addition to dispossession through redevelopment, the private and public sector
began to implement exclusionary zoning practices to get around successes of the civil rights
movement which won legal bans on racial segregation (Ihlanfeldt, 2004; Fischel, 2004).
Longstanding disparities in social and economic outcomes, though, were leveraged by the
public and private sector to retire explicit consideration of race while upholding similar
boundaries (Taylor, 2019). By creating income, education, and professional requirements
that were unattainable to most non-white individuals, segregation was effectively upheld in
living and work spaces. In particular, exclusionary zoning consisted of requirements related
to lot sizes, housing to land ratios, and other design specifications written into municipal
zoning codes (powell & Cardwell, 2014). These policies effectively barred non-white
residents from certain cities within Los Angeles and the surrounding counties by creating
artificial scarcity and inflating prices to a level out of reach due to wealth and income gaps
41
(Lipsitz, 2011). Exclusionary zoning also allowed white, wealthy enclaves to avoid building
their fair share of affordable, multi-family housing. This was again justified both
economically and culturally through appraisals, racial valuations, and threats to property
values.
Furthermore, just as Black households began to achieve middle class stability in South
L.A. shifts in the global economy fundamentally altered the labor market across the U.S. leading
to a mass exodus of unionized, manufacturing jobs (Sides, 2004; Pastor, 2001; Soja, et al., 1983).
Beginning in the 1970’s, proliferation of globalization led to industrial overcapacity (Stansbury
& Summer, 2020). An excess of cheap labor and manufacturing capacity created an under-
demand for labor across the globe–or what is known as secular stagnation (Benanav, 2020). The
economic restructuring of Los Angeles represented larger shifts in the overall global economy. In
1960, more than 24% of employed Black South L.A. residents worked in manufacturing. By
2016, just 5% of the area’s population remained in that industry (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor,
2021). Without an engine to match industrial growth, a series of crises were experienced in 1973,
1979, and 1991 from overaccumulation (Pastor, 1995). Growth in high wage positions were able
to increase the demand of services for a period, but additional profit crises followed with the dot
com crash at the end of the 1990’s and Great Recession of 2007-08 (Benanav, 2020).
As workplaces in Los Angeles became increasingly decentralized and dispersed, labor
power was weakened and high-wage jobs followed white residents out of the L.A. basin (Scott &
Soja, 1996). In the 1970’s and 1980’s, Los Angeles and the surrounding counties became a key
testing ground for anti-unionization efforts and workplace restructuring strategies that eventually
spread nationwide (Pastor, 2001). The consolidation of power in the hands of multinational
corporations allowed capital to take advantage of the low demand for labor relative to supply in
42
low-income and high-income countries alike. In particular, immigration flows from Mexico and
other Central American countries grew significantly from 1970 to 2000 in Los Angeles as the
movement of capital and people increased with the proliferation of globalized capitalism (Pastor,
2005). In-migration from Latin America has now begun to decrease after nearly 40 years of
growth, but provided a large source of cheap surplus labor in the U.S. given immigrants
precarious status. Over time, corporations have used their market power to force workers to
accept lower wages and worse conditions, which helped maintain the rate of profit. As secular
stagnation persists, demand for services is increased by lowering prices through eroded worker
protections, use of temporary contracts, and exploitative wages.
In Los Angeles, the service sector more than doubled from 1972 to 1996 and accounted
for 70 percent of overall job growth in Los Angeles County during the first half of the period
(Pastor, 2001). At the same time, the finance, technology, and aerospace sectors doubled as well.
The labor market became increasingly polarized as manufacturing jobs moved to southern states
or outsourced positions offshore in search of lower wage, nonunion labor. The majority of those
who lost jobs or entered the workforce were absorbed into the service sector. Meanwhile, high
wage, managerial positions were reconcentrated in outer suburbs and surrounding counties which
were less accessible to working class households (Scott & Soja, 1997). From 1970 to 1980,
Southern California added 255,800 manufacturing jobs despite the U.S. as a whole gaining less
than one million overall. Los Angeles County, however, experienced job losses in nearly every
sector as growth was dispersed across the periphery of the region (Pastor, 2001). This losses
continued into the 1990’s as well when over 70% over job losses for the entire State of
California were concentrated in L.A. County between 1991 and 1993 despite containing only
30% of the state’s population. It took until 2015 for Los Angeles County to finally recover the
43
number of jobs it had in prior to 1990. However, during that time the labor force grew 11 percent
and the majority of middle class, union jobs that had existed previously were replaced with low-
wage, precarious positions (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021).
In 1992, frustrations with these oppressive conditions and abuse erupted in an uprising
throughout South and Central Los Angeles. This protest was not solely against police terror–
although this was certainly an issue–but also a ‘bread riot’ in opposition to living and working
conditions created by racial capitalism (Pastor, 2001). Few structural or material changes had
occurred since the Watts Rebellion of 1965 and the city continued to pour money into
redevelopment instead of social spending to meet residents’ basic needs (Gottlieb, et al., 2006).
Residents faced a lack of educational and economic opportunities as well as a lack of choices due
to exclusion in the labor and housing market (Lipsitz, 2011). Although Leimert Park and the
Crenshaw Corridor in South L.A. remain a cultural center of Black L.A., the uprising led to a
large out-migration of Black residents to surrounding suburbs and a large growth in the Latino
population throughout South L.A. Black residents sought out further opportunity in the San
Fernando Valley and beyond to escape the boundaries imposed by the past (Sides, 2004).
Latino/a residents took much of the housing that was vacated (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor,
2021). After decades of immigration from Central America, Latino/a residents needed space to
expand outside of East Los Angeles and many had begun to achieve middle class status of their
own (Villa, 2000).
After the Rodney King verdict, there was a strong mobilization effort by South L.A.
residents to reclaim political and economic power (Soja, 2013; Gottlieb, et al., 2006). In the
wake, local leaders focused on building organizational and political structures capable of
demanding greater representation in policy decision making processes (Pastor, 2001). Los
44
Angeles became a site of innovative organizing that brought together labor unions, local
residents, community-based organizations, and universities. Broad-based coalitions worked to
address working poverty, brought attention to the linkages between precarious home and work
conditions, and sought to redistribute resources toward Los Angeles’ Black and Latino/a
communities that had been largely ignored for generations (Cummings, 2008). Throughout the
1990’s, these working-class coalitions were successful in pushing the local government in Los
Angeles to pass ordinances that improved job protections and instituted living wage guarantees
amidst fissuring workplaces.
The success of local community organization in South Los Angeles is evidenced in the
city-wide Justice for Janitors campaign which won improved wages and health insurance
coverage for custodial staff as well as in the Bus Riders Union which forced much needed
improvements to the municipal bus system by noting that funds were being reallocated away
from bus infrastructure to the rail system despite higher rates of ridership (Soja, 2013).
Organizations–such as Community Coalition, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE),
Esperanza Community Housing, Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education
(SCOPE), Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), and Community Development
Technologies (CD Tech)–have built out infrastructures of support and power so that residents
have a collective voice in the future of their neighborhoods (Pastor, 2001). Community members
in South Los Angeles also forced the public and private sector to begin considering their needs in
development decisions by pioneering some of the first project labor and community benefits
agreements in the country (Saito, 2015; Saito, 2012; Cummings, 2008; Gottlieb, et al., 2006).
Despite recurring harm and stress, residents worked the land to create their own value and
cultivate power in their communities.
45
Nonetheless, gaps in wealth, income, life span and educational attainment persist in the
present because of the legacies of racialized development (De La Cruz-Viesca, et al., 2016;
Redelings, et al., 2010). For decades, white families benefited directly from government
interventions and private investment, and passed down the wealth generated intergenerationally
(powell & Cardwell, 2014). They were able to buy into high amenity neighborhoods and escape
harmful situations. In contrast, communities of color have continually been excluded from
resources and investments that facilitated prosperity in other areas of cities. The differential
impacts of racial capitalism are durable and not immediately rectified once periods of under or
over-development pass–toxins seep into the land, deeds are marked in perpetuity, populations are
divided by the heavy infrastructure, and bodies are fixed in space to racial meaning (Sharkey,
2013). Moreover, whiter, wealthier districts have continued to push for punitive state-wide
policies aimed at devaluing and controlling Black and Latino/a communities throughout the
1990’s. This included Proposition 184 which instituted a three strikes criminal justice law,
Proposition 187 which attempted to prohibit undocumented immigrants from public services,
Proposition 209 which struck down affirmative action, and Proposition 227 which eliminated
bilingual education.
Additionally, the mobility experienced by middle class Black and Latino/a residents in
the 1990’s and early 2000’s was primarily facilitated through predatory home loans and
development funds that ultimately ended in massive amounts of foreclosure, lost wealth, and
redistribution to the private sector (Wyly, et al., 2012). Strategies of predatory inclusion stretch
back to the 1970’s when the federal government first began implementing subsidies and
programs to expand access to home loans to those previously excluded. However, the majority of
those services were contracted out to the private sector (Taylor, 2019). These home loans
46
continued to be backed by the government opening up access to credit for communities of color,
but the lending institutions were often less regulated and targeted non-white residents with
exploitative loan agreements as well as lower quality homes and neighborhoods.
Predatory inclusion persists through the financialization of housing evidenced most
recently in the subprime mortgage crisis. Leading up to the Great Recession, banks and investors
targeted Black and Latinx residents for risky, expensive loans when they otherwise would have
qualified for standard terms (Faber, 2013; Molina, 2016A). Due to exclusionary policy and racial
steering, predatory loans were easily concentrated in vulnerable communities in South Los
Angeles because they lacked access to traditional financing and faced constrained choices in
finding homes outside their neighborhoods. Accruing little principal and unable to meet the
exorbitant payments, many residents were forced to foreclose on their property (Wyly, et al.,
2012). That period aggravated historic wealth disparities by contributing to a significant loss of
wealth for Mexican and Black residents whose net worth stood at $3,500 and $4,000 respectively
in 2016 compared to White households in Los Angeles who have a median net worth of
$355,000 (De La Cruz-Viesca, et al., 2016). Black and Latino/a households were more likely to
be foreclosed on and their homes were more likely to be purchased by corporations (Molina,
2016B). In addition, homes in their neighborhood were more likely to stay vacant and more
likely to be flipped and resold within a year (Molina, 2016). By stripping community wealth,
this newest round of dispossession further depressed land values and widened the potential for
excess profit leaving South L.A. susceptible to new forms of predatory development.
In sum, this history points to why working-class Black and Latino/a residents occupy
South L.A. For generations, policy exclusion has confined those residents there and gaps in
wealth ensure they have limited mobility to move elsewhere. Furthermore, affordability issues
47
have long plagued Black and Latino/a residents because of shortages in the homes available to
them and a refusal by whiter, weather enclaves to build their fair share of housing. This refusal
and exclusion has now permeated the entire city because the housing shortage has reached such
an intense magnitude with more than 450,000 units needed for the City of Los Angeles alone
(L.A. City Planning, 2021). As laid out above, Black and Latino/a residents have been used as
surplus labor to fill demand when needed and absorb job losses when demand slackens. The
same thing is now occurring in the realm of housing. Residents that were forced into South L.A.
and relegated to the lowest quality units farthest from jobs, amenities, and opportunities for the
majority of the past are now expected to internalize the rising costs caused by the county-wide
shortage of homes. Moreover, the long-neglected neighborhoods of South L.A. present
opportunities to alleviate demand in housing through redevelopment that will allow those areas
to be replaced with higher wealth clientele and taxpayers. Residents once again face exclusionary
pressures, but this time from within their own neighborhoods as they are expected to find new,
cheaper locations around the city periphery where there is less demand for property.
Resistance, however, is ever present alongside the racial capitalist system and this
especially true in South Los Angeles. Residents provide care and support to one another and alter
their environments to survive in the city. The durability of resistance is showcased by the on-
going work of organizations built in the wake of the 1992 uprising that continues up to this day–
including many of those that participated in this study including SCOPE, Community Coalition,
CD Tech, and SAJE. Those organizations continue to nurture and train new political leaders,
convene coalitions to push issue-based policies, and contribute to larger social movements. In
addition, new organizations have formed to meet the needs of the day–particularly related to
gentrification and displacement–such as the Buy Back Crenshaw Mall Initiative, Leimert Park
48
20/20 Committee and Destination Crenshaw Project, and the L.A. Tenants Union. Local
residents have also attempted to reclaim the land for public use in the form of social housing and
land trust through organizations like Esperanza Community Housing and South L.A. Land Trust.
Those forms of resistance will be further explored in the dissertation that follows alongside the
stressors related to the rental crisis. Affordability and neighborhood change build upon the
durable legacies of inequality and racial capitalism laid out in this chapter.
49
Chapter 3: Methods
In Spring 2018, community members across South Los Angeles gathered to share their
experiences around affordability through a series of 17 focus groups. These conversations were
held in partnership with community organizations including Community Coalition, Community
Development Technologies, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, Tenemos Que Reclamar Y
Unidos Salvar La Tierra (TRUST South L.A.)., Esperanza Community Housing, and Strategic
Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education. The sessions consisted of a 20 minute survey
followed by a 75 minute conversation.
The focus group conversations centered around four key themes:
● Driving forces of the affordability crisis
● Sacrifices, adjustments, and other survival strategies used to afford shelter
● Systems of support, organizing, and resistance
● Different futures that residents envision for South L.A. and the policies needed to make
these futures a reality
The focus group format encouraged participants to drive the conversation and elevate the
information they felt was most important (Merton, 1987). This format shifts the power dynamic
between researchers and subjects by allowing discussion to diverge from predefined questions. It
empowers participants to challenge the assumptions inherent in research goals and insist on their
own interpretation of events (Wilkinson, 1998). Focus groups allow conversations to unfold in a
non-linear manner with participants reacting, building upon, and challenging one another. The
process of creating knowledge collectively in focus groups mimics the complex social
interactions that form residents’ daily experiences and interpretations. Allowing the conversation
50
to diverge and flow naturally aids the researcher in linking disparate yet connected events that
generate final outcomes. This encouraged deeper explanations—with the help of probing from a
moderator—that broke down the mechanisms through which unaffordability and neighborhood
change operate (Weiss, 1995). Giving participants the freedom to guide the conversation, explain
their reasoning, and question one another also allowed observations into the extent to which
resident experiences overlapped or differed.
Focus groups are particularly effective in connecting with vulnerable populations and
approaching sensitive subjects because of the added comfort found in group settings (Fine, 2017;
Mohan, 2006). Partnering with community organizations and conducting focus groups within
their spaces allowed our research team to more easily establish trust and safety with participants.
Working with community organizations, the sessions became a space to share experiences,
resources, and dreams by centering residents’ knowledge. Together, participants heard the
commonalities in their needs and desires, learned how others were coping with similar obstacles,
and validated one another’s experiences by confirming that they were not alone in the issues they
faced. Each session ended with a radical imagination exercise to understand tenants’ ideal
housing situation, policies that could help facilitate making this dream a reality, and obstacles in
their way. Residents envisioned alternative futures where housing practices supported
community well-being and empowered tenants.
The focus group sessions were co-produced alongside our community partners. Before
we began these conversations, I met with organizers from each organization one-on-one to go
over the question protocol and understand the issues their organizations had either observed
among members or were interested in exploring further. Through these meetings, we honed the
question protocol to reflect the language used by tenants and incorporated a wider array of
51
questions related to landlord strategies and community support that organizers felt were
important to housing stability. Alterations to the question protocol made from these suggestions
allowed our research to lift up ways tenants were already supporting one another and resisting
harmful practices. The conversations offered important insight into the forces leading to
instability in the day-to-day life of tenants and the policies they felt were best suited to address
their needs.
Those conversations with organizers also led to the development of multiple
compensation mechanisms for participants. First, we paid each focus group participant a living
wage reflecting $15 per hour or $25 for the 90 minute session. Second, we developed a resource
directory that was handed out at the end of each session, which contained food banks,
community health centers, free law firms, utility subsidies, youth development programs, and
other resources available to community members. We realized with a very basic level of training
our staff could assist with connecting residents with services and answering questions related to
specific issues after the focus group sessions concluded. This helped meet the immediate need
for information of services and resources available to residents in real time. Furthermore, focus
groups and materials were provided in both English and Spanish—and when needed
interpretation services were used for simultaneous translation to ensure language justice and
facilitate information sharing.
In preliminary meetings with organizers, we also began to brainstorm the best ways to
share out the data collected from residents and keep them up-to-date on the project. We decided
on a community zine for preliminary results and a website that would serve as an archive to both
the experience tenants shared as well as the resource directory where they could locate services.
Through these practices, I attempted to reduce the amount of extraction from participants and
52
community organizations by establishing equitable relationships with all participants throughout
the research process.
We conducted 17 focus groups in total so that we could maximize the number and types
of residents engaged in the project (N=173). Although all sessions were open to anyone that
showed up or heard about the conversation, some sessions were organized for particular types of
participants–ranging from adults, children, families, young adults, foster parents, and older
adults–whereas others were composed of a wide array of people. We conducted a focus group for
every identity group or call to members that organizers had the capacity to convene and felt was
important. By the end of these sessions, we heard similar experiences that had been shared in
numerous sessions prior and reached data saturation.
The majority of focus group participants covered the area stretching from approximately
Arlington Avenue to Central Avenue from West to East and the I-10 Freeway to Florence
Avenue from North to South. This also represented the study area for the survey and participant
observation phases of the project. The study area is referred to generally as South L.A.
throughout this dissertation. To complement the primary data collected, statistics from the
Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) were also used for analysis at the
census tract level following roughly the same boundary. In addition, Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series (IPUMS) ACS data was used for individual-level analysis at a slightly larger
geography.
It is important to note that the study area for South L.A. is neither a formal boundary nor
one held explicitly by the community. Prior to the 1992 uprising, South Central L.A. was used to
describe nearly all the neighborhoods south of the I-10 freeway and became synonymous with
South Los Angeles. Community leaders and public officials, however, felt that the designation
53
South Central flattened the area and the diverse communities it contained. Additionally, given
the forced segregation and racial bias directed at the area throughout history, there were also
negative connotations that had become attached to this naming. In reality, South Central referred
to a specific neighborhood south of Downtown Los Angeles along the Central Avenue corridor,
which was foundational to Black arts and music throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s. The Los
Angeles City Council officially discontinued use of South Central for South Los Angeles in 2003
to describe the diverse neighborhoods south of the I-10 freeway within the City of Los Angeles
(Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021).
Neighborhoods are not static with regards to geography, demographics, development, or
culture. The same is true for economic forces that influence the price of housing and changes in
wages. Recognizing this tumult and limitations, the report that follows attempts to provide a
nuanced representation of perspectives found in South L.A. at a particular moment in time. South
L.A. is a diverse and complex place with a wide breadth of experiences. The focus group
conversations, survey statistics, and participant observations, therefore, only represent a small
portion of perspectives in South L.A., captured at a particular moment in time. Participants were
neither those that had added security from property ownership nor households that had already
been forced to move. Given these limitations, we attended to the diversity of South L.A as best
as possible by speaking with a range of community members across a variety of identity groups.
The second phase of the project was a door-to-door survey of 402 households, which
took place Spring and Summer of 2019 during weekdays and weekends. The survey consisted of
a 45 minute interview with closed and open-ended questions captured on a tablet using Qualtrics.
This phase of the project was nested within a larger survey initiative (N=794) that also consisted
of a study area in Central Los Angeles (N=392). For South L.A., the survey was conducted in
54
both English and Spanish, and the sample consists of Latino/a and Black renters. Each
participant was given $20 for their time. The study area mapped closely to the approximate
boundaries from which focus group participants were drawn allowing for close comparison
across South L.A. The question protocol was developed based on first-round analysis of focus
group transcripts and a desire to triangulate and build from the data previously collected
(DeVellis, 2016; Small, 2011; Groves, 2011; Adcock, 2001; Tourangeau, 2000). From the
information and trust built through focus groups, we were able to learn from organizers how to
engage with hard to reach populations, navigate the neighborhoods we were surveying, and
approach residents with mutual respect.
A 2-stage geographically randomized sampling was used to select census block groups
(CBGs) within the study boundaries First, CBGs were sorted into 3 groups according to median
income— Stratification 1: $6,875 - $41,141; Stratification 2: $41,150- $59,583, and
Stratification 3: $59,861 - $241,417. Then, CBGs were designated as an immigrant community if
more than 20% of the population did not identify as citizens according to the 2013-2017 ACS.
This created six categories and the number of CBGs selected from each category was weighted
to reflect the overall composition of the study area.
Next, addresses were purchased from Marketing Systems Group (MSG) and randomly
ordered within the selected CBGs. The total number of surveys required from each census block
group was weighted by the number of rent burdened households. We calculated the percentage
of rent burdened households found in every CBG in relation to the total rent burdened
households for the South L.A. study area at large. The total number of surveys collected from a
particular CBG ranged from 15 to 40 total. The team visited each block group three times,
including at least one weekday. evening and one weekend visit, to sample across households
55
with different work schedules. Surveyors attempted to reach each address at least twice (once
during a weekday and a weekend). To be eligible, the individual(s) reached by the surveyor must
have: 1) lived at the residence; 2) been able to complete the survey in English or Spanish; 3)
been a renter ; 4) had sufficient knowledge of household finances; and 5) been over age 18.
Survey respondents were given a $20 gift card as compensation for their time and willingness to
participate.
Overall, we randomly selected 20 different Census Block Groups out of 173 total in the
South Los Angeles study area–11.6% of the total CBGs in the study area. We used standard
weighting and sample determination techniques to determine a representative sample size of 383
by taking into account sub-population sizes and ensuring a 95 percent confidence level with a 5
percent margin of error (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Surveyors attempted to reach a total of 5,702
addresses. Surveyors successfully reached 76% of doors, spoke to someone at 38% of the total
addresses, and 32% of the total addresses yielded a conversation with someone eligible to take
the survey, which we use as the relevant total population for calculating a response rate. Of the
eligible residents who answered the door, the survey yielded 402 surveys, which is an overall
response rate of 22%. Demographic statistics were not collected for refusals.
Sample statistics for the focus groups and survey are found in Table 2.1 alongside
demographics for the study area pulled from the American Community Survey (ACS 5 Year
Estimates, 2015-2019). The focus groups oversampled low-income tenants, Black households,
women, and non-rent controlled units. The study was focused explicitly on understanding the
experiences of those facing affordability issues and were deliberately oversampled to maximize
observations. This oversampling also resulted in a greater proportion of participants residing in
non-rent controlled units. Black households were also oversampled in order to gain a sample size
56
that was large enough for statistical analysis. Finally, women were more prevalent in the study as
compared to the population because of their reproductive responsibilities. Women are more
likely to be caregivers and spend more time physically present in the home, which increased the
likelihood of our surveyors’ interacting with them. In addition, women’s reproductive
responsibilities extend outside the home. The focus groups took place at night after work hours
and women participated in the organizations where the focus groups were held to support their
communities and learn about new opportunities.
The survey collected data on a range indicators:
● Resident housing history including quality, landlord relations, and stability
● Household demographics, finances, and sacrifices
● Situational context such as local development pressures, discrimination,, harms, and
sense of belonging
● Formal and informal support structures
● Physical and mental health
The last phase of research occurred in between Spring 2018 and Spring 2020 (prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic). During this time, I walked the neighborhoods of our study area for
roughly 2 hours segments (across 27 days, roughly 54 hours) and conversed with residents on the
sidewalk while photographing the built and social environment (64 total observations). In
addition, I attended community and organizational events throughout this period (21 total
meetings and events, approximately 40 hours).
57
Through walking, I was able to share space, converse with neighbors, and exist in the
places that remained invisible within the dominant archive as well as in my own head. This
practice of reflection and engagement--day after day, week after week--allowed me to turn over
ideas, confront my own expectations and reflections, and begin to make sense of the larger life
world this project attempted to represent. This practice of reflection and engagement--day after
day, week after week--allowed me to turn over ideas, confront my own expectations and
reflections, and begin to make sense of the larger life world this project attempted to represent.
Table 2.1 - Sample Statistics
Focus Group Survey
ACS 5-Year 2015-
2019
Age
Adult [35 and older] 77.4% 65.1% 57.4%
Young Adult [18-34 years old] 19.5% 34.9% 16.1%
Children [Under 18] 12.2% 0.0% 26.5%
Race
Black 26.5% 32.9% 15.1%
Latino 73.5% 67.1% 76.5%
Self-Identified Gender
Female 71.6% 68.8% 51.4%
Male 28.4% 30.8% 48.6%
Immigration
Born in U.S. 47.3% 54.6% 57.9%
Born outside U.S. 52.7% 45.4% 42.1%
Housing
Household Size 4.4 people 3.9 people 3.9 people
Median Rent $1,146 $1,200 $1,158
Median Income $1,641 $2,400 $3,278
Rent Burden 100% 75.8% 63.2%
Rent Control 47.1% 40.3% 53.3%
Total Observations 164 402 363,608
Through shooting the initial black and white images
[www.affordablesouthla.com/landscapes], I was forced to pay attention to the details of the
neighborhoods and layers of meaning that had been carved into the landscape over time. The
images capture the built environment and human traces found in the landscape: homes, hedges,
58
play equipment, fence ornaments, and additional ‘footprints’ of residents’ daily life. These are
the details that bring place meaning and require a language other than statistics to read and
internalize–and here I am defining landscape as everything you see when you look outside. The
images highlight some of the traces of life and marks of resistance, which capital and public
policy attempt to erase. Over generations, residents across South Los Angeles have worked to
pull the abundance of their community to the surface despite decades of racialized exclusion and
disinvestment. This abundance has always existed through infrastructures of care and resistance,
but is largely erased from the memory of popular culture.
Through working with the cyanotypes, I had to make peace with what was missing and
obscured–the silence of the archive [https://bit.ly/3wPXPWJ] . People and places are always
changing, always in motion. Although the images attempt to hold this movement static and
suspend the landscape in time, it is an impossible task. The cyanotype process pushes and pulls
the photographs in the same way our memories are stretched, our histories distorted, and our
lived realities altered. Within this motion and uncertainty—in the liminal spaces most often out
of sight—new modes of resistance are developed and different futures become possible.
I hope it brings up questions and uneasiness rather than some sort of answer or resolute
experience because to me it is an attempt at knowing and unknowing; learning and unlearning. It
is meant to inspire more interrogation of the landscape and the archive. What does it mean to
people? And how is it produced? It is an impossible task to ‘know’ a place, or represent that
place in some sort of fashion that is complete. There are numerous perspectives, a plurality of
experiences, and a multitude of histories. Through the refraction of multiple types of data,
perhaps this dissertation can get closer to the source.
59
The photographs help reveal my positionality as well. As a PhD student, upper-middle
class, white, male, I take up and alter the spaces I inhabit, observe, and engage with. The
communities of South L.A. have always been changing. They continue to change as homes are
demolished or renovated, school demographics shift, and new faces appear in the streets. My
presence—as a photographer, as a new arrival, as a white male—altered and obscured them even
as I walked, photographed, and conversed. Ultimately, in the manuscript that follows, I chose the
methods and wrote the analysis based upon my experience in the world. The evaluation that
follows is a reflection of how I make sense and analyze the world I exist in–so too are the
photographs. The analysis is a product of our times, of the COVID-19 pandemic, and shaped by
the lives that surround it. That is to say, this work is also deeply informed by other people
including the interactions lifted up in this text.
Analysis
Leveraging this unique primary data, the dissertation seeks to answer the following research
questions:
1. How do tenants describe the conditions of the rental crisis? (Chapter 4)
2. Do displacement and sense of belonging contribute to the stress process model?
(Chapter 5)
3. What survival tactics and infrastructures of care do residents use to navigate those
conditions? (Chapter 6)
4. How do those conditions and tactics impact stress and accumulate? (Chapter 4 - 6)
60
To answer those questions, this dissertation studies the residents and neighborhoods of South
Los Angeles through a mixed-methods, case study approach. The case study approach is well-
suited for examining the complexity of the housing market and the stress mechanisms related to
home (Ragin, 2004). In particular, this approach is effective in identifying multiple pathways or
mechanisms to the same outcome. Quantitative studies–which dominate the public health and
public policy literature–focus predominantly on the impacts of particular variables rather than the
multiplicity of underlying mechanisms that produce those variables. Through both qualitative
and quantitative methods, I elaborate on the multiple mechanisms that contribute to housing
affordability and instability. In turn, this study reveals some of the ways inequality and unequal
health outcomes are reproduced through housing stressors that structure the outcomes typically
studied in previous research.
The case study approach also allows for an understanding of the specific situational context
and history, which shape the conditions renters encounter today (Rennis, et al., 2013). A brief
context for South L.A. is provided in Chapter 3. In the tradition of worker inquiry, theory flows
from historic processes to the day-to-day experiences and actions of the working class. This
requires naming the structures, institutions, and practices–or systems of exposure–that undermine
the well-being of workers and non-white people (Riley, 2020; Stewart & Haynes, 2019). In
addition, critique of present-day conditions are leveraged to explore future possibilities and
imagine new modes of living together (Fine, 2017). There is an underlying assumption in these
methods that identifying commonalities between workers' experiences can provide the
foundation for a collective political project (Haider & Mohandesi, 2013). Learning directly from
workers’ knowledge helps identify strategies and theories for a spatially and historically
grounded social project.
61
This research and analysis is focused around knowledge shared by tenants. My analytic
approach is rooted in the methodologies of worker inquiry and counter narratives, which center
experiences of the working class and previously erased social groups (Delgado, et al., 2012;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Mertens, 2003). These groups have deep knowledge of the
mechanisms producing housing conditions and stress because they encounter them daily (Haider
& Mohandesi, 2013). Tenants are experts in the issues they face and have generated knowledge
from their experiences that is underappreciated in formal research and policymaking processes.
Furthermore, renters’ feelings, perceptions, and stress have real impact on health, housing
stability, and quality of life (Thomas and Thomas 1928). They influence behavior, growth, and
psychological development, which alter life trajectories and outcomes (Ausubel, 1958).
Qualitative and quantitative analysis were applied to the three sets of primary data–focus
groups, survey interviews, and participant observations–to evaluate the social, economic, and
political mechanisms that produce housing stability. Leveraging multiple data sets to construct
the case study of South L.A., I examine how macro-level housing market conditions are
connected to the micro-level conditions and social interactions experienced by tenants (Rennis,
et al., 2013). The goal of this dissertation is not to create a digestible taxonomy of place. Instead,
I use multiple perspectives and methods to lift up renters’ experiences and provide some
examples of the mechanisms producing housing stressors. This honors the complexity of social
life and expands on previous research related to affordability and neighborhood change.
Ultimately, this dissertation investigates how housing conditions, survival tactics, social support,
and displacement pressures are linked and navigated by renters.
Focus group transcripts were analyzed using Nvivo 12 through three rounds of coding
(Saldaña, 2015; Miles, et al., 2014; Maxwell, 1992). For the initial phase, in vivo coding was
62
utilized to describe quotes and interactions that were later sorted into more specific groupings. In
the second round, eleven core categories were used to organize the data for final evaluation.
These categories were intersectional and overlapping. The codes can be found below as well as
the average transcript coverage for each code (by proportion of total characters) and an example
quote from the focus groups. The codes included:
Table 2.2 - Qualitative Codes & Coverage
Category Average
Transcript
Coverage
Example Quote
Rent 20.0% “When we first lived in our house it was like $750 then it went all the
way to $950 and my mom's working wage is consistent, so every year it
got harder and harder to pay.”
Employment &
Income
15.5% “It's like if you have five people in your family and you're all there,
everybody has to be working, paying that rent for you to afford a house.”
Maintenance &
Harassment
11.2% “The excuse to say, 'You have to leave the apartment, because we are
going to remodel' ... They do not evict, they do not run, but they do say,
'We have to remodel. They have so many days to vacate the apartment.'”
Development
Pressures
12.6% “A lot of time what happens is that the owners want to knock down and
build new apartments and charge more. That is why those of us who have
been living for some time, have suffered instigations, lack of services,
because investors want to remove rent control. We can not leave our
house, we are trapped there. To move also costs a lot of money.”
Displacement 11.6% “It was like small little grains tipping the scale and rent was eventually
too much so we got evicted. Now rent is higher than it was before”
Belonging 13.0% “My children were born there, they grew there and they do not want to
leave. Thank God I have healthy children, they go to university, they
study and they work part-time, but it's not enough. We are about to get
kicked out of there again. Where are we going to go? If we have
belonged to the area all of our time. Imagine, almost over 26 years, being
in the area.”
Survival Tactics 13.8% “When younger, my girls could go to extra things and activities outside
of school. At this moment they are going to stay at home. Now we have
limited that.”
63
Functional
Adjustments
13.4% “A lot of my neighbors and a lot of my friends have either had to move
and then starting commuting to work or school, or they just have to start
renting off sections of their apartment or houses to make ends meet. Or,
take a two or three additional jobs.”
Support 23.7% “Sometimes someone in the neighborhood tries to collaborate with other
neighbors, help each other, maybe a job that the neighbor knows how to
do, they charge us cheaper, a mechanic, what do I know? We are helping
each other, I think that is part of us as a community to help each other...I
do not have family here, I am single, and I am also a single mom. I've
been with my children for five years, this was a very strong transition,
but friends, organizations and neighbors are always helping each other.”
Families &
Children
12.2% “I had to grow up fast. A lot of the times I don’t pay for rent. Sometimes I
get stipend jobs for CC, at most like $250 at a time. I don’t throw that all
into rent. Sometimes I wonder should I, or should I not? so that I don’t
have to ask my mom for money, so she doesn’t have to worry about me
until that money runs out. I have to stop going out so much, stop being a
teenager, should I stay after school, is there food at the house? It takes a
toll on both me and at school because one time I literally just got out of
school and my mom is outside packed with everything from our house.
My whole life was in a box.”
Stressors & Harm 17.1% “A lot of people don't understand, this is the thing. Because I'm scared
everyday, because I don't know when my owner has decided to say, 'Hey,
I need to get more money for this property'.”
Power &
Resistance
19.9% “I want to also be a resource guide for people like me. Because
sometimes you are only focused on your own [life]...So I’ve found myself,
without exaggeration, with dozens of people in my situation. That after
30, 25, 20 years, one day they were told, 'Today is your last day'.”
In the final round of coding, each quote was further assigned categories within the
theoretical framework that had emerged in the previous rounds of coding and memoing. Overall,
431 unique quotes were analyzed from 144 individuals. Each quote was matched to the
demographic, economic, and housing characteristics collected through the intake survey and
geolocated based on the intersection or zip code shared by participants during initial
introductions. Data was collected on race, gender, age, primary language, immigration status,
employment, income, rent, housing size, building type, rent control, and duration in community.
The quotes lifted up in each chapter reflect experiences and themes expressed by multiple people
64
in multiple focus groups. Each transcript was coded in the original language of the focus group
by a single evaluator. The average transcript length was 27.8 pages.
The survey sample is cross-sectional and composed of a family dataset consisting of
indicators for the entire household as well as the respondent. The survey data was analyzed using
Stata for ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with robust standard errors. Descriptive
statistics and regression estimates from the survey were interpreted for statistical significance
and triangulated with qualitative data from the focus groups and participant observations (Small,
2011; Stake, 2008; Creswell & Clark, 2007; Adcock, 2001; Caracelli & Greene, 1997). This
approach allowed for a more robust interpretation of quantitative data. It also facilitated deeper
understandings of stress mechanisms related to housing stability and affordability and builds on
past research by uncovering the multiple pathways to outcomes observed previously.
For each participant observation segment, I took notes in the moment, which were
cleaned and edited at home the same day (Emerson, et al., 2011). At the end of each month, I
reviewed notes and wrote a brief memo outlining the aspects of these observations which either
confirmed, challenged, and stated something different than what had emerged through the focus
group analysis.
Analysis overlapped across the three phases of data collection and analysis. I began with
an initial literature review on affordability, which informed the base-line question protocol. After
focus group data collection, round one coding and memoing was conducted on the transcripts.
This analysis was used to construct the survey protocol and implementation plan. Round two
coding on the focus group transcripts occurred in the second half of survey data collection with
initial survey analysis occurring roughly 6 months later. During that period, I completed the
photographic and participant observations as well. The COVID-19 pandemic hit as data analysis
65
on the survey began. During the quarantine shutdowns, I returned to past research and engaged
in deeper, more focused literature review to make sense of the data collection and analysis
conducted up to that point. After the secondary literature review, I began writing the dissertation
manuscript while performing a final round of qualitative coding and quantitative analysis to
incorporate concepts that had emerged through memoing and reflecting on the literature.
Variables
The outcome variable used in the OLS regressions is a continuous variable for overall
stress score. These stress scores were measured using the Perceived Stress Scale—a validated
instrument commonly used in psychology and social sciences (Cohen, et al., 1994). The
instrument consisted of 10 questions measuring residents’ stress exposure in the previous month
using a scale of never, almost never, sometimes, fairly often, and very often (see Table 2.3).
These questions were then scored from 0 – 4 providing total scores between 0 and 40.
Table 2.3 - Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) Questionnaire
1. Been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?
2. Felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?
3. Felt nervous and “stressed”?
4. Felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?
5. Felt that things were going your way?
6. Found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?
7. Been able to control irritations in your life?
8. Felt that you were on top of things?
9. Been angered because of things that were outside of your control?
10. Felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?
66
In addition, a full set of demographic and housing variables were tested for significant
associations with stress. Demographics included age, race, and education. There were also
indicators related to affordability calculations with a variable for rent, income quintile, rent
burden, and residual income.
Table 2.4 - Baseline Variables
Variable Definition Predicted relationship
with stress
Demographics
Age Total Years; Continuous ( – )
Black 1 = Black; 0 = Latino; self-identified;
dummy
( + )
Education Less than high school, high school, some
college, college, and advanced degrees;
categorical
( – )
Affordability
Rent quintile Total gross rent; categorical ( + )
Income quintile Total household income; categorical ( – )
Rent Burdened 1 = rent burdened, 0 = not burdened; gross
rent exceeds 30% of total households
income; dummy
( + )
Residual Income Income minus housing expenses;
continuous variable
( – )
For Chapter 4,variables related to housing and employment conditions were introduced.
This included tenure, maintenance issues, overcrowding, late rent payments, exceeded
occupancy limits, full time employment, multiple jobs, total number of working adults, and rent
67
control.. A set of indicators related to the City of Los Angeles’ definition of harassment was also
used including illegal rent hikes, verbal or physical abuse, discrimination, hazardous living
conditions, or illegal eviction notices (LAHD, 2021). Additionally, a variable was included for
the total number of landlord issues a household experienced to test the clustering effect.
Table 2.5 - Conditions Variables
Variable Definition Predicted relationship
with stress
Tenure Number of years a resident had lived in their unit;
continuous
( – )
Rent Control 1 = rent stabilization ordinance (RSO), 0 = no RSO
or did not know status; dummy
( – )
Full Time
Employment
1 = full time job, 0 = part time, unemployed, or
retired; dummy
( Ø )
Multiple Jobs 1 = full time job and part time job or two part-time
jobs, 0 = one job or unemployed
( + )
Number of
Working Adults
Total number of working adults found within the
household; continuous
( – )
Maintenance
Issues
Total number of issues in previous year; quintiles;
categorical
( + )
Overcrowding 1 = over crowded, 0 = not crowded; more than one
person per room including the living room
( Ø )
Late Paying Rent 1 = late paying rent at current unit in previous 2
years, 0 = never; dummy
( + )
Exceeded
Occupancy Limits
1 = exceeded in previous 2 years, 0 = never;
dummy
( + )
68
Landlord Issues 1 = any form of harassment at their current unit in
previous 2 years, 0 = none; resident experienced at
least one of the four landlord issues in the section
below; dummy
( + )
Rent Issues 1 = illegal rent practices at their current unit in
previous 2 years, 0 = none; illegal rent hikes or
refusal to accept rent check; dummy
( + )
Abuse (Verbal or
Physical)
1 = abuse at their current unit in previous 2 years, 0
= none; dummy
( + )
Discrimination 1 = discrimination at their current unit in previous 2
years, 0 = none; dummy
( + )
Hazardous Living
Conditions
1 = hazardous conditions at their current unit in
previous 2 years, 0 = none; dummy
( + )
Total Landlord
Issues
Total number of landlord issues from above (0-4);
continuous
( + )
The next regression related to displacement and belonging. For displacement, variables
included total number of homes in the past 2 years, whether a participant had always lived in
their home, and whether their previous move was forced. For sense of belonging, variables were
included for whether a resident had witnessed losses in the built environment or new changes
and whether they had noticed new residents in their neighborhood or long-time neighbors
leaving. Count variables were also included for the total number of areas that residents had
experienced loss in either their social or built environment as well as the total areas where they
noted new additions to test if there was clustering effect.
69
Table 2.6 - Mobility Variables
Variable Definition Predicted relationship
with stress
Mobility
Total Homes total number of homes a resident had lived
in the past 2 years; continuous
( + )
Always lived in home 1 = always, 0 = had lived outside their
current home; dummy
( – )
Previous Moved Forced 1 = forced, 0 = not forced or no move in
the past 2 years; dummy
( + )
Trouble Finding Housing 1 = any form of trouble finding housing
during previous move, 0 = none; resident
experienced at least one of the four issues
listed below; dummy
( + )
Income (Source, Proof, or
Deposit)
1 = trouble finding housing during
previous move due to source of income,
proof of income, or initial deposit, 0 =
none; illegal rent hikes or refusal to accept
rent check; dummy
( + )
Household Size 1 = trouble finding housing during
previous move due to household size, 0 =
none; dummy
( + )
Immigration Status 1 = trouble finding housing during
previous move due to immigration status,
0 = none; dummy
( + )
Criminal Status 1 = trouble finding housing during
previous move due to criminal status, 0 =
none; dummy
( + )
70
Sense of Belonging
Loss in Built
Environment
1 = experienced loss in entertainment
venues, businesses, services, or apartment
buildings in their neighborhood in
previous 2 years, 0 = no changes; dummy
( + )
New Additions to Built
Environment
1 = additions of new buildings and
amenities in previous 2 years, 0 = no
changes); dummy
( Ø )
Loss of Neighbors 1 = loss of long-time residents, 0 = no
changes in previous 2 years; dummy
( + )
New Neighbors 1 = addition of new people, 0 = no
changes in previous 2 years; dummy
( Ø )
Total Neighborhood
Losses
Count variable for total types of losses
observed in neighborhood including
entertainment venues, businesses, public
spaces, apartment buildings, and long-
time neighbors (0-6); dummy
( + )
Total New Changes Count variable for total types of new
changes observed in neighborhood
including new entertainment venues,
businesses, public spaces, apartment
buildings, and people (0-6); dummy
( Ø )
In the survival regression, dummy variables were included for consumption cutbacks in
food, health, clothing, education, transit, bill and debt, entertainment and family activities as well
as a count variable for the total number of consumption areas to test the clustering effect.
Variables were included for functional adjustments to work and housing as well. Another set of
variables measured social support from family, friends, government, or organizations for
support. A final variable for overall neighborhood satisfaction was also examined.
71
Table 2.7: Survival Variables
Variable Definition Predicted relationship
with stress
Consumption Cutbacks
Food 1 = cutback for any length in spending on
food, 0 = did not cutback; dummy
( + )
Health 1 = cutback for any length in spending on
health and wellness, 0 = did not cutback;
dummy
( + )
Clothing 1 = cutback for any length in spending on
clothing, 0 = did not cutback; dummy
( + )
Education 1 = cutback for any length in spending on
education, 0 = did not cutback; dummy
( + )
Transit 1 = cutback for any length in spending on
transit, 0 = did not cutback; dummy
( + )
Bills & Debt 1 = delayed paying bills or took on debt,
0 = did take on debt; dummy
( + )
Entertainment & Family
Activities
1 = cutback for any length in spending on
entertainment or family activities, 0 = did
not cutback; dummy
( + )
Total Cutbacks Total number of cutbacks from above (0-
6); continuous
( + )
Functional Adjustments
Additional Hours & Jobs
1 = took on additional hours or jobs, 0 =
no change
( Ø )
Additional People
1 = additional people or rented room, 0 =
no change
( + )
72
Social Support
Family 1 = received support from family, 0 = no
support
( – )
Friends 1 = received support from friends, 0 = no
support
( – )
Organizations 1 = received support from organizations, 0
= no support
( – )
Government 1 = received support from public sector, 0
= no support
( Ø )
Neighborhood
Satisfaction
1 = strongly agreed or agreed with the
statement, “I am satisfied with my
neighborhood as a place to live”, 0 =
neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree;
dummy
( – )
73
Chapter 4: Conditions
This chapter explores the housing and work conditions that residents navigate amidst the
ongoing rental crisis in South Los Angeles. From 2010-2018, market rents in South Los Angeles
have increased 37% despite wage growth of only 2.7% (Zillow 2021; ACS, 2015-2019.
Additionally, low quality units in Los Angeles rose faster than high quality units from 2013 to
2017 signaling that the city’s naturally occurring affordable housing stock was hardest hit by
rising prices (Burinsky, 2020). This chapter explores the underlying mechanisms causing people
to fall above or below affordability thresholds. Renters have increasingly limited housing options
because of precarious labor conditions, rising costs of living, and neighborhood change. The
stressors and behaviors that stem from affordability represent important mechanisms of stress
exposure and the resulting fundamental health disparities experienced across racial groups
(Meltzer & Schwartz, 2016; Benach, et al., 2014; Bentley, et al., 2012; Bentley, et al., 2011;
Pollack, 2010).
Given this intersection of stressors and uncertainty, this chapter also proposes the use of
precarity as a framework to analyze the rental crisis. The indicators of affordability remain
foundational to the study of precarity, but this new framework recognizes the additional social
and political aspects of housing that structure tenants’ ability to maintain secure shelter.
Moreover, a framework of precarity centers the residents’ experiences and the affective
dimensions of housing. Using precarity, this chapter connects the macro-level housing and labor
market conditions with the local environments navigated by tenants. Through this bottom-up
approach, researchers and policymakers gain an understanding of how the structural conditions
are experienced in tenants’ day-to-day life at the household and community level.
74
Furthermore, renters not only endure precarious housing situations because of economic
constraints, but also power imbalances between tenants, employers, and landlords. In addition to
affordability tensions between income and rent, this chapter examines the impacts of illegal
landlord practices, deferred maintenance, and discrimination, on housing stress. These landowner
strategies continue a legacy of exclusion by reinscribing spatial and social boundaries, which
contribute to where an individual can live and their exposure to harm. This chapter lifts up the
day-to-day experiences of tenants in order to better understand the mechanisms giving rise to
stress and the constraints that lead to greater likelihood of exposure to stressors. That approach
differs from the majority of previous literature, which examines the impact of affordability on
consumption and health impacts. Instead, I focus on the conditions, constraints, and experiences
that reproduce those impacts. Not much of the previous literature examines the class privilege
and power imbalances between landlords and tenants from the perspective of the renter. These
social systems are an important area of inquiry for the study of housing affordability and
displacement. Issues between tenants, landowners, and government officials help spotlight the
private sector actions and public sector enforcement practices that allow inequitable living
conditions to persist.
The rental crisis is crucial to the reproduction of inequality. It has changed how residents
experience their day-to-day surroundings and their ability to seek out new opportunities. To
design effective policy, deeper understanding is needed into how these mechanisms of stress
vary, compound, and intersect over time. To this end, the following chapter seeks to answer the
question: how do residents experience the conditions and constraints brought about by the rental
crisis? The framework of precarity explored introduced in this chapter helps elaborate on the
75
social dimensions of housing that lead to stress exposure related to harassment, deferred
maintenance, and discrimination.
Defining Affordability
Affordability is defined as residents’ ability to pay for basic needs and live in a
neighborhood of their choice. At a minimum, this means being able to afford basic necessities
such as food, water, housing, and health care. Housing is particularly important because it
structures access to employment and education, impacts health and wellness, and depletes much
of community members’ monthly budgets (Krieger & Higgins, 2002). To paraphrase Raquel
Rolnik (2019), each housing location is different and serves as a portal to all the other resources
people need to survive.
At its core, affordability is produced from tension between income and expenses. This is
directly at odds, however, with the drive for profit that sustains the private market. Employers
seek to reduce costs by paying the lowest possible wages while landowners and capitalists pursue
the maximum allowable rents and profits (Harvey, 1973). In addition, the Alonso-Muth-Mills
and von Thünen economic housing models predict that higher wealth households seek out and
bid up rents in areas with high opportunity and productivity (Galster & Lee, 2021; Ryan-Collins,
et al., 2017). Because tenants must earn enough to obtain housing and meet their daily needs,
working class households are crowded out of these areas and relegated to specific areas of the
city where they can afford to live (Lee & Lin, 2017). These locations also subsequently become
where exploitation and negative externalities of the racial capitalist system are concentrated
(Bhattacharyya, 2018; McKittrick, 2011; Molina, 2006A; Pastor, 2001). Thus, the issue of
76
housing affordability is fundamentally tied to labor arrangements as first posited by Fredreich
Engels in 1872 (1935).
The most commonly used measures of affordability identify households with imbalances
between housing costs and income (Stone, 2006; Quigley & Raphael, 2004). Using either
measure reveals nearly 50% of tenants experience affordability issues and those households are
more likely to be low-income and headed by a person of color or woman (Stone, 2006).
Moreover, both frameworks find the number of households experiencing housing unaffordability
has accelerated since 2000. The groups experiencing unaffordability under each model, though,
differ slightly. Households identified by the residual income approach are more likely to be
families with children and those living below the poverty line because of controls for household
size and income (Stone, 2006).
The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) using the rent burden
approach to cap rental payments for those receiving subsidies through housing choice vouchers.
Using an income threshold to determine housing subsidies dates back to the 1920’s when public
housing projects were limited to working renters who earned enough so that less than 25% of
their income each month would be paid toward rent–or as written then “a week’s wages for a
month’s rent” (Feins & Lane, 1981). This threshold established an indicator of deservingness by
identifying residents that were not too well off nor those too poor. In the 1960’s, the threshold
was eventually replaced with a ceiling on rent so that residents paid no more than 25% of
monthly income, which was bumped up to 30% in the 1980’s as the federal government moved
toward a housing choice voucher that tenants used in the private market (Pelletiere, 2008). By
continuing to use this threshold to determine housing subsidies, the government implicitly names
it as the acceptable level of spending on shelter for the average U.S. household so that they can
77
still afford the additional basic needs. Previous studies demonstrate that the 30% marker provides
a meaningful threshold at which households are forced to cut back on the essentials needed to
survive (Newman & Holupka, 2014).
The residual income approach measures the income residents have left over each month
after paying for an adequate level of non-housing essentials adjusted for household size (Stone,
et al., 2011). If housing costs exceed the amount remaining, tenants are considered shelter poor
because they would need to cut back on basic needs to remain housed due to the more fixed
nature of housing expenses. This approach acknowledges that it is not only housing costs which
have increased over the past 20 years, but also health care, education, and food prices. In
addition, residual income statistics better reflect the greater agency experienced by higher-
income renters and reduced costs of smaller households, which allows them to afford a larger
portion of their monthly paychecks toward rent. Instead of designating an ‘acceptable’ income-
to-rent ratio, residual income calculations make assumptions around what the average person
needs to purchase and the price they will pay for those goods.
Therefore, each of the traditional affordability measures are infused with an assumption
of social justice around the minimum acceptable level of consumption that households need to
survive (Galster & Lee, 2021). Although calculating these measures is relatively straightforward,
the factors underlying renters’ ability to find and maintain housing are complex and mutually
determined. An individual’s ability to secure adequate shelter is also dependent on housing
quality, neighborhood trajectory, employment conditions, relationships with landlords, and the
availability of new options when their needs change (Hulse & Milligan, 2014). Moreover,
residents are consistently looking for ways to decrease housing expenses, reduce spending on
78
other essentials, and earn additional income thereby altering the outcomes traditionally observed
(Desmond, 2016; Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010).
Research in public health has documented the negative impacts of high rent-to-income
ratios on mental and physical health at the household level (Meltzer & Schwartz, 2016; Mason,
et al., 2013; Bentley, et al., 2012; Pollack, 2010; Mueller & Tighe, 2007; Harkness & Newman,
2005). Although most households resolve affordability issues within a year, many residents
continue to hover around the threshold afterwards and their likelihood of exiting decreases the
longer affordability issues persists (Borrownman, 2017; Susin, 2007). Little is known about the
tactics residents use to exit unaffordability which generates this turnover, however. Past studies
have also traced higher overall neighborhood quality–through indicators of socio-economic
status as well as physical and social disorder–to better outcomes related to wellbeing (Kim,
2010; Baum et al., 1999). When renters struggle to afford housing, they face a constrained choice
set that restricts the quality of neighborhoods and units they can access (Desmond, 2016).
In South Los Angeles, there has always been a significant portion of the population
overburdened from housing costs due to the legacies of disinvestment, exploitation, and
dispossession that the residents and neighborhoods have experienced (Gibbons, 2018). This
number has continued to rise since the 1970’s due to a restricted supply of affordable housing,
precarious work arrangements, consolidated market power, and neighborhood change
(Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021). Past research has established that the incidence of high cost
burdens and shelter poor households is significantly higher among immigrants, Latino/a, and
Black residents than Whites in Los Angeles (Díaz McConnell, 2017; Díaz McConnell, 2013;
Díaz McConnell, 2012; Capps, et al., 2002). This chapter adds to previous studies by lifting up
79
the unique ways Black and Latino/a renters experience affordability issues and examines how
exposure to the associated stressors differs.
The Construction of Affordability
In the following four sections, I explore the core components underlying the affordability
outcomes of rent burden and residual income: 1) restricted housing supply; 2) precarious
employment; 3) market power; 4) neighborhood change. The overarching purpose of this chapter
is to investigate how residents’ everyday conditions impact their exposure to stress. Specifically,
I seek to uncover the ways the rental crisis has changed those conditions recently and understand
if this has reinforced old sources of harm or generated new ones. In order to do so, we must first
lay out the baseline conditions that residents navigate as well as the drivers of the crisis shaping
those experiences. This began with the historical overview of place provided in chapter 2, which
laid the foundation for the conditions of today. In the proceeding literature review, I further
describe the structural forces and local interactions that shape people’s participation in the
market presently. Those conditions have the potential to either place constraints or create new
opportunities in tenants’ day-to-day life which alters their ability to endure the crisis and afford
secure shelter.
Restricted Housing Supply
The market for housing does not work as efficiently as it does for other goods because of
the unique nature of land, high durability of construction, substantial costs of development, and
relative scarcity of the product (Ryan-Collins, et al., 2017; Galster, 1996; Smith, 1984; Harvey,
1973). Furthermore, housing is a basic need that is required for human life regardless of an
80
individual’s ability or willingness to pay. There are social, emotional, and spiritual aspects of
land and housing that imbue it with value outside traditional economic considerations (Gorman-
Murray & Dowling, 2007; Mallett, 2004; hooks, 1990). Because of these characteristics, the
market is unable to reach an equilibrium that satisfies residents’ needs due to the formation of
submarkets, monopolistic behavior of producers, and considerable variations in housing and
location quality (Lee & Lin, 2017; Wyly, et al., 2009; Goodman & Thibodeau, 1998; Cronin,
1983; Gilderbloom, 1985). Extensive public interventions are needed to facilitate production of
the housing stock, manage the geographic distribution of development, and enforce minimum
livability standards after construction (Gibbons, 2018; Morrow, 2013; Galster, 2001). Significant
crises have occurred in the past as a result of these housing market failures when public
interventions are insufficient or unenforced (L.A. City Planning, 2021; Mazarra & Knudsen,
2019; Molina, 2016B; Sharkey, 2013; Taylor, 2009; Wyly, et al., 2001). Housing and rental
prices, therefore, do not reflect supply and demand constraints alone.
Housing shortages remain a significant driver of unaffordability and have accumulated
over time from demand consistently outpacing supply. Los Angeles is a high demand coastal
city, with a segmented, constrained, and backlogged housing stock (L.A. City Planning, 2021;
L.A. City Planning, 2017). The City of Los Angeles’ most recent Housing Element in 2021–a
state mandated assessment of housing needs and production levels–estimated that 456,643 units
were required over the next 8 years to meet existing housing needs and accommodate projected
population growth. The supply gap can be traced back to at least the 1990’s when just 8,000
units were being permitted each year despite an estimated need of 60,000 homes annually
(Myers, et al., 2012). Permitting and construction increased extensively–reaching more than
30,000 new permits each year–until the Great Recession of 2007-08, which led to historic lows
81
in housing production. Although housing construction has risen quickly since the recession,
housing starts in Los Angeles have yet to fully recover. As a result, there is high demand for
housing across the board and significant downward pressure in the market with higher wealth
residents competing for housing alongside working class tenants bidding up rents in more
affordable submarkets (Myers, et al., 2021). With high demand and limited supply, there is
nowhere for prices to go but up.
The current housing deficit is the result of a convergence of factors including low density
zoning codes, exclusionary development restrictions, declining public funding, and costly
regulatory processes (Gibbons, 2018; Morrow, 2013; Lipsitz, 2011; Quigley & Raphael, 2005;
Fischel, 2005; Ihlanfeldt, 2004). In addition, over the past 30 years the price of labor, materials,
and management related to homebuilding have increased extensively as firms have consolidated
and global demand has grown making the construction of housing more expensive (Ahn &
Arnott, 2022; Raetz, et al., 2021; Cosman & Quintero, 2021;). Altogether, these housing market
conditions have restricted the supply of housing and generated high costs, segregation, and
submarkets (Glaeser & Gyourko, 2018; Lens & Monkkonen, 2016; Quigley & Raphael, 2005;
Glaeser & Gyourko, 2003).
Zoning, entitlements, and permitting dictate the types of development and amount of
investment that flow into different neighborhoods. These processes are important to housing
production because they can limit supply by restricting the type, materials, size, timeline, and
location of development. Regulations have introduced important checks for the community
members and local government to ensure a basic standard of living, but also placed limitations
on the construction of multi-family buildings, constrained access to housing near transit,
employment, and education opportunities, and made the development process longer and costlier
82
(O’Neill et al., 2021). These ‘soft’ costs, though, make up only a small portion of the overall
production costs of housing as compared to ‘hard’ costs including labor and building materials
which compose the majority of project budgets (Raetz, et al., 2021).
The City of Los Angeles has never produced enough housing for working-class Black
and Latino/a residents (Villa, 2021; Lipsitz, 2011). Black and Latino/a residents have faced
severe constraints on mobility, which locked them into certain sections of the city and forced
them to overpay for low quality housing (Gibbons, 2018; Morrow, 2013; Daniels, 1975). In each
decade since the 1940’s, organizers and public commissions have raised the alarm about the
problem of affordable, safe, and well-maintained housing in South L.A. and other working-class
urban areas throughout the U.S. (Robinson, 2010; Abdullah & Freer, 2010; Pulido, 2006; Valle
& Torres, 2000; Los Angeles Housing Crisis Task Force, 2000; Bauer, 1957; Bauer, 1948;
Bauer, 1946 Bauer, 1945). Nonetheless, government officials continue to hold onto outdated
zoning policies that restrict housing production while failing to allocate sufficient funding for
affordable construction or code enforcement (Dillon, 2022; Linton, 2014; Logan, 2014).
By regulating land usage, city planning processes influence the geographic distribution of
people and resources across space. Zoning policies do not represent total control, though. Private
market actors have a reciprocal relationship with the government. Each sector wields power and
influences the distributional flows of development (Taylor, 2019). An example of the reciprocal
relationship between the public and private sector can be observed in the thousands of zoning
amendments–also known as spot zoning–approved each year for private development by the
public sector (Rosenberg, 2013). More examples can be found throughout the housing history of
Los Angeles explored in Chapter 2 including the emergence of the Department of Public Health
and exclusionary policies directed against Chinese, Japanese, and Mexican residents, the
83
development of the city’s surrounding suburbs, and the redevelopment of downtown (Redford,
2017; Whittemore, 2012; Molina, 2006A; Cuff, 2000). Coordination between the private and
public sectors has manufactured white, wealthy enclaves that have barricaded themselves in
space. Through exclusionary zoning codes, those enclaves have avoided building their fair share
of affording housing units while hoarding resources and opportunities (Gibbons, 2018; Morrow,
2013; Sharkey, 2013). At the same time, public-private actions have targeted Black and Latino/a
communities with harm and exploitation, failed to build adequate housing, and allowed the
existing rental stock in their neighborhoods to deteriorate (Trounstine, 2018; Lipsitz, 2011;
Massey and Denton, 1993).
The private and public sector continue to fail at providing enough affordable housing
units to meet the needs of working class residents. The previous housing element found that
roughly 40% of housing construction should be directed toward households earning $64,000 or
less per year (L.A. City Planning, 2013). Yet, during the 2013-2021 period less than 9% of new
housing permits were allocated toward projects aimed at those income groups (L.A. City
Planning, 2021). Given current production rates, it will take until roughly 2036 to meet the
previous element’s affordable housing goals–more than 15 years after the proposed completion
date (Next 10, 2019). Between 2013 and 2021, the city also permitted nearly 3 times their stated
goal for market rate housing aimed at households earning more than the area median income. In
fact, through overproduction in this market segment the City surpassed its overall housing goals,
but rent prices and home values continued to rise.
The market system for housing relies on the process of filtering to produce naturally
occurring affordable units so that tenants at all income and wealth levels have somewhere
affordable to live (Somerville & Holmes, 2001) . Filtering describes the cycle of aging housing
84
infrastructure, which loses value, quality, and desirability over time with rents decreasing
alongside. The cycle is completed when the infrastructure is abandoned and eventually torn
down to construct new housing stock. Filtering is an extremely slow and segmented process,
however. On average, the rent of a unit falls roughly .35 percent per year, but the income of
residents living in those same units falls 1.9 percent (Rosenthal, 2014). Because of the market
inefficiencies explored previously, the filtering process varies considerably both within and
across urban areas. A recent study examining housing costs in Los Angeles over the past 40
years found evidence of up-filtering with real incomes increasing by 14.1% during that period as
housing aged–an average increase of 0.33% annually–which highlights the limits of relying on
filtering to produce naturally occurring affordable units (Liu, et al., 2022). This suggests that
low-income families are destined to pay a continually increasing portion of their income to rent
as filtering is unable to keep pace with the demand for housing .
Filtering rates are reflective of neighborhood and community conditions–the housing
stock as well as the people that occupy those homes. At first, filtering rates appear dominating by
housing age with the majority of filtering occurring for housing stock aged 10-19 years and little
turnover on either end of the distribution (Rosenthal, 2008). Deeper examination reveals higher
socio-economic neighborhoods and those with fewer affordable units are far less likely to filter
down (Somerville & Holmes, 2001). Moreover, the age of housing stock predicts residential
turn-over in low-income areas, but has little predictive power in moderate- and higher-income
areas (Fogarty, 1982). The filtering process is conditioned by race as well. The presence of
Latino/a or Black households has little impact on filtering in lower-income areas but significant,
downward effects in high-income communities–and this effect is stronger in magnitude than the
age of dwellings (Brueckner & Rosenthal, 2008). Altogether, this evidence suggests a highly
85
differentiated housing market in which lower-wealth, Black, and Latinx neighborhoods
experience greater structural instability and destruction while higher-wealth areas remain stable–
and even up-filter–through incumbent upgrades and redevelopment strategies (Liu, et al., 2022;
Owens & Candipan, 2019; Somerville & Holmes, 2001).
The limits of market rate housing and filtering are further demonstrated in research
exploring the impacts of new development. Market rate housing contributes to overall supply and
may reduce the acceleration of price increases at the city-wide level, but it can also unleash
development pressure and rent hikes in the neighborhoods directly surrounding these
investments (Angotti, 2016). Recent evaluations examining the impact of new market rate
housing development on local rents have produced mixed and inconclusive results. Some studies
demonstrate that increases in supply or expanding allowable density do not necessarily translate
into diminishing prices on their own (Anenberg & Kung, 2018; Freemark, 2019; Singh, 2021).
Other studies have found that new development reduces demand and loosens the housing market
leading to nominal decreases in rent for units in close proximity to new buildings (Asquith,
2021; Pennington, 2021; Mense, 2020; Li, 2019; Mast, 2019). A few studies have examined the
effects of development more discretely and found differences across submarkets (Damiano &
Frenier, 2020; Chapple, 2021). Those studies find new construction of multifamily housing
decreases rental pricing at the top end of the price distribution, but increases rents for lower-
quality and lower-rent units in the same neighborhood. Market-rate housing construction
primarily serves the wealthiest residents who are the least likely to move out with new
development and the most likely to move into those neighborhoods.
There is no doubt that the City of Los Angeles needs to build more housing and make it
easier to do so. Rents are higher in areas with restrictive land use regulations and this effect is
86
especially magnified in fast growing, prosperous cities like Los Angeles (Reina & Landis, 2019).
Easing restrictions has potential to boost supply and alleviate rising housing costs (Quigley &
Raphael, 2005). However, prices across the Southern California region are already some of the
highest in the country. In 2021, the newest Element increased the overall housing goal for the
city by more than 550% to accommodate the existing housing needs of overcrowded and cost
burdened households that had not been considered in the past (L.A. City Planning, 2021; L.A.
City Planning, 2013). The City remains a considerable distance from meeting the overall demand
for housing and especially far off from the needs of working class renters. Massive amounts of
construction is needed to have any deflationary effect on housing prices given the enormous
magnitude of the shortage.
With rental prices at an exorbitant level, reigning in affordability will require more than
easing the restrictions that make it difficult to build multi-family homes. The city cannot rely on
private sector development and market rate construction alone to address the shortage of
affordable homes given the market failures exhibited in the housing cycle. A multi-pronged
approach is required that also entails the preservation of affordable units already in place and the
construction of social housing targeted specifically for residents’ whose needs are not met by the
private market (Angst, et al., 2021). Unfortunately, the funding for designated affordable housing
stalled significantly after the Great Recession in Los Angeles. Affordable construction was
hindered by the demise of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) in 2011 and continuing
withdrawal of federal government assistance (Lefcoe & Swenson, 2014). From 2008 to 2020, the
total amount of Affordable Housing Trust Funds (AHTF) for the City of Los Angeles dropped
from $108 million annually to just $12.5 million (City of Los Angeles Fiscal Budgets, 2008-
2020). Between 2014 and 2018, the City added less than 7,300 affordable units (L.A. City Data,
87
2018). This was ameliorated somewhat through a package of bills passed at the State level in
2018—Senate Bill 2, Proposition 1, and Proposition 2—as well as at the City level—Measure
JJJ, Measure M, and Measure H, and Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) ordinance—which
facilitated the construction of more than 15,000 affordable units throughout Los Angeles in the
past 4 years (L.A. City Planning, 2021; CHP, 2019). .
The majority of designated affordable housing units are constructed through public-
private partnerships. There are two primary mechanisms for this production. Density bonuses are
local policies that allow developers to include additional units on their projects when they
include a set percentage of designated affordable units (usually 20% within Los Angeles) (Zhu,
et al., 2021; Whittemore, 2012; Mukhija, 2010). Low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and
project-based Section 8 vouchers are federal programs that provide subsidies to developers to
stimulate the construction and management of affordable buildings (Basolo, et al., 2022).
Despite the tax credits received and public protections in place, more than 40% of residents of
LIHTC buildings are considered rent burdened (HUD, 2018).
In addition to designated affordable housing, the City of Los Angeles has a rent-
stabilization ordinance (RSO) for residential buildings with 2 or more units built before 1978
(CITE). The RSO ordinance limits rent increases to 3% per year plus 1% for each utility paid by
the landlord. The ordinance also includes no-fault eviction protections, which prohibit evictions
for reasons that are not the direct fault of the tenant. There is no vacancy control, however, so
rents can reset to market rate when there is turnover in occupancy. There is also no way to add
new units to the supply of housing covered by RSO protections because of the construction date
restriction for eligible units. For units not covered by the RSO, no-fault evictions are allowed–
meaning tenants can be asked to leave without any stated reason or prior warning–so long as
88
residents are given a 30-day notice. Past research has found that rent control ordinances are
effective at producing lower rents and have only minimal impacts on supply with positive
impacts on overall social welfare (Diamond, 2019; Autor, et al., 2014; Sims, 2007; Pastor, et al.,
2018; LAHD, 2009).
Finally, the Section 8 voucher program provides subsidies to tenants that allow them to
search for housing in the private market and caps their rent at 30% of monthly income (CITE).
However, over 75% of eligible households do not receive a voucher because of underfunding
and thousands of people remained on waitlists for decades. This is true both across the United
States and for Los Angeles specifically (Reina, 2021; HPRI, 2020). For the 487,500 renters
living in South L.A., there are roughly 80,000 RSO units, 20,000 designated affordable units,
and 5,800 voucher recipients (LAHD, 2021; L.A. City Council, 2021; UNIDAD, 2021; LAHD,
2009; ACS, 2015-2019). The gap in need for supportive and affordable housing remains
significant.
Precarious Employment
Labor and income provide the counterweight to housing costs in affordability
calculations. Given the market system for housing, residents must find employment that pays
them enough to afford shelter and other essentials nearby. However, residents are increasingly
confronted with an insecure and undercompensated labor market (Hacker, 2019). In 2019, only
16.4% of jobs in L.A. county paid enough to afford a market rate one-bedroom apartment and
the average working adult needed to put in more than 67 hours per week to cover market rents
(EDD, 2019; Zillow, 2021). With limited incomes and greater uncertainty around future
earnings, working class residents face severe constraints in locating housing that meets their
89
needs. Furthermore, wages have failed to keep pace with housing costs across Southern
California and affordability concerns are a regional issue (Angst, et al., 2021). Because working-
class residents are truly unable to find housing nearly anywhere, the issues of precarious
employment and income inequality must be taken seriously for their central role in the rental
crisis (Chapple, 2017).
Across the United States, the labor market has become increasingly unequal and
polarized over time (Autor, et. al., 2006). Additionally, income volatility has increased and
traced affordability trends by rising steadily in the 1970’s and 1980’s, then more quickly
accelerating after 2000 (Gottschalk & Moffitt, 2009; Stone, 2004). Currently, nearly 1 in 3
workers in the United States are unable to rely on a stable income month-to-month (Morduch &
Schneider, 2017). For Los Angeles more specifically, rapid job growth in low-wage sectors has
occurred alongside more moderate expansions in high-wage jobs in finance, management, and
technology (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021). Population growth and in-migration related to
those higher income sectors contributes to downward pressures in the rental market as those
workers seek out housing amidst a severely constricted supply (Couture, et. al., 2019; Scott,
2019).
These labor trends reflect macroeconomic shifts related to deindustrialization,
outsourcing, and secular stagnation (Benanav 2020; Stansbury & Summer 2020; Scott & Soja,
1996). Those changes began in the 1970’s as globalization led to overproduction and firm
consolidation. At that time, worldwide recessions diminished the rate of profit as transformations
to the production and logistics processes emerged (Pastor; 2001; Soja et al., 1983). To recover
the rate of the profit, the relationship between employers and workers was altered. Capital
reduced labor costs by limiting the number of permanent employees and establishing a
90
workforce that could be more easily shed during economic down-turns (Rubery 2015; Benach &
Mutaner, 2007). This follows an essential insight from Marx who stated that capital must resolve
crises in the rate of profit through expansions into new markets and new forms of exploitation
(Dantzler, 2021; Gourzis, et al., 2019; Smith, 1983).
Additionally, economic restructuring prompted a period of market consolidation that
continues to this day. Recent research has documented growing concentration industries ranging
from homebuilding and technology to meatpacking and groceries (Aghion, et al., 2021; Cosman,
& Quintero, 2021, Azar, et al., Deener, 2021; Stiglitz, 2015; MacDonald, et al., 2000). In
addition, non-compete contracts now cover roughly 20% of the workforce (Boesch, et al., 2021).
Consequently, workers have limited choice in seeking out employment because firms enjoy a
monopsony position in many sectors.
Firms leveraged the power gained from these structural changes to force workers into
exploitative labor arrangements they otherwise would not have agreed (Gourzis, et al., 2019;
Fraser, 2016; Pastor, 2001; Scott & Soja, 1996). New forms of precarious labor replaced
standard employment relations that had previously consisted of permanent, full-time, year round
labor including work-related benefits of health insurance, protections from arbitrary firings,
rights to collective bargaining, minimum wage guarantees, paid time off, and retirement
contributions. In contrast, precarious work refers to part-time, contract, temporary, and other
‘flexible’ forms of labor, which often lack predictable wages, consistent schedules, proper safety,
employee benefits, and other worker protections (Hacker, 2019; Lambert et. al., 2019; Katz &
Krueger, 2019; Krueger & Katz, 2016; Benach, et al., 2014). The expansion of precarious work
represents a wider betrayal of the social contract long in place for the United States, which
guaranteed a single earner with a middle class job could afford to support their family with the
91
essentials needed for daily survival and save for the future. Politicians across the political
spectrum have called attention to the issue and its impacts on households’ quality of life and
communities’ social connections (Cass, 2020).
It is worthwhile to mention that some of the practices associated with these structural
changes have increased worker autonomy (Katz and Krueger, 2016). However, these benefits are
largely segmented by race, class, and industry with higher-income contract workers experiencing
greater agency over their livelihoods through flexibilization of their schedules while the majority
of workers under temporary contracts continue to want more predictability around their
precarious jobs (Katz and Krueger, 2019). Using the Current Population Survey, researchers
have found that 46.2% of workers had at least some aspect of precarity in their current
employment arrangements either lacking stable hours, receiving insufficient hours to afford basic
necessities, or holding at-will positions without worker protections and benefits (Albelda, et al.,
2020). Moreover, employees at the lowest end of wage distribution have experienced the largest
increases in income instability over time and higher rates of exploitation (Hacker, 2019;
Sakamoto & Kim, 2010).
The term precariat gained recognition in the 1980’s when French sociologists used it to
describe temporary work and seasonal employment (Standing, 2014). The concept has roots in
Marx’s notion of relative surplus population, which was used to designate a distinct segment of
the working class that lacked stable and secure employment because of the structure of the
capitalist system (Standing, 2011; Wright, 2005). Precarious labor conditions represent a strategy
used by capitalists to boost the rate of profit through exploitation of the working class
(Bhattacharyya, 2018; Han, 2018; Fraser, 2016; Butler, 2013; Waite, 2009). Exploitation is
defined as labor arrangements in which the worker is not compensated fairly given their level of
92
effort relative to profit and contribution to overall societal growth (Sakamoto & Kim, 2010). We
can observe the connection between exploitation and precarity in secondary datasets, which
show that the rate of exploitation has increased over time alongside the expansion of precarious
employment (Albelda, et al., 2020; Sakamoto & Kim, 2010).
Although precarity became widespread as a by-product of economic restructuring, these
arrangements have always existed. Labor produced by female, nonwhite, and immigrant workers
has long been devalued by society and the private market (Peake et a., 2020; Paret, 2016). In
addition, exploitation has consistently been concentrated among women, Latino/as, Blacks, and
the working class over time (Sakamoto & Kim, 2010). Previous research has demonstrated that
the labor market is segmented for these groups who remain clustered within a limited set of jobs
(Richardson, Ruser and Suarez, 2003; Catanzarite, 2000). Growth in precarious labor
arrangements compounds the unequal pay, exploitation, danger, and discrimination that
marginalized residents already must internalize (Bayer, 2018; Hall & Greenman, 2015).
Women–and especially those with children–are overrepresented in precarious jobs compared to
men. Black and Latino/a workers are also more likely to be employed in precarious positions
(Albelda, et al., 2020).
There are important differences in the ways labor precarity is experienced between racial
groups in South L.A.. Unemployment rates and wages in the Latino/a community have been
substantially lower than those for African Americans (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021).
Latino/a residents are more likely to be among the working poor, subsisting in positions below
the poverty line. In part, this is due to the high immigrant and mixed status families within the
Latino/a community. Immigrants–and undocumented residents in particular–are vulnerable to
exploitation due to fear of deportation (Massey 1987; Rivera-Batiz 1999). In addition to the
93
precarious arrangements discussed earlier, these groups are also more likely to be employed
informally and earn below minimum wage (Yoshikawa, 2011; Bean, et al., 2013; Flippen 2012).
Collectively, Black and Latino/a residents are funneled into jobs with less responsibility and
compensation, more hazardous settings, weaker returns to education and experience, slower
wage growth, and fewer opportunities for advancement (Albelda, et al., 2020; Mandel, H., &
Semyonov, 2016; Young, 2010; Carré, F., & Heintz, J. 2009; Grodsky & Pager, 2001; McCall,
2001A; Wilson, 1997; Massey & Denton, 1997).
Precarious labor is not just defined by work arrangements or unequal power relations
between employers and employees. It is the product of a specific governmental system, which
allows those labor market conditions to persist (Han, 2018). The public sector structures
workers’ rights and their access to material resources outside of employment relations
(Kalleberg, 2011). When strong protections are in place and robust social spending provides a
baseline of resources needed for survival, workers have greater bargaining power. The global
recession and decline in tax revenues that occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s, however, began a
period of retrenchment in federal government spending on the social welfare system (Pastor,
2001; Wolch, 1996). To stimulate economic activity and boost tax dollars, local governments
loosened regulations around market concentration, collective bargaining, and contracting in their
attempts to attract capital (Peake, 2020; Harvey, 1989). Consequently, workers’ share of income
has declined steadily over time as precarious employment relations proliferate and unionization
rates decline. The value generated from working-class households has been reallocated to
shareholders despite increased labor productivity, pricing, and corporate profits (Greenwald, et
al., 2019).
94
Since the 1990’s, the majority of job growth in L.A has occurred in the service, sales, and
retail sectors. These sectors are among the lowest paying with salaries ranging from $18,300 to
$41,000 (Ong, et al., 2019). Positions in those sectors are also more likely to lack worker
benefits (Hacker, 2019). In 2018, just 59% of workers in L.A. had health insurance provided by
their employer and 65% received paid sick leave (UCLA Labor Center, 2018). Moreover, Los
Angeles’ future employment outlook is dominated by low-wage, precarious jobs as well. The top
five projected occupations for the County of Los Angeles through 2028 each have a median
income of less than $31,250–substantially below the current median income (EDD, 2021). To
put this in context of housing costs, tenants must earn approximately 96,000 dollars per year to
afford current market rents in South Los Angeles (Zillow, 2021).
Precarious employment has spill-over effects that infiltrate many aspects of an
individual's life including their social interactions, neighborhood quality, housing stability, and
material sustenance (Benach & Muntaner, 2007). Furthermore, those arrangements have made it
exceedingly difficult to plan for the future or get ahead of expenses and save (UCLA Labor
Center, 2018). By forcing workers to internalize risk and uncertainty, labor precarity limits their
agency over professional and personal life in both the present and future (Kalleberg, 2011).
Negative health outcomes and heightened levels of stress are observed for workers engaged in
precarious labor arrangements as a result of those conditions (Benach et al., 2014; Benach &
Muntaner, 2007).
Precarity represents an important mechanism in the reproduction of the fundamental
health disparities not only because our market system demands labor to afford the basic
necessities of survival, but also because exploitation and the logics of capitalism are increasingly
pervading other dimensions of everyday life (Butler, 2016; Waite, 2009). While the concept of
95
precarity has origins in the relationship between capital and labor, it speaks to the wider social
conditions confronted by the working class (Strauss, 2017). Precarity has come to represent the
multiple forms of stress, deprivation, negligence, and erasure that working class residents must
navigate as they attempt to afford and maintain life (Peake, et al., 2020).
Market Power
The rental crisis is the product of an inequitable and poorly functioning market system
that consistently manufactures harm for communities of color (Taylor, 2019; Gibbons, 2018;
Ryan-Collins, et al., 2017). As explored previously, the market is unable to operate efficiently
and has required public interventions consistently in the past because of the unique, scarce,
durable, and expensive nature of land and housing. In addition, housing is consumed by the same
actors that frame and construct its value–families, developers, corporations, and government
entities–creating incentives for market manipulation (Galster, 2001). These characteristics exist
alongside histories of exclusion, which leads to the formation of housing submarkets and
concentrated market power among landowners (Bates, 2006). Like labor, the operation of the
housing market exists far outside the model of perfect competition (Weber, 1978).
Traditionally, rent is considered a payment for the use of housing services that are owned
by someone else. Given the inefficiencies and failures associated with the market, however, rents
cannot be fully understood through market logics alone (Wolf, 1981; Evans, 1991). Numerous
studies have demonstrated that local housing markets exhibit monopoly conditions, which allows
landowners to engage in price-setting (Wyly, et al., 2009; Cronin, 1983; Gilderbloom, 1985;
Gilderbloom & Appelbaum, 1987). Through monopoly power, landowners extract a portion of
96
the surplus value generated from tenants’ labor in exchange for shelter (Evans, 1991; Harvey,
1974).
Contrary to supply-side arguments, housing prices are primarily derived from income
levels (FRED, 2017). Previous research has demonstrated that rent growth is strongly associated
with local employment and payroll growth, but not significantly related to new housing
construction or land use restrictions (Reina & Landis, 2019; Appelbaum, & Gilderbloom, 1983).
Workers have won nominal wage gains over the years through increases in the minimum wage
and growth in productivity. Yet, their monthly take home pay saw limited change because
landowners are able to raise the rent and extract the majority of these advances (Agarwal, et al.,
2019; MaCurdy, 2015).
Monopoly conditions stem from scarce supply and concentrated ownership. Housing is
scarce because of the basic need for shelter which creates high demand amidst limited physical
space and exclusionary property rights as well as high barriers to entry due to large costs of
production (Harvey, 1974). Landowners have become deeply invested in scarcity as housing has
increasingly become commodified and a greater portion of household wealth is derived from
their homes (NAR, 2022; Adkins, et al., 2021; Rognlie, 2016). Whiter, wealthier enclaves have
aggregated large amounts of land throughout the City and County of Los Angeles, and cut off the
ability to construct enough housing to meet demand for the region through exclusionary zoning
law that limits the construction of multi-family housing within their limits (Morrow, 2013;
Fischel, 2005). While there is not outright collusion among various actors, the pursuit of profit
and wealth accumulation coordinates their action around similar market incentives (Wyly, et al.,
2009; Evans, 1991; Harvey, 1974). As noted in Chapter 2, private and public actors in Los
97
Angeles have used exclusion, discrimination, price setting, and violence to limit supply, generate
value, and accumulate wealth (Gibbons, 2018; Lipsitz, 2011; Roithmayr, 2010; Fischel, 2005).
In addition, land ownership has become more concentrated over time through
commodification and financialization of housing. Commodification describes financial
institutions and households increasingly treating homes as an asset because of the large amounts
of wealth tied up in housing (Adkins, et al., 2021; Christophers, 2021). Financialization refers to
the rise in real estate investment trusts (REITs) and “corporate” landlords. REITs have enabled
global finance to enter local housing markets and further transformed the idea of home into a
commodity leveraged for profit. The financialization of housing was particularly acute in South
L.A. because it had a high proportion of homes targeted with subprime loans that were ultimately
foreclosed upon (Ferrer. 2021; Abood, 2018; Molina, 2016A; Molina, 2016B). Past research
demonstrates that greater presence of corporate landlords in a neighborhood is correlated with
increased rent and greater exploitation of renters through reduced maintenance, fees, and fines
(Gurun, et al., 2022; D'Lima & Schultz, 2019; Travis, 2019). Furthermore, the concentrated
market power associated with both corporate and large landowners is linked to reduced supply
and higher rents (Ahn & Arnott, 2022; Watson & Ziv, 2021). Because of the “island-like” nature
of submarkets, landowners can more easily establish the market power required to dictate prices.
In Los Angeles, the top 10% of landowners in the city own 63 percent of all units and the top 1%
control 40 percent of supply (Ferrer, 2021). Additionally, 43% of the housing stock is held by an
LLC with an average portfolio size of 22 units.
Through the extraction of rents, landowners take advantage of the collective surplus
value produced by workers across the city. Housing market scholars have consistently
demonstrated that the value of a particular location is relationally determined by the uses and
98
improvements of the surrounding area (Bates 2006). Land has the potential to appreciate in
value–justifying higher rents—because of increases in productivity and economic activity, public
investments in infrastructure, and community-led improvements related to school ratings, crime,
or arts programming. Given the scarcity of land and durable nature of housing, landowners can
extract the value generated from these activities without making any improvement on the land
themselves (Evans, 1991).
The returns landowners gain from contributions outside their own labor and solely from
exclusive possession are referred to as economic rent (Ryan-Collins, et al., 2017). The extraction
of economic rent represents another form of expropriation from the working class and their
collective contributions to economic growth. Tenants’ labor is capitalized into land values–as
productivity and wages increase, land prices increase (Reina & Landis, 2019; FRED, 2017;
Appelbaum, & Gilderbloom, 1983). But, renters do not receive the full magnitude of the surplus
value created because they do not have ownership over housing capital. Instead, the economic
activity generated from their labor is used to justify higher levels of extraction through rent
increases (Agarwal, et al., 2019; MaCurdy, 2015).
Landowners also leverage their market power to minimize costs through deferred
maintenance and push externalities of the racial capitalist system into specific sections of the
city. With outside housing options scarce, working class tenants are forced to accept the
conditions they can afford (Wyly, et al., 2009). Through the structure of the filtering process,
working class tenants are relegated to the lowest quality units. At the community level, filtering
relies upon disruptions and uncertainty in their neighborhoods as they become more prone to
pernicious usages, abandonment, downgrading, and demolition as a result of the housing cycle.
Consequently, Black tenants, undocumented residents, and low-income households are
99
significantly more likely to occupy homes with severe physical issues compared with the general
population (Hall & Greenman, 2013; Krieger and Higgins, 2002). In addition, those same groups
are more likely to experience housing exploitation–defined as overcharging renters relative to the
market value of their home–with higher rates detected in Black neighborhoods and high poverty
areas (Desmond & Wilmers, 2019; Daniels, 1975). These conditions are the product of structural
market failures as well as unequal power relations between landlords and tenants.
The public sector has made significant progress in ensuring access to adequate quality
living quarters for renters through federal, state, and local housing policy (Kutty, 1999; Holupka
and Newman, 2011; Jacobs, et al., 2009). Currently, just 8% of renters across the U.S.
experience serious structural problems (Divringi, et. al., 2019; Koebel, 1997). Nonetheless,
households and neighborhoods across the country continue to struggle with issues outside the
major structural damages tracked in secondary data sets. In Los Angeles, a survey in 2011 found
over half of renters reported needing a repair at some point within a given year with 14.7% of
households with children at risk of toxic paint, 1.5% dealing with insects and rodents, and 6.9%
with mold concerns (County of Los Angeles Public Health, 2015). Moreover, 15 percent of
renters had moderate or substantial difficulty getting their landlord to complete the repair
(SHED, 2019). Maintenance issues have a significant, negative effect on renters’ physical and
mental health. Moreover, it reduces their feelings of agency and quality of life when needs are
not met (Clark & Kearns, 2012; Shaw, 2004; Sandel & Zotter, 2000). Increased control over
living conditions–experienced through positive relationships with landlords and attentive
maintenance as required–helps reduce the damaging effects of housing precarity, however.
Maintenance issues are also stratified along race and class lines. Black and Latino/a
communities are made uninhabitable through deferred maintenance of their homes (Mattern,
100
2018). Black and Latino/a renters are more likely than their white peers to have difficulties
getting repairs done and have higher likelihood of experiencing asbestos, mold, and lead paint in
their units (SHED, 2019; Pulido, 2000). Moreover, undocumented migrants are especially likely
to report problems associated with pests and insects whereas Black renters reporting significant
lower satisfaction with their units overall (Hall & Greenman, 2013). Additionally, rregulations
and enforcement institutions are often selectively enforced in ways that prioritize White tastes,
increase property values, and facilitate urban development (Bartram, 2021; Valverde 2012;
Proudfoot and McCann 2008).
Past evaluations have demonstrated that tenant protections like just cause and rent
stabilization help alleviate the stressors stemming from unequal market power between landlord
and tenants. Those policies produce decreased rates of churn and fewer forced moves among
working class residents as well as result in better destination neighborhoods for those that move
out (Chapple, et al, 2022; Favilukis et al., 2019). Furthermore, mandated systematic inspections
of housing units are associated with significant improvements in housing quality (MacRoy and
Farquhar 2010; Ayoob, et al., 2008). Public health research has demonstrated the negative
impacts of poor housing maintenance on mental health outcomes (Chambers et al., 2015; Clark
& Kearns, 2012; Burdette, et al., 2011; Thomas, et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2001). Additionally,
residents are more likely to be stressed when they are dissatisfied with their housing overall,
worried about being forced to move, or do not feel they belong in their neighborhood.
Improvements to home environments are associated with reduced levels of depression, higher
emotional and behavioral functioning, and higher cognitive skills (Coley, et al., 2013; Thomson
et al., 2009; Anderson et al., 2003).
101
Importantly, even the best renter protections require residents to feel comfortable
reporting issues that arise. Power imbalances cause a significant number of maintenance issue,
illegal rent hikes, and other forms of harassment to go unreported due to fear in eviction, cost
pass-throughs, or deportation (Christophers, 2021; Chisholm, et al., 2020; Rosen, 2014; Grineski
and Herná ndez 2010.) Previous studies have shown that landlord behaviors condition the impacts
of housing quality on stress. Tenants with responsive landlords and positive relationships with
them experience lower stress levels even when they experience maintenance issues because of
the agency they retain over their surroundings (Clark & Kearns, 2012; Rauh, 2008).
A core power imbalance exists between landlords and tenants because shelter is a basic
need that is required to survive (Desmond, 2016; Grineski and Herná ndez, 2010). This power
imbalance is not a totalizing force, but influences how people live, move, and resist throughout
their lives (Heynen, et al., 2011; Foucault, 1980; Weber, 1978). Working-class renters of color
have limited capacity to resist harm, participate in homemaking, challenge unfair practices, and
seek protection from harm under the law because property owners have a privileged class status
associated with wealth and social standing (Adkins, et al., 2021; Drier, 1982).
Exercising renter rights requires having the information that those protections exist as
well as knowledge around the processes of enforcement. There are currently three different local
government authorities tasked with enforcing habitability standards, illegal eviction practices,
and building quality in Los Angeles–the Department of Public Health, the Housing Department
(previously the Housing and Community Investment Department), and the Department of
Building and Safety respectively (County of Los Angeles Public Health, 2015). The Systematic
Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) was initiated by the City of Los Angeles Housing
Department in 1997 with a goal to inspect each RSO unit every 4 years. Unfortunately, the
102
Housing Department has not been able to keep up with those metrics because of lack of funding
and employees. There are 96,000 properties with 744,000 units covered by SCEP and 61 full-
time inspectors. Furthermore, there are roughly 7,900 landlord harassment and illegal eviction
calls made to the police each year with the highest incidence occurring in South L.A. (Cantong,
2022). There is a significant need, then, for intervention to stop the deterioration of the housing
stock in South L.A. However, the council district combined for 20% of the City’s population, yet
received only 15% of neighborhood improvement funds, 7% of infrastructure funds, and less
than one ninth of discretionary spending per resident as compared to other high-wealth council
districts (UNIDAD, 2021).
Many issues stemming from the unequal power relations between landlords and tenants
remain hidden because tenants are too fearful to report or move out to avoid confrontation
(Chisholm, et al., 2020; Bachelder et al. 2016; Super 2011; Grineski 2008; Gaventa, 1982).
Declining unaffordability compounds this fear because working class tenants face a decreasing
amount of outside housing options if a problem with their landlord arises that requires them to
leave. Landlords can defer maintenance or hike rents illegally if tenants have no other options
and face obstacles to legal protections due to unpaid rent, documentation status, and lack of
knowledge (Desmond 2016). Landlords, therefore, play a significant, but generally understudied
role in affordability, housing quality, and stress (Rosen, 2014). Policymakers need to understand
the stressors that stem from unequal market power to address the underlying causes of the rental
crisis and create a policy environment where tenants feel comfortable exercising their rights.
103
Neighborhood Change
Since the Great Recession, new cost and displacement pressures have emerged in South
L.A. as public and private development expanded into the area (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor,
2021; Urban Displacement Project, 2020; Ong, et al., 2018). After decades of neglect, the area
has experienced major flows of investment extending south from downtown and the University
of Southern California. This began with the announcement of the Exposition and Crenshaw Rail
Lines, which connect downtown Los Angeles with Santa Monica beach and–soon to be finished–
the Los Angeles International Airport. In addition, the Los Angeles Football Club’s Banc of
California Stadium, the Lucas Museum, and Inglewood’s SoFi Stadium serve as large-scale,
public-private anchors for smaller-scale development and speculation. Further evidence of the
uptick in development is provided by numerous mixed-use projects concentrated near those
anchors including USC Village, Cumulus, Crenshaw Crossing, District Square, Baldwin Hills
Mall, a new branch of Kaiser Permanente Hospital (Barragan, 2020; Flores, 2019; Chandler,
2018) and numerous Transit Oriented Community (TOC) construction sites across the area.
South L.A. has also become popular amidst homebuyers because of its relatively large stock of
detached, single family homes which compose roughly 46.5% of total housing units (ACS, 2015-
2019).
As capital flows back into South L.A., demand and speculation has risen sharply
generating large windfalls for landowners and landlords. Residents have experienced significant
surges in housing costs with home prices more than doubling and market rents increasing
roughly 37% since 2010 (Zillow, 2021). Admittedly, it is difficult to disentangle attribution for
these price changes between the market conditions affecting affordability discussed above and
new pressures brought about from neighborhood change. These housing processes are mutually
104
determined and the increase in demand for housing in South L.A. stems from two sources. First,
rents have increased throughout the city so people from different classes and racial groups
expanded their housing search into new areas to achieve affordability that had not previously
viewed the neighborhoods of South L.A. as a viable option (Myers, et al., 2021). Second,
speculation and development increased as South L.A. became recognized as an area with
comparably low land prices, close proximity to other more developed sections of the city, and
large public sector investments that provide an anchor for future growth Smith, 2021; Sulaiman,
2017A; Sulaiman, 2017B; Barragan, 2015; Sulaiman, 2014; Metro, n.d.).
The concept of neighborhood change is based on processes of gentrification and
displacement. Gentrification describes a complex process of "territorial expansion by a wealthy
community into a disinvested neighborhood, the installation of the social and legal regimes of
the newcomers, and the deployment of new physical capital, both on a small scale—by
homeowners undertaking renovations—and on a larger scale, by landed capitalists and public-
sector officials keen to raise revenue" (Bunten, 2019). The term neighborhood change is used
throughout this text foremost because participants infrequently used the word gentrification in
focus groups and interviews. Instead, they described the process as they experienced it–a
changing built environment, turn-over of neighbors and family members, and a foundation of the
disinvestment that preceded renewed interest in their neighborhood. Neighborhood change
represents the intersections of gentrification, displacement, replacement, and erasure, which have
the potential to benefit or threaten long-time residents depending on their level of housing
stability (Slater, 2021; Elliott-Cooper, et al., 2020; Atkinson, 2015).
Until recently, stigmatization of Black and Latino/a neighborhoods in South L.A. caused
them to be devalued and ignored by gentrifiers, developers, and real estate finance in spite of
105
large rent gaps. Past research has demonstrated that gentrification is conditioned by race and
class (Ellen and Torrats-Espinosa 2019; Owens and Candipan, 2019; Delmelle, 2016; Ding, et
al., 2016; Landis, 2015; Kallin and Slater 2014; Guerrieri, et al., 2013; Owens, 2012). Typically,
neighborhoods home to predominantly Black people are less likely to gentrify as are their
surrounding census tracts. Whiter, wealthier neighborhoods are first to gentrify, and only in tight
housing markets do Black neighborhoods begin to experience development pressures and
neighborhood change (Rucks-Ahidiana, 2021; Hwang, 2020; Sutton, 2020; Ding, et al., 2016;
Hwang, 2016; Hwang 2015; Landis 2015; Ellen and O’Regan 2008; Morenoff and Tienda 1997).
Latino/a neighborhoods’ experiences with neighborhood change, on the other hand, are more
mixed–in some markets they are more likely to gentrify than white neighborhoods, in other
markets less likely (Timberlake & Johns-Wolfe, 2016; Hwang & Sampson;2014). These patterns
are true in Los Angeles where South and East L.A. remained invisible for decades before rising
demand, large-scale public investment, and overdevelopment in other sections of the city sent
capital and people in search of new submarkets.
The benefits and development pressures associated with gentrification add a layer of
complexity to the relationship between neighborhood changes and health (Hyra, et al., 2019).
The literature around neighborhood change has found mixed impacts for long-time residents.
Some previous studies demonstrate that new development associated with neighborhood change
can bring positive amenities for long-time residents leading to improved economic and health
outcomes (Brummet & Reed, 2019; Ding & Hwang, 2016; Morenoff et al., 2007; Freeman,
2005). These benefits are the result of decreasing crime rates, increased public resources,
information and opportunity sharing, and new amenities such as grocery stores, restaurants,
106
green space, and retail outlets (Cole, et al., 2019; Sharkey, 2018;Ellen, Horn, & Reed, 2017;
Glaeser, Kim, & Luca, 2018; Meltzer & Schuetz, 2012; Formoso, et. al., 2010).
There is an equal body of theoretical and qualitative literature, however, documenting the
negative impacts of neighborhood change (Slater, 2021; Lim, et al., 2017; Huynh & Maroko,
2014; Formoso, et al., 2010). Past research finds correlations between gentrification and feelings
of fear and threat over losing housing as well as disruptions in social ties and sense of belonging
(Halpern, 2014; Lees, et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2005). New development provides visible
differentiation in the landscape and can reproduce systems of exclusion, policing, and inequality
(Goetz, 2021; Cahill, 2006; Wyly and Hammel 2004; Hackworth and Smith 2001). Moreover,
some research has observed long-time residents endure landlord harassment, racism, police
harassment, and threats as a result of gentrification (Betancur, 2011). Renters have little say in
the changes occurring in their neighborhoods due to gaps in wealth and power, which make it
difficult for residents to push back against the cost and displacement pressures brought about by
the surge in investment capital (Cahill, 2006).
Furthermore, deeper examination has revealed that the positive health benefits associated
with neighborhood change are conditioned by race–and more specifically being Black–as
racialized populations do not experience increased health outcomes at the same rate as their
White peers in gentrifying neighborhoods (Izenberg, Mujahid, & Yen, 2018; Gibbons & Barton,
2016). Previous studies also observe poorer health outcomes for low-income residents and
children who remain in place (Dragan, et al., 2019; Gibbons, 2019;). Together, this body of
research investigating gentrification suggests that some residents benefit from the influx of new
resources and new people, whereas others experience greater stress from increased rent,
exclusion, and forced moves. There remains a gap in the literature related to the lived
107
experiences of working class tenants and the different mechanisms pushing them out of their
homes as well as those allowing them to remain in place. Anxiety and depression are produced
not only from quickly escalating housing prices, but slower transformations to the physical and
social environment that people have built and used to survive over generations (Hyra, et al, 2019;
Freeman, 2006).
The process of uneven development underlies neighborhood change (Smith, 1987; Smith,
1982; Smith, 1979). As explored in Chapter 2, investment capital has moved across space and
extracted value by seeking out underdeveloped areas where the potential for profit is greatest.
However, the tension between extraction and crisis persists as previously neglected places
become over-developed and excessive profit disappears (Bhattacharyya, 2018; Smith, 1984).
This dynamic produces a seesaw of investment and disinvestment over time as capital shifts
between places to maximize profit and an uneven distribution of resources and opportunities
emerges (Smith, 1982; Harvey, 1982).
Renewed development interest in South Los Angeles is the product of structural housing
market forces as well as coordinated action by the private and public sectors. In part, demand for
central city locations has increased with growth in income inequality and concentration of wealth
at the top end of the distribution (Couture, et. al., 2019; Scott, 2019; Sims, 2016). Over time,
high income households have increasingly desired living closer to their employers and urban
amenities as their work hours and incomes have grown (Edlund, et al., 2022; Couture and
Handbury, 2015; Gyourko et al., 2013 Glaeser et al., 2001). Whereas land prices increased with
distance from the city center during the suburban boom of the 20th century, by 2010 this trend
had reversed and the gradient for home prices increased with closer proximity to the urban core
(Edlund, 2022). The recent upticks in investment across South L.A. also coincides with
108
predictions from research related to long-term filtering, which suggests that a ‘full housing cycle’
occurs over roughly 100 years (Brueckner & Rosenthal, 2009). The housing stock has reached
the end of its life cycle after expansion into the periphery of Los Angeles county for nearly a
century (Smith, 1979). Hypothetically, properties have deteriorated enough from neglect that
they can be purchased, redeveloped, and sold for profit.
Uneven development continues to structure the trajectory of neighborhoods and set the
foundation for neighborhood change. Land values in South L.A. remain artificially low because
of the area’s history with segregation, disinvestment, deindustrialization, and racialization
(Howell & Korver-Glenn, 2021; Faber, 2020; Korver-Glenn, 2018; Brooks, 2011). Through
overt and covert mechanisms, the private and public sector encouraged positive flows of
investment and amenities into whiter sections of the city, while Black and Latino/a
neighborhoods like South L.A. were ignored or used to sequester negative externalities of
capitalist production (Trounstine, 2018; Gibbons, 2018; Lipsitz, 2011; Smith, 1984). Depressed
property values in South L.A. widen the potential for profit by creating the potential for large
financial windfalls with reduced up-front costs.
In recent years, the local government has invested billions of dollars in South L.A.
through infrastructure and cultural amenities (Flores, 2020; Easter, 2019; Barragan, 2015;
Sulaiman, 2014; Kim, 2008). While these investments bring much needed resources to long-time
community members, they also threaten their ability to remain in place and benefit (Zuk, et al.,
2018). Additionally, public officials and private boosters have made clear that those expenditures
are meant to attract private development, stimulate economic activity, and boost tax dollars
(Smith, 2021; Sulaiman, 2017A; Sulaiman, 2017B; Barragan, 2015; Sulaiman, 2014; Metro,
n.d.). The return of capital to South Los Angeles also coincides with large-scale public
109
investment as public officials increasingly compete with other cities over private businesses and
high-income workers to restore funding lost out from the withdrawal of federal resources
through tax dollars (Sims, 2016).
The rent gap refers to ‘the economic gap between actual and potential land values of
location’ (Smith, 1987; Smith, 1984; Smith, 1979). Landowners can leverage the rent gap and
capture large profits from the economic rent generated by surrounding development through
minor improvements on their properties or removing long-time tenants to earn market rents.
Furthermore, past disinvestment and neglect can be used by landlords and government officials
to justify redevelopment (Wacquant, 2008). After decades of disrepair and underutilization, the
housing stock has deteriorated considerably and often requires major repairs and demolition. The
turn-over generated from construction can be used to push long-time residents out and attract
new amenities, businesses, and high-wealth residents to generate economic growth and tax
dollars (Crosby, 2020). Previous research has found there is an increased likelihood of eviction
associated with higher numbers of remodeling and demolition permits in the surrounding area
(Ramiller, 2021).
The rent gap creates incentives for landowners to redevelop naturally occurring
affordable units to capitalize on rising market-rate rents. In California, landowners can evict
tenants in RSO buildings without cause–despite the no-fault evictions protections in place–when
converting a unit into an owner-occupied unit or performing significant renovations through the
Ellis Act (LAHD, 2020). The conversion and destruction of RSO units has accelerated since the
Great Recession in South L.A. where there were no Ellis Act evictions in 2009 but more than
200 units in 2017 (LAHD, 2021). Across the City of Los Angeles, more than 10,000 rent-
controlled units have been removed using the Ellis Act between 2007 and 2020. This places the
110
limited affordable housing stock available to working class residents at risk. From 2010-2020,
the City added more than 111,000 units renting for more than $2,360 and lost the same number
with rent below $1,035 (L.A. City Planning, 2021). These changes were the result of both
redevelopment and vacancy decontrol of RSO units. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles lost
6,156 designated affordable rental units between 1997 and 2020 due to expired covenants, and
8,520 more affordable units are set to become market rate in the next five years (California
Housing Partnership Corporation, 2021).
Although there is substantial literature examining the population and investment flows
that occur in gentrifying neighborhoods, a shortage of research exists investigating the
experiences of residents who attempt to stay within those neighborhoods. Processes of uneven
development have produced instability within communities of color first through disinvestment
and abandonment, then through redevelopment practices that drive up rents and drive out
community assets. The stressors associated with neighborhood change build upon the inherent
power imbalances between landlords and tenants, which make it difficult to respond or manage.
In examining the housing conditions and stressors associated with neighborhood change, this
chapter investigates the strategies landlords use to vacate units and make them available for
residential turnover. New investment has brought long overdue resources to the neighborhoods
of South L.A., but also development pressures that generate stress and disrupt tenants’
connections to their communities.
Housing Precarity
The issues of affordability and neighborhood change are broken down into their various
components above because each aspect influences tenants’ participation in the housing market
111
and access to secure shelter. In this dissertation, I collectively refer to the resulting conditions as
the rental crisis. This is not to over simplify these distinct issues, but to understand how they are
mutually produced and experienced. Affordability reflects wage stagnation with rising rents
derived from an overall shortage of housing especially for working class people, the withdrawal
of public resources allocated toward housing construction, and precarious work arrangements.
Neighborhood change represents cost and displacement pressures as well as shifts in the built
and social environment that accompany development in previously disinvested areas.
Affordability and neighborhood change are separate, but co-determined processes that affect
whether renters can survive and thrive. Importantly, they are not just the result of economic
dynamics, but also socially and politically constructed to justify conditions and facilitate their
persistence. By further clustering together and entrenching housing stressors among working
class communities of color, the rental crisis undermines tenants’ ability to lead healthy,
rewarding lives.
The frame of affordability and underlying economic reasoning is insufficient to
understand the precarious living and work conditions experienced by tenants. Black and Latino/a
residents endure “a convergence of deepening inequalities including cutbacks in social services
and devolution of state responsibilities, assaults on the gains made through the civil rights
movement, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of financial security and support, and the
fragmentation of communities” (Cahill, 2006). The concept of precarity offers an alternative
framework to study the increasingly uncertain and risky conditions that residents encounter
(Butler, 2016A; Butler, 2016B). The term refers to a situation of existing on the edge; the
boundaries between survival, stability, displacement, and loss. The conditions described in this
text are not solely about housing prices, work conditions, or poverty more generally. Instead,
112
those conditions represent the intersection and convergence of stressors and uncertainty that
increasingly govern the everyday lives of the work class. Housing precarity, specifically refers to
how those converging factors manifest in relation to housing.
Furthermore, precarity explicitly names that those conditions are not naturally occurring
and instead reproduced through policy decisions and private actions (Han, 2018). This reflects a
relational and intersectional approach to inequality that looks beyond the actions and behaviors
of working class residents to their broader social context (Tilly, 1998). A framework of precarity
requires consideration of factors outside economics–including race, gender, family status, and
power relations–to explain the material conditions tenants endure. Although the concept was
made popular in the context of neo-liberal labor market conditions, it relates to the expansion of
instability, uncertainty, and market logics into other spheres of everyday life. (Peake, et al., 2020;
Bhattacharyya, 2018; McKittrick, 2013).
Precarity is similar in some respects to the concepts of risk and social vulnerability (Han,
2018; Wisner, 2004; Waite, 2009). This is especially evident in the literature related to disaster
recovery where vulnerability is described as a person or place’s exposure to shocks and their
ability to mitigate the impacts (Remes, 2021; Pendall et al., 2012; Van Zandt, et al., 2012; Cutter,
et al., 2003; Morrow, 1999). Risk is evaluated based on a number of household and community-
level characteristics to assess whether certain populations are disproportionately exposed to
disasters or constrained in their ability to recover (Mileti, 1999). While studies related to risk and
vulnerability attempt to understand the social identifiers that predict the unequal impacts of
crises, those measures fail to examine the actors responsible for the underlying social and
political context that produce inequitable exposure at the onset.
113
In contrast, precarity begins by recognizing the inherent vulnerability all humans share
from birth–a reliance on things and people outside of our own labor to access material,
informational, and emotional resources needed to survive (Butler 2016A; Lorey, 2011; Lawson,
2007). In this way, the study of precarity centers care–or all the relationships we require to
sustain our lives. Local residents in South L.A. have formed dense infrastructures of care through
friends, families, organizations, and government agencies, which help them find some degree of
stability. By recognizing the social and political origins of precarity, precarity also acknowledges
that certain groups are more vulnerable to precarity because of the legacies of past oppression
(Han, 2018; Rigg, 2016). Disinvestment, displacement and dispossession have left Black and
Latino/a residents in South L.A. exposed to future shocks due to deprivation from resources and
previous exposure to stressors that stretches across generations. As with stress, precarity
accumulates over time and influences households’ ability to manage shocks in the future. The
framework of precarity demands interventions focused on creating the conditions required for
life. This requires reconstituting our economic, social, and political systems that continue to
reproduce past violence (Butler 2012; Butler, & Athanasiou, 2013).
The relational approach centers power imbalances between landowners and tenants in the
discussion of neighborhood dynamics. Furthermore, it calls attention to the role of the public
sector in mediating that relationship and upholding the conditions that perpetuate the rental crisis
(Lorey, 2011). Political institutions allow precarious conditions and power imbalances to persist
through the laws, policies, and enforcement that fail to protect vulnerable residents (Han, 2018;
Van Zandt et al. 2012; Butler 2016B). The unequal distribution of public protections and public
goods makes certain lives less exposed to harm and certain places more valuable. Whiter,
wealthier communities and landowners received disproportionate rewards from the economic
114
growth experienced in Los Angeles over the last 20 years and have amassed significant political
power, resources, and information asymmetries. They experience less precarity in the present
and less vulnerability to future shocks because of those advantages. At the same, communities of
color were excluded from public resources, amenities, and opportunities that were made possible
through their labor. Black and Latino/a tenants in South L.A. were positioned as less deserving,
targeted for harm, and received inadequate protections under the law.
Consequently in the case of the on-going rental crisis shocks not only refer to major life
events like job loss, eviction, and health emergencies, but also mundane alterations to tenant’s
livelihoods such as increased grocery prices, rent hikes, reductions in work hours, or expiration
of public benefits–which can push past the threshold of precarity (Morduch & Schneider, 2017).
Residents experience instability and displacement when they can no longer persist amidst
precarious conditions. As will be explored in greater detail next chapter, instability has negative
impacts at both the individual and neighborhood level including the disintegration of social
connections, community infrastructure, and sense of belonging (Burgard, et al., 2012; Acevedo-
Garcia et al., 2004). Housing and employment precarity have generated stress and fear as well as
constrained choices and reduced resources available for consumption in working class
households (Puar, 2012; Berlant, 2011). Over time, these conditions ultimately result in social
death as people wear down from the accumulation of stress, anxiety, and lack of sustenance
(McKittrick, 2011; Gilmore, 2002; Engels, 1845).
Stable housing, on the other hand, provides space to grow, replenish, and, ultimately,
prosper in the outside world (Hulse & Milligan, 2014). Moreover, stable housing are also
foundational to tenants' participation in their wider community because they give people the
time, energy, and resources to seek out opportunities, support other people, and resist harmful
115
practices. Stable work grants access to adequate quality housing in the rental market (Hacker,
2019). When communities are stable, infrastructures of support can emerge, which create buffers
against harm and nurture the growth of individuals (Pastor, 2015; Sampson 2012). The study of
precarity has an express purpose of nurturing environments where people can thrive and lead a
meaningful life. In many ways, this requires a stable home and stable community. I use the
framework of precarity in this dissertation to examine the housing stressors impeding residents
access to stability and future life.
Following this lineage, housing precarity represents a multi-layered framework that
encompasses an individual's capacity to meet their needs and expenses, their ability to manage
uncertainty and stressors, and the agency to live without fear of losing their home or being
targeted for harm. This framework reflects the multiple dimensions of home–ranging from
economic and environmental aspects such as regional housing market conditions and
maintenance issues to social and political dimensions including access to infrastructures of care
and policy protections (Hulse & Mulligan, 2014). Economic constraints remain foundational to
housing precarity, but this concept also incorporates the political and social conditions that
produce inadequate code enforcement, public welfare spending, renter protections, anti-
displacement ordinances, exclusionary development, a limited supply of affordable housing,
insecure employment, exploitative landlord strategies, occupancy limits, month-to-month leases,
no-fault evictions, and lack of access to legal representation.
Past research has demonstrated that housing stressors cluster together. These sources of
stress include rent burden, substandard housing conditions, harassment, discrimination,
overcrowding, and eviction. As a result, affordability and quality are increasingly understood as
interlinked components of housing precarity. In a national study, 24% of tenants experienced
116
three or more of those housing insecurity indicators simultaneously (Routhier, 2019).
Additionally, past research has found that immigrant and undocumented households have
significantly higher clustering of housing stressors related to unaffordability, crowding,
neighborhood quality, and discriminatory landlord practices (Diaz McConnell, 2017; Hall &
Stringfield, 2014; Cort et al., 2014; Cort, 2011; Friedman & Rosenbaum, 2004; Chavez, 1990).
More research is needed to understand how housing stressors converge and reinforce one
another. It is the accumulation of stressors that overwhelms tenants and reproduces inequality.
The issues tenants face are overlapping, interconnected, and mutually determined. Precarity and
stability acknowledge this complexity by studying multiple dimensions of housing concurrently.
The rental crisis contributes to the reproduction inequality and disparate health outcomes across
race and class by creating new stressors and reinforcing those that already existed. Black and
Latino/a face heightened exposure to stress due to vulnerability produced from past actions.
Differential exposure from stress stemming from the rental crisis also leaves those renters more
susceptible moving forward. Various aspects of housing quality, landlord relations, affordability,
and neighborhood conditions have been studied before, but rarely collectively. Yet, past research
demonstrated time and again that harms and stressors cluster together (Diaz McConnell, 2017;
Sharkey, 2013; Sampson, 2012; Wolff & De-Shalit, 2007; Massey & Denton, 1997). Further
study will help policymakers identify clusters of housing stressors and design policy
interventions aimed at addressing the underlying causes of precarity.
117
Hypotheses
To structure the analysis of housing, work, and neighborhood conditions, four hypotheses were
formed to guide the analysis:
H1: The majority of renters experience multiple housing stressors simultaneously including
unaffordability, overcrowding and landlord strategies such as refusal to provide maintenance,
harassment, discrimination, illegal rent practices, and overcrowding.
H2: The relationship between those stressors and perceived stress, however, will be dominated
by landlord practices.
H3: Residents are working longer hours and more jobs because of precarious labor conditions
and rising rental prices.
H4: The impacts of full-time employment and multiple jobs on perceived stress will be
insignificant due to mixed effects from increased agency and income as well as greater levels of
exhaustion.
Findings
Examining the traditional measures of affordability–rent burden and residual income–for
the survey sample found comparable estimates to the American Community Survey 2015-2019
referenced in the introduction. Among participants, 76.6% and 56.0% were rent burdened and
severely rent burdened respectively (see Table 4.1). While no significant differences were noted
118
for rent burden across racial groups or family status, Black households, 63.7%, were
significantly more likely to be severely rent burdened than Latino/a residents, 52.6%, as were
non-families, 60.7%, compared to families, 52.6%. These differences were driven by a
significantly greater number of household members and working adults for Latino/a families,
which corresponded to higher household incomes. In addition, significant differences were
identified across these groups for residual incomes. A simplified version of the residual income
measure was used by subtracting rental costs from income. This serves a similar purpose of
revealing the income participants have left over after the more fixed costs of housing for other
essentials. After paying for rent, Black households had $909 left over on average versus $1849
for Latino/a residents while families retained $1857 as compared to $1163 for non-families. As
noted previously, both Latino/a residents and families had significantly greater household sizes
so this residual income also needed to be stretched further. Overall, rent burdened households
had roughly $660 available monthly after covering rental costs, but this number fell to just $105
for the severely rent burdened.
119
120
121
Affordability metrics represent the tension between income and rent. In focus groups,
rent burdened tenants consistently spoke to the strain they felt from rising rents and stagnating
wages, “Cost of living going up but our paychecks not...I've noticed minimum wage is $15, but
how good is $15, when your rent is $1,200, $2,200?” In the previous two years, 35.5% of
surveyed households experienced an increase in income, 50.1% income stayed the same, and
14.6% saw a decrease. Survey statistics also revealed that rent burdened households earned less
than half the household income of non-rent burdened residents despite no significant differences
in household size or number of working adults. This finding stresses the importance of the
income side of the affordability equation. Tenants consistently reflected on the difficulties of
earning enough income to maintain stability amidst rising costs of living, “Although my son's
income has gone up, the rent is also going up...Last year they wanted to raise the rent almost
half because there were 5 or 6 years where they did not raise the rent. I pay like $1000, and now
they want almost $1,400. It's not our fault that they did not raise the rent in 5 or 6 years and they
should not do that.”
Table 4.2 - Baseline Regression
Affordability Coefficient P-Value
Rent Burden (Dummy) -2.23 0.077**
Rent Quintile 0.11 0.735
Income Quintile -0.66 0.103*
Demographics
Education 0.06 0.893
Age Quintile -0.72 0.024***
Race – Black (Dummy) 0.22 0.816
Total Observations 328
The baseline and fully specified regression equations indicate that rent, education, and
race each had an insignificant relationship to stress (see Table 4.2 and Table 4.3). This is true for
122
the regression using only the South Los Angeles survey sample (N = 313) as well as our full
survey sample results for South and Central Los Angeles together (N = 694). That is not to
dismiss the role these factors play in the stress process, but a reflection of Black and Latinx
renter households—who make up the far majority of both samples—experiencing a similar range
of exposures to stress and housing precarity given their close geographic proximity to one
another. Income is the only variable in this baseline which has a significant relationship with
stress (see Table 4.4). This negative correlation persists in the fully specified model as well.
Renters that make more income have greater options and more agency over their housing. They
are also better positioned to manage and internalize housing stressors–whether that requires
using savings to survive, paying to hire a lawyer, or absorbing the costs of moving.
Additionally, there is an insignificant relationship between rent burden and stress after
including a full set of control variables. This relationship persists in regression estimates using
the full survey sample as well (N=694). It appears that simply falling above or below the rent
burden marker does not drive stress. Instead, it is the behaviors lack of affordability makes
necessary, the housing arrangements residents are forced to enter, and the underlying
environment they must navigate daily that dominates the relationship with stress. Disparities
between income and rent constrain tenants’ housing options and force them to adjust their day-
to-day lives to survive amidst those constraints. Residents have altered their lives in response to
the rental crisis in order to minimize the stressors they experience. These adjustments represent
agency among renters who are able to prioritize which aspects of life and consumption are most
important while sacrificing in other areas. In turn, this alters the standard affordability
calculations of rent over income because households have fundamentally adjusted in those areas
to manipulate the constraints in their lives, “I have noticed that rent has gone up for the past
123
years…I do notice my parents struggling, and my sister having to work...It's been pretty difficult
affording the rent now and then having to buy groceries for food and stuff like that.” The fully
specified regression model (see Table 4.3) and resident experiences in the chapters that follow
demonstrate two primary mechanisms of stress exposure related to housing affordability and
neighborhood change: 1) social dimensions of housing including unfair landlord practices and
limited affordable housing options 2) tenants’ responses to the rental crisis which allow them to
maintain a degree of stability.
Table 4.3 - Fully Specified Model
Model 1:
(
†
Continuous Variable)
Model 2:
(
†
Dummy Variable)
Variable Coefficient P-Value Coefficient P-Value
Housing Conditions
Trouble Finding Housing (Dummy) 1.53 0.74 1.64 0.09**
Landlord Issues
†
2.79 0.00*** 3.71 0.00***
Overcrowding
†
-0.64 0.55 -0.56 0.61
Housing Protections
Rent Control (Dummy) -0.14 0.87 -0.03 0.97
Housing Assistance (Dummy) 1.45 0.23 1.46 0.18
Survival Strategies
Consumption Cutbacks
†
2.33 0.01*** 2.55 0.04***
Additional People (Dummy) -0.81 0.49 -0.52 0.66
Additional Work (Dummy) 1.75 0.08** 1.93 0.06**
Social Support
Support - Family & Friends (Dummy) 0.49 0.61 0.71 0.48
Support - Organizations (Dummy) -2.88 0.02*** -2.44 0.05***
Support - Government (Dummy) 1.26 0.17 1.38 0.14*
Neighborhood Satisfaction (Dummy) -0.74 0.43 -1.28 0.18
Mobility
Number of Different Homes -1.61 0.04*** -1.00 0.20
Length of Tenure -0.04 0.47 -0.04 0.46
Sense of Belonging
Neighborhood Changes - Loss
†
0.60 0.14* 0.84 0.42
Neighborhood Changes - New
†
-0.53 0.24 0.46 0.75
124
Affordability
Rent Burden (Dummy) -3.40 0.02*** -3.45 0.02***
Rent Quintile -0.06 0.86 0.06 0.87
Income Quintile -0.75 0.13* -0.80 0.08**
Demographics
Education -0.20 0.65 -0.31 0.51
Age -0.03 0.44 -0.01 0.75
Race – Black (Dummy) -0.42 0.69 -0.69 0.52
Total Observations 264
264
Housing Costs
Each focus group began with tenants sharing how their rent had changed in the previous
two years. The majority of participants had experienced an increase between $300 and $800. In
conversation, tenants reiterated that precarious work arrangements made these increases difficult
to accommodate, “In my community, all of this is affecting us a lot, it [the rent] has climbed a lot
from USC, from new apartments...then it is too much because there is no stable work and a job
worthy of payment, because it is always what is the minimum and the minimum, the truth, it is
not enough when there is more family.” Another person explained, “I've seen the increase
happening all around, but due to the fortune of living in a house where people are able to work
and being able to work myself, the cost of living isn't as bad all together for us, but you still feel
the increase. With everyone chipping in you feel it but it's not as bad.” In the survey sample,
rent burdened households had higher rents on average when compared to non-rent burdened
tenants with a difference of roughly $470 (see Table 4.1). No significant differences were noted
across rent burden status for the number of bedrooms in participants’ homes or rent control
protections.
125
Tenants also asserted that it was not just rents that had risen, but costs of living across the
board, “Rent has gone up from $440 to $800 [in the past 2 years], but electricity, food, and gas
have also gone up.” Another person, “Although they raise the salary, increases in the [price of]
food is too much and everything else and one has to spend on food, because it is the future. The
food of our children, of ourselves so that we can get ahead, we have to feed ourselves also so we
are well and healthy.”
Focus group participants repeatedly expressed the stress they felt from surging rental
costs and the fear that future cost shocks might come. Focus groups participants came to tears in
multiple sessions with one tenant sharing, “I'm ready to die. You give up, that's what they want
you to do. They want you to throw your hands up saying, 'I'm tired.' The higher they charge your
rent, they figure you'll get tired and they'll break you.” Residents learned from their neighbors’
experiences and had anxiety about their own futures, “I'm scared everyday, because I don't know
when my owner has decided to say, 'Hey, I need to get more money for this property.’ If they're
doubling up on you, and you're now paying, how much?” Another person shared, “We are not
going to pay what we are paying right now, many families have been evicted in our community
and they are not small, they are many.” In OLS regression estimates, there were significant,
positive correlations between survey participants’ stress and an indicator for failing to pay rent
on time at their current unit (see Table 4.4). Moreover, rent burdened households were
significantly more likely to have been late paying rent at their current unit, 33.3%, in comparison
to non-rent burdened tenants, 22.08%.
126
Table 4.4 - Conditions Regression
Model 1 Model 2
Housing Conditions Coefficient P-Value Coefficient P-Value
Length of Tenure -0.04 0.479 -0.03 0.53
Total Maintenance Issues Quintile 0.71 0.015*** 0.73 0.013***
Overcrowding (Dummy) -0.92 0.351 -1.19 0.229
Landlord Relations
Illegal Practices (Dummy) 2.77 0.003***
Cluster Effect
1 Issue
2.73 0.021***
2 Issues
3.05 0.043***
3 Issues
5.01 0***
Late Paying Rent (Dummy) 1.54 0.108* 1.56 0.103*
Work Status
Multiple Jobs (Dummy) 1.49 0.423 1.29 0.484
Number of Working Adults 0.21 0.593 0.23 0.564
Rent Control 0.49 0.571 0.47 0.589
Affordability
Rent Burden (Dummy) -2.44 0.063** -2.42 0.065**
Rent Quintile -0.05 0.892 -0.10 0.795
Income Quintile -0.95 0.023*** -0.88 0.033***
Demographics
Education -0.05 0.912 -0.09 0.828
Age -0.27 0.443 -0.33 0.351
Race – Black (Dummy) -0.46 0.653 -0.42 0.682
Total Observations 270
270
Rent Control
Residents expressed a desire to find and hold onto rent controlled units for some
protection against rent increases, “I have a lot of experience in this community because I have 42
years of living in 30 street, I have seen many changes in the community ... we have always lived
there, it is a two bedroom house with a large yard, we started paying $100 in 77 'imagine, now
we actually pay an affordable rent, that's why we do not leave ... That's why we are there,
because we live at ease, we pay an affordable rent, to what I see around my community as it has
changed, especially around the university the rents have increased exaggeratedly.” On average,
rent controlled tenants had lived at their current residence for 9.8 years versus non-rent
controlled tenants’ 7.6 years, which was a statistically significant difference, “We have been
127
staying, at least here, for rent control and fighting for that aspect...So many buildings that were
for rent control support low income families.” Some residents specifically sought these RSO
units out, “Have always moved, from here I lived in the center and I returned due to the situation
of housing that some have no rent control and owners can increase the rent percentage higher.
We have always sought to have this category of rent control. Now another of my children
returned, and he returned with his girlfriend. For the same reason, the need that there is not
much work, because the demand for work is very great.” There were no significant differences
across racial groups or rent burden status for length of occupancy and rent control. Families.
though, had significantly less tenure at 7.0 years as compared to non-families with 10.3 years on
average–although no significant differences were found for rent control.
The rent stabilization ordinance provided a patch-work of protections across Los
Angeles. This required tenants to be educated on whether their unit qualified for the program and
the rights associated with RSO units. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 limited
rent control in Los Angeles to units built before 1978. Residents voiced their dissatisfaction with
the unequal policy protections offered by the RSOs arbitrary cut-off date for eligibility, “That's
not the point, say, 'This house does have rent control and it does not.' No, that is not the point.
The point is to stop that, because one or many people, what fault do they have that they came to
a house that was built on that date, from that date to here is rent control, which does not have,
and that the older ones do.” A few people also called out vacancy de-control, which allowed rent
to reset to market rates after a resident moves and provided incentives to push tenants from their
homes, “If the neighbors leave, the man will rent his house even more expensive. That's where
there is no control.”
128
Overall, roughly 40.7% of surveyed tenants were covered by the RSO. There were no
significant differences in rent control across rent burden categories, racial groups, or family
status. The rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) in Los Angeles not only caps rent, but also
provides no-fault eviction protections, habitability standards, and relocation assistance. A focus
group participant expressed these differential protections stating, “Rent is going super high, and
the landlords are getting to the point where they would evict you because they don't even have
the reason to evict you when you don't have no rent control.” However, stagnating wages and
insecure employment meant many of those with rent protections could not keep up with even
allowable increases year after year, “My rent has gone up 3% every year. This is under the [rent]
stabilization ordinance. The owner wants to build more apartments and take out the people who
are living there.” Stressors from the rental crisis appeared to nullify the stability tenants’ had
previously experienced from rent controlled units. In the OLS regressions, rent control did not
have a significant alleviating effect on stress (see Table 4.4).
Overcrowding
Overcrowded conditions were frequently mentioned in focus groups as a mechanism of
stress exposure that residents had difficulty avoiding, “We are eight. We can no longer rent a
two-bedroom apartment, they want more bedrooms, for children or even for one. What will one
do? Because everything is very expensive. The apartments are very expensive.” Overall, 55.4%
of survey households were considered overcrowded when surveyed and 64.5% of households
had been overcrowded for at least some period in the past 2 years. This was significantly higher
than the American Community Survey and L.A. Family and Neighborhood Study data has
previously suggested (Diaz McConnell, 2017; American Community Survey, 2015-2019).
129
Additionally, 17.4% exceeded the occupancy limits of their units and 12.0% of survey
respondents felt this had led to problems with their landlord.
Although we heard from many people about the stressors that stemmed from
overcrowding, there was no significant impact in the regression equations (see Table 4.4). For
some, crowding represented a survival tactic tenants used to cut down on rent prices or boost
household income, “When you're thinking of the amount of people that's living in your house are
going through issues they -- because you all can't move around all you want, your crowded,
course you save a little money, but you ain't saving that much. You got 10 or 15 in the house.
We're living on top of each other, what kind of life is that.” Non-rent burdened households were
significantly more likely to have overcrowded conditions, 76.2%, and exceed occupancy limits,
28.4%, than rent burdened tenants at 63.3% and 14.7% respectively.
Families represented the majority of overcrowded households and those that exceeded
occupancy limits. For both those categories, families were significantly more likely than non-
families to experience the conditions as were Latino/a households compared to Black residents,
“We always sacrifice where we live. My family has six people: four children and two adults in a
'single' apartment. We sacrifice comfort.” In the young adult focus groups, participants shared
their desire to start a household and move away from their parents –complementing previous
work (Myers, et al., 2021)–but they faced obstacles stemming from precarious work and
housing, “I have not been able to leave my mom's house. I lived in another state for 6 months
independently, but my work was not stable, so I had to go back. I rent a room from my mom. I
can not leave, because I would work only to pay the rent nothing else.”
130
Labor
Focus group and survey results indicated that tenants struggled to work enough hours to
achieve housing stability. Overall, only 55.6% of households had at least one full-time worker.
Rent burdened, Black, and non-family households were significantly less likely to have a full-
time worker as compared to non-rent burdened, Latino/a, and family households respectively
(see Table 4.1). In large part, this was due to the majority of available and accessible jobs being
low-paying, precarious positions. Tenants spoke to the difficulties of finding stable work that
paid a sustainable wage, “The minimum wage is the one that governs the salary of the majority of
the people. If we take into account how much a person earns, the daily minimum wage does not
give enough to live. There is an inequality of the salary that is earned by a person and a family,
that they need for their members to live in a dignified way. What I mean in a dignified way is that
everyone has a place and space, not that they are five in a single room, because that is what
happens very often.” Undocumented immigrants, in particular, felt locked into precarious labor
arrangements and constrained in their ability to seek out new employment opportunities, “I
would like to have a house, but my dream could not be reality because I am undocumented and I
have to continue with the dream. Earning the minimum...Salaries do not go up, but rent does.” A
youth focus group participant further expressed this point saying, “My parents are immigrants
and they don't have papers. If they could probably get papers, they would probably get a better
job.”
Maintaining employment was essential to tenants’ ability to survive and afford shelter.
Amidst precarious labor conditions, many renters were either required to work longer hours or
increase the number of workers in their household to keep pace with rising rents, “Right now
everyone is cooperating to pay the rent, because if it is very difficult for one person or two to pay
131
it. And the house is one bedroom.” Another person similarly stated, “It's like if you have five
people in your family and you're always there, everybody has to be working, paying that rent for
you to afford a house like that, right? Some of us need something that we could afford all on our
own. Somewhere for our children to sleep.” Residents also took on additional part-time jobs or
performed side work to boost their incomes, “I do paperwork. I've done accounting. I used to
work in accounting and billing. I can do paperwork for people or I can go and clean up for them.
Drive them all over town via Uber, but I don't be an Uber driver…I'm willing to take every dime
I have, and I'll put it into my living.” Residents faced enormous pressure to hold onto their jobs
so that they had enough income for themselves and family members to survive, “I lost my job,
my economic stability. And my girl arrives, she hugs me and says,' Mommy, remember we both
cried a lot, and I'm small and I can not help you.' I felt like my floor was pulled and I was
shaken…The sad reality is there are more and more people in the street. I include myself when I
lost my stable job of so many years....I really told them with tears I thought I was going to end up
under a bridge with my child, because rent in Los Angeles is incredibly expensive. It's sad.”
Precarious labor conditions also required children and young adults to take on work and
contribute to rental payments, “Most of the people I know, work in sewing. Or, wherever they
work, they earn just the minimum. The children just start working some, they also start to earn
just the minimum, because sometimes they are still studying, they still do not finish their
[education] career, and they start working part time, and they just start to pay the minimum,
without having benefits.” A young adult stated, “My parents were always working really and it's
frustrating to me that they still struggle to get by. It's always frustrated me. I got a part-time job
working at my school this year and I'm kind of proud that I've been able to help with $100-200,
and now I'm even more proud because me and my fiancé have our own room and I pay $500. It's
132
not that much but it's almost my whole paycheck. But it feels good to be able to help my parents
out. I don't think we should have to go through all of that to pay rent.” In focus groups, the
employment situation of households was often presented as everyone capable of work doing
anything they could to bring in additional income. Another youth focus group participant shared,
“My mom - she works all the time and I never get to see her that much. Maybe just like on
Sundays, but then she goes back to work and my grandma is 70 something but she still
works...My sister is looking for a new job, and my brother works too and my uncle. They just do
it all to help us out.”
The additional labor needed to afford shelter had spillover effects that rippled throughout
families. Parents were forced to spend more time away from the home and unable to give their
children the care and attention they needed, “My little brothers get affected because my mom gets
home at like 9 o'clock and we're already sleeping. We weren't seeing her. My brothers stay after
school and they never see my mom.” Another person stressed the importance of parental
presence in the household, “I had to get to work, that was like an hour and a half to get home,
then another hour and a half. Then the money I was making was enough to pay the rent, but it
didn't allow me to be at home with my kids...I lost hands on them, I lost two of my sons to the
streets, because I was full time working mother trying to work two jobs, trying to sell this and
sell that to pay the rent and take care of them...So when you have to do all that and your a single
mother then you lose hands on kids. I lost one to death and I lost one to jail and I quit my job. I
became an entrepreneur in my house and I was able to have hands on raising my kids. So they
went to UCLA, then I got a son to UAB, I got another son just left the navy, he's a cop in
Virginia.”
133
In regression estimates, the relationship between labor and stress was difficult to
disentangle because of the precarious work conditions most residents encountered. The increased
labor required to keep up with surging housing costs created new stressors related to family time,
overcrowding, and exhaustion. At the same time, longer hours and additional workers provided
higher income, which provided some additional stability to tenants’ daily life. As a result of
these mixed effects, full time employment status, working multiple jobs, and the number of
working adults in a household had insignificant relationships with stress in OLS models (see
Table 4.4). There was some evidence, however, that tenants who had taken on additional hours
and jobs in response to affordability concerns had elevated stress (see Table 4.3; further explored
in Chapter 6). Considering the quantitative and qualitative data collectively suggests that labor
provided a necessary but insufficient mechanism of retaining stability amidst the rental crisis.
Market Power
South Los Angeles is a historically disinvested community in which landlords were able
to charge exploitative rents for low-quality housing due to their location relative to downtown
Los Angeles. Tenants made clear that the housing affordability concerns their community faced
were not new, “I am now living here for 17 years here in South Central Los Angeles and this
problem has been long, I have been involved in the communities, I have listened and I have
listened and I have always heard that we are in the same situation, of rent, food, bills and how
we make enough to survive.” In another focus group session a participant stated, “I've been in so
many meetings that, like this one, I'm not going to say many studies, but there are studies like
this for many years going around the community and everything we're saying now is a story that
repeats itself.”
134
The legacy of disinvestment persists through both social stigma and economic
exploitation, “They don't fix the amenities in the apartment, that's another thing that I noticed, is
that for a long time, I even fell prey to this kind of thinking, was like, 'Oh, section 8, look how
they keep the buildings.' Now, I'm living over on this side because I grew up on west side. I'm
just saying, the way they keep the buildings, the property management and owners, they do it on
purpose. I've talked to my neighbors at the corner, she got a four bedroom and she's paying
2,500, but it's raggedy. They keep it like that for two reasons, this is my personal belief. Number
one is show everybody, 'Look how they live,' but you're the owner, your stuff is deficient. You
have responsibilities, I'm sure to fix it, but you don't. That's one reason, so you can point your
finger and say, 'See how this low-income people live.' The other reason is to force them out. I'm
not going to fix it, and we want you to move.” In focus groups, residents observed how members
of their community were positioned as undeserving and expendable, “We are worthy of fair
housing, but also a decent home, with a healthy environment for our babies...The majority [of
landlords] do not care what positions we are in, and the truth is that is absurd, because it is
better to be, repairing little by little, than one day they have to tear down everything.”
Tenants had experienced harmful housing conditions and delayed maintenance for
extended periods of time, “I called the health department and they sent a package to the owner,
a copy and one to the court. Do not pay until they fix it up, they said. We stayed and my mother
passed away, my daddy passed away we stayed there for...about 13 years and they still hadn't
fixed it up. We were still saving our rent, we put it all in one, we put all the money in for rent,
then we divided it amongst each other, and we went on separate ways. Came back there a few
years later, someone bought it and tore it down, rebuilt it.” Overall, 24.1% of survey
respondents reported landlords’ failure to provide maintenance up to code or hazardous living
135
conditions in their current unit. There were no significant differences across rent burden, racial
status, or family groups.
In the survey sample, respondents had experienced an average of 2.6 maintenance issues
in the past six months. Families reported significantly more issues than non-families–3.20 versus
1.95 respectively. For the majority of tenants, 79.8%, all maintenance issues that emerged were
taken care of by their landlords, “The more people I talk to, they're like, 'Man, I'm blessed to
have the property management, the people that we got now. They're right on it. Any problems
that I have with repairs, they come right out and they fix it.' I'm happy for that. I'm like anybody
else, but when I hear these stories, and it's sad to hear the people who are infermed, who's sick.
They're raising [the rent] and doing stuff like that. It hurts me and makes me angry.” However,
8.6% of respondents reported nothing being fixed and roughly 5% had given up reporting
maintenance issues because they would not get fixed or were afraid reporting them would result
in pass-through costs or problems with their landlord.
Maintenance issues had a significant impact on stress in OLS estimates (see Table 4.4).
In addition, the impacts of these issues were compounding with more reported issues correlated
with greater levels of stress (author calculation not displayed). Inadequate living conditions had
impacts on physical health and created feelings of helplessness that left residents overwhelmed
and distressed, “I want the owner to change some things that he needs, like the carpet or the
things that are broken, but the rent goes up for everything. A person loses their equilibrium with
the costs and the house is falling apart.” Another resident expressed, “Many times those houses
are full of mold, around and inside the apartments, the walls are very moldy, and they do not
know the damage they are causing to the lungs of the people who are living inside that house.
They do not know what big damage they are causing us.” Altogether, these issues contributed to
136
the uncertainty residents faced in their day-to-day life as well as in their housing searches.
Responsive landlords were common, but not a guarantee and getting stuck with someone that
refused to provide routine maintenance stripped tenants of agency, decreased their quality of life,
and interrupted their ability to find comfort at home. Moreover, maintenance issues represented
unexpected shocks that were difficult to predict and internalize when associated costs caused
their rents to rise. These issues were especially problematic because many tenants were uncertain
of how to navigate the public accountability system. Residents reported being unsure of what
agency to report their specific issue and confused because of the multiple agencies handling
habitability concerns. Moreover, tenants also spoke to the lack of action by landlords and lack of
follow-through by the pubic sector after a formal report was submitted. Even for the tenants that
were able to submit reports, this often felt like a dead-end because they were unsure how to
follow-up or escalate the case if proper actions were not taken.
In focus groups, tenants consistently reflected on their hesitancy to report maintenance
issues because the costs of repairs would be passed on through higher rental costs. In most cases,
these types of pass-through strategies are illegal for routine maintenance repairs unless they
pertain to seismic retro-fitting, capital improvements, or structural renovations. Residents were
fearful of pass-through costs and struggled to accommodate them given their already precarious
housing status, “A majority of the people I live with, who I know I have heard, are afraid to ask
for repairs because then it implies an increase in rent, many people do not dare to ask for
repairs because they are afraid because it has already happened. It is not that someone has told
them, but that they have already lived asking for a repair in the house and a month or two
months, 'I'm going to raise the rent to recover the investment', then people hold on, we hold on.”
137
Landlords benefited from monopoly power by keeping costs low through there refusal to
provide proper care, “The landlords, You know, it appears that it's all about the money they don’t
care about how you live, they just want you to live in a slum, you know, long as they getting’ that
money, they don't care about your living quarters, your bedrooms, nobody wants to live in a
home with no rats and roaches and all that kind of stuff at least I don't and I'm pretty sure the
rest of us don't want to be treated like that.” Landowners gained economic rent as downtown
development grew, new train lines were announced, and renewed investments around USC and
Exposition Park expanded dramatically. The collective growth in economic activity, demand,
and speculation buoyed property values and provided justification for rent hikes despite
landlords limiting investment in their own properties, “The owner does not want to make repairs
for the apartment. 'I will arrive tomorrow' and he does not arrive. The rent goes up 5% every
year, I do not know why. Probably the owner wants to build new apartments too.” Residents had
witnessed the workings of the market system first-hand and illustrated the price setting behavior
of landlords as their incomes increased over time, “Before I paid 250. Now almost $1,000 is paid
for that, in the area where I live. Back then, the minimum wage at that time was less than eight
dollars…When you realize that and you realize this is an established system that will not
change.”
Tenants felt locked into their housing, but were also desperate to hold onto their homes.
This was linked to the inadequate supply of affordable homes and their desire to remain in
proximity to jobs and infrastructures of care. After years of subsisting amidst already precarious
housing and labor conditions, South L.A. represented one of the last affordable pockets of the
central city that was increasingly coming under threat, “This has been going on for years, it's
nothing new, but every year they are increasing the rent in our community, that's why we do not
138
leave there, because we live at ease, we pay an affordable price and they can not kick us out,
only if they pay us a relocation because we have the right as tenants...That's my experience, the
change here in our community is changing a lot, but for luxury homes not for affordable housing,
there are few that have affordable housing.” In the survey, 63.8% of participants stated they
stayed in their home because it was affordable, 48.7% because of its proximity to amenities and
supports, and 39.5% because they had nowhere else to go.
Tenants resisted inadequate housing conditions where they could. Building residents
came together to demand repairs, “Every now and again my auntie and them get together in a
group and write a list of things that need to be fixed in the apartment complex and submit it to
their landlord. It's been working. If it doesn't get fixed they keep going to the landlord.” Renters
actively pushed back when landlords attempted to exploit them, “Many times I had to fight and
tell them here is the code such and such, for this code they have to fix the bathroom, I have to
make a room plan, I'm not going to pay for that bathroom to be fixed.” People also fixed up
their units to the standards they knew were deserved, “I painted, I did the floor, because I
couldn't take it anymore...My husband, he redid the floor and painted to make it nice for us and
the owner, he didn't have a problem with it, of course, because he didn't have to do it. He
thanked us, but he didn't take anything off the rent when he thanked us. It's worth it to me...It's
nasty and they don't want to fix up nothing without a fight.” Residents had immense self-pride in
their homes and neighborhoods. Renters took care in making them places that reflected their
importance and value, “They promised me when I rented, they would fix the windows, they would
fix many things, and they did not fix anything ... I did everything, I painted the house, I changed
the carpet, I did everything, and he did not want to pay me nothing. He said that because it was
my house, that it was fine, that I would fix it.”
139
Neighborhood Change
Disinvestment and delayed maintenance left the neighborhoods of South L.A. susceptible
to redevelopment pressures as investment flowed back into communities, “the owner is
generating pressure in that they do not fix anything, because it suits them more that you leave,
because I am going to sell the property.” Residents made a direct connection between past
discrimination, new development, and unfair practices, “That's the reason we want to stay. You
want to go up already, you want to push me out, but I've been here and I'm going to stay here.
We're going to do what it takes to stay here, because it's not fair that you want to push us out and
then fix it up. That's the plan, that's not fair at all. We've been contributing to this community.
We've been fighting for different campaigns, policies, making sure our schools get what they
have, and you want to boot me out? No, I'm going to stay.” Another person shared, “We've had
rats and cockroaches, but its cheap, filed complaints but no one would help. We're given notice
to come to court, and I went to court, told them this home is so dirty, there's water under the
building, but they didn't do anything, just made him pay me $300. I was paying 200 when I first
moved here, now 900, they're knocking down buildings everywhere to make room for new
people, but it's causing the rents to increase and the neighborhood isn't getting any better.”
The cycle of housing filtration and redevelopment was leveraged to push residents out.
As a resident explained, “The excuse to say, 'You have to leave the apartment, because we are
going to remodel' ... They do not evict, they do not run, but they do say, 'We have to remodel.
They have so many days to vacate the apartment.'” The neighborhoods of South L.A. were
prepared with neglect and low budget repairs, that allow landlords to make claims of
underutilization and need for major renovations, “They were told they had to leave, because they
had to remodel them. That they had to get out of there, but it's because they wanted to increase
140
the rent again, and it was an overstatement of $1,200, to ask them $3,000, and it was too much.”
Another person shared, “They kicked them out. They paid $500, $600, and they took them out.
Now, those buildings are renting them at $3,000 because they're renovated. Many people, many
people.” Disinvestment and redevelopment, therefore, reflect specific landlord strategies used to
push residents out of changing neighborhoods. This was demonstrated to residents in real-time.
In the past, residents endured poor housing conditions. In the present, failure to build housing
that was affordable or offer protections that met their needs left them stressed, exhausted, and
overwhelmed.
Residents saw a direct connection between the influx of new development and rent
increases, “They're building up all around us. We're not that far from the Staples Center. We're
not that far from L.A Live. We're not that far from where the Colosseum is, USC and the new
stadium being built.…They're making everything supposed to be very classy and not just for
everyday use, you have to spend money to be right there.” Another person explained, “We know
that everything is changing, that more people are coming ... to develop projects and everything,
especially where I live, and for that reason in the whole neighborhood we are paying more [for
rent]. Tenants felt overwhelmed by the lack of options and excluded as a result of the rising
prices and landlords catering toward new clientele, “It is very difficult to see what we see, how
they build beautiful new buildings. We feel trapped, and we feel our hands are tied. It is
exasperating to see that the end of the month arrives and you are only working to pay the rent.”
The development pressures associated with neighborhood change created stress for many, “The
rents right now are very expensive. Before, the rent in our area was very good and now they are
going up and they are kicking us out…Construction companies doing so many buildings, so
141
many things, they are killing us, there are no trees ... they are killing us, as in day to day, there
are large buildings, large apartments, they come and kick us out.”
Tenants had experienced steady rent increases in the past, but neighborhood change
produced more sudden and severe rent hikes. These shocks were difficult to accommodate and
left tenants with few options due to the high market rents that are now found throughout South
Los Angeles, “She [my cousin] was paying 900 and something dollars for rent, they then jumped
that up to $1,600. She had 30 days to start paying that or get out.” Focus group and survey
participants also reported landlords refusing to accept their rent checks as an additional rental
strategy to force residents out, “My sister has a problem with her owner, he keeps trying to evict
her and won't accept her money order, he's ordered her to leave, but we pay every month, he
hasn't accepted the money orders in two months” Overall, 12.3% of renters in the survey sample
experienced unfair landlord issues related to illegal rent hikes or refusal to accept rent checks
(see Table 4.1). Latino/a households, 15.0%, were significantly more likely to experience these
issues compared to Black residents, 7.9%. Because Latino/a households were more likely to
contain immigrants and have non-English speaking adults, these residents expressed greater
hesitancy pushing back against illegal practices and were less likely to know where they could
seek redress. No significant differences were noted across rent burden or family status.
Neighborhood change created incentives to clear out units–especially those covered
under the RSO–so rents could be reset to current market rates and greater profits captured. Unfair
rental practices such as rent hikes, refusal to accept rent checks, and illegal eviction notices
represented an initial tactic used to force renters out of their homes, “We were originally paying
15, but an owner came and grabbed up all the units with the people inside...He sent a three-day
letter, he started to intimidate, he wanted to change locks, impose things, then I said, 'You can
142
not do this because this is in rent control'.” Because many residents’ lacked information or
connections to formal supports (explored in greater detail in Chapter 6), this provided a low cost
strategy with few negative repercussions for landlords because Los Angeles did not pass an anti-
harassment ordinance until 2021. Residents resisted unfair landlord practices where they could
by connecting with local organizations, seeking out information on renter rights, and sharing
resources with family and neighbors, “The owner immediately that bought the houses, in the two
months he increased me, he did an increase for me. And from there, every six months he was
increasing until I said, 'You are increasing me every six months and it should be every year, why
not?' He said, 'It's fine. Yes, you're right'.”
Harassment represented another strategy used by landlords to remove long-time tenants
in search of greater profits. In the survey sample, 14.7% of respondents endured verbal or
physical assault at their current location. In addition, 12.4% of survey respondents had
experienced discrimination from their landlord with Black tenants, 16.6%, significantly more
like than Latino/a renters, 10.2%. No significant differences were observed across rent burden or
family status for harassment or discrimination. One resident discussed the tactics used on her
brother as a long-time tenant, “Why do they harass him, why do you say those things? They want
to kick him out. He has gone to the offices, they want to kick him out, they want to kick him out
because he is the only old man ... Then, as they can not, they are harassing him, they want to kill
him.” A resident spoke to both the toll this took on their health as well as the fight it took to
make harassment stop, “I had harassment for four-year... I stopped him and sued the owner, the
owner did negotiations, he did not want to go to court, he was afraid for all the harassment he
did to me, but it hurt me a lot mentally.”
143
Harassment and abuse were also gendered with women speaking to the specific pressure
they faced especially when they had children, “They had already received the money and the
man told me that they did not want to rent the room because I was a woman alone, that they did
not want single women in the apartment...When my husband left me, the manager, because I did
not accept an invitation to go eat, he treated my child badly, once he threw his keys and broke
his head [my child's], with the key. They made my life so hard... It's so incredible that they even
tried to abuse me, they threw me down the stairs and hit me on the floor...The truth is the woman
alone sometimes suffers a lot.”
Overall, there was a significant and clustering effect of illegal landlord practices on stress
(see Table 4.4). One resident explained the range of issues they encountered, “Everything I have
goes to my child, clothes and food for her, and rent so we don’t end up on the street, there are
many people in the apartment, grandchildren, so they aren’t in the street, its very difficult, its
also difficult because our owner is very difficult to work with and sometimes won’t accept our
money orders, tell us that my grandchildren can’t stay with us, he doesn’t fix anything, but also
we have no option to leave, everything is so expensive I have to stay because we have nowhere
else.” These types of harmful practices were relatively common with 37.7% of tenants
experiencing one of these issues and roughly 26% of residents dealing with multiple
simultaneously. Together, these illegal practices made home a hostile, stress producing
environment. We asked tenants in a follow-up survey question if landlord practices had any
effect on their life and 72.0% stated this resulted in heightened stress and fear, 43.2% felt it had
damaged their health. Residents are experts in the issues they face and understand the areas of
their life that are stress producing. Residents were overwhelmed by the demands of securing
habitable living conditions on top of balancing the costs of survival.
144
Precarity
Focus groups participants explicitly named inequality as the fundamental cause to the
housing issues they faced, “Person A: Well, our system is broke. Person B: I don't know what
else to say. It's just broke but it's fixed for who? Person B: Not for us. It's the richer keep getting
richer and the poor keep forth. It ain't no middle man no more. It used to be the middle class.”
Tenants felt ignored by politicians and recognized that specific distributional decisions were
being made that allowed certain communities to experience widespread opportunity while they
fought to survive amidst disinvestment and displacement pressures, “They're not giving us a
chance. We're just living in a poor situation, can't never get on our feet. It appears that they
want us to stay down and not come up.” Another person observed, “you look at West LA and
people are living really good. They got good jobs, they got 401Ks, they got benefits for the kids;
they're not really stressing.” Residents were disappointed and disillusioned by the lack of
protection they experienced by the public sector, “You've got to show some initiative, show
care.” Another person stated, “I would tell him not to forget the community, to remember who
votes for them, who voted for him, the community and that he promised, because he promised us
that there would be more jobs, that there would be more housing, economic growth, and what is
happening? Do not forget the community.” In multiple focus groups, participants became,
understandably, upset when recounting the issues they endured. They also questioned why these
conditions were allowed to persist, “This is ridiculous. Where were you 5 years ago? 10 years
ago? Why are you here now, after all this time? We have been suffering. [Walks out of session].”
Tenants recognized it was the interaction between private sector actions and the
government’s refusal to intervene that reproduced these conditions. Focus group participants
spoke about landowners pursuing a profit maximization strategy that also served the interest of
145
the public sector, “What they want to do is attract people. They put the money in to attract the
people to make more money. It doesn't matter how we feel about it, they're going to do whatever
they want to do to attract people to make more money.” They witnessed the private sector
choosing to build housing that was outside the financial capacity of most in their community
after years of subsisting amidst inadequate housing and neighborhood conditions, “What has
affected this is the investor, because what they do is destroy the old ones, throw them out and
make new construction, and the rent will not cost like this because it is going to be more
expensive. They have taken advantage of this that they have no rent control.” Residents were
hesitant to report landlord issues because of the alignment they observed between the public and
private sector. Many believed that government agencies would ultimately side with landlords
over their concerns or impose minimal sanctions that could be avoided.
Tenants also observed the choice made by government officials to allow new market rate
development in their neighborhoods without making equal commitments to protect long-time
residents already in place, “All those constructions that they are doing are only for the rich, not
for the poor, and we deserve to live with dignity ... They have taken thousands and thousands of
families from our community and this has to stop and he [the mayor] has to support more
affordable housing.” Poor conditions were made possible by a lack of enforcement and formal
policy to ensure reasonable living conditions, “Many times our community does not want to get
involved because of fear. For fear of being evicted, for example, I know people who live in
houses and the zinc is falling, in the door they have a hole, they lack paint, they need a change of
carpet. They do not say anything, because the owner is going to charge them, and if they are
going to complain to Housing [City Department]. Housing comes and talks to them and they say
back, 'You're going to complain?' Many times people do not have a rent contract so it is easier to
146
kick them out.” Another person stated, “Why are other neighborhoods clean? It doesn't make
sense, people don't help to keep things clean but neither does the city.” Despite the difficulties
accessing formal legal support or government enforcement, public agencies held power over
landlords that residents did not and were often the only means of addressing their issues, “They
refuse to fix an problem, as soon as you tell them you're calling a health that's where they'll
respect you. [Another Participant: That's what I did. All of them, health department had all my
papers together and took it to the lawyer.]”
With the right information, however, tenants fought unfair conditions in institutional
ways. A tenant explained, “I'm telling the people, it's tight for us...All of us got to wake up, and I
mean wake up fast. It's not going to get better, it's going to get worse….You are the manager,
you are the one that's supposed to look out for us. She was ignoring like, 'I live like this, you're
going to live like this.' But I said, 'No ma'am. You may live like that and I may be a different
shade than you but you're going to fix this or I'm going to have the big timers to get to fix it or
I'm going to take it to the lawyer and I'm going to get mine.'” Another resident shared, “I'm not
going to be a victim, I'm going to be a survivor out here and we back, we got the first right to
return on that.” These practices of resistance were important to residents’ feeling of agency and
ability to engage in homemaking practices needed to achieve stability, “You only get scared and
you did not do anything, because the owner and whatever he fixes for us inside will already be
charged, we do not have to allow that, we do not have to leave but we're going to keep
fighting...I also have rights, I already gave you everything, tell the owner that I will not pay and
that we are going to the last consequences.”
Resistance was considered a privilege in its own right. Some renters did not have access
to the resources, information, or time to mount official responses while others were fearful of
147
reprisals due to their immigration status, Undocumented residents frequently mentioned this was
an issue and felt particularly vulnerable, “It is an abuse what they are doing, because that is
outside the law, but many owners as they are owners, they are aware, they are abusive owners,
sometimes the tenants for not knowing their rights or for fear of reprisals, sometimes because
they are people, they are undocumented families, sometimes they even harass them, they
intimidate them, that is how they begin to also be able to evict the families.” Latino/a households
and undocumented residents consistently spoke to the increased fear and abuse they faced
because of their precarity, “They say, 'Let's call the police to get immigration', things like that,
I've heard it from people's own versions, from some people, not from all of them. But they have
been intimidated, they are humiliated, they harass them, in order to unfairly extract them, to be
able to get it out in order to pay higher rent to the next renters, that is what is happening as
well.” Another Latino/a tenant shared, “We are being discriminated against. That family was
kicked out [another eviction case in their neighborhood] and there were many others. They
fought and fought, we are also looking at discrimination there. Because this was Hispanic
people, and they kicked them out. Where are we going to stay?”
These housing conditions reflect the precarity renters face due to unequal power
relations. Another person said “Unfortunately at that time it came in English and I did not know
exactly. Then I started to inform myself, I started asking, 'Listen to me, tell me what it is'. There
he did not say, because every four months they would raise it [the rent], 'We can not pay for
that'...We filed a counterclaim against the owners and the case is that we lived six months
without paying rent, because what was being paid was exaggerated.” Unsure of where to turn
for help and aware of inherent power imbalances, many tenants felt unable to push back against
landlords, expressed hopelessness in the outcomes of resisting because of those power
148
imbalances and alignment between the public and private sector, or uncertain of the resources
available to them that could facilitate legal recourse. This layered onto feelings of isolation and
loss of agency as residents were unable to count on the systems built to protect them.
In focus groups, participants expressed that they were just looking for space to live. They
desired room for their children to play, study, relax, and enjoy their lives “That we would have
enough space so that my children can play and have a healthy childhood, because many times
we can not get it out, but they can not play inside either, because they can not jump, they can not
make noise, you can not do many things, so that also frustrates the children.” This also included
a safe and independent living environment where residents had agency over their surroundings
and privacy, “I would like my daughters to have each room, at the moment we are tight, all in
almost the same room, but I would like everyone to have their room, I would like to have privacy
with my husband, also my own bedroom, for my marriage, I would like them to have a patio,
where to play, I would like the streets to be safer.” Single adults voiced similar concerns
exemplified by a tenant who had been force to live in overcrowded conditions and limit their
mobility to afford housing, “Basically, I just want to have my own living situation and my own
independence. I just want to have my own space.” Residents wanted affordability in order to
reduce their stress levels, “I would also like people at least to be able to afford a comfortable
home and it's not rundown, because my apartment used to be rundown really bad.” Another
person stated, “I would like us to have a little bigger space, more comfortable. That we would
have a house a little more accessible, so obviously we did not have to work so hard to pay for it.
I would like there to be a little more security, because I have my two girls, they are teenagers,
and they are at a difficult age and the environment around where I live is not pleasant. I would
like it to be a little safer, and more accessible, more comfortable.”
149
Discussion
South L.A. represents one of the last pockets of affordability within the City of Los
Angeles, Many working class residents literally have nowhere else to go. Policymakers need to
be realistic about the importance of South L.A to housing and economic stability. Community
members were living on the margins before surging cost and displacement pressures brought
about by the rental crisis. South L.A. is an area with a sizable population struggling to get by,
paycheck-to-paycheck in precarious housing, and often on the verge of becoming unhoused.
With so many tenants already stressed through affordability constraints, even slight changes in
their housing or work situations can alter whether they are able to retain their homes. Many
working class tenants have limited room to adjust or manage stressors, and reduced agency over
their daily survival as a result.
As demand rises in the areas surrounding development projects in South Los Angeles,
landlords have responded to profit incentives by pushing long-time renters out, increasing rents,
and catering toward higher wealth clientele without proper protections in place. The extraction of
tenants continues through a combination of rent hikes and delayed maintenance, which can be
used to push residents out or force people to leave due to inhabitable conditions. Given the
mismatch of power in tenant-landlord relationships, development pressures worsen contentious
housing arrangements. Community members have experienced heightened housing precarity as
landlords and developers convert affordable units into market-rate, implement rent spikes, and
use evictions and threats to push residents out. With limited safe and affordable housing options
in their neighborhoods, tenants must decide whether to extend themselves further financially or
move to areas outside the city away from important community resources, services, and
employment that are crucial to their well being.
150
Lack of mobility adds further uncertainty, fear, and stress to the lives of tenants. Locked
out of large swaths of the Los Angeles region, residents have increasingly become locked into
precarious and harmful housing situations. Traditional economic models–from which the concept
of affordability has been constructed–assume a level of choice that simply does not exist for
most renters. Tenants are often thrust into situations that do not meet their needs and would not
be their stated preference if given the option. Limited mobility binds residents to uncertainty as
they lack access to more stable housing and work arrangements. The region-wide housing market
conditions structuring affordability result in restriction of mobility for residents locally. For those
that stay, tenants must endure excessive rent increases, threats, and reductions in services with
the intention of wearing them down until they leave. Furthermore, tenants reported hesitation and
fear in challenging illegal landlord practices and requesting services because they worried about
additional harassment and pass-through costs in reprisal. It is in the interaction between
diminished tenant protections, surging rental costs, and losses to the affordable housing stock
that greater precarity is introduced into residents’ daily lives.
To craft effective policy, a more complete understanding of the crisis is required.
Indicators of affordability such as rent burden or residual income provide useful measures of
tenants’ ability to pay for shelter–a clear necessity given our current market system–but they fail
to offer information on the underlying factors driving these statistics nor speak to the cascading
effects that inadequate housing has throughout an individuals’ life. Housing precarity offers a
useful framework to analyze the exposure to stress residents face from the convergence of
affordability issues, housing scarcity, and lack of mobility as well as limited access to adequately
maintained homes, sustainable labor arrangements, renter protections, and enforcement by public
151
agencies. Government officials must prioritize renter’s stability in the short-term as well as long-
term housing production in order to alleviate the growing crisis.
152
Chapter 5: Displacement
This chapter details the connection between housing stressors, displacement, and sense of
belonging. It does not attempt to address rates of displacement, but instead evaluates the impacts
of direct and indirect displacement on tenants daily life. I offer new data on the lived experiences
of established residents as they struggle to stay stably housed and retain a sense of belonging.
This contributes to a smaller body of research examining why people stay in their neighborhoods
and what happens to those that attempt to remain amidst gentrification (Muñoz, 2018; Slater,
2006; Freeman, 2005). As family and neighbors have moved out of South L.A., residents’ sense
of belonging has deteriorated spurring additional stress and anxiety. The influx of unfamiliar
neighbors and outside investment has created new boundaries of exclusion which reduce
community members’ feelings of agency over their surroundings. In this chapter, I seek to
answer the following research question: Do displacement and sense of belonging contribute to
the stress process model?
There is a gap in the literature exploring the experiences of residents’ that remain in place
amidst neighborhood change and how they achieve stability. Most scholars agree that the
primary mechanism of neighborhood change is turn-over–or replacement of working-class
residents by wealthier in-movers rather than direct displacement (Slater, 2006; Freeman, 2005).
Yet, less is known about how those rental units become vacant and how long-time residents
experience the replacement of their community and neighborhood. The debate around
displacement and gentrification is mixed as to whether people remain in place as a product of
choice to benefit from incoming resources or if it is due to a tightening housing market that
leaves them with no alternative. Moreover, this chapter extends the study of housing mobility to
the affective dimensions of home. Tenants in South L.A. have a strong connection to their
153
neighborhoods and communities after spending generations contributing to their surroundings.
Restrictions on mobility occur from loss in affordable properties as well as a loss in agency and
sense of belonging as residents navigate their neighborhood’s new development.
The meaning of home and community
Home is a multidimensional concept that is often conflated with the term housing.
Housing refers specifically to physical aspects of home connected to the material need for shelter
(Pattillo, 2013). Home expands on that concept to include the social, emotional, and political
elements of place that influence how people relate to themselves and their peers (Boccagni &
Kusenbach, 2020; Gorman-Murray & Dowling, 2007; Mallett, 2004). An individual’s home is
core to everyday life at both the individual and community level (Jupp, 2017). The word home
has origins in the Anglo-Saxon term ham, which means village or town and alludes to the
importance of home to social relations (Mallet, 2004). Stable homes give people a place to rest
and rejuvenate, to build relationships and community, and to lead a life that is meaningful
(hooks, 1990). Moreover, they provide a familiar, secure foundation for residents to carry out
their day-to-day lives and dictate access to other essentials of survival such as employment, air
quality, social support, open space, and institutional resources (Rolnik, 2014;). Through this
influence over daily life, homes are pivotal to the construction and maintenance of the
infrastructures of care that help renters endure the capitalist system (Hobart, & Kneese, 2020).
The construction of home is formed at the intersection of structural and local conditions
(Boccagni & Hondagneu‐Sotelo, 2021; Peake, et al., 2021; Brickell, 2012; Coolen, 2006). Black
and Latino/a households were segregated into South L.A. by the public and private sector for
decades using discrimination, disinvestment, and dispossession. Additionally, local housing and
154
labor markets are connected to regional and world-wide markets due to the proliferation of
multinational corporations and the continuing financialization of housing. In spite of those macro
conditions, tenants assert their place in Los Angeles using dynamic and innovative tactics to
establish home, access basic resources, and demand recognition of their basic rights as humans
(Simone, 2021; Vasudevan, 2015; Lipsitz, 2011; Pulido, 2006; Simone, 2004).
Homes serve as a crucial site of resistance against precarity and harm by providing a
foundation for residents to build infrastructures of care. They are places of hope, future-making,
rest, and recovery (Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021; Hage, 1997). Moreover, home offers a
safe place for congregation where community members can come together and support each
other, which is vital to maintaining human life as well as holding the private and public sector
accountable to their needs (hooks, 1990). In this dissertation, I use the definition of resistance
provided by Thich Naht Hahn (Hanh & Berrigan, 2009), “opposition to being invaded, occupied,
assaulted and destroyed by the system.” Admittedly, homes have also been sites of patriarchal
oppression and violence toward women (Jupp, 2017; hooks, 1990). Despite the potential
stressors, social scientists have repeatedly demonstrated the importance of home to survival,
subversion, and political activity (Mallett, 2014).
The definitions of neighborhood and community reflect the differences between housing
and home. A neighborhood refers to “a bundle of spatially based attributes” (Galster, 2001). This
definition is two-fold. First, neighborhoods are geographically confined units ranging from “the
area one can easily walk over” to “a limited area within a larger urban area” (Keller, 1968;
Hallman, 1984). Second, neighborhoods refer to the built and physical environment of places as
well as the people that occupy the housing stock. In the past, neighborhoods have been
155
operationalized by researchers using structural characteristics of housing, land usage,
demographics, and political boundaries.
Communities, on the other hand, refer specifically to dense social and emotional ties
between groups of people (Jupp, 2017; Antonsich, 2010). Community ties are meaningful and
often result in resource sharing, institution building, and the construction of identity. The built
environment of a neighborhood provides a setting for social connections to form although
interaction and participation is not guaranteed through spatial proximity (Small, 2006).
Moreover, the community members occupying a particular neighborhood collectively influence
the types of residents, businesses, services, and institutions that are attracted to the area. Like
home, there are also political dimensions to communities because they serve as a site of hope,
understanding, organizing, and resistance (Hahn & Berrigan, 2009; hook, 1990). In addition,
communities have often been gendered spheres of exploitation that use exclusion as a tool to
construct identity against a common enemy (Joseph, 2002). While communities are often
spatially defined, technology and mass communication have reduced the need for physical
proximity.
The concept of belonging connects the individual and collective dimensions of home.
Belonging is defined as a feeling of ease with oneself and one’s surroundings–both social and
environmental (Antonsich, 2010). In the work of bell hooks, to belong means to find a place
where an individual can feel ‘at home’–familiarity, comfort, stability, and attachment (hooks,
2009). Belonging, therefore, speaks to the affective dimensions of home, which connect us
socially and emotionally to our surroundings (Tuan, 1977). A sense of belonging and sense of
self grows from the everyday practices that tenants’ use to navigate and interact with their
156
environment–jobs, family activities, community interactions, and local consumption (De
Certeau, 2014; May, 2011; Bourdieu, 1977).
The rental crisis has threatened residents’ sense of belonging through displacement as the
population and aesthetics of their neighborhood are altered. This can create new feelings of
exclusion if those that move into the neighborhood are not available or accommodating to
original residents (Davidson, 2009). An individual’s feeling of security is disrupted as their
surroundings become less predictable and less welcoming of their authentic selves (Atkinson,
2005). These affective dimensions of home have material impacts on health with decreased sense
of belonging is associated with mental distress, disorientation, and depression (Hyra, et al., 2019;
Crawford and Sainsbury, 2017; Fussell and Lowe, 2014; Manzo et al., 2008; Vandermark, 2007;
Fried, 1966).
While the construction of home and sense of belonging are place dependent, they are also
dynamic concepts and do not imply residents must remain fixed in space (Mallett, 2004).
Humans have always used mobility in the pursuit of survival and their relationship to different
places change over the life course. Some places are pivotal to the formation of identity and life
outcomes while others are more temporal. As exhibited by many immigrant, diasporic, and
indigenous communities, staying, leaving, and journeying are all part of the process required to
find and construct home and belonging (Boccagni & Kusenbach, 2020). In this text, housing
mobility refers to both physical moves and the ability to have healthy options in choosing where
one lives. Mobility grants tenants agency to seek out opportunities and communities that will
help them to thrive (Maeckelbergh, 2012). Moreover, this agency facilitates stability and power
because residents’ can more freely seek new homes as their needs change or escape harmful
situations that arise. Agency is an important component of the stress process model as options
157
and choice allow residents to maximize their potential and opportunities (Maeckelbergh, 2012;
Fairbank and Hough, 1979). In this way, the concept of housing stability is inclusive of housing
mobility and the ability to choose where one lives (Berzin, et al., 2011; Collins & Curtis, 2011).
Displacement
South Los Angeles is important economically, socially, and culturally to local
residents. First, the area represents one of the last remaining affordable places within the
Los Angeles basin. In 2019, there were zero affordable neighborhoods in the City of Los
Angeles for the typical Black and Latino/a household given market rents and median
incomes (Le, et al., 2022). Furthermore, the neighborhoods of South L.A. have been a
consistent source of cultural production and community innovation, which has brought
collective value to the City of Los Angeles through arts, architecture, labor, and care. The
value generated by South L.A. community members has not only stimulated economic
activity, but also allowed the city to function by ensuring working-class residents can
survive amidst precarious conditions. Residents have spent generations building community
infrastructure to support and protect their communities. As a result, residents have strong
ties to place that are under threat because of costs and displacement pressures from the
rental crisis.
The term displacement does the work of distinguishing between voluntary and
involuntary mobility. Rowland Atkinson defines it as a process of un-homing–a rupture in the
connection between people and place, and destruction of a sense of belonging (Atkinson, 2015).
Although it is traditionally represented through forced moves and eviction, displacement has
social and emotional dimensions as well (Brickell et al., 2017; Slater, 2009; Marcuse, 1985).
158
Direct spatial displacement–or forced mobility–is the result of actions outside the control of a
tenant, which make continued occupancy impossible, unaffordable, or harmful (Grier and Grier,
2018). Relatedly, direct chain displacement refers to rent increases at the neighborhood-level that
make occupancy for working-class tenants impossible in the future–either internally for long-
time residents who need to find new housing or externally for new renters who want to enter the
community (Slater, 2009). Indirect displacement, on the other hand, is related to displacement
pressures and exclusionary displacement, which diminish long-time resident’s sense of
belonging, ability to survive, and desire to remain in place. Displacement pressures are produced
from abandonment, redevelopment, and neighborhood change (Freeman, 2005). These pressures
generate greater rates of mobility in the present and reduce working class residents’ ability to
establish stable homes in the future as long-time residents’ neighborhoods become less
hospitable (Slater, 2021; Valli, 2015).
Overall, previous research has demonstrated that most residential moves remain
voluntary and offer the possibility of improved stability (Gromis & Desmond, 2021). Voluntary
moves can help residents meet their evolving needs or leave stressful conditions. Using data
from 2017, a national study found 80.2 percent are voluntary, 6.2 percent of moves are forced,
and 13.6 percent are in response to harmful environments. The amount of agency an individual
has in their mobility decisions, though, dictates their exposure to harm (Rosen, 2017; Lim et al.,
2017; Desmond & Kimbro, 2015; Suglia, et al., 2011; Gilman, et al., 2003). Low-income and
high-income renters experience similar frequency of moves (Desmond & Kimbro, 2015).
However, working-class residents are more likely to move out of necessity, experience forced
moves, and move into lower quality housing because of constrained options while higher-income
tenants have choice and use mobility to seek out better opportunities (Ding, et al., 2017; Rosen,
159
2017; Desmond, 2016). To limit the disruptions of mobility, tenants must have agency in
whether to leave and options in where they will stay next as well as the ability to foster new
connections and a sense of belonging in their destination neighborhoods (Baeten & Listerborn,
2020; Maeckelbergh, 2012).
In recent years, research has demonstrated that forced moves occur more often than
previously understood and disproportionately impact women, people of color, the elderly, and
families (Hepburn, et al., 2021; Desmond, 2016; Sims, 2016; Schill, et al., 1983). Forced moves
occur as a result of affordability constraints, landlord harassment, deferred maintenance, refusal
to provide services, or other private actions. In Los Angeles, there are roughly 54,000 eviction
annually (Inglis & Preston, 2018). Evictions are concentrated in working class Black and
Latino/a communities, but not necessarily those that are undergoing neighborhood change
(Nelson, et al., 2021; Lens, et al., 2020). Formal eviction processes, though, only capture a small
fraction of forced moves (Garboden & Rosen, 2019). Far more tenants are pushed out or
threatened with eviction than receive unlawful detainers through the courts. Past study has found
that 72.3% of forced moves stemmed from informal eviction versus just 13.1 going through court
proceedings (Gromis & Desmond, 2021). Moving can always be a stressful experience, but
anxiety and stress are compounded by the strategies used to force residents out (Garboden &
Rosen, 2019; Wallace, 2015).
The physical act of direct displacement is often abrupt, disruptive, and stress-producing
(Desmond & Kimbro, 2015; Fussell and Lowe, 2014; Burgard, et al., 2012). Forced moves have
been linked to decreased mental, physical, and maternal health, eroded relationships within the
family, lower academic achievement among children, inhibited psycho-social development,
stress, and depression (Lim et al., 2017; Lopoo & London, 2016; Desmond & Kimbro, 2015;
160
Jelleyman & Spencer, 2008; Sharkey and Sampson). Displacement is also connected to
downward mobility with respect to neighborhood quality (Ding, et al., 2017; DeLuca, et al.,
2013). After experiencing a forced move, the chance that a renter will experience housing
problems in the next residence increases by at least 20 percentage points (Desmond, et al., 2015).
In particular, households with children face unique obstacles in their housing search—from
maximum occupancy limits and family discrimination to pressure to rehouse children quickly—
and are more likely to accept substandard conditions as a result (Desmond & Schollenberger,
2015; Leventhal & Newman, 2010). Black tenants are also significantly more likely to
experience increases in neighborhood poverty and crime between moves as compared to white
households.
Rather than a singular outcome, though, displacement occurs through a series of micro-
events that precede and succeed the act of vacating a home (Pain, 2019; Atkinson, 2015). People
adjust their lives, support one another, and resist harmful exclusionary practices to remain
housed (Newman & Wyly; 2006). Although precarity and affordability concerns are associated
with higher rates of displacement, those moves do not occur immediately upon passing a
particular threshold (Zuk, et al., 2018; Wyly, et al., 2010). This is evidenced, in part, through
previous research observing churn in the residents experiencing rent burden over time with
roughly 20 percent of households enduring those issues for longer than a year, but most moving
in and out of cost burden throughout the period (Borrowman, et al., 2017; Iceland & Bauman,
2007; Susin, 2007). Stress is accumulated through actions residents take to find a degree of
stability and the resulting conditions they must navigate. The stressors of tenants’ everyday
conditions ultimately scale up to displacement as tenants’ capacity to internalize new shocks or
stressors are diminished until they can no longer hold onto their home and must move (Elliot-
161
Cooper, et al., 2020). Vulnerability to displacement is structured by the same macro and micro
conditions discussed in the previous chapter related to precarity–exploitative labor markets, the
unequal distribution of public resources, relationships with landlords, shifting built
environments, and infrastructures of care.
In Los Angeles, the stakes of displacement are extremely high as there are so few
affordable locations left in the city and the threat of ending up on the street looms. In 2019,
58,936 people went unhoused on any given night in the County of Los Angeles. At the same
time, almost 600,000 Los Angeles County residents lived in poverty and spent 90 percent or
more of their income on housing barely able to hold on to shelter (Economic Roundtable, 2018).
Since 2009, Los Angeles has experienced a 25.6 percent growth in unhoused residents (LAHSA,
2009-2019). This surge was driven by a large growth in the number of first-time unhoused
residents and increases amongst vulnerable populations. For example, between 2016 and 2017
alone the number of unhoused residents grew 63 percent for Latino/as, 28 percent among Black
residents, 41 percent among children under the age of 18, and 64 percent for those between the
ages of 18 and 24 (LAHSA, 2017). Additionally, the two most common reasons cited by
unhoused residents for losing shelter related to affordability were unemployment and lack of
money aligning with national research that finds homelessness is driven by rental prices and the
availability of affordable housing (Colburn & Aldern, 2022). However, these categories
intersected with a wide range of indicators highlighting the interaction between economic and
social elements of housing including unemployment, cost of rent, lack of public aid, and social
disconnect from family and friends.
Since the term was first coined by Ruth Glass in 1964, gentrification has also been
connected to the process of displacement. Neighborhood change creates incentives to push long-
162
time residents out to capture greater profits through market-rate rents. In addition, it leads to
disruptions in the social and built environment of neighborhoods. Much of the research
examining the impacts of gentrification is focused on the direct displacement of residents
through forced moves. Evidence of direct displacement in gentrified neighborhoods is mixed
with some studies finding insignificant or slightly lower rates of mobility (Pennington, 2021;
Ellen and O’Regan, 2011; McKinnish, Walsh, and White, 2010; Freeman & Braconi, 2004;
Vigdor, et al., 2002). While other studies have revealed slighter higher rates of forced moves
compared to non-gentrified neighborhoods (Brummet and Reed, 2019; Aron-Dine & Bunten,
2019; Slater, 2006; Newman & Wyly, 2006). The primary mechanism for population change,
then, appears to be housing turnover where lower-income renters exit rental units at a higher rate
and they are increasingly replaced with higher wealth clientele (Slater, 2021). Additionally,
many long-time residents attempt to remain in place to take advantage of new resources in the
neighborhood and remain connected to their community infrastructures of care.
The foundation of both displacement and neighborhood change is uneven development.
Displacement pressures result from the movement of capital into previously disinvested areas
which leads to significant changes to material surroundings. Poorer populations are replaced by
whiter, wealthier residents and pushed to other locations of the city as capital shifts locations.
Moreover, long-time residents experience exclusionary displacement and feelings of loss as
neighbors are replaced with whiter, wealthier households, and familiar features of the built
environment are replaced with new development. New displacement pressures produced from
neighborhood change compound the stressors of housing precarity and layer onto structural
inequities rooted in past oppression and uneven development (Rucks-Ahidiana, 2021; Slater,
2009; Marcuse, 1985).
163
Indirect displacement–made up of direct-chain displacement, exclusionary displacement,
and displacement pressures–is the product of alterations to the built and social environment
(Grier & Perry, 2018; Atkinson, 2015; Slater, 2006). These aspects of displacement speak to the
collective impacts of neighborhood change on working class communities as well as the
affective and emotional dimensions of housing. The process of displacement involves the
dismantling of homes through individual forced moves and disruptions to the foundation of
communities as nearby neighbors and family members move out. The turn-over and replacement
of working class residents in gentrifying neighborhoods shrinks the supply of affordable housing
through rent increases, redevelopment, and up-filtering (Shaw and Hagemans, 2015; Freeman,
2006; Smith, 1979). Moreover, those changes alter the composition of the population and deplete
long-time residents’ ability to replenish their infrastructure of care by excluding the entry of new
working class households (Elliot-Cooper, et al., 2020). As the composition of a neighborhood
changes, developers, businesses, and government officials also reorient toward higher-wealth
clientele (Slater, 2021; Zukin, et al., 2006; Zukin, 1987). Those changes can result in feelings of
exclusion as neighborhoods amenities become less reflective of established residents in favor of
newcomers. (Valli, 2015; Metzger, 2000). As residents and businesses move out, tenants’ lose
these feelings of familiarness as the everyday sights and smells of their neighborhood are
replaced (Pain, 2019).
A person’s connection to the social and built environment of a particular place is
constructed around sensory experiences of the everyday. Furthermore, those day-to-day
experiences are deeply tied to identity (Tilley, 1994). Displacement pressures impact an
individual’s sense of belonging as older features of the built environment disappear, original
164
social connections decay, and new infrastructure is constructed (Slater, 2009; Manzo et al., 2008;
Vandermark, 2007; Fullilove, 2004; Fried, 1966). The economic, aesthetic, and political changes
accompanying neighborhood change rupture the connection between people and place (Cahill,
2016). Residents’ sense of belonging decreases as the population and aesthetics of their
neighborhood shift.
This disconnection unfolds through a process of ‘slow violence’ over time that is often
gradual and scattered throughout a neighborhood at first (Elliot-Cooper, et al., 2020; Pain, 2019).
Nonetheless, the interruptions generate stress, fear, depression, and anxiety in the lives of
residents, which make it difficult to take advantage of the new resources (Hyra, et al, 2019;
Lombard, 2013; Freeman, 2006). To quote Eve Ewing (2018), “when they come for your
schools, they are coming for you”–the same can be said about a person’s home. Even though
residents may not experience direct pressure to move from displacement pressures, those
stressors make it more difficult for residents to maintain stable housing by creating incentives for
their removal and contributing new stressors to their daily lives. Tenants’ mobility is further
restricted as they experience feelings of loss and exclusion alongside the reduction in their
neighborhood’s supply of housing that meets economic, social, and cultural needs of long-time
community members (Danley & Weaver, 2018; Rankin and McLean, 2015; Shaw and
Hagemans, 2015; Doucet et al., 2011; Rerat et al., 2010).
Wealth and income gaps produced by uneven development in the past leaves residents
with limited capacity to accommodate the displacement pressures associated with the rental
crisis. The majority of long-time residents are renters in South L.A. with only 37.8% of the
population owning their homes. Consequently, most residents have little say in the changes
occurring in their neighborhood because of gaps in wealth and power, which deteriorates their
165
sense of agency, constrains their mobility, and limits their ability to benefit from new amenities.
Tenants can feel alienated from the social and political relations that shape space because of the
power imbalances they must navigate (Slater, 2021; Elliot-Cooper, 2020; Gorman-Murray &
Dowling, 2007). This is similar to Marx’s theory of worker alienation in which laborers lose
control over their own life, the goods produced from their labor, and their social interactions. The
feelings of isolation generated from this alienation can be leveraged to extract value from the
working class as they have no choice but to work to maintain their homes. Renters feel a loss of
agency over their homes and surroundings because they are alienated from development
decisions and policymaking that impacts their ability to retain housing. Through displacement
pressures and a lack of housing choices, working-class tenants are forced to take lower quality
housing, endure harassment, and internalize the anxiety of anticipated future shocks.
Black and Latino/a communities across the country–and throughout Los Angeles–have
voiced their concerns over displacement and neighborhood change (Graziani, et al., 2022; Lees,
et al., 2018; Newman & Wyly, 2006). Investment occurs every day in the U.S., yet it is only in
certain places where residents feel as though their culture and livelihoods are threatened. The
special nature of home and community are the core of this fear—residents have spent generations
building places where they feel comfortable and protected from the violence that has repeatedly
disrupted their lives. Time and again, development has been used in South L.A. as a guise to
displace community members and destroy aspects of the built environment and social
infrastructure that residents worked hard to nurture. Scholars have documented the psychological
toll this constant uprooting has had on communities (Fullilove, 2016; Deener 2012; Betancur
2011, Hyra 2008, Pattillo 2007, Taylor, 2002).
166
Black and Latino/a residents have fought for generations to be valued within this system
and won nominal gains toward equality. However, investment associated with neighborhood
change continues to devalue their communities by replacing and erasing long-time residents and
their contributions. Displacement reproduces violence of the past as another generation
experiences instability derived from precarity, development decisions, and neighborhood change
(Till, 2012; Shields, 2012). People have exhausted their resources, energy, and capacity to absorb
new stressors because of repeated exposure to violence. Mistrust and defensive practices, then,
are not necessarily regressive, exclusionary, or an attempt to hold the neighborhood static
(Chatterton & Heynen, 2011). They instead represent acts of resistance and refusal–albeit acts of
last resort since many tenants are left with limited power, constricted choice sets, and heightened
uncertainty.
Hypotheses
To structure the analysis of mobility, displacement, and belonging, four hypotheses were formed
to guide the analysis:
H1: Overall mobility rates will have a non-significant relationship with stress because of the
need to differentiate between coerced and voluntary moves. Forced moves will be associated
with increased stress.
H2: Loss in the long-time residents will have a significant, positive correlation with perceived
stress. Increase in new residents will have a null effect because of mixed impacts from positive
amenities attracted by new, wealthier residents and feelings of social exclusion that may also
emerge.
167
H3: Losses in the built environment will be negatively correlated to stress. New development
will not have a null effect because of mixed effects from the growth in positive amenities but
erasure of meaningful and familiar places.
H4: Residents will experience restrictions on mobility through economic and social exclusion as
a result of the rental crisis.
Findings
Residents had wide-ranging motivations for their previous moves and our results
highlight the duality of mobility. Overall, 29.4% of moves in the past two years from the survey
were forced with the majority remaining voluntary (see Table 5.1). When residents have agency,
there appears to be a null impact of moves and even the possibility for stress reduction (see Table
5.2) with one tenant sharing, “I was living many years in a building, that building we paid very
little rent but there was a lot of drugs, a lot of violence, a lot of graffiti, many gangs, and many
parties. There you did not relax and that's why I decided to move to a house so that I am
emotionally calmer, but I pay more rent.”
Examining the number of moves renters have made in the previous two years, we see that
mobility serves as a significant mechanism for residents to reduce their stress (see Table 5.2).
There was a negative correlation between total moves and stress in regression estimates. This
was further illustrated in focus group conversations with one participant saying, “I lived in
downtown LA, 17 years in that area. We started paid $400 per month, it was expensive for us.
There was no rent control. In two years it went up to $600 and we had to move. We lived there
for 4 years. We found another for the same price a little bigger and we took it. We looked for a
168
lot, we took the best option. 10 years there. In this house [in South L.A.], now we have 4 years.”
Residents discussed using mobility in the past as means of survival to remain in their
neighborhood while keeping costs low and trying to find housing that met their needs. In the
survey sample, 22.8% of tenants had moved two or more times in the past two years.
Using mobility as a tool to stay put had become increasingly out of reach, however.
People spoke to making small moves in the past to remain in South L.A during focus groups, yet
41% of residents stated they could no longer stay in their neighborhood if they needed to move
and 10% stated they were unsure (see Table 5.1). Overall, 49.3% of survey participants said they
had trouble finding housing in their previous move, which was a statistically significant predictor
of stress (see Table 5.2). Constraints on mobility locked renters into harmful housing conditions
adding a layer of uncertainty and despair in their daily lives, “A lot of time what happens is that
the owners want to knock down and build new apartments and charge more. That is why those of
us who have been living for some time, have suffered instigations, lack of services, because
investors want to remove rent control. We can not leave our house, we are trapped there. To
move also costs a lot of money.”
Examining the reasons for these struggles in more detail showed that 44.7% faced
troubles either proving source of income or covering deposit payments, 15.8% from household
size, 9.3% from immigration status, and 3.0% from criminal records (see Table 5.1). Issues
related to income and criminal records were significantly more common for Black residents
when compared to Latino/a households, 50.8% versus 41.7% and 5.7% versus 1.6% respectively.
A focus group participant explained the obstacles presented by income requirements, “I don't
have rent control where I live at, in Hawthorne. My one bedroom started at $850. Now it's
$1,200 and it ain't worth $1,200, but it's like you said. How can you move? You need to have
169
first, last month and then these places now want you to have three times of the amount in the
bank or your check could be three times the month of rent.” On the other hand, Latino/a
households had significantly more trouble finding housing due to immigration status, 13.9%, as
there were no Black survey respondents that cited this as an issue.
Families were also significantly more likely to experience issues in finding housing
related to their household size compared to non-families, “I also have kids and they also don't
want to rent to me and my kids, like other folks have said we're having the same issue. They
don't want to rent to people that have children. How can I live somewhere without my kids?”
Occupancy limits made it difficult for families to locate housing and also left them susceptible to
heightened rents. Landlords wrote specific clauses into leases that allowed them to charge for
each additional person above the occupancy limits, “I was surprised with that because I got the
letter where I had to pay for my two children. Besides, to pay $ 700 I was going to be charged 80
for each child...This is very stressful for a family, because I do not get help.”
Focus group participants consistently discussed the difficulties of finding housing that
met their needs and the lack of affordable options, “I've been here for 20 years. The time I've
been here, I have changed 4 times. I had to change because they raised the rent on us every year,
but now where I live they also raise me every year. We still have problems paying the rent, but if
we leave, where we are is very expensive.” Another person said, “I can't move anywhere else
because I can't afford to move anywhere else, because I know I've been here so many years, your
credit problems, the things you go through to get a place is hard. I stay because it's affordable
for me, not because I want to. Only because it's affordable.” Residents lived with constant
anxiety about their ability to find and maintain stable housing, “You have to just right now while
you have somewhere to live, you have to find out where are the rent-controlled areas. While
170
you've got somewhere to live, not when you are already desperate to move. You're not going to
find anything then.”
With few options and savings remaining, many residents lived in a constant state of
uncertainty and anxiety, “I always live worried because I live in a one bedroom apartment, we
are four, and we live very tight. My children are growing more and we all need more space. In
this part, I've been living there for about four years now, but it's a small place and I'm always
living with the concern that when the owner arrives, maybe he'll go for someone else, but I
always think he's going to tell me, 'I'm going to vacate the apartment.'” With nowhere to go,
tenants are weighing out the internalized costs of remaining in place amidst harmful conditions
and the possibility of ending on the streets versus moving farther away from community
infrastructure, “I think part of the increase also of the homeless has to do with it, because I've
seen it and I know people who have had to move in their own cars, like homeless already also,
you can say, for the reason that families have lost their house, they have been unjustly evicted
and while they search, they are living in the street.” Choices and mobility are severely
constrained. Tenants were left afraid of being uprooted, “The terror of being displaced is so
real.” A youth participant shared, “It takes a toll on both me and at school because one time I
literally just got out of school and my mom is outside packed with everything from our house. My
whole life was in a box. I will never forget that day because I literally just got out of school and
my whole life changed in a matter of 8 hours.”
171
172
173
Displacement
Residents explained displacement as a process which occurred over time as their survival
tactics and support were unable to keep up with rising costs. As one resident explained, “It was
like small little grains tipping the scale and rent was eventually too much so we got evicted. Now
rent is higher than it was before.” Although recent rent growth and neighborhood change
represent a shock, tension between income and rent has always been an issue for working class
residents in South L.A. (Gibbons, 2018). The accumulation of these conditions had translated
into limited capacity to maneuver new cost and development pressures, “When we first lived in
our house it was like $750 then it went all the way to $950 and my mom's working wage is
consistent, so every year it got harder and harder to pay. ..We didn't have gas, so we had to take
cold showers for about a month...We knew we would get evicted because we got the notice and
we were looking for apartments. We had a one bedroom that was a pretty big room that was
about $700, but studios were now up to $1000. We were really desperate and looking
everywhere.” In the survey, residents stated that rent would need to increase roughly $328.42 to
be forced to move. This figure fell within the range of rent increases that most focus group
participants had experienced in the previous two years.
The majority of displacements do not occur through formal channels and instead result
from people leaving out of fear, intimidation, or lack of knowledge around renter rights. As a
result, exhaustion from the demands of survival affected residents’ mobility and ability to resist
unfair practices as well, “There are many organizations that support you, they give you help as
long as you meet the tests …They started to kick out all those who had lived there for years,
everybody, they destroyed everyone, some left because of fear, others left because maybe they
did not have the evidence [of a lease contract or receipts of rental payments]...We went to Court
174
and they said that I did not live there, nor with my children, who knows what they did to the
paperwork they had, they disappeared it, but we had proof.” Many tenants felt hopeless and
exhausted due to their lack of options and the displacement pressures they were up against,
“You're going to have to move because that's the way it's going to be. You're not going to change
it, period. Unless the earth opens up and some nice person comes to town or whatever. That area
is going to continue to be that way. You've got just find [one now]. You've got to search right
now that you have somewhere to live, not when you're desperate to move.”
Table 5.2: Displacement Regression
Model 1 Model 2
Mobility Coefficient P-Value Coefficient P-Value
Number of Different Homes -2.04 0.01*** -2.17 0.01***
Always Lived In Home (Dummy) -2.12 0.04*** -2.27 0.03***
Previous Move Forced (Dummy) 3.25 0.08*** 3.54 0.06***
Trouble Finding Housing (Dummy) 1.71 0.056** 0.37 0.722
Sense of Belonging
Loss of Built Environment (Dummy) 1.20 0.20
Loss of Neighbors (Dummy) 1.56 0.09**
1 Loss 0.30 0.80
2 Losses 2.09 0.12*
3 Losses 2.75 0.02***
New Built Environment (Dummy) -0.32 0.73
New Residents (Dummy) -0.04 0.97
1 New Addition 1.12 0.47
2 New Additions 1.87 0.23
3 New Additions 0.30 0.84
Affordability
Rent Burden (Dummy) -2.31 0.08** -2.11 0.11*
Rent Quintile 0.13 0.70 0.04 0.90
Income Quintile -0.79 0.07** -0.75 0.08**
Demographics
Education -0.12 0.79 -0.21 0.63
Age -0.07 0.03*** -0.06 0.04***
Race – Black (Dummy) 0.21 0.83 0.16 0.87
Total Observations 314 314
175
Across all types of moves more than 25% of residents stated that moving had caused
them to land in worse neighborhoods, worse quality housing, increased stress and fear, or
resulted in a negative income effect. A focus group participant stated, “I've been a renter for
many years, but recently moved. Our last owner kept increasing the rent so we didn't have any
option but to move, the owner threatened us over immigration. It's a little better now, but our
street is dangerous.”
Additionally, those that did experience forced moves highlighted the negative
consequences of the process. A participant noted, “I've been here for 20 years, the time I've been
here. I have changed 4 times. I had to change because they raised the rent on us every year, but
now where I live they also raise me every year. We still have problems paying the rent, but if we
leave, where we are is very expensive.” Renters described forced moves as jarring experiences
that occurred over time as a process of removal. Parents in particular were very concerned about
the negative impacts of housing instability on their children, “It's hard on kids when they have to
move and you pick them up and you take them somewhere else. We never ask our kids, 'How do
you feel?' or whatever. We just do it, because it's good for us.” Another person stated, “Children
hurt me more, they suffer the most when one is moving.”
The events preceding and proceeding direct, physical displacement drive stress as does
the reason for moving. When examining simple correlations between variables, moving because
of landlord issues and formal eviction both held significant, positive relationships with stress
(author calculations not displayed). Moving for financial reasons, for family reasons, for job
reasons, even for maintenance was not significantly correlated to stress (see Table 5.2). This
further highlights the importance of agency and differential power relations between landlords
and tenants to the stress process. Lack of renter protections and code enforcement mechanisms
176
each play a direct role in the displacement process. When someone is driven from their home and
this agency is stripped, however, mobility is particularly stress producing with forced moves
exhibiting a large and significant impact on stress, “It feels very bad to be kicked out for no
reason, being up to date with your rent and everything ... No reason. He was going to sell, but he
did not sell ... Every day there are more people in the street, suffering in the street...Some say,
'He is not lazy, he does not want to work, he has vices.' I have met people who have had a very
good economic position and are now on the street.“
Development pressures associated with neighborhood change were accompanied with
more sudden events such as rent spikes and no-fault evictions, “I have been involved in this
organization for 15 years. So I know that I have seen families who give their testimonies who
have been in that process, that they are about to evict them unfairly because the owners
themselves begin to intimidate them…They have been intimidated, they are humiliated, they
harass them, in order to unfairly extract them, to be able to get it out in order to pay higher rent
from the next renters.” Economic constraints and social interactions layered on top of one
another to create housing stress. In addition to pressures explored above, some residents
experience threats and harassment directly from landlords, “Every week I'm threatened to leave
home, and that's not right,” as well as indirectly through processes of illegal rental or deferred
maintenance practices to push residents out, “They are trying to get out the old tenants, they
repair the rooms to rent them more expensive.”
Another person gave an in-depth observation of the current housing market based on their
own experiences and explained the stress of involuntary displacement, of losing a home,
“Without a reasonable cause, after being several years living there, they asked me for the house
with a month of notice, but without an extension of anything, without help to move, or anything
177
... Where I moved it cost me a lot more, but it is much bigger, and is more in the center. It was
for good, but anyway it feels very bad to be kicked out for no reason, being up to date with your
rent and everything ... No reason. He was going to sell, but he did not sell ... Every day there are
more people in the street, suffering in the street, but that's not possible. Some say, 'He is not lazy,
he does not want to work, he has vices.' I have met people who have had a very good economic
position and are now on the street.”
Residents were not accepting forced moves and unfair landlord practices as fate.
however. Many renters actively pushed back anywhere they could and fought for their right to
stay. A resident made this clear saying, “I want to also be a resource guide for people like me.
Because sometimes you are only focused on your own...I found myself, without exaggeration,
with dozens of people in my situation. That after 30, 25, 20 years, one day they were told, 'Today
is your last day'.” Family and friends served as key conduits to more formal supports. In addition
to information and connections, they also provided a mediator for the stress and uncertainty
produced from forced mobility, “Before I moved to a house down where I am now, I lived on
106th in Watts and our manager put out a 30-day notice because he was selling the house and
didn't tell us until 30 days before and I saw the notice and called my mom and she came home
right away from work and called my uncle and auntie to ask them to help us to find a home in 30
days...It was hard for us.”
Community organizations offered resources to counter these inequities and connect
tenants with formal recourse, but there was limited capacity and access, “I have been working in
different organizations, right now what I have discovered in Rodeo Road are like 42 units which
have received notification that they changed ownership and that they will increase the rent
because they are supposed to make sure that students live there. There are many people, they are
178
African-American, Latino, everything. They are 42 units. Those people are frightened ... I have
motivated them to go to these meetings, to give their opinions, because this can not be
happening. Because there is no work, then, where do they go to pay more? And having small
children. I'm worried about all those families that are there.”
Unfortunately, due to gaps in renter protections and lack of enforcement, tenants
outcomes with resisting formally through public agencies and courts were mixed. Many people
relayed experiences where they had either been able to remain in their homes or recouped some
of their losses from illegal rental practices through relocation assistance, “I moved because the
owners changed. The owner rose up the rent right away. But then my dad later, months later,
found out that where we were living actually was in rent control, so he couldn't do that. We went
to court and my dad won the lawsuit.” Relocation assistance was often framed as bittersweet as
rents had increased so dramatically that any fixed amount would only last a limited time at the
current market rents, “The bad thing is that you fight. You can fight and you can know
everything, and you can take lawyers and they give you money to look for a lawyer, but
unfortunately, in another home you will not pay what you are paying there, because the rent is
very expensive. My brother thank God has tried...The managers angry because he fought for that
and changed the whole group. You can fight, I know that maybe you can fight, but in another
home you will not find an apartment.”
Repeated failures by the government and abuses by the private sector has sowed doubt
into residents’ faith in society’s ability to change their situation or help them, “It also comes back
to giving communities false promises...The City is responsible for protecting people. They are
letting random people [get the money], just because they got money, they're sacrificing the
people they are supposed to represent, because it is bringing money to the city. What about
179
bringing money to the people?” This leaves mistrust between residents and public officials,
“From my past experiences with people promising things. You know how that goes, a lot of times
they'll-- How can I say? They'll change it, they'll alter it with a twist, but it's not the same
agreement that you started.” The impacts of past trauma are also exhibited in whiter, wealthier
sections of Los Angeles, where nimbyism and fear of crime and homelessness control policy
dialogue. In Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, similar feelings of threat and fear of changes to
their surroundings from the banning of exclusionary zoning and proposals to extend public
transit access (Harter, 2022; L.A. Times, 2018).
Belonging
Tenants of South L.A. have lived in their current homes and neighborhoods for a
considerable amount of time and had strong ties to place. On average, tenants had lived in their
home for 8.1 years. Moreover, tenants who had always lived in their home exhibited a
significantly lower stress score (see Table 5.1). In general, people enjoyed where they lived and
the people that surrounded them, “I like the area where I live, it's very beautiful, very safe.”
Overall, 23.3% of survey respondents had always lived in their homes and Latino/a households
were significantly more likely as compared to Black tenants (see Table 5.1). Many of those
households represented community anchors, which carve out safe spaces and stability not only
for themselves individually but at the community level as well. “I know my roots here. I got faith
in my people, I know that one day we will prevail and I want to be here when it happens. I never
thought there was going to be a black president, I never thought I'd live through any history, but
now I did. So I know there's some more history is coming and I want to be a part of that fight.”
180
Many residents love South L.A., have built their homes and communities there, and have
no intention of leaving, “I like my community, because I have everything around me...There's
everything right up there in the community.“ When surveyed, 41.71% would stay more than 10
years if possible and 29.59% would stay indefinitely. As one resident explained, “I'm familiar
with my people [laughs]. I don't want to go move somewhere else. I feel uncomfortable, my kids
feel more uncomfortable, because they will have to transition to another school...I like to show
them how to be stable, stability is very important to show them.“ just want some agency over
their surroundings. To accomplish that vision, people strongly desired to have greater voice and
power in the development process, “We do not oppose that there is a growth, an advancement,
but we want to be included.”
These affective connections to place also spurred fears of isolation related to
displacement and being forced to move away from infrastructures of care. Tenants are rooted to
their neighborhoods through friends, family, and organizations that help them survive, “That's
what I stay here for my church, for the [organizations]. I don't want to move way out and then I
don't want someone having to come get me. I don't drive anymore. So I'm like, 'I want to stay
here.'” Focus group participants relayed the experiences of other people they knew who had
moved away for affordability reasons, but were ultimately saddled with new costs due to
isolation and unforeseen costs associated with the new locations (especially with regards to
higher utilities as many knew someone that had moved further into the county and desert). A
tenant shared, “My daughter just moved to Arizona where she don't know nobody, her and my
grandbaby. Because her one bedroom in Inglewood was $1,700...The thing about it now is, since
she's there with no family, when her child gets sick, she got to take off work because she ain't
making no friends now, you don't know family. When he got sick, she could bring him to
181
grandma house or grandma could go pick him up from school or whatever.” Both economic and
social constraints limited residents’ mobility, “I'm just sitting there, but at the end of the day it's
like where can you go where it's balanced, where there's just enough? By myself in a desert?
That's lonely” Thus, the increasingly unaffordable housing market reinforces structural
inequalities by re-concentrating poverty in areas where there are not only fewer institutional
resources and opportunities, but also greater isolation and reduced social support.
Displacement reverberated throughout the community—32.5% of survey participants
personally knew someone who was forced to move in the previous two years and 46.1% noted
long-time residents moving out of their neighborhood (see Table 5.1). On average, participants
had known 2.8 households that had been forced out of the neighborhood in the past two years. A
youth focus group participant clarified, “We used to be really close to all our neighbors on our
old block, but ever since moving we stopped because we don't go outside as much and prefer to
keep to ourselves.” Many focus group participants knew someone that had left a previous home
rather than fighting unfair landlord practices, “I just got evicted out of where I was living because
the original homeowners sold the building. Since we weren't on the contract the owner was
going to jack up the rent by $500. I am pretty lucky to make a little more than my partner, I
could actually afford it because I make decent money, but the issue was that it wasn't fair. I
worked as an intern at [organization] so I actually know about the RSO and I know that I have
rights. They were worried about going to the housing authority or going to the owner because
they're undocumented so we had to leave. It didn't feel right to me to pay more, so I'm living with
family instead. The experiences of neighbors and family members generated intimidation and
stress for even those that were not facing displacement pressure directly yet. Residents worried
182
that similar circumstances could happen to them next adding to the uncertainty around their
homes.
Renters felt indirect displacement through erasure in historical, cultural, and personal
landmarks that were being replaced, “The hotel that's down on the corner, that used to be a very
famous hotel where black entertainers and boxers used to go to....There's a lot of history in this
area and they want to take it back and build it back up and move us out of there because we
don't know what's there and [made to feel] we don't deserve to be there. That's the problem.“
Tenants had significant personal histories with their surroundings as well. “I grew up over here,
from age five up until I graduated from high school. I used to go to Santa Barbara which is now
Martin Luther King, then I went to Foshay, then I went to Crenshaw. We, my parents, lived there
for 57 years. My parents were married 67 years” a resident explained of their lineage.
The impacts of displacement were multi-generational. Residents’ spoke about their
connection to home being ruptured and the stress they experienced from losing a sense of
belonging, “My children were born there, they grew there and they do not want to leave. Thank
God I have healthy children, they go to university, they study and they work part-time, but it's not
enough. We are about to get kicked out of there again. Where are we going to go? If we have
belonged to the area all of our time. Imagine, almost over 26 years, being in the area. ...Right
now my neighbors, on the 25th, are getting kicked out because they sold the property…they
removed them and began to remodel the house. My children tell me, 'Look, mom, they're renting.'
... Oh my God, $ 3,800 for a three bedroom apartment. Where are we going to get $3,800 to pay
for a three-bedroom apartment? My neighbors in front are getting kicked out too, they have
small children and they do not know what they are going to do, where will they go?” The
183
combination of deteriorating community infrastructure and replacement of known surroundings
with the unfamiliar resulted in feelings of exclusion and uncertainty.
Tenants spoke to the psychological and social components of belonging, “This is the
thing, that we want to live here and so to live we want peace, we want friendship, we want love.
We want people taking care of one another. It's getting so old nowadays for us to be driven
apart. We want to be together so that we can trust one another. It's hard to find people to trust.
You really have to. When you find people to trust, those are the good people...You start from
within to share that trust with other people.” They explained how their sense of belonging was
altered through losses to their physical surroundings, but remained cautiously optimistic around
incoming benefits and their ability to remain, “In the last two months, they have sold like five
properties, they have cut down trees…A house is not just what we have inside, it is also outside,
we have something safe, we have a park, we have security , we have a library, we have cultural
centers for our children...They are preparing and they will have accessibility to the best, for
more, and that's good, because that is why they prepare, but for those of us who are living at this
moment, I think so, it's a bit delicate.”
There was a statistically significant stress response in regression estimates when residents
experienced loss of neighbors or social connections as well as a clustering effect when they were
coupled with losses in the built environment (Table 5.2). Overall 58.5% of survey respondents
noted a loss of aspects of the built environment in their neighborhoods and 46.3% noticed a loss
in neighbors or family members. Non-rent burdened households were significantly more likely to
have noticed losses in the built environment–and slightly more likely to experience new
additions–in the previous two years as compared to rent-burdened. In a follow-up question,
residents clearly stated the harm they felt from feelings of loss around their sense of belonging.
184
Survey results displayed tenants’ expertise in the pressures they face with 79.8% reporting loss
of community infrastructure—both built and social—had increased fear and stress in their lives.
Individual households have fewer resources and less time to provide mutual aid while the
community overall must adapt to neighbors, businesses, and other cultural assets being pushed
out or erased. Understandably, loss of support systems and a disappearing sense of place causes
community members to become socially and emotionally on edge in addition to financially.
Although we did not find a significant stress response, focus group conversations lifted
up the ways new additions to the neighborhood had altered tenants’ sense of belonging and
feelings of exclusion. One young adult offered their experience, “They can come to our
neighborhoods but we can't go to theirs. But you walk down the street and they look at you funny
and it's your hood!… I get those same looks from white people in my own neighborhood like I
don't belong like you're looking at me like that? They're the ones who don't belong. But I don't
want to start anything...You know they live a few houses down with their doors locked but they
look at you funny like you don't belong. But they moved here because it's cheap. But you couldn't
move there [to that same unit] because it's a little out of your price range now.”
Many participants noted new displacement pressures from development and speculation,
“In my community what's going on is residents are being displaced by the banks and all these
real estate companies are trying find properties around the area to make new complexes and
make the rent go higher. This is all because of the new projects that are going into the
community.” Residents spoke about the power imbalances between themselves and the influx of
capital, “The rents are going up too much and I think it's because of the construction, its kicking
people out to the other side and they are snatching up places to make new apartments.”
185
New forms of exclusion emerged through the changes in the built and social environment
from neighborhood change. Renters explained the ways they felt excluded in their own
neighborhoods through indirect displacement as buildings continued to go up that were clearly
not meant for them, “It's beautiful, but none of us who are here will be able to access one of
those apartments, we'll never be able to rent there, but do we not deserve it?” This exclusion
occurred unit-by-unit and building-by-building rather than entire sections of a neighborhood. It
was small-scale in nature until eventually changes became outwardly noticeable through people
on the street and aesthetics in the environment, “They push you back, they're pushing back. Now,
I used to have a place downtown, how beautiful it is now. But at that time, they weren't too
beautiful at that time for us. But quick as they pushed us out, they started building out and
beautiful...Have no money, you're not staying. If you're low-income, no go. You can have 50
jobs, nobody's making that.”
They also noted the class aspect of the neighborhood changes they observed, “With
people with more resources coming to the area, there is pressure for those with the lowest
resources to leave.” Residents noticed they were often overlooked when units became available
as landlords looked toward a new clientele to occupy their buildings. A participant shared, “I
could not find an apartment because the owners only wanted to rent the students. They did not
want to rent to anyone else. I do not want to blame the students either because USC charges a lot
for the rent and they can not pay either, but there is so much displacement.” Another person
stated, “I've been feeling displacement with all these projects happening. With the latest city
ordinance only 5% of that housing will be affordable and the rest is luxury, so it's going to bring
more people in who aren't from the area and the rents will skyrocket. You see a lot of empty lots
now, but it's just a matter of time.” By using the phrase ‘feeling’ displacement that quote also
186
references wider displacement pressures stemming from alterations in the built and social
environment.
USC was the commonly mentioned development anchor in conversations with residents
and these mentioned were heavily concentrated among residents living in the neighborhoods
surrounding USC and Exposition Park, “USC is buying lots of land. Why? Because they have the
money, they have the power, They are taking our community, the people that come to live here
are rich people, people who have the money and they want to get us out of our community, they
have done it for years previous.” Another young adults resident said, “I don't get along with
white people that want to walk their dogs and take over our culture and erase everything we've
done and bring in more police. My boyfriend lives in West Adams and they're one of the only
ones on the street who's a family and not a USC student, and they're not wanted because they are
brown and they are indigenous. It's like, who are you. But really, who are YOU?. It's not fair
because they were there first, but they're the ones who are treated like they don't belong.”
Nevertheless, renters remained optimistic about the amenities and improvements that had
begun to emerge. Compared to losses in social infrastructure, residents were far less likely to
state the new investment and new people had caused additional fear and stress—23.6% and
45.3% respectively. As one resident said, “I'm not against all of the upgrades in the hood, it's ok
if you come in and try to help people in the community, but it's not ok if you come in and try to
push us out. Be understanding. They're getting survival wages, not even living wages. Be mindful
of that and try to coexist.” Tenants were eager for the resources and amenities they know their
community deserves, but they did not want this to come at the expense of themselves or their
loved ones. “Honest, what's keeping me here is just wanting to participate in bringing those
187
changes to the city and in all the stuff that they're talking about. So just wanting to be a part of
that and help with that as much as I can.”
New residents and new buildings were not significantly associated with stress in
regression models (see Table 5.2). It is important to note, however, that the set of neighborhood
change variables used in this study were highly correlated and heavily clustered together. In the
survey, 78.1% of respondents experienced new additions to the built environment in their
neighborhoods and 56.0% noted new residents in the previous two years. Over 80% of residents
experiencing new additions to their neighborhood also reported a loss of neighbors or features of
the built environment.
Discussion
Mobility served as an important mechanism of agency for working-class households in
South L.A. Overall, the number of moves a resident had made in the past two years was
negatively associated with stress. In focus groups, it was revealed that moves were a way for
residents to navigate the rental crisis through searching for more affordable housing, higher
quality homes, or escaping harmful situations. Forced moves, in contrast, had a significant
positive association with stress (see 5.2). These results highlight that mobility is important to
overall stress reduction if residents have options and choice in their housing search as well as a
stable foundation from which they can operate.
Although the majority of moves remained voluntary, the process of replacement that
accompanied neighborhood change was still stress producing. Displacement pressures from the
rental crisis were experienced at the community level as well. Overall, 46.1% of survey
participants noted people moving out of their neighborhoods and 32.5% knew someone that had
188
been forced to move. Furthermore, those that had experienced social losses had significantly
higher perceived stress in regression estimates (see Table 5.2). Tenants spoke to the deterioration
of their infrastructures of care as friends and family moved out of the neighborhood, reducing the
social support available.
Regarding new additions at the neighborhood level, no significant effects were noted for
changes in the built environment or an influx of new residents (see Table 5.2. Tenants remained
optimistic about neighborhood changes and the new resources entering their neighborhoods.
However, focus groups also noted the new forms of exclusion that were felt from the influx of
new residents and new development. After decades of neglect, residents were eager about the
prospect of neighborhood improvements and having more amenities close to home, but those
changes were often out of their grasp because they were clearly not geared toward their interests
or cost-prohibitive. Growing unaffordability and neighborhood change created an extremely
constricted choice set as 41% of residents stated they would be unable to remain in their
neighborhood if they needed to move. In addition, more than 50% had trouble finding housing
during their previous move.
Thus, investment and in-movers at the community level had a minimal direct effect on
stress, but indirectly led long-time residents to feel stuck in place, generated new stressors at the
household level by incentivizing their removal, and forced them to subsist despite the stressors
they experienced. The community impacts of displacement, then, were twofold: 1) residents
experienced a decrease in support from their community infrastructure 2) residents experienced a
loss in their sense of belonging as neighbors and friends relocated further away. Tenants that
were able to stay experienced fear and intimidation in anticipation of future instability as well
due to the stories shared by others in their community and witnessing wide-spread replacement.
189
Together, the dynamic between displacement pressure and restricted mobility illustrates
the process of replacement. On one hand, tenants that are stuck in place appear stable because
they do not move, but have the potential to be exposed to hazardous conditions and exploitation
as pressures grow and outside options shrink. On the other hand, people that do move often land
outside their original neighborhood away from the infrastructures of care that allowed them to
survive in the past. This outcome is also undesirable despite the reason for moving being
voluntary or to escape harm. These mobility constraints raise new questions on what constitutes
a forced move and how these outcomes are tracked. These findings also highlight the interaction
between housing quality and mobility in the production of stress. Even those not forced out of
their homes experience feelings of exclusion as the original community deteriorates and their
neighborhoods become less hospitable.
190
Chapter 6: Survival
This chapter investigates the survival tactics renters use to modify stressful situations,
reduce threats, and manage the consequences of shocks that cannot be avoided. Residents
internalize the costs associated with precarious labor and housing by cutting back on the
consumption of basic needs, taking on extra work, living with additional people, or moving to
lower quality homes that are often farther from resources and support. Rational choice theory in
economics assumes that individuals make trade-off decisions between undesirable outcomes. In
contrast, the framework of precarity emphasizes that housing conditions that tenants encounter
cannot be evaluated in isolation of other factors in a person’s life. Moreover, precarity
acknowledges that many residents have very little choice at all because of impoverishment,
precarious work arrangements, unequal power relations, discrimination, and past histories of
oppression. Consequently, many households experience multiple issues simultaneously (as
explored in the previous chapter), moving back and forth between stability and precarity within
their constrained set of options (Routhier, 2019). Thus, this chapter also examines the extent to
which household survival tactics represent choices versus a simple prioritization of basic needs
to maintain survival in the immediate future.
The concept of survival tactics is used throughout this chapter as an umbrella term for
those actions as it speaks to the urgency of needs that residents forgo as well as their carefully
chosen responses to unaffordability and neighborhood change. Although tenants have an
extremely restricted choice set and limited room to adjust, they are nonetheless taking into
account mounting pressures, persistent obstacles, future expectations, and available supports.
The behavioral decisions made are not purely reactionary and instead take into account the full
breadth of one’s experiences and resources despite the restrictions they face. Furthermore,
191
renters also exercise their agency by supporting one another through infrastructures of care to
achieve greater affordability and stability. These systems of support have been built over
generations to fill the gaps in needs left by the private sector and government.
Together, survival tactics and infrastructures of care alter households’ earnings,
expenditures, and living conditions, which determine traditional thresholds of affordability and
stability. These practices are also leveraged as active forms of resistance and a method to
exercise residents’ agency. Typically, social support and survival tactics have been studied
separately (Pearlin, 1999). However, each of these practices represent mediators of housing
instability and survival that can be activated simultaneously as issues emerge. By examining
these practices together, the connection between individual and communal stress is made clear.
Tenants often internalize costs at the household level, however, their ability to respond is
determined collectively with the community that surrounds them. Given the historical legacies of
segregation and dispossession in South L.A., stressors are often encountered by a community as
a whole. It is within this interaction between household constraints and wider community context
that income and expenses determine housing outcomes. This section investigates the ways
infrastructures of care and survival tactics allow residents to navigate and alter the constraints
explored in the previous chapter in order to retain a degree of stability amidst the rental crisis. To
this end, the chapter seeks to answer the following research question: What survival tactics and
infrastructures of care do residents use to navigate the rental crisis conditions?
Affordability as survival
Survival is core to the dialectic relationship between labor and capital. Without human
life from which capital can extract value, there can be no accumulation of profit (Heynen, et al.,
192
2011). At the same time, the oppressive practices of extraction, exploitation, and dispossession
that accompany urban processes of racial capitalism reduce workers' ability to survive and lead
to social death (Gilmore, 2002; Engels, 1845). As humans, we rely on basic necessities like food
and shelter to live. By placing prices on the essentials needed to sustain life, the market system
constructs obstacles to accessing those goods which are used to preserve domination and
coercion over the working class (Heynen, 2009). People adjust their lives, respond to stressors,
seek protections, and provide care to one another in order to access the resources they need to
survive (Desmond, 2014; Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010). Therefore, survivability is
not solely structured by economic constraints, but also influenced by social and political
conditions. Housing is fundamental to survivability because it influences how people participate
in the market system as well as engage in their surrounding neighborhood and city (Blunt &
Sheringham, 2018; Lees, et al., 2018).
The majority of renters in South L.A. subsist amidst precarious living and work
arrangements that force them to take on more debt and cut back on food, clothing, and family
activities and (Rosen, et al., 2022B). In a recent report examining Los Angeles County, more
than 500,000 low-income children and 1.4 million low-income adults were considered food
insecure putting them at risk of malnutrition (Call, 2020). Additionally, more than a thousand
unhoused residents die each year on the streets and more than 60% of those residents cite
economic hardship as the reason they are unhoused (Roy and Rosen, 2021). When people cannot
afford their homes, healthcare, or something to eat, they are slated for death–whether this occurs
in the immediate or over the long term through weathering and social murder (Heynen, 2006).
The term survival is used literally throughout this chapter to describe residents’ ability to meet
their basic human needs . By centering survival in the study of housing, researchers can bring
193
focus back to the material conditions residents face and the stakes of allowing precarious
conditions to persist.
The concept of survival is rooted in the literature of reproduction. The most commonly
cited definition of reproduction by Laslett and Brenner (1989) details the term as the physical,
manual, and emotional work required to “maintain existing life and to reproduce the next
generation.” With this grounding, survival is not bound in the present and also entails a
continued right to exist in the future. Reproduction activities include various work related to
survival such as the locating, purchasing, and preparing food, clothing, and shelter as well as the
ways residents’ care for another and maintain community ties (Peake, et al., 2021). These
activities are a prerequisite to the production process because they allow workers to sustain
themselves. Racial capitalism cannot sustain itself through accumulation and uneven
development alone. Workers are required for the system to function. Thus, there can be no
production without reproduction. Moreover, the capitalist system relies on women’s and
nonwhite workers at the household and community level to absorb the time and opportunity costs
associated with the unwaged work of reproduction. Survival describes the dialectic relationship
between labor and capital because it supports and challenges residents’ and the capitalist
systems’ capacity to reproduce themselves.
More specifically, survival relates to housing through the theory of uneven development
(Heynen, et al., 2011). In order to maintain the rate of profit, capital must shift locations between
underdeveloped and overdeveloped locations (Smith, 1984). In Chapter 2 and 4, this dynamic
was explored through the historical and present-day conditions of South Los Angeles. For
decades, the Black and Latino/a neighborhoods in South L.A. were underdeveloped. Residents
were forced to subsist on low wages and struggled to survive while being targeted with pollution,
194
over-policing, and subprime loans (Gibbons, 2018). The racialized uneven development of Los
Angeles preserved cheap, surplus labor in desperate need of economic resources in South L.A.
(Molina, 2006; Villa, 2000). The area’s histories with disinvestment and erasure are both the
reason it remained one of the last places in the Los Angeles basin where Black and Latino/a
residents could afford to survive as well as why those same residents are disproportionately
impacted by the on-going rental crisis. Since the Great Recession in 2007-08, development has
flowed back into these neighborhoods increasing costs of living, decreasing residents’ access to
mobility, and heightening exposure to displacement pressures. The precarity generated from past
and present conditions impact tenants’ ability to survive.
Housing pressures produced from the rental crisis have transferred additional costs and
uncertainty onto households and working class communities. The capitalist system has always
relied on certain populations to internalize the costs of reproduction in order to preserve the rate
of profit–women, people of color, and workers in the Global South. However, precarity has
expanded over time to a greater proportion of the population and increased in severity for those
disproportionately impacted in the past (Hacker, 2019; Bhattacharyya, 2018; Butler, 2016A;
Butler, 2016B). As wages have stagnated, protections withdrawn, public funds depleted, and
costs of living increased, workers are expected to survive with less so that the rate of profit can
be preserved. Residents are forced to meet the gaps in their needs independently even though
they stem from market failures rooted in landowners’ profit maximization and employers’ cost
minimization.
With insecurity and uncertainty growing, an increasing proportion of individuals’ time,
energy, and attention must be devoted to securing basic needs, working, resisting, and other acts
literally required to stay alive. Precarious conditions have also depleted tenants’ ability to
195
replenish themselves through rest, care, and congregation (Peake, et al., 2021). Nonetheless,
working class residents take on the burden of keeping themselves and their communities from
wearing down and breaking under the pressures of growing precarity. In this refusal to break,
stability is provided to the capitalist system which allows for further harm, exploitation, and
trauma to be relegated–the reproduction of inequality and instability (Heynen, et al, 2011;
Smith, 1983). As precarity has expanded, tenants’ capacity for survival is eroded through the
internalization of costs and the removal of social supports. The survival strategies and
infrastructures of care that residents rely on preserve both their own lives and the capitalist
system.
Therefore, the concept of survival also brings attention to resistance. As Bell Hooks
(1990B) wrote, “marginality [is] much more than a site of deprivation...it is also the site of
radical possibility, a space of resistance.” Resistance is composed of day-to-day acts which
refuse the practices of domination that inhibit residents ability to survive (Lees, et al., 2018).
Scholars from Henri Lefebvre to Huey P. Newton have noted that survival is the basis for
resistance and action (Heynen et al., 2011; Heynen, 2006). Individuals must focus their time first
on the activities that allow them to access basic needs (Heynen, 2009). Only after these essentials
are secured can residents use their energy to resist harmful conditions.
Through the process of survival, residents construct new relationships and infrastructures
of care that support their material, social, and emotional needs and provide the basis for
resistance (Simone, 2021; Chatterton & Heynen, 2011; Simone 2004). Thus, although survival is
not always explicitly confrontational it is nonetheless connected to addressing inequitable power
relations in everyday life (Lees, et al., 2018). Survival is a form of agency–a concept used to
describe individuals’ ability to exercise control over their own lives and surroundings (Bissell,
196
2019; Lees, et al., 2018). Like resistance, it describes the “perpetual antagonism between what a
group accepts and what they reject” (Chatterton & Heynen, 2011). Through their struggle for
survival, tenants seize some control back over their lives that can both alleviate stress or create
new exposure (Fairbank & Hough, 1979).
Based on the findings in this dissertation, I propose the formation of an alternative index
of survivability. Survivability represents a multi-scalar and multi-dimensional index of well-
being that could be used to evaluate the various stressors residents endure at both a household
and community level. By incorporating both structural market conditions and local housing
characteristics, this index will consider both the quality and quantity of employment and housing
required for residents to meet their needs. Next, the notion of survivability directs our attention
toward the environmental and social dimensions of home as well. These factors include unfair
landlord practices, deferred maintenance, and overcrowding as well as access to support, care,
and belonging. Importantly, survival also recognizes the ways people respond to those stressors
and resist harmful practices. Those responses, though, can be limited by both internal and
external constraints. To this end, survivability would account for neighborhood level conditions,
which restrict mobility through decline of available homes that meet tenants’ economic, social,
and cultural needs as well as the agency they have in the decision to leave their current unit.
Finally, survivability will evaluatee the policy and political environment, which grants access to
protections under the law through court enforcement, government monitoring, and accountability
processes.
This index will help researchers and policymakers understand how structural housing and
labor market conditions are experienced by residents and give us information on how those
macro-level conditions influence actions and behaviors on a local level among tenants,
197
landowners, and government officials. In addition, this index would not rely on faulty
assumptions related to choice or setting a particular level of consumptions as in other models.
Instead, survivability provides a more complete policy picture of the conditions tenants endure
and the actions taken to navigate those conditions. In that way, it also acknowledges renters’
agency and acts of resistance by incorporating all the tactics and care activities they use to
achieve survivability. This index will be better suited to investigating fundamental cause and the
production of stress because it is focused on processes and mechanisms that unfold over time
rather than static outcomes. By operationalizing the term survival, I am attempting to incorporate
theories of precarity and social reproduction into the study of housing and affordability. The
concept of survival is not only about basic needs being met, but also whether one can continue to
exist in the future.
In the past, measures of housing stability have attempted to capture the multi-dimensional
nature of home housing conditions, housing stock characteristics length of occupancy,
employment, finances, social support, and housing market conditions as well as institutional
features like lease terms, renter protections, access to finance, and the availability of public
resources (Kang, 2019; Frederick, et al., 2014). Recent evaluations have further incorporated
social-emotional feelings of safety, community, and well-being, which structure residents’ sense
of belonging and quality of life (Hulse & Milligan, 2014). Rather than observing who or what
about an individual predicts instability, however, survivability instead turns to the drivers of the
conditions that would lead a person to become unstable in an attempt to understand why this is
occurring.
198
Consumption Cutbacks
The primary survival tactic explored in past research is consumption cutbacks. These
cutbacks are the direct effect of high housing costs–as rental prices rise residents are less able to
buy the other things they need most to survive. There is substantial literature documenting an
inverse relationship between housing costs and spending. When tenants pay more than 30
percent of their income on rent, they are forced to cut back on basic necessities such as food,
utilities, healthcare, and education (Newman & Holupka, 2016; Newman & Holupka, 2015;
Hernández, et al., 2016; Liu, et al., 2014; Kirkpatrick & Tarasuk, 2011; Mueller & Tighe, 2007;
Kirkpatrick & Tarasuk, 2007; Harkness & Newman, 2005). Previous work in Los Angeles has
confirmed this relationship locally with rent burdened households cutting back on consumption
at significantly higher rates than non-rent burdened households in food, health, clothing, transit,
and family activities (Rosen, et al., 2022B). Additionally, the majority of these differences were
driven by prolonged, long-term sacrifices–over 25% of rent burdened households were forced to
live with reductions in these categories of consumption for longer than a year.
Research in public health has made clear that forgoing these types of essentials has direct
consequences to health due to our basic human need for sustenance and the stress associated with
material hardships (Huang, et al., 2021; Liu, et al., 2014; Dixon, et al., 2001). Households with
difficulties affording rent, groceries, and healthcare are strongly associated with higher levels of
stress. Consumption cutbacks produce both immediate and long-term term harm through chronic
deficits in basic needs as well as stress produced from heightened insecurity in everyday life as
tenants are uncertain about the future–what their next meal will be, where they will find shelter
for their evening, how they will secure healthcare.
199
Consumption cutbacks do not occur in isolation, however. They exist within the larger
context of residents’ lives. Decisions on which categories to prioritize are shaped by their
exposure to stressors and the availability of resources. In the United States and Los Angeles
more specifically, these factors are shaped by race and class (Sharkey, 2013; Lipsitz, 2011).
Renters use their experience and knowledge to manage stressors and seek out tactics that
minimize harm (Desmond, 2014; Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010). This is especially
true for undocumented residents who face additional fear related to deportation and limited
access to public resources and enforcement, which restricts their ability to respond to housing
stressors (Londoño, 2020; Menjívar, et al., 2018; Menjívar & Abrego, 2012). While there is
limited research examining how consumption cutbacks vary by race, previous research indicates
that Black and Latino/a renters are more likely to report food insecurity amidst high housing
costs (Liu, et al., 2014).
In the aggregate, recent work has found there is a significant negative relationship
between consumption and costs of living between the least and most affordable cities in the U.S.
(Diamond & Moretti, 2021). Yet, this negative relationship only exists for those with less than a
college education. Working class residents in expensive coastal cities like Los Angeles have a
significantly lower standard of living and consume roughly 74% less than their peers in more
affordable areas. Moreover, a national survey found 85 percent of residents earning less than
$60,000 faced difficulties paying for expenses, health insurance, and debt obligations in 2019
(Brockland, et al., 2019).
Functional Adjustments
200
The housing pressures that renters navigate are difficult to escape and often force them to
engage in multiple survival tactics to meet their basic needs. They internalize the impacts of
these decisions through direct effects like consumption cutbacks as well as indirect effects from
modifications in behavior. In previous work, I have outlined the concept of functional
adjustments to describe the alterations tenants make to living and work conditions in response to
unaffordability (Rosen, et al., 2022B). These adjustments are more permanent by nature because
they change the ways renters live day-to-day and cannot be as easily shifted back after periods of
hardship end. Functional adjustments include working more hours, engaging in different kinds of
work, increasing household size, moving farther away from work, and transitioning to lower
quality housing or neighborhoods. The term stems from the human capability approach in
economics and feminist urban studies related to social reproduction (Peake, et al., 2021; Wolff &
De-Shalit, 2007; Sen, 1992; Sen, 1985). This section builds off previous research to provide a
more robust explanation of the adjustments residents make in response to the rental crisis.
Functional adjustments describe behavioral changes around housing and labor, which
alter residents’ interactions with their surroundings and modify their ability to survive. These
behavior changes are functional in two ways. First, functional adjustments transform the
variables underlying traditional measures of affordability such as rent burden and residual
income. Tenants engage in adjustments to labor to increase their earnings and adjustments to
housing to lower their rental costs. They are dynamic parts of residents’ lives that are both
impacted by growing rental pressures and adjusted for survivability (Desmond, 2014; Edin &
Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010).
Second, housing and labor are foundational to daily functioning and structure how
residents experience the world around them. The location of housing dictates residents’ access to
201
opportunity and resources through their proximity to jobs, schools, transportation, and other
positive amenities. Home is also essential for safety, identity, and growth (Rolnick, 2019; Bratt,
2002; hooks, 1990A). Thus, housing plays a significant role in the reciprocal relationship
between production and reproduction. Labor, on the other hand, dictates the financial capacity of
households and the availability of time to pursue priorities outside of work. Together, functional
adjustments can either offer a degree of agency, alleviate stress, and improve tenants’ ability to
turn their current situation into future opportunities or increase their exposure to stressors and
risk.
There is limited research investigating the relationship between affordability and
functional adjustments. For housing adjustments, previous studies have found rent-burdened
households are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions and lower quality units in need of
major repairs (Diaz McConnell, 2017; Kirkpatrick & Tarasuk, 2011). Past study in Los Angeles
has demonstrated a statistically significant difference between severely rent-burdened and non-
rent burdened households taking on additional people to their units in response to rising rental
costs–19.2% versus 14.9% respectively (Rosen, et al., 2022B). Like consumption cutbacks, these
housing adjustments also vary according to race and class. Those with lower income and
educational attainment as well as Black and Latino/a renters are more likely to experience
overcrowding (Diaz McConnell, 2017).
Furthermore, literature in public health has documented the negative effects of
overcrowding and lower housing quality on stress (Park & Seo, 2020; Theirry, 2020; Prior, et al.,
2018; Park, et al., 2015; Ribeiro, et al., 2018; Dockery, et al., 2013; Regoeczi, 2008; Cutrona, et
al., 2006; Galea et al., 2005; Ellen, et al., 2001). Physical space in the home is needed for privacy
and rejuvenation whereas lower quality units and neighborhoods impact health through mold,
202
infestation, and exposure to other hazards. Overcrowding makes it more difficult for children to
concentrate on school work, find personal space to decompress, or gain proper sleep (Ready, et
al., 2004).
The quality of a tenants’ housing and neighborhood has significant impacts on both their
physical and mental health. Those impacts are durable and persist even after housing conditions
improve (Marsh, et al., 2000). The negative relationship between lower quality neighborhoods
and higher stress level, however, is conditioned by race with little to no impact observed for
White households in lower quality conditions but a significant gradient observed for Black
residents (Thierry, 2020).
The impacts of overcrowding and housing quality are also well-documented in literature
related to immigrant communities. Immigrants often reside in multi-generational or multiple
family households upon arrival to establish themselves in destination communities (Dominguez
& Watkins, 2003; Chavez, 1990). Co-residence is used strategically over the life course to
combat economic and political constraints as well as meet needs as they shift over time. Reasons
for co-residence range from the management of expenses, accessing infrastructures of care,
minimizing fear of deportation through collective effort, and alleviating social isolation. In
addition, documentation status appears to have a significant impact on some dimensions of
housing and neighborhood quality. While undocumented households are more likely to express
overall satisfaction with the quality of their housing as compared to Black residents and similar
levels of satisfaction as their white peers, they are more likely to report structural deficiencies in
their buildings and express concern about the quality of their neighborhoods (Hall & Greenman,
2013; Friedman & Rosenbaum, 2004)
203
There has been less research on the employment adjustments that residents make to
accommodate rising housing costs. Precarious and unstable work in general, though, have been
linked to negative health outcomes (Benach, et al., 2014; Knudson, et al., 2007). In previous
work examining Los Angeles, 26.7% of renters had taken on additional hours of work in
response to declining affordability–although no significant differences were noted across rent
burden categories (Rosen, et al., 2022B). Interestingly, functional adjustments varied across
geography between Central and South L.A. with renters closer to centers of economic activity
more likely to take on extra work and those in proximity to larger housing stock more likely to
take on additional people. This suggests that functional adjustments are grounded in the built and
social environment of tenants’ surroundings. Those conditions introduce additional opportunities
and constraints that influence the behavioral choices residents make in response to the rental
crisis.
The impacts of both consumption cutbacks and functional adjustments are especially
pronounced for family and children due to higher expenses, greater demand for space, and
sensitive timing in psycho-social development (Newman & Holupka, 2016; Newman &
Holupka, 2015; Leventhal & Newman, 2010; Harkness & Newman, 2005; Bratt, 2002). For
families, stress from economic hardship is intergenerational and ripples throughout a household
with the potential for persistent effects throughout an individual’s life (Hertzman & Boyce, 2010;
Evans & Kim, 2007; Marsh, et al., 2000). Previous research has found that housing and labor
conditions related to poverty–including consumption cutbacks, precarious work, and lower
quality housing–are connected to everything from family conflict and parenting challenges to
children’s educational performance and health (Dockery, 2013; Coley, et al., 2013; Conger et al,
2002; Evans, et al., 2001; McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988). Moreover, children miss out on
204
valuable time with their parents, peers, and tending to their own needs (Mahadeo, 2019; Foster,
et al., 2008). Instead, they are forced to take on additional physical and emotional labor required
for survival.
Overall, the survival tactics used by residents are shaped by the economic, political,
social, and physical constraints explored in Chapter 4 as well as their access to resources from
local community members, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations explored in
Chapter 5 (Desmond, 2014; Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010; Devine & Sams-Abiodun,
2001). Ethnographic research on poverty has illustrated that survival tactics are carefully chosen
to minimize harm. Low-income tenants are keenly aware of the constraints and resources they
must navigate to survive amidst an extremely limited choice set (Morduch & Schneider, 2017;
Desmond, 2016; Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Ehrenreich, 2010). Despite the hardships that many poor
and marginalized communities endure, they are continually working to create opportunities,
access resources, and carve out spaces to build some form of sustainable livelihood for
themselves and their families (Simone, 2021; Vasudevan, 2015; Lipsitz, 2011; Small, 2009;
Simone, 2004; Dominguez & Watkins, 2003).
Infrastructures of Care
All humans need care throughout the life cycle “to maintain, continue, and repair 'our
world' so that we can live in it as well as possible” (Fisher & Tronto, 1990). We have inherent
vulnerability from birth and cannot survive by ourselves without support from other people
(Butler 2016B; Lawson, 2007). The most commonly cited definition of care is summarized as the
relationships that sustain the conditions required for life including food, shelter, and an
environment capable of sustaining well-being (Tronto, 2013). Care includes activities that range
205
from preparing food and cleaning the home to assisting those who physically cannot meet their
basic needs like children and older adults to providing information and linkages for resources to
simply listening and being emotionally available in times of crisis. Through actions of love and
reciprocity, care composes a process of understanding and recognition. People acknowledge the
issues that others face such as injustice and neglect, take them seriously even when others will
not, and attempt to fix and alleviate these pressures in daily life.
An ethics of care stands in direct contrast to traditional market valuations. The provision
of care originates not from value production or desire for accumulation, but in recognition that
something already has value and must be maintained, repaired, loved, and protected to survive
(Mattern, 2018). Consequently, care is typically viewed outside the realm of production and is
instead associated with reproduction although these actions occur within formal workplaces as
well as more informally in homes and communities. The labor of care is undervalued by the
market–often entailing unwaged or low-wage work–and disproportionately burdened on women
and non-white communities (Fulbre, 1994). In addition, those groups are overrepresented in the
formal care sector–from caregiving to custodial staff and cooks–and often have the double-
burden of providing care both at home and at work leaving less time to provide support in their
own communities (Dominguez & Watkins, 2003). Care work is foundational to reproduction and
generates tremendous value. Yet, this labor increasingly falls back on the household and its value
is absorbed and leveraged by capital.
There is significant overlap between care and social support–the term most commonly
used in public health and sociology (Turner, et al., 2014; Stockdale, et al., 2007; Sherbourne and
Stewart, 1991; Cobb, 1976; Cassel, 1976). The intersection between these concepts is clear in the
definition of social support, which relates to “a sense of being cared for and having someone
206
who would offer advice and provide help if necessary” (Giurgescu et al., 2015). Together, the
definitions for care and social support reference how we as humans depend on things outside of
our own labor to access material, informational, and emotional resources that is necessary to
survive. This chapter uses the term infrastructures of care to describe the networks of support
tenants rely on to maintain stable housing including family and friends, community
organizations, and government agencies. Altogether, an individual’s larger social context serves
as an important mediator of housing-related stressors and provides the foundation for a healthy
and meaningful life (Turner, et al., 2014; Stockdale, et al., 2007).
Infrastructures of care are increasingly overwhelmed due to the precarity manufactured
from racial capitalism (Simone, 2021; Peake et al., 2020; Bhattacharyya, 2018). Since the
inception of the U.S., the state and private sector have provided basic necessities required for life
and protections needed to sustain life according to a race-class hierarchy (Molina, 2006;
Robinson, 1983). Stressors and harms have been directed at communities of color through
processes of uneven development. Consequently, precarity has accumulated within certain
groups over time leaving some communities highly protected from shocks and crises while
others remain exposed and vulnerable to even minor disturbances (Butler, 2016A; Butler,
2016B). The coordination between the private and public sector that has occurred over the years
forms a ‘governance of precarity’ which allows these conditions to persist through the
retrenchment of social welfare spending, a failure to enforce renter and worker protections, and
the continuing exploitation of working class tenants.
Precarity generated from the rental crisis has made care work even more essential for
survival due to rising cost and displacement pressures. Working-class households rely on care
from one another in order to survive because the private market is unable to fulfill their needs
207
and the government has failed to offer sufficient renter and worker protections (Simone, 2021;
Mattern, 2018). Those same conditions, though, make it more difficult for residents to find the
time, resources, and energy to participate in their communities (Muñoz, 2018). Despite pressures
from the rental crisis, residents continue to show up for each other in whatever ways possible and
have retooled how they support their community in response to the emergence of new
constraints. As policymakers and planners, we need to ask ourselves how we can influence and
mitigate the stressors residents encounter through more equitable distribution of policy
protections and enforcement. We also need to better understand how infrastructures of care
influence residents decision-making and behaviors in response to the rental crisis so that we can
better support those struggling to find stability.
Family & Friends
Care from family and friends serves as an important dimension of residents’ housing
stability and day-to-day survival. In the past, social support from family and friends has been
operationalized in multiple forms ranging from the number of social contacts and availability of
human companionship to the strength of social networks and the social bonds that form them
(Turner, et al., 2014; Sherbourne and Stewart, 1991). Typically, these supports are sorted into
two categories of strong ties and weak ties (Small, 2009; Dominguez & Watkins, 2003). Strong
ties represent intimate relationships that provide emotional and material support such as loans,
transportation, meals, or temporary places to stay. In contrast, weak ties are large and dispersed
relationships that exist across various classes and communities. These relationships can help link
residents to opportunities that they may not have otherwise known including housing options, job
openings, or information regarding available resources and services. Overall, previous research
208
has demonstrated that the impact of housing stressors on health is mediated and reduced when
people have higher levels of social support (Liu, et al., 2017; Giurgescu, et al., 2015; Horan &
Widom, 2015; Stockdale, et al., 2007; Seeman, et al., 2002; Henderson, 1992; Cassel, 1976;
Cobb, 1976). Through both material and emotional support, care from family and friends helps
tenants cope with the demands of everyday life and provides additional agency over their
survivability.
The study of social support has origins in the concept of social capital, which advanced
the idea that value is derived from processes outside of production including social, cultural, and
symbolic resources (Carpiano, 2006; Yosso, 2005; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995; Lin,
1990; Lin, 1982; Bourdieu, 1986). Social capital describes the relationships in one’s life from
which formal resources and support can be derived (Dominguez & Watkins, 2003). Similar to
labor and housing, the distribution of social capital–and the ways it is differentially valued by
society–is segmented across race and class.
Due to generations of segregation, oppression, and dispossession, Black and Latino/a
communities have formed dense infrastructures of care to survive. However, many residents
have been locked into precarious positions for decades as have members of their wider
community, which limits their ability to seek out and take advantage of formal opportunities and
resources (Yosso, 2005). Because of these shared outcomes and constraints, communities of
color often have greater need and do not have the same material resources due to income and
wealth inequality, availability of time, or diversity in the types of support and information
offered as compared to whiter communities (Small, 2009; Dominguez & Watkins, 2003;
Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995).
209
It is important to note, though, that many Black and Latino/a communities remain
heterogeneous across classes and people forge important connections across groups through
familial ties, churches, and neighborhood organizations. Within these communities, place-based
infrastructure provides vital connections related to housing, employment, and day-to-day
supports needed to survive (Gibbons, 2018; Lipsitz, 2011; Telles, et al., 2009; Dominguez &
Watkins, 2003; Padilla, et al., 1988). In spite of these benefits, previous research has
demonstrated that the mediation effects of social support are conditioned by race and gender
(Erving, et al., 2021; Lincoln, et al., 2019; Liu, et al., 2017; Seeman, et al., 2002).
Negative social interactions play an important role in the stress process and can outweigh
the positive benefits of care (August et al., 2007). Community obligations around social support
may be time-consuming and lead to tensions with peers when expectations of reciprocity are not
met (Dominguez & Watkins, 2003). In addition, the sites of home and community are not
welcoming for all and can also be locations where residents experience isolation, threats, and
violence from family, friends, and neighbors (Joseph, 2002). This is particularly true for women
who are forced to take on the bulk of care work due to gender norms and socialization into these
roles (Fulbre, 1994). Furthermore, neighborhood change has introduced threats to residents’
infrastructures of care. As the affordable housing supply is reduced and original residents move
out, they have the potential to be replaced with newcomers that do not share the same culture,
histories, or needs, and therefore engage with community members in different ways (Newman
& Wiley, 2006; Freeman and Braconi, 2004; Atkinson, 2000; Smith & Williams, 1986). This
replacement depletes communities’ ability to replenish their networks. The infrastructures of care
found in South L.A. are rooted in place and took generations to build. Reliance on this
infrastructure can create stress when disruptions occur as residents have come to rely on these
210
supports to remain stable (Elliott-Cooper, et al., 2020; Shaw & Hageman, 2015; Freeman, 2011;
Atkinson, 2015).
Government & Organizations
Institutional support from organizations and government institutions serve a crucial role
in providing material resources, information, and accountability. In this paper, organizations are
defined as formalized groups of people and practices whose activities are focused around a
specific mission (Allard & Small, 2013). Government assistance on the other hand consists of
Section 8 vouchers, food stamps, welfare entitlement payments, job placements, and Medicaid.
Previous research has noted that access to resources among working class and impoverished
households is embedded within their interactions with organizations and the public sector (Small,
2009). The availability of funding and capacity of these institutions differs sharply across
communities. In addition, access and experiences in obtaining services varies across racial and
class groups (Moffitt, 2015; Soss, et al., 2011; Small, 2009; Gilmore, 2007; Dominguez &
Watkins, 2003). These inequities are the product of time constraints, language barriers, fear, lack
of outreach, and the durable legacy of racialized policies. Exclusionary practices have
concentrated wealth and tax dollars in white communities while framing communities of color as
undeserving and concentrating those groups into sections of the city with the fewest amenities
and resources despite higher needs (Lipsitz, 2011).
In South L.A., racialized policies and public neglect have forced residents to build their
own institutions and push for political power to carve out additional public resources
(Hondagneu-Sotelo & Pastor, 2021; Lipsitz, 2011; Valle & Torres, 2000). Organizations serve as
resource brokers by connecting residents to information, employment opportunities, government
211
agencies, and other non-profits that can serve their needs (Allard & Small, 2013). They serve as
an important site for residents to secure both material resources and emotional support. These
forms of care are particularly important because they exist outside of family and friend relations,
which come with their own set of expectations and pressures (Dominguez & Watkins, 2003).
Organizations allow residents to access reliable and confidential support on their own terms
without obligations to follow social norms that may exist in their own communities or externally
with government programs and the wider public. They also provide physical space to bring
people together, form community, organize, and facilitate the construction of ties between
residents, service providers, and government entities to enforce their rights (Small, 2006).
Through these practices of congregation and social interaction, residents come to understand
their surroundings and the conditions they face on a daily basis. Thus, organizations influence
the choices, opportunities, and forms of resistance available to residents.
Previous studies have found organizational support acts as a mediator for stressors and
can help buffer–or ease–the impacts of unexpected life events (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001;
Thoits, 1995; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Billings & Moos, 1981). Renters that face obstacles in
participating in community organizations and accessing their related resources, therefore, are at a
significant disadvantage in achieving housing stability and survivability. This is particularly true
for immigrants whose fear of deportation creates obstacles to access and incentives for avoidance
with regards to organizations and social service providers (Menjívar, 2018; Menjívar, 2012;
Capps, et al, 2002; Valle & Torres, 2000). Past research has also demonstrated that the presence
of organizations is effective in addressing social problems like crime and displacement–although
they often face limited capacity given the magnitude of these issues which makes it difficult to
address their underlying drivers (Sharkey, et al., 2017; Newman & Wyly, 2006). In South L.A.
212
community members and organizations have worked together to improve school outcomes,
reduce crime, and fix up the built environment, which laid the foundation for the resurgence in
public and private investment that has flowed back into the area since 2010 (Hondagneu-Sotelo
& Pastor, 2021).
Since the 1980’s, federal and state governments have drastically reduced their
involvement in the provision of care (Williams, 2020; Gilmore, 2007). In California,
retrenchment began in response to the tax revolt movement in late 1970’s and recession of 1981-
82, which forced spending cuts to social programs (Wolch, 1996). As budget deficits swelled and
impoverished households in need of assistance quickly expanded, social spending became the
favored target for austerity. Millions of dollars in cuts to the social safety net were implemented
by the state of California and local government in Los Angeles during this period. Physical and
mental health clinics, food stamp outlets, and welfare offices were targeted for closure–with
virtually all located in the poorest areas of L.A. county including multiple locations in South Los
Angeles (Wolch, 1996). The explicit goal of these spending cuts and facility closures was to
discourage enrollment and make the process of applying and qualifying more onerous (Soss, et
al., 2011). Furthermore, government retrenchment has persisted up to the present. Federal
welfare reform in 1996 increased hurdles for eligibility across the U.S. and limited access to
social programs for immigrants. In addition, reductions to social spending occurred at all levels
of government again following the Great Recession of 2008-09 due to decreased tax collections
(Pastor, 2018).
Throughout these periods of retrenchment, care was reframed through the lens of
personal responsibility in popular culture and government actions. The personal responsibility
narrative ignores the structural conditions, historical legacies, and private market failures that
213
have led to unequal outcomes and inequitable distribution of public sector resources and
protections. Stigma developed around those receiving public benefits and a narrative of
deservingness was generated to justify cuts (Moffitt, 2015; Soss, et al., 2011). Stigma is defined
as an attribute–or set of attributes–that conveys a social identity that is devalued and discrediting
(Crocker & Major, 1989; Goffman, 1963). To attach stigma to a particular identity requires
power. Stigmatization is dependent on economic, social, and political power to carry out
processes of labeling, stereotyping, discrimination, and status loss by a dominant group (Link &
Phelan, 2001). Thus, stigma describes the cluster of processes that facilitate the identification of
difference. It also speaks to the social and cultural elements of racial capitalism that will be
required to change if we want to address the fundamental cause of health disparities
(Hatzenbuehler, et al, 2013). Attitudes, beliefs, and power relations dictate how public resources,
protections, and life chances are distributed.
In public discourse around welfare reform in the 1980’s and 1990’s, politicians evoked
racist images of ‘welfare queens’ and ‘deadbeat dads’ pointed at Black communities while
positioning Latino/a immigrants as non-contributing members of society (Pastor, 2018; Gilmore,
2007; Wolch, 1996). In turn, politicians shifted funding to policing and imprisonment. Over
time, governmental social programs became increasingly punitive, limited the number of people
qualifying for services, and made it difficult for those accepted into programs to maintain
consistent benefits. Participants are now forced to acquiesce to intrusions in privacy by
disclosing sensitive information and limits to their agency by relinquishing control over daily
behaviors (Siliunas, et al., 2019). These changes are meaningful not only because they make it
more difficult for impoverished residents to acquire the resources needed to survive, but also
because social stigma is strong predictor of stress and health inequities (Hatzenbuehler, et al.,
214
2013; Link & Phelan, 2001). The negative social interactions that recipients must endure to
receive and use benefits are stress producing in their own right.
Community organizations remain an integral part of residents’ infrastructures of care and
long-term survivability. As the public sector has withdrawn from the provision of social support,
they have moved to contract out services and transfer community development responsibilities to
the nonprofit and private sectors (Bockmeyer, 2003; O’Connor, 1996; McCarthy & Zald, 1973).
Social spending is presently at its highest level ever, but funds have been redistributed away
from the poorest families and single-parent households to older adults, disability programs,
married parent families, and those with higher incomes (Moffitt, 2015). Subsequently, the public
safety net in Los Angeles remains inadequate. City and county programs are unable to provide
enough for working class families to achieve stability and remain above the poverty line because
of consistent underfunding and limited enrollment capacity (De Gregorio, et al., 2021). Despite
having 20% of the city’s population and 34% of residents receiving public assistance, South Los
Angeles receives just 13% of the overall city budget targeted for public services and 8% of the
funds invested in municipal, recreational, and cultural facilities (Muraida & Wat, 2020).
Communities of color are disproportionately responsible for providing care work that we as
society need to sustain. Yet, these activities are undervalued resulting in greater need for
assistance. Government retrenchment has left those communities unable to receive the care they
need in return (Peake, et al., 2020; Mattern, 2018; Wolch, 1996, Fulbre, 1994, hooks, 1990).
Findings
To structure the analysis of tenants’ survival tactics and functional adjustments, two hypotheses
were formed to guide the analysis:
215
H1: Residents internalize the increased costs and uncertainty associated with the rental crisis by
cutting back on the consumption and making functional adjustments simultaneously.
Consumption cutbacks will have a negative relationship with stress, functional adjustments will
have a null relationship because of mixed effects from increased agency but and greater levels of
exhaustion.
H2: Survival strategies will differ by race. Latino/a tenants will be more likely to cutback on
consumption due to mixed status families and higher proportion of immigrants. Families will
also be more likely reduce consumption because of greater expenses due to household size. No
significant differences with functional adjustments.
Consumption Cut-backs
Among both focus groups and survey participants, cutting back on basic necessities had
become a common way of coping with increased housing costs. As one resident put simply, “It's
a struggle. I do without quite a bit of things to pay that rent.” Most frequently discussed in focus
groups were cutbacks to food, delaying bill payments and taking on debt, and reducing spending
on entertainment and family activities. This aligned with survey results which found that
residents had 61.9%, 55.0%, and 52.6% of participants had cut back in these areas respectively in
the past two years (see Table 6.1).
With regards to food, tenants discussed how this impacted their ability to eat healthy by
forcing them to reduce their consumption of fruits and vegetables, milk, and meat, “We had to
cut back on food, because it did get really expensive, so it's hard. This following week my brother
got paid and he bought all this fruit. I'm like, 'Oh, there's fruit'. I don't know, it's just mostly get
216
fruits monthly, not weekly or daily.” To put this in perspective, doctors suggest five serving of
fruits and vegetables daily for a healthy diet (Godman, 2021). Residents are literally depriving
themselves of the sustenance needed to survive and maintain wellbeing.
Renters have also become adept at managing their expenses in order to stay housed. They
understand which bills can be delayed to minimize penalties and those that must be paid
immediately, “Its true, rent is going up so quickly, everything I have goes to my child their food
and clothes, and rent...I'm constantly chasing bills. I pay gas then pay the light, pay, whatever
the most expensive or whatever is most urgent, but I also need to realize the penalties if you don't
pay rent on time or eviction so that has to come first.” This is not to say, however, that this
process is without stress in its own right. Tenants were consistently negotiating survival amidst
competing expenses leading to stress and exhaustion, “It's always the rent the rent the rent, bills
bills...[in in an ideal world] I would just be able to afford these things, to not have to worry.”
In focus groups, residents also consistently stated the impact of reduced spending on their
activities outside the home which had allowed them to relax and have fun with their loved ones
in the past. This was particularly acute for residents with children. As a focus group participant
shared, “We are living a critical economy, in what has been the cost of living, it is very high, and
that is what is affecting the community a lot, because we are depriving ourselves of many things,
of taking our children out to walk, to go to eat at a restaurant, to take them to a place that they
can have fun, not anymore.” It is important to note that these small sources of joy such as going
out to eat or seeing a movie are essential to health as well–especially mentally and emotionally.
Renters sacrifice their ability to experience the city and the surrounding amenities from which
they are supposed to benefit. If residents do not have the time, energy, or resources to enjoy the
new benefits brought by neighborhood change, it impedes the positive effects of investment.
217
218
Significant differences were noted across rent burden status and racial groups (see Table
6.1). Although rent burdened tenants were more likely to cut back in every consumption area,
differences were only significant for clothing and transit. This speaks to the shared circumstances
that many community members face in South Los Angeles and the widespread sacrifices being
made to survive. Latino/a households were more likely to cut back on food and clothing, but less
likely to reduce spending on transit as compared to Black residents. Latino/a renters were also
more likely to cut back on health care expenses and education, but these differences were not
significant. This matches the data collected before focus groups as well–in that setting Latino/a
tenants were significantly more likely to reduce spending on food, utilities, and health care as
compared to Black households.
As will be explored in greater detail later, Latino/a renters are significantly less likely to
receive assistance from government or organizations. While information was not collected on
documentation status specifically in the survey, significant differences were noted in the
presence of immigrants between Black and Latino/a households. For Black residents, only 5.7%
of households had at least one foreign born adult and 3.2% were all foreign born adults. In
contrast, 86.6% and 38.7% of Latino/a households had one more foreign born adult and all
foreign born adults respectively (author calculations not displayed). Thus, these differences in
cut backs are most likely due to difficulties accessing public programs for immigrant families–
such as food stamps, utility subsidies, and Medicaid–who either cannot qualify or may not know
about their existence.
Consumption cutbacks do not occur in isolation. The sacrifices residents make cluster
together and accumulate over time, “I don't have money for the food, I get calls from the bill
collectors and tell them how can I pay when I need to keep my home, I don't want to end up on
219
the street without a home, but its difficult.” In South L.A., 57.7% of residents had reduced
spending on 3 or more basic needs (author calculations not displayed). These tactics also had the
potential to last for years (Rosen, et al., 2022B). Consequently, consumption cutbacks—while
life-preserving in the short-term—can make residents more insecure over time as they exhaust
available coping mechanisms. In focus groups, many participants shared that they had little room
to cut back or adjust consumption further than they had already done, “Either we buy gasoline or
we buy milk for children. We see their needs. We can not buy meat anymore...They take
everything away from us and leave us more stuck than anything. So it's to be seen how we are
going to subsist, because we are in times that we can not anymore. We already decided on milk
or gasoline.” After paying rent and buying food staples participants shared they had very limited
income left over at the end of the month. That is, the cut-backs residents make are in fact not
choices at all. Residents are cutting back wherever possible and this is often still not enough to
gain stability. As a participant said, “We are all in the same situation of the rent, food, bills and
how are we going to make enough to survive.”
Because residents had already reduced their spending on essentials as much as possible,
they were also unable to save and plan for the future, “Another thing that I, or many people
sacrifice, is that we do not save for retirement. We all live day by day, people are not thinking
about that. Many people do not think about that sacrifice” Tenants were living paycheck to
paycheck, one unexpected shock away from not being able to afford their homes, “I was very
fortunate, but once you lose a job or you lose a status, you lose a spouse or whatever, you're
living off of stuff that you saved. I've had two 401Ks, but where do they go? They went from me
just trying to make it, and I had high-level jobs.” Moreover, residents that were able to save cited
this as a major determinant of staying housed, “I would keep it for lean times. Because if I had
220
not saved money while I worked, I do not know how I would have done it…But if I had not had
that money, I would really have ended up on the street.” For many, however, saving for the
future was simply not an option because they were barely making ends meet. Many residents
were taking on debt by either not paying bills or taking on debt through credit cards, “My bills is
almost as much if not more than my rent. I'm not even breaking even, it's bad, it's a struggle.”
Table 6.2: Survival Regression
Model 1 Model 2
Consumption Cutbacks (Dummy) Coefficient P-Value Coefficient P-Value
Food 0.38 0.66
Health 3.43 0.00***
Clothing -0.74 0.42
Education 2.57 0.03***
Transit -0.36 0.70
Bills & Debt 2.56 0.00***
Entertainment & Family Activities 2.63 0.00***
Cluster Effect
1 Cutback 1.52 0.29
2 Cutbacks 1.72 0.23
3 Cutbacks 4.59 0.00***
4 Cutbacks 5.31 0.00***
Functional Adjustment (Dummy)
Additional Hours & Jobs 1.08 0.22 1.67 0.07**
Additional People -0.85 0.40 -0.69 0.51
Social Support (Dummy)
Family 2.17 0.08** 1.97 0.13*
Friends -0.03 0.98 0.01 0.99
Government 2.27 0.01*** 1.99 0.02***
Organizations -2.12 0.04*** -1.61 0.14*
Neighborhood Satisfaction -1.56 0.06*** -1.78 0.04***
Affordability
Rent Burden (Dummy) -3.38 0.01*** -3.59 0.01***
Rent Quintile -0.02 0.95 0.03 0.92
Income Quintile -0.63 0.11* -0.72 0.09**
Demographics
Education -0.50 0.21 -0.41 0.33
Age -0.02 0.41 -0.04 0.23
Race – Black (Dummy) -0.30 0.74 -0.22 0.82
Total Observations 301 301
221
Families were particularly hard hit due to increased expenses related to household size
and the need for caregiving, “I know how to save, its just that [laughs] if I got to pay over $1,000
a month and I have kids in daycare, what am I going to do?” The various survival tactics
tenants’ used led to stress throughout the entire family. Survey results demonstrated that families
were significantly more likely to cut back on food and clothing as compared to non-families (see
Table 6.1). In focus groups, parents also spoke to the ways they had been forced to reduce
spending on education and extracurriculars supporting previous research (Newman & Holupka,
2015; Newman & Holupka, 2016). One participant shared how this had changed in response to
rising rents specifically, “When younger, our girls could go to extra things and activities outside
of school. At this moment they are going to stay at home. Now we have limited that.”
The children we spoke to revealed that parents were trying to shield them from the
difficult cutbacks made, but were ultimately still exposed, “I would ask myself [about parents]
‘weren’t they struggling to pay the bills last week?’ But, they tell me not to worry about it and to
not get a job, just worry about school. But I want to help because I see them struggling.”
Another child shared the ways this reduction had impacted their relationships and future outlook,
“One year the lights and everything was cut off for like a month and I was staying with my
granny and she applied for food stamps and they gave her like 200 food stamps and she wouldn't
eat or sleep because she was working back to back mornings through night. I didn't understand
because I was little, but as I grew up I felt the pain that she did because she wasn't there to
provide for me at a young age and now that I see it I help her with food and stuff now.” Being
unable to save for the future also pertained to parents’ ability to invest in themselves, “I wanted
to go back to school for so long, but because I had to work…I couldn't afford the opportunity,
because I had to stay struggling, stay hustling to keep them [my kids] straightened and warm
222
and comfortable, and roof over their head. So that prevented me from furthering my education so
I couldn't get out of that box...So, it's like, What do you do? Do you stay down? Do you pay rent
or do you educate yourself? Which one is it?”
Examining the implications of consumption cutbacks on stress revealed statistically
significant relationships. Reductions in spending to health, education, debt, and entertainment
and family activities were each correlated to significant increases in stress that were relatively
large in magnitude (see Table 6.2). One participant shared their experience regarding healthcare,
which was not representative in its specifics but illustrates how concern over rent and retaining
housing stability has become overbearing for many households, “Four years ago it happened to
me that I had to be admitted for emergency cancer…For me it was very stressful because I was
like, 'How am I going to pay the rent?'...I asked that they not give me chemotherapy treatment or
doctor's medicine. I said, 'My God, if I'm going to die, I'm going to die.' I do not want the
government to say your mother died and you have to pay money.” Furthermore, there is a
compounding effect of consumption cutbacks with larger clusters and longer cut backs
associated with increasingly bigger impacts on stress (author calculation not displayed for
cutback durations).
Altogether, the data presented in this section provide a more detailed understanding of
consumption cutbacks and their contribution to the stress process model. In the immediate,
material hardships affect sustenance, access to health care, and generate anxiety about meeting
basic needs. Over the long term, residents that continually went without essentials expressed
feelings of hopelessness that they would be able to regain stability and an accumulated sense of
being overwhelmed from the ongoing daily sacrifices needed to survive. It is in this consistent
and ongoing struggle to achieve affordability and stability that stress is produced. These data
223
reveal the ways residents manage their expenses and stretch their incomes to preserve housing.
Consumption cutbacks serve as important mechanisms of stress production and generated in
response to the rental crisis.
Functional adjustments
As affordability continues to decline in Los Angeles–pulling renters’ disposable income
and savings down with it–households are forced to not only cut back on consumption goods, but
also make larger adjustments in their day-to-day lives. Renters made adjustments to their housing
and employment situations to boost their incomes and cut expenses. These functional
adjustments altered the material conditions tenants navigated on a daily basis. In the survey
results, 17.7% had added people to their homes and 26.8% of respondents took on additional
hours or jobs (see Table 6.1). No significant differences were noted between rent burdened and
non-burdened households, however. Focus group data was consistent with survey results for
rent-burdened households with 25.2% living with additional people and 29.5% of adults taking
on additional jobs or hours to afford their homes as compared to 20.4% and 27.8% respectively
for survey respondents. Furthermore, Latino/a households were significantly more likely to add
people to their homes, 21.5%, as compared to Black renters, 10.1%. This was also true for
families with children versus non-families with 21.4% and 12.9% making living adjustments
respectively. Across racial groups and family status, no significant differences were noted for
adjustments to their labor.
In regards to housing adjustments, residents frequently mentioned moving in with family
members or friends to reduce the cost of housing. Focus groups participants also discussed
renting out their bedrooms or using platforms such as AirBnB to help cover rent, “When I do not
224
have much money, I rent my bedroom and sleep in the living room.” Of those making functional
adjustments to housing, 87.3% lived in overcrowded conditions with more than 1.5 people per
room. In OLS regression estimates, there was not a significant impact on stress for those that had
moved in with more people, though (see Table 6.2). Some residents stated that these adjustments
to housing added stress through crowding while others felt it provided a degree of agency by
allowing them to retain control over their homes, “It's a continuous struggle and I can't save up
money even though I make a little more than other people but I can't do that and still make rent.
So it gets to the point where family and friends have to live together to get by. I'm living in a
house with 5 bedrooms with 10 people and it's tough. It's still a struggle trying to make things
work.”
Additionally, focus group respondents shared that they had adjusted their housing quality
and location to achieve greater affordability. Focus group data showed 16.6% of participants had
moved to lower quality units and 25.9% moved to neighborhoods that felt less safe or were
further away from their job in the previous two years. These moves deteriorated residents’
satisfaction with their living conditions and contributed to feelings of being overwhelmed due to
the struggles of finding safe, stable housing, “The second [home] we had to move because it was
not a safe area, the crime increased when we were there, we were victims of crime, they entered
to rob our house. Our family was at risk. Now we live in an area that is not the best…two people
have been killed outside our house and 15 deaths in the last year. It is a dangerous area. We do
not go out at night and we are careful for the children. We want to leave but the rent is so high
that we can not.” Residents’ mobility was shaped by their survivability. They attempted to
leverage survival tactics and infrastructures of care as long as possible in order to hold onto their
homes–even if this led to additional stress exposure. As their ability to adjust income and
225
expenses became depleted, moving represented one of the few options left. With limited housing
choices, this mobility had the potential for long-lasting, negative effects as renters were forced to
simply take whatever units were available and affordable rather than seeking out housing that
met their needs or improved access to opportunity.
For functional adjustments to labor, tenants reported working longer hours and engaging
in informal work to earn extra income as well as combining their full-time employment with
part-time or side jobs to make ends meet. A focus group participant spoke to the pressures of
growing unaffordability and the need to work longer to stay afloat, “I've had to pick up other
jobs to support the rising rent and just live here in South LA and so, right now, I'm working two
jobs and I'm working odd jobs here and there to support my family.” People were literally doing
anything they could to earn enough income to maintain stable housing, which often entailed
working nearly around the clock, “I am a housekeeper and in the nights I work for uber and on
weekends. I also learned how to make earrings and things to sell in the building.”
Informal work occurred in a variety of ways from making and selling food, driving for
platforms like Lyft, and collecting and recycling metal. Renters were motivated to remain in
place and additional work was one of the few remaining ways they could adjust, “Anything to
make ends meet- it's difficult. But the fact that we have the drive to not want to leave and move
out means that you do what you can do to survive. You just do whatever you can do to make ends
meet. Aluminum. It's difficult. But we don't want to leave and move far out but you do what you
can to survive.” Another parent described three types of care work she engaged in to survive, “I
do the signature group [door-to-door ballot collections] and I also do caregiving on the side. I'm
a CNA and I love to be a CNA. I have four children and it is very important, I think, today
226
because as a mother of four, trying to pay a rent of $1,800 a month is very hard. I do as much as
I can. I do gigs here and gigs there.”
Similar to housing adjustments, residents reflected that additional hours and side jobs
granted them some agency over managing expenses and allowed them to subsist, “I do notice
that other people's rent has been raised. They take matters into their hands to make ends meet. I
know they take more jobs, or they'll drop their kids off somewhere so they have more time to
work.” Many framed side jobs as a form of resistance that allowed them to stay in place, “I'm a
survivor, I'm a hustler, I do what I've got to do to pay my rent. Nothing illegal, but I do jobs that
I just wish I never did them. I went to college for doing better, it's hard.” Another person shared,
“We find out in South LA in our community that we are entrepreneurs. If we not making that
money on the job. We come home, we're going to serve some dinners, we going to do some hair,
we going to do some babysitting, we going to get out there have some yard sales. We turn into
entrepreneurs not even knowing that we actually having our own business, outside our job.”
This labor came at a cost alongside the agency it granted. In focus groups, residents
stated that they sacrificed free time and sleeping hours in order to work more, “In my case I have
to sacrifice my weekends to work. In your free time you have to look for work to have something
extra.” Tenants saw this as a necessary sacrifice to give them stability in the moment and the
ability to achieve mobility later on–either to pursue opportunities or escape harmful
circumstances. This was related when a participant said, “I worked 16 hours each day as a
janitor in Century City. I had two jobs to pay for my medical assistant certificate. I slept only 3
hours. That's the only way I could get out of where I was and get the medical assistant degree.”
This matched a survey follow-up question that asked respondents how additional work had
affected their lives–29.1% felt it harmed their mental health, 61.8% reported decreased sleep,
227
and 56.4% experienced decreased time with family. Moreover, OLS regression results provided
some evidence that those taking on additional jobs and hours faced heightened stress depending
on model specification (see Table 6.2).
Precarious labor arrangements and the need for additional income had spillover effects
which impacted the entire household. A focus group participant shared, “I went to work, I left
from 5:00 AM and left until 7:00 PM, for my children I had to neglect them a lot. There were
even times when they did not show up at school. My son had other friends who tricked him into
skipping classes, they left school, they went to the streets…I tell him, 'Something can happen to
you, I am in my job and you are in the street, it's not right, I'm killing myself here”. Children and
young adults also began to take on work in order to help their families afford the costs of
survival. As a youth participant stated, “I had to grow up fast. A lot of the times I don’t pay for
rent. Sometimes I get stipend jobs for CC, at most like $250 at a time. I don’t throw that all into
rent. Sometimes I wonder should I, or should I not? so that I don’t have to ask my mom for
money, so she doesn’t have to worry about me until that money runs out. I have to stop going out
so much, stop being a teenager, should I stay after school, is there food at the house?” Another
person shared how the employment of their sibling–another young adult–was driven by their
parent’s precarious labor arrangement, “My brother started to work because rent has started to
go up, and other things like gas, he works at an oil refinery in Long Beach. He likes it though.
He decided to do it because my mom's job wasn't paying what it used to so she pays rent, but he
also helps her pay rent with his job”
These difficult sacrifices were stress producing for both parents and children. As parents
shift their living and work arrangements, children receive less guidance and space needed to
experiment, study, and grow. This was evidenced from a parent saying, “We have always wanted
228
to move to a bigger place but the situation of the rent does not help us. We have to decide
between sacrificing time with the family and working more or living in a more comfortable
place.” Another participant made the connection between rising costs of living, extended labor
requirements, and effects on parenting explicit, “It impacts all of us here and our kids because
we're not there...They blame the fathers, the parents of the kids, well that's not it. If we don't get
out there and work to pay this rent, how can we take care of them? If we have a low rent, we can
take care of our kids, but these $1500, $2000, we can't pay that rent every month. We don't have
it. So for some of us have to have two to three jobs working to make that one month rent. Some of
us have to pay a babysitter and believe me, that's another part of the rent…So mostly it's the kids
that is getting the worst part of this…[we can’t be there] to keep them from off the streets, to be
there with them in that house, to see when they come, you're doing your homework.” The impacts
of affordability, then, are not restricted to reduced education spending, but also alterations in the
social conditions and behaviors that allow students to find success.
Although most parents tried to be involved with their children’s lives and education, the
increased demands of survival from unaffordability and neighborhood change made it difficult to
devote sufficient time, “I paid rent all that time working, not being with my daughters, not seeing
them. I'm an involved parent. I like to go to school board meetings. I like to go to church and a
lot of times, I had to work.” Parents also tried to shield their children from stressors related to the
rental crisis, but often found this to be a difficult task, “It is very frustrating for us as dads and to
see how the children try to save one or two dollars and give it to us to help and see the need. And
that is what hurts the most to see that your son gives you a dollar and says 'look mommy here I
will help you with this.' I think that's the most frustrating and exasperating.” Parents felt loss in
229
their sense of agency because they were unable to protect their families from the stressors they
faced.
Within focus groups, participants noted that these experiences were community-wide and
led to deteriorated sense of belonging and ability to look after one another. This was echoed in
the words of a young adult, “A lot of my neighbors and a lot of my friends have either had to
move and then starting commuting to work or school, or they just have to start renting off
sections of their apartment or houses to make ends meet. Or, take a two or three additional jobs.
If a lot of the kids or family members are minors, it's mostly the father or the mother who are the
primary caregivers so they don't see their kids because they're working so many hours to, A, pay
rent and keep a roof over their houses, and B, give them food and the necessary things to go to
school. Try to get over that.” The survival strategies tenants use, then, have the potential to
create new constraints on their access to social support and care, “You lose time, you don’t see
your parents. When we still lived on 76th my mom had to take a random job taking care of old
ladies and some lady asked her to stay 24 hours so we had to stay alone. It was illegal, she didn’t
like it but she made good money and we needed it. It’s hard. You lose your family, yourself and
your connections. It’s sad that basic necessities are not accessible”
Those making functional adjustments often clustered multiple survival tactics together–
29.9% of respondents engaging in a functional adjustment had made alterations to both housing
and employment. Precarious housing and precarious work interacted with one another to produce
stress, “Its always been difficult to pay the rent because things just pile up and my parents
weren't getting paid for a while. They worked with sewing machines and were getting exploited.
It got to the point where we put up a wall and called it a room so we could rent it out, and me
and my brothers all shared the other room to be able to pay rent. We built that one room to pay
230
rent. It's always been difficult. It's always been difficult because we have those two rooms that
we pay rent, and my sister pays rent, but my parents work 6am to midnight still.” Furthermore,
91.5% of survey respondents engaging in functional adjustments made consumption cutbacks
simultaneously. This was illustrated when a focus group participant shared, “We rent a room in
our home. We limit our recreations, we go only once a month to the cinema, we avoid clothing
expenses, vacations and we are very sedentary. We are more at home, working and home.” In
contrast, roughly 35.4% of respondents making consumption cutbacks engaged in functional
adjustments.
Despite many residents engaging in functional adjustments, these alterations were
difficult to make and not possible for the majority of survey participants. In focus groups,
residents stated that they either did not have time for additional work or had trouble locating
better paying jobs that would ultimately help their stability. Tenants also stated that their housing
arrangements were often fixed because they did not have room for extra people or their landlords
did not permit additional household members. Altogether, this suggests that 1) functional
adjustments are used secondary to consumption cutbacks and made after other tactics have been
exhausted and 2) adjustments to housing and employment are not available to everyone.
Nonetheless, through the range of survival tactics used, tenants made meaningful adjustments to
their consumption, labor, and living situations. These tactics altered their ability to survive
moving forward as well as their income and expenses which underlie metrics of affordability
typically studied in secondary data sets like rent burden and residual income.
Overall, residents faced an extremely restricted choice set in navigating growing
precarity. The stress produced from survival tactics accumulated over time as conditions
persisted and diminished residents’ quality of life. Tenants were left in increasingly precarious
231
situations after changing their behavior out of necessity and internalizing the costs of
reproduction. In turn, this made it difficult to engage in practices of care such as watching over
children, preparing adequate food, and finding space to rest. After years of subsisting at the
margins, tenants stated they had few survival tactics left at their disposal having already cut back
on basic needs and making functional adjustments wherever possible. This had left them
exhausted from the demands of daily survival. A tenant illustrated the mental and emotional toll
by saying, “These issues are difficult because they affect us personally. We have been in critical
things, and we have excelled with the help of God. There is no other way to say it and we have
battled a lot ... We come here [organization] for that, to have hope, to look for resources and see
what we can do so that the system does not eat us, that it does not finish us. It is finishing us.”
For those that were able, functional adjustments gave residents some degree of stability
needed to survive. Those adjustments also contributed to the reproduction of the capitalist system
by working longer hours and accepting inadequate housing arrangements. The survival tactics
laid out in this section demonstrate how capital has reallocated production costs onto households,
retained a supply of cheap labor, and preserved economic rents from housing. Moreover, survival
tactics resulted in the creation of new stressors for Black and Latino/a households and left them
more vulnerable to future shocks. By understanding the conditions tenants navigate and the
survival tactics they use to survive those conditions, we observe the reproduction of inequality in
real-time.
232
Infrastructures of Care
To structure the analysis of infrastructures of care, two hypotheses were formed to guide the
analysis:
H3:Family and friends will have a null or weakly negative relationship with perceived stress
because the rental crisis has depleted the infrastructures of care that tenants relied on in the past
for social support.
H4: Government retrenchment and stigma associated with public programs will result in a null
or weakly positive relationship to stress.
H5: Under-funding of community organizations will result in a null relationship with stress.
Families & Friends
Despite the difficult sacrifices residents used to remain housed, they continued to resist
the false choice between essentials and rent through mutual aid, “We know each other. So
sometimes we have a BBQ with our friends, group up, have some food, loan some money, little
things you do for each other, I helped him pay my rent once, he helped me cook for
Thanksgiving. It adds up.” Among survey respondents, 36.3% had at least some family nearby
they could rely on for support and 52.0% had at least some friends in close proximity (see Table
6.1). Rent burdened households were significantly less likely to have family living close, but no
significant differences were noted with regards to friends. In addition, Latino/a households were
significantly more likely to live nearby family that could offer support as compared to Black
residents, 40.9% versus 27.1% respectively, and families were also more likely to have outside
family members in proximity when contrasted against non-families, 39.9% versus 31.7%
233
respectively. No significant differences were noted for social support provided by friends across
racial groups and family status.
Practices of care came in a variety of forms and helped residents in areas they had been
forced cut back economically, socially, and emotionally. The majority of people–more than 60%
of survey participants–said they could rely on a variety of supports from family and friends. This
ranged from borrowing tools or helping with car issues to helping out with paperwork or offering
a temporary place to stay. Residents noted that this helped lighten some of their sacrifices and
mediated stress in their day-to-day life, “I'm fortunate enough that some of my family members
live on the same block as me. We're pretty close. There could be family issues, but we're always
there for each other. If it's like, 'Can you give so and so a ride? I can help you pay for gas'. Or,
'Is there anyway that if you have this, can I borrow some? I'll get it back to you'. Things like that.
If you know that someone has something that you need, we don't hesitate to reach out because in
the end family's there to help you out no matter what. It doesn't necessarily need to be
financially. It could be like, 'Can I just come over and stay awhile with you, because I need to get
out of this situation?' Or, 'I just need a break. I just need to hang out with someone.' They are
always there for you.”
The care infrastructure tenants relied upon was also multigenerational and
multidirectional. Grandparents and young adults provided daycare that allowed parents to work
extra hours or took on work themselves to contribute to rent, “I feel the support we've had from
my grandma because she's five, six blocks away from our house. Say there's no one in our house
and because we don't want to leave my little brother. We send him to her house where she can
take care of him for a day or two...my grandma's kind of helped us, like, for a few years.
Sometimes when we're low on cash, we would ask my grandpa for a bit of cash for us to pass by
234
the month or for my brother's education.” On the other hand, many of the older adults in focus
groups spoke to the importance of their children in helping them remain in stable housing, “I
have my children, my grandchildren helping me...My children give people like me an opportunity
to really live comfortably without worrying about would I get my check? Would I pay my rent?”
Additionally, family and friends offered important assistance related to housing mobility
by serving as an emergency cushion that provided temporary shelter or assistance in finding
adequate housing options after forced moves. Many tenants had either opened their home to
family members or received a place to stay while they found new housing arrangements, “We
moved in to my uncle's for a while...That's the point where we couldn't afford certain needs, like
we couldn't even afford a mattress. We had to sleep on the floor, and there were no mattress. I
got a job then, and my father ended up getting a job...That's one way that we had begun to afford
any type of living arrangements that we have. Even then, it's hard to get a job. My father is
trying to always find ways to get more money. That's the way that we have lived. Now, we're in a
situation really not knowing what's going to happen next.” Family and friends helped locate
affordable homes as well that were often difficult to find independently, “One of my father's
friends that had to move out of the house and had to live in a car for a couple of weeks or
months. They just went to hotels and stuff because they couldn't afford housing anymore…Right
now, since our neighbor moved, he told them about the opportunity like, 'Hey, there's this room'.
He talked with the owner, too, 'I know this guy who wants to rent a place out because they don't
have nowhere to go.'” These practices provided a buffer for the stress associated with mobility
and attempted to increase the potential for positive moves by matching housing options more
closely to tenants’ needs.
235
The mediation effects of care on stress were not detected for friends and family in
regression estimates (see Table 6.2). The OLS results suggest that the relationship between
support from friends and stress was statistically insignificant whereas those respondents with
more family nearby actually experienced an increased level of stress. This was somewhat
surprising because focus group participants consistently talked about the importance of friends
and family to stability. Informal supports from their surrounding community represented one of
the few lifelines residents had available to meet basic needs of survival, “We really have great
need in that the rent is very high and we have to try to help each other because it is the only
thing that we have left.” However, residents also discussed how participation and reciprocation
in infrastructures of care could be stress producing and restricted their mobility because of
limited time and resources.
Residents’ mentioned they were often in similar situations as others in their community,
which reveals why this infrastructure of care may no longer be acting as a significant buffer, “I
don't have anybody that would help me to do anything...My father died in October this new year.
Basically, I have my cousin. Everybody else has been away. You have to go a couple of miles to
go see them and all that. They're all doing the same thing, living from paycheck to paycheck. It's
like do for yourself, and that's how I've always been taught.” Although no significant differences
were noted across racial groups or family status, rent burdened households–which were the
majority of survey respondents–received significantly less total supports from family and friends
as compared to those non-rent burdened (author calculation not displayed). This suggests that
rent burdened tenants may be more constrained by their financial situation and the labor required
to afford rent, which reduces capacity to provide support. Tenants spoke to how they help each
other out where they can, but recognize that this is largely insufficient, “There's family and
236
friends that provide emotional support. They'll listen to you, but as in financial, not really.” The
impacts of the rental crisis, therefore, were not isolated at the individual or household level, and
instead had widespread, community level impacts.
Additionally, focus group participants mentioned the communal stress that was exerted
when family members and friends suffered alongside them in an attempt to survive and resist the
pressures of displacement. An adult participant shared “Every community thinks about the rent.
Because since rent gets jacked up really bad, the community gets really disconnected because
they move so often. It's like you stay isolated with your own family or people that you're around.”
In total, 76.3% of survey participants had experienced a decline in social support from family
and neighbors in the past 2 years. Displacement at the community level not only led to negative
spillover effects on residents’ infrastructures of care, but also introduced new stressors from the
functional adjustments that were required to provide temporary housing support. A youth
participant shared, “I had two cousins that were kicked out of their house and they have 3 kids. I
was living in a 3 bedroom…My mother had her own room, but 2 cousins slept in my room and
they each have their own kids, so it was like 9 people living in my room. I had to move my bed
around and clean up my closet and they were all living in my room, all loud and stuff…My mom
made a sacrifice because our landlord said only 3 to 4 people could live there, but there was like
15 people living there in total.”
For many residents, reliance on infrastructures of care restricted their mobility as they
attempted to remain proximate to support, “San Bernardino is good. Hemet is good. Victorville.
My thing is, I belong to a church on Crenshaw and Hardy, and I love my church. My church is
good. I don't want to have to commute, because it's not even worth the money…Your rental car,
gas, it's just too much. Therefore, I don't want to go to far, but may have too.” This was
237
particularly true for immigrant and Latino/a households that depended more heavily on nearby
family and friends because they had reduced access to organizational and public sector resources.
In addition, older adults consistently stated that their infrastructure of care provided vital
assistance and rooted them in place. For those that could access this support, it was viewed as
essential to survival, “What's keeping me here right now is my grandchildren, because most of
my family already they're in Riverside, in Arizona. I have other grandchildren in the system. So
right now I am just here for them.” Reliance on this infrastructure led residents to stretch their
finances and kept them from moving onto more affordable destinations–48.7% of survey
respondents remained in place because of their proximity to care and supports.
Together, this provides a partial explanation of the elevated stress among those with more
family nearby in the regression results as well as the null effects for support from friends. The
aggravation of stress for those with more family close by complements previous research that has
shown social support can exacerbate mental health issues when an individual has high
psychological and social resources, but faces exposure to major stressors (Erving, et al., 2021).
Evidence of this dislocation and ensuing stress was further captured in a statement during a
youth focus group, “We used to have neighbors to our left we were really close to…they tore
down the house and renovated it. Some new folks came in. I feel that they were stuck up because
they can afford this and then you see us. We're living in this pretty old apartment. We don't really
get along.”
When studying neighborhood cohesion more holistically, statistically significant
reductions in stress were observed in regression estimates (see Table 6.2). A negative correlation
with stress was noted for residents that were satisfied with their neighborhood overall and felt as
though people looked after one another. The stress relief provided from neighborhood
238
satisfaction was encapsulated in a residents’ explanation as to why they had remained in place, “I
got a lot of faith in my people, my Black and Brown people, I refuse to give up on them. I've had
a lot of friends say, 'why have you still in the hood, why you ain't move?' Because I like it. I know
where I'm at, I know who my people, I know what to look out for.” The resident experiences in
this section demonstrate the interplay between survival tactics and social support. Many residents
engaged in both simultaneously to achieve a semblance of stability and recognized that
contributing to infrastructures of care was necessary to safeguard themselves against future
uncertainty. Oftentimes, infrastructures of care made possible the consumption cutbacks and
functional adjustments residents’ needed to survive and gave them–at least some–temporary
reprieve from the negative impacts of those decisions.
Organizations
For those with access, organizations provided vital information, accountability, and space
to congregate. In focus groups, tenants explained how organizations played a significant role in
reducing stress and connected residents to formal services such as food banks, utility subsidies,
and housing rights agencies, “I go to a lot of grandparents and parents meetings, and we do a lot
of sharing information like resources...I know it's the Salvation Army, they have a program that
helps you pay your water bill and your gas bill. They paid for the whole year.” In regression
estimates, people with access to organizational support had significantly lower stress levels (see
Table 6.2). This was also experienced in real time during a focus group composed of working
moms when one person shared a local community garden that distributed fresh produce weekly
and quickly passed along the address to the other interested participants. Organizations gave
residents a sense of agency amidst prolonged uncertainty and served as a source of resistance
239
against the structural conditions they encountered. This was reflected in regression estimates as
well (see Table 6.2), which showed a negative relationship between receiving organizational
support and stress.
Information sharing was especially important for spreading knowledge about tenant
protections and access to eviction defense services, “I have learned thanks to [organization],
and there they taught us a lot. My humble opinion is that thanks to all that, I can defend myself
too” Organizations helped residents resist unfair landlord practices and forced moves, which
contributed to their individual stability as well as their community overall, “We are experiencing
a great economic housing crisis, we are here because we are supported...Two years ago the
owner wanted to take us out, but we knew our rights. I am a member of an organization for more
than 15 years, I know my rights and I have helped other families to know their rights so that they
will not go through the circumstances of other families that have been evicted.” Access to
organizational support was intertwined with ties between family and friends. While some tenants
had sought out resources independently, most participants in focus groups explained how they
had helped neighbors–or received help–through encouragement to reach out to a particular
organization when they faced housing pressures, “I told her, 'What happened? I can help you,
we'll go to the [organization]'...I went with her, I took her and said, 'See, the lady needs help, she
is losing, they are taking her out of her apartment' and that is not fair.”
Organizations also gave residents a space to discuss their mental health and process the
issues they were facing, “I do not count on anyone, and that's why I started again with the group,
because yes, there are times that if I have the opportunity to express my problems, and I feel a
little better, I feel support, and they have given me some help.” The stress and overwhelming
nature of daily survival was clear in the words of tenants, “I do not cry to my children, to anyone.
240
I cry here in the group, but I do not like that they see me cry anymore, because I do not want to
see me suffer anymore.” Organizations facilitated the creation and strengthening of ties between
community members, which bolstered their infrastructures of care. Moreover, this infrastructure
helped tenants feel less alone and more empowered over their living situations. Through their
care work, organizations helped foster a sense of belonging and resistance, “There is a lot of help
within this [organization]. They enable us to grasp our experiences and give back to the
community. Now I am part of the staff and we have a self-help project and empower and raise
the self-esteem of women. And I can see that just empowering myself, I will help others, my
family, my children. I know it is our community that has a lot of potential to give us the
knowledge and tools to continue living and working in the community…I know there are still
friends or people who are depending on this support, on this strength to be able to continue
growing in well-being.”
Although they didn’t always have the material resources to provides residents, organizers
understood this facilitation of community building and the provision of space to convene and
decompress as a crucial service, “It's an important aspect of the work that we do is listening to
these people's stories and listening to their narrative of South LA, understand what their view
point of it is currently and what their vision of it is that they want to see…it's about having that
inclusiveness and not fearing your neighbor.” The resources and connections provided by
organizations shaped how residents’ survived, understood, and resisted the day-to-day conditions
they encountered.
Among survey respondents, however, only 17.1% reported receiving support from
organizations (see Table 6.1). Local organizations have made many important inroads with the
Black and Latino/a communities, but many tenants mentioned they still struggled for access, “As
241
far as resources are concerned, we have them. A lot of people can't get to them. People don't
know about them that are available to us like that and you have got to qualify.” Focus group
participants stated that neighbors often didn’t know about the resources and services that existed
in their community unless they were lucky enough to have someone in their direct orbit already
engaged with an organization or had prior experience in a particular issue area. These
descriptions were particularly notable for the number of mentions among focus groups
participants—who were arguably better connected than the average resident—but still felt that
knowledge around renter rights and the availability of resources was not widespread, “I don't
know of organizations that help. I wouldn't know where to go because there's no central building
for resources. Worksource just helps with crappy jobs. But a support system? Our support
system is just talking shit with people about all these systems that fuck us over.”
Residents felt that this was often not the fault of organizations and stemmed from a lack
of funding or failure of governmental agencies to take on the responsibility of informing tenants
in need, “There is no organization within the communities to say 'Okay this is happening'...and
the government does not care...That is also because we are many who for example do not have
papers. There is no government communication with its inhabitants and nothing is being
resolved, we are in need, we are feeling frustrated...I'm here I hope it works, but sometimes it's
very difficult. It is like dreaming because politicians will not do anything.” Participants
understood that organizations were constrained in their ability to offer assistance because of the
way grant funding operated and the resource limitations they faced, “The nonprofits can't do
what they want to do because grants don't cover what they want.”
Lack of access to organizational support was particularly acute for immigrant households
and undocumented renters. Latino/a survey respondents were significantly less likely to receive
242
support when compared to Black residents, 14.2% versus 23.0% respectively. In contrast, no
significant differences were noted between rent burdened and non-rent burdened households or
across family status. Focus group participants stated that the primary obstacle for engagement
with community organizations among immigrant communities was fear, “Yes it is a very
important issue, but people are afraid. Also remember that most of us are working people, what
you said [another participant], when you work in a certain place you do not have space, you do
not have life. You get so involved in the work, that the only thing you do on the day of rest is to
wash, do what little you can do at home and rest, and it becomes a routine…we are afraid of the
situation we have. That fear implies that we do not want to participate.” In a different group, a
tenant shared, “This is the halo of being immigrants, this is the halo that sometimes families are
undocumented, we do not have that power to go to protest. In one's country, one goes and
protests, and knows that politically it will not have consequences. Here it is delicate.”
The second obstacle for immigrant communities referenced was a lack of specific
outreach, communication, and trust that was required before people felt comfortable
participating, “There's not a lot of communication or dialogue being established with residents in
the neighborhood, so undocumented residents don't trust people...organizations aren't building
bridges and trying to let people know that help is confidential.” Another person illustrated this
point by saying, “We are under a shadow that nobody looks at us.” Information asymmetries
among immigrant households severely restricted the tactics and tools at their disposal to amend
and resist unfair conditions, “They do not tell us what your rights are, that you can make
demands, that in some ways people are limiting themselves… I think that's it, that there should
be workshops” Additionally, undocumented tenants discussed their difficulties in accessing
programs like designated affordable housing and employment support because of eligibility
243
requirements, “If one is going to put in an application for those apartments, they need to be a
citizen or resident and most of the people in the community lack that kind of privilege, you can
say, that is number one why people do not qualify.” Without organizational support, renters were
both unaware of their rights and uncertain where to turn when flagrant violations to their right
occurred.
Furthermore, the long hours residents were forced to work in order to survive amidst the
rental crisis also acted as an obstacle to their engagement with organizations, “The reason why
we aren't in community organizations, we don't have time because we are trying to work as much
as possible because they don't pay as well. To reverse that, increase minimum wage, so we can
actually survive.” Constraints on time were a consistent refrain in focus groups–even for those
that knew the information was available, “A lot of these parents or older siblings who are bread
givers or who need these sources are worthy, and there's no way to access these resources
because it's either, 'Do I want information or do I want to go and make money to help my
family?'”
The stress produced from tenants’ attempts to maintain stable housing through survival
tactics and resistance was exhausting. Many renters felt overwhelmed from constantly navigating
this precarity which created another barrier to participation, “It's hard to be able to really want to
be able to participate in these nonprofits. We are tired as a collective.” A young adult framed
this by saying, “There are too many problems for people to care at this point, so people won't
pay attention to nonprofits outreach or rent control being destroyed and gentrification and all of
that because they're too focused on the right now, which is working all day to be able to afford
rent and provide.” Tenants explained in their own words that survival was a baseline for care
and resistance that was currently not being met, “I love people, I really do, and I'll do all I can
244
for them. I want to make a difference in my community, but I just need my rent lowered, so it can
accommodate me and we can all accommodate each other” The stressors produced from
unaffordability and neighborhood change, therefore, diminished tenants’ access to organizations
and their ability to form community infrastructures of care. In turn, this influenced the support
they received as well as their ability to care for others.
Even with those limitations, organizations remained a key link to stable housing because
of their connections to formal accountability processes. Their effectiveness was curtailed,
though, because public services–such as tenant lawyers and governmental enforcement of
housing policies–had limited capacity or willingness to intervene. These insufficiencies are
explored in more detail below, but exposed in part through a tenants’ observation of two
different outcomes for buildings that were located next to each other on their block, “There was
an apartment complex next to Rolland Curtis. They didn't have the kind of fortune or protection
that we had when [organization] came to our aid at Rolland Curtis. When we were displaced, we
received a sufficient amount of money, but the neighbors next to us, the landlord just locked them
all out. They had to just go out to the streets more or less. No money, no nothing, few days to
move.” For those that could not access legal services at a reduced cost or through the public
sector, formal rental protections were often out of reach, “Other legal options that many low-
income people can not afford is to consult a lawyer, who charge $1,000 for an hour.”
Government
When deciding how to allocate their time, tenants stated they often needed to prioritize
engagement with the public sector over organizations. Although this process was invasive and
time-consuming, governmental agencies had material resources and power to enforce
245
regulations. Focus group participants stated that public resources were important to survival and
provided some consistency in mediating rising expenses, “People come into our community and
give us this pretty picture. They give us all these false promises. But when people go to the shitty
government county building then it's a for sure, you're going to get those benefits. I've been to so
many things that promise housing or whatever but then they don't follow up, they say all these
things.” Another person echoed this sentiment stating, “There's a nonprofit here and there, but
they don't have the capacity to help anything like the County building does.” In addition, tenants
recognized they needed the courts and government agencies to enforce their rights.
Organizations could advocate on their behalf, but most landlords were only compelled to address
their grievances when required by law, “Where I am living, I have been living for 23 years and
when this new owner arrived he said, 'When you want to leave, you leave me.' For him it is very
easy to say, 'You leave me' and to blow one's fingers, because I have to look for a place but you
have to pay the month ahead and the other. It's a big change...I said, 'Do not worry. When you
want, you kick me out. I'll talk to my lawyer and talk to yours. ' And he said, 'Okay. No problem,
no problem.'”
In our survey sample, 46.7% of respondents reported receiving government assistance in
some form including food stamps, Section 8 vouchers, entitlement payments, Medicaid, and
utility assistance (see Table 6.1). The most commonly cited supports were food stamps and
utility subsidies which were more accessible as they did not have long waiting lists and required
less onerous qualifications. Government assistance, however, had a positive and significant
relationship to stress in OLS regression estimates (see Table 6.2). This relationship persisted in
the full survey sample across both South and Central Los Angeles (N = 792) as well as in a fully
specified model with all control variables. In part, it is due to those with most acute needs being
246
more eligible–rent burdened households, 52.1%, were significantly more likely to receive
assistance than non-rent burdened, 29.9%. Moreover, access to public sector support varied by
racial groups with Black residents significantly more likely to receive public benefits than
Latino/a households–63.7% versus 39.9% respectively. As mentioned previously, this is
attributable to differences in documentation status and mixed status households which created
obstacles in obtaining government resources for Latino/a tenants.
Based on resident experiences shared in focus groups, the negative correlation between
government assistance and stress is also derived from the added stress of navigating the public
system and the stigma attached to assistance programs, “The only support I know of is the county
building, but they speak to you like you're an idiot, like you can't even speak or
comprehend...Even if you need food stamps or cash aid it's hard to be there [at the County
building] for less than 8 hours...It's traumatic to deal with. These systems that are supposed to
help you are only oppressing you...I can't get free childcare because I don't want to get cash aid
because I want to work. It's like you have to get everything or nothing. But then where is your
dignity? It's bullshit.” Tenants receiving public sector support reported feeling a lack of agency
in the treatment they received from both government workers and private businesses.
Interactions with those entities produced additional stress when recipients confronted them in
need of assistance, “I grew up with my mom getting harassed for using paper food stamps, the
cashier [at the grocery store] looks at you funny...And then I got older and learned more how the
process is so hard, because you want to make more, but then they reduce your money when you
make more, and it's constantly stressful. People are judging you for not getting another job but I
have kids. If you do well then your pay increases, then you have to go [to the County building] in
to explain, but then you get your money reduced.”
247
Additionally, numerous renters discussed the difficulties of qualifying for government
programs and the limits of the support eventually provided. Residents talked at length about the
reductions in funds they experienced once their income met a threshold that was below the level
they needed to survive, “We report our income, but they do not ask about our expenses. If you
ask the CalWorks government for help, food stamps, they ask for many requests. My husband
does not qualify for Calworks because he works 40 hours. They do not see how much we pay for
rent, only when you earn. As much as you ask for help, you feel like you're drowning. You do not
get what you need.” This was further illustrated when a youth participant shared some details
about their family’s expenses, “With EBT or food stamps, and your job pays a certain amount for
you to get it. My mom and sister only make like $1000 per month, but they cut her food stamps. If
you put it to an estimate that's not enough to pay rent and for food for your kids.”
In focus groups, participants relayed the exhaustion and confusion they experienced in
navigating the social welfare system. Despite attempting to earn additional income through
working more hours, many felt overwhelmed and unable to get on top of rising expenses because
their efforts led to reductions in benefits, “My mom makes even less than she did, but since we
grew up and are 'independent' we aren't eligible for welfare or food stamps. It's like - when you
think you hit rock bottom, it gets worse.” These frustrations were consistently mentioned by
families with children, “Social workers say, 'You do not qualify, because you earn [too much
money]'...but they do not think about our children. I think it is the right of children to have a
good quality of life. Maybe not luxuries, but you should have a quality of life in your home, have
something worthy to eat.” This aligns with survey data that showed families were significantly
more likely to interact with public sector supports as compared to non-families–54.3% versus
39.4% respectively. Through qualification requirements and funding modifications, government
248
assistance restricted the functional adjustments available to tenants as well as the effectiveness of
those changes.
Overall, government programs provided the promise of redress for the issues and
conditions renters faced, but ultimately fell short. The resources and policy enforcement offered
by public institutions were insufficient for most residents, ”They want to see us living in the
street, why in this place of the city do they want to take us apart? Because we have been living
here for years...That is something unfair, who will support us? Who will help us? If we go with
the city that is supposed to support us and they are telling us to pay, they separate our cases so
we can not do together.” Another tenant stated, “The City is responsible for protecting
people…They're sacrificing the people they are supposed to represent, because it is bringing
money to the city. What about bringing money to the people?”
Only 25.8% of renters experiencing housing issues such as neglected maintenance or
illegal landlord practice reported receiving help–16.7% received help from orgs, 11.4% from
family, and 5.3% from government. Put another way, the majority of residents received no help
with their housing issues or do not know where they can seek out support. Uncertain where else
to turn, this created feelings of fear, hopelessness, distrust, and abandonment. Tenants felt
ignored and betrayed by a system that was supposed to protect them, “What I want to say is that
there are many agencies created to help, there is a lot of money, there are people interested in
the agencies, but what is happening I do not know…We have suffered so much and we have
never been asked 'Hey, what do you need to live in your community?” Residents stitched
together a patchwork of supports through neighbors, organizations, and the public sector, “I
spoke to the Housing Department company, they said, 'He had bought and he had months
without repairs'...They sent me that letter, I started looking for resources. A lawyer from an
249
organization, told me to pay for the services of the lawyer with the university.”
Residents were in dire need of more formal support to survive. The term survival is used
throughout this chapter because it reflects the language used by tenants. Multiple participants in
focus groups equated greater affordability with the ability to breathe, “I'm not even looking for
free. Just some breathing room.” In a different focus group, another person explained the
importance of rent control in similar terms, “The resolution to expand rent control in all Los
Angeles, in all areas of Los Angeles, to begin it would be a good option, because we could
breathe...The families that live there, will really stay there...we could breathe a little better, with
that situation.” Survivability reflects the dire conditions that many residents are forced to
weather amidst unaffordability and neighborhood change. The precarity produced from the rental
crisis inhibited their ability to live and care for one another, “This is the thing that we want to live
and so to live we want peace, we want friendship, we want love. We want people taking care of
one another.” The crisis also impacted renters’ ability to seek out future opportunity and thrive,
“Sometimes we don't even have the boots or socks and we don't have the tools to achieve our
goals.” Through heightened exposure to stress and diminished quality of life, renters
experienced social murder. People expressed the critical need for assistance and interventions to
help them survive and alleviate the stressors brought about from the rental crisis.
To substantiate their feelings and experiences, residents noted how public funds were
allocated away from the programs they viewed as most vital to their survival, “If everybody is
paying attention. California got a lot of money. They have got a lot of money whether you know
it or not. Look at everywhere you go. Everywhere you go they're working on the street, they're
building new structures. They have got a lot of money, but they are not utilizing it towards the
things that are really pertinent to the people.” A resident in a separate focus group expressed a
250
similar sentiment, “I'm asking this, I'm serious, you got enough money for George Lucas to build
a museum. You got enough money to build a museum and you got a homeless population at the
roof. What is your problem? That's what I want to ask him [Mayor Garcetti], 'Are you crazy?
Are you smoking? What is the issue? Are you serious? How much does that damn thing cost?'
Then the soccer stadium. They ain't got a place for people to live but you got enough money for
some entertainment? People are dying and you're going to put all that money into some
entertainment? Are you insane?” Toward similar ends, a young adult quoted the funding
specifics of over-policing in their community that existed alongside local government neglect
related to displacement pressures, “Funding for cops is more than 53% of the budget. It's
showing what the County cares about. The cycle of policing, incarceration, gentrification,
breaking up families. For me right now being displaced is the biggest issue. Gentrification and
being displaced, for me, is the biggest dilemma…trying to find a way to heal the community from
the displacement and gentrification that's going on. There's a lot of pain…For myself I have a lot
of anger because I know that my people were killed for being here, and now this is the 21st
century version of the same thing.” Public sector failures stretch back in time and tenants spoke
to the accumulation of precarity and stress they endured in South L.A..
Tenants put their requests for greater support in perspective. They were not looking for
handouts or a grand gesture. Instead they asked for a baseline of dignity and an ability to live
without being consumed by stress, “My dream is just to- I don't want anything fancy- a lot more
support. As long as I have a steady income and a place to sleep and I don't have to worry about
anything like food, water, electricity, I'm perfectly fine.” Another person echoed this by saying,
“I would have enough after rent to afford things and to do other things besides only pay rent.”
Residents wanted the ability to fully participate and enjoy themselves in their city. They
251
requested that politicians spend more time listening and addressing their day-to-day conditions,
“Listen to the poorest, helpless, we are the ones who need more. To open sources of employment,
to open apartments with more reasonable prices that we can access, and that we are heard, we
would like that.” Another person shared a similar sentiment, “I would invite him [Mayor
Garcetti] to live at my house so that he can see how it feels to live, how we live, and work,
earning money with the sweat of our brow…Could you actually really take the place of our living
[policymakers]? Could you actually stand the pressure that we're going through?”
Furthermore, residents recognized that changing the priorities of the public sector would
require collective effort and widespread recognition outside their own communities that the
unequal exposure to housing stress faced by Black and Latino/a renters was rooted in legacies of
racial oppression, “We passed a measure of proposition of triple H or H-H-H. We've got the
money, but nobody wants us to build housing in their neighborhood, not on my backyard…We're
going to put you right back where we had you at first, stack you on top of each other, no
education, no health, no wellness, no activity, no green places and we're going to start the same
cycle all over again. You all can kill each other, you all don't go nowhere.” Focus groups
participants expressed a desire to mobilize support across the city and pressure politicians to
address the rental crisis, “We need not just us sitting in this room talking, but to utilize it. Can
something be put in place?... I don't know what can be established. What you all can do because
you would have to be the spokesman for us. We're telling you the problem, but you're typing it all
up, but is it going to be heard by someone that can move?...It needs to be broadcasted big, live,
like live on TV…It's only a few of us in this room, and we're speaking for many people,”
252
Conclusion
Despite precarious living conditions, residents consistently worked to create opportunities
for themselves, maintain stability, and access resources to make the city livable. The survival
tactics and infrastructure of care that tenants leverage have material impact, which alter their
incomes and expenses. These strategies also modify the constraints and stressors renters confront
at both the household and community level–and have the potential to create new ones. Thus, the
affordability metrics most often used in policy offer an incomplete understanding of households’
ability to maintain stable housing. In addition, these measures do not represent an accurate
portrayal of housing precarity as tenants with similar levels of rent burden or residual income
may engage in dramatically different strategies to survive. In turn, their ability to persist moving
forward and capacity to make additional modifications in response to future shocks also differs.
This paper advances the study of coping behaviors by examining social support and survival
tactics concurrently as well as investigating the way these strategies interact with one another. It
builds on previous work by assessing how the clustering of survival tactics alter the production
of stress. Moreover, it explores the indirect impacts of survival tactics on stress, which stem from
feelings of helplessness, exhaustion, and fear that emerge as tenants’ deplete the coping
strategies available to them.
Growing unaffordability and neighborhood change have substantially reduced
households’ choice sets because they have been forced to further absorb the costs of production
and reproduction. Working class renters’ time is increasingly consumed with the demands of
survival–searching for adequate shelter, working longer hours, locating resources, and helping
others where they can. It is important to view the exploration of survivability laid out above
alongside the previous chapters examining the precarious housing and labor arrangements, and
253
displacement pressures tenants confront in their daily lives. Residents are working around the
clock cutting into their sleep, going without food and needed medicine, subsisting amidst
inadequate housing filled with mold and infestation, defending themselves against harassment,
and moving farther from family and friends who provide love and compassion. The stressors
stemming from this precarity have become overwhelming. The reality for many tenants is that
they would not survive if not for a constellation of survival tactics and supports.
Additionally, the statistics and experiences laid out in this chapter illustrate the
bifurcation of supports that tenants receive. Organizations and neighbors offer a broad but
shallow range of assistance to address the stressors residents encounter daily. They also represent
one of the only places residents can seek out support to address housing issues that stem from
unequal power relations with landlords. The public sector, on the other hand, predominantly
offers baseline material assistance for those that qualify and acts as a backstop for tenants facing
the most egregious housing violations. The on-going rental crisis is notable because it has
disrupted these infrastructures of care and reduced residents’ ability to support one another and
resist. Tenants noted that declining affordability and development pressures had weakened the
infrastructures of care they had worked generations to build. Given reductions in government
spending and limited budgets of non-profits, institutional support struggled to fill these gaps.
The rental crisis has caused active harm through both the production of stress and more
direct consequences from not being able to meet basic needs. Policymakers must recognize that
the private market and public sector are failing and people are paying with their lives.
Refocusing the conversation of affordability around survivability is essential to bringing more
attention and understanding to the stakes of this crisis. The debate is core to American society
and our legacy of racial oppression. By allowing precarity to continue accumulating
254
disproportionately among Black and Latino/a communities, government officials are choosing
who has value, who is deserving of life, and who belongs in our city. These are the same
decisions that have plagued our society since slavery. Inequalities persist into the present and
accumulate as access to food, medicine, stable employment, care, healthy environments, and
safety is allocated according to a racial-class hierarchy. Tenants actively resist this precarity
through practices of care and carve out agency wherever possible. Although these actions are not
always explicitly political, their survival and willingness to keep fighting for their homes and
communities push back against the racial logic that continues to guide political decision making.
255
Chapter 7: Conclusion
The precarious housing conditions discussed in this dissertation have only worsened
since 2018 when the project first began. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of South
LA workers were subject to unpredictable business closures and layoffs (Bell et al., 2020).
Overall, 14% of Black households and 19% of Latino/as lost their employment during the
pandemic (Community Coalition, 2021). Moreover, the large undocumented immigrant
population in South L.A. disproportionately lacked the necessary documentation to apply for
unemployment claims (Pastor & Segura, 2020). Despite the emergency protections in place and
ban on evictions, landlords attempted to leverage their power imbalances during the pandemic as
well with 25% of renters receiving threats of eviction (Manville, et al., 2021). Nonetheless,
residents of South L.A. continued to support and care for another to survive. In a survey during
the emergency period, residents reported the multiple ways they coped with the pandemic, which
ranged from talking with friends and family to sharing food and information about health
services (Community Coalition, 2021).
Although there are many options and innovative examples across the country of policies
related to housing and work that can help alleviate the conditions and stressors explored in this
dissertation, fundamental cause emphasizes the fact that most interventions tested in the past are
only temporary solutions (Angst, et al., 2021). All people are vulnerable to instability and we
require one another to survive and thrive. Policies and planning, though, have dictated the level
of exposure of varying communities over time. The multi-faced nature of home and stress
requires wholesale change connected to reparations and reparative planning as well as cultivating
a radical sense of belonging amongst city dwellers to understand that our collective fates are
linked. As theorist Sylvia Wynter stated, “because the negative connotations placed upon the
256
black population group are a function of the devalorization of the human, the systemic
revalorization of Black peoples can only be fundamentally affected by means of the no less
systemic revalorization of human being itself.”
Our society remains quite a ways off–both socially and politically–from accomplishing
those types of reparative changes. We can, though, begin to address the building blocks of those
structures to make reconstitution manageable and feasible while improving the possibility of
more radical change in the future. Housing remains a primary driver of inequality and a
mechanism through which unequal wealth and value are reproduced (Adkins, 2022; Rognlie,
2015). It is, therefore, both a economically and socially important point of intervention. The
results discussed below can be used by community members, policymakers, and planners to
design interventions at multiple points within the processes of affordability and neighborhood
change to minimize stress and help tenants achieve greater stability.
Conditions
In Chapter 4, I sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How do tenants describe the conditions of the rental crisis? (Chapter 4)
2. How do those conditions impact stress and accumulate? (Chapter 4-6)
Evidence in this chapter suggests that housing and employment precarity have generated
stress, fear, and material constraints within working class households. Through the precarious
housing and work conditions, the private sector has devolved responsibilities onto the individual
and forced residents to internalize the costs of production and reproduction. Tenants’ lives are
257
increasingly insecure, which erodes the possibility of survival and creates exposure to stress and
harm in their day-to-day.
To better understand the housing, work, and neighborhood conditions encountered by
residents, four core hypotheses were formed and analyzed in this chapter. Those hypotheses are
accompanied with results summarized below.
H1: The majority of renters experience multiple housing stressors simultaneously including
unaffordability, overcrowding and landlord strategies such as refusal to provide maintenance,
harassment, discrimination, illegal rent practices, and overcrowding.
H2: The relationship between those stressors and perceived stress, however, will be dominated
by landlord practices.
Results from focus groups and survey respondents suggest precarious living conditions
generally cluster together. In the survey sample, roughly 33% of renters experienced multiple
housing issues among rent burden, overcrowding, deferred maintenance, discrimination, illegal
rent practices, and overcrowding. Moreover, residents falling into the rent burden category did
not only experience financial insecurity, but were also more likely to live in substandard units
with unresponsive or abusive landlords. In total, more than 43% of rent burdened tenants also
dealt with landlord issues as well. Separating these issues out revealed 24.4% of survey
respondents experienced issues with maintenance. Of those with maintenance issues, 8.6% of
respondents reported nothing being fixed and roughly 5% had given up reporting. In addition,
12.3% of renters in the survey sample experienced unfair landlord issues related to illegal rent
258
hikes or refusal to accept rent checks with Latino/as significantly more likely to experience those
unfair practices. Finally, 14.7% of participants endured verbal or physical assault. Overall, the
power imbalances between landlords and tenants had a significant correlation with stress in
regression estimates.
Tenants were unable to escape these stressful conditions and unfair practices because
many felt stuck in place and unable to move even if they wanted because there were so few
affordable units except in areas far outside their infrastructures of care. Therefore, affordability
operated at both the individual level by making it harder for tenants to survive day-to-day as well
as at the neighborhood level due to lack of options and encroaching development pressures
which limited mobility while simultaneously incentivizing the removal of long-time residents.
These observations further reveal the power imbalances tenants face that extend beyond
affordability constraints alone. Tenants need access to healthy, adequate homes more generally
yet they are locked into particular submarkets that are difficult to escape and more likely to have
negligent landowners.
Precarious housing conditions had persisted over time. Residents spoke to the continual
struggles of navigating issues related to affordability and deferred maintenance. However,
tenants also connected neighborhood change to a quickened pace in rent increases and
heightened exposure to unfair landlord practices. Residents also directly connected the past
disinvestment of their neighborhoods to displacement pressures and precarity experienced today
in the form of remodeling and renovation strategies used to push out long-time tenants. Poor
conditions were made possible by a lack of enforcement and formal policies to ensure reasonable
living conditions. Residents were hesitant to report landlord issues because of the alignment they
observed between the public and private sector, and fear of reprisal through cost increases or
259
various forms of harassment. With the right information, however, tenants fought unfair
conditions in institutional ways
H3: Residents are working longer hours and more jobs because of precarious labor conditions
and rising rental prices.
H4: The impacts of full-time employment and multiple jobs on perceived stress will be
insignificant due to mixed effects from increased agency and income as well as greater levels of
exhaustion.
Although higher income tenants had significantly lower stress scores than those with
lower incomes, no significant relationship was noted in regression estimates between full-time
employment or number of workers in a household. In focus groups, residents consistently talked
about the significance of labor as a pathway to survival, however, even the promise of full-time
work no longer provided security because those jobs were often low-paying or unstable. With
rising rents and growing precarity at home as well, tenants felt added pressure to hold onto their
jobs and take on additional labor as means of counterbalancing the uncertainty they endured.
Manipulating the amount of labor they engaged in was one of the few levers available for
residents’ to maintain stability. Because the majority of jobs available were precarious in nature
and unstable, tenants needed to work more to keep pace with rising costs. Finding a better job
was simply not an option for most people and they felt confined to low-wage sectors. Increased
labor hours provided agency through greater income and the possibility of future opportunity
260
through savings, but also impacted relationships among family members. This was especially
true for parents who were forced to spend more time away from their children or building
community with others in their neighborhood. Children, too, were affected not only by the
absence of their parents, but also because many were required to take on work or make sacrifices
themselves to help alleviate the pressures of rising housing costs. Overall, people consistently
highlight the importance of stable work to stable housing. Many could not find jobs that granted
economic or housing stability. felt stuck in precarious labor positions.
In sum, tenants experienced clusters of stressors including decreasing affordability, unfair
landlord practices, limited options, and precarious work. Moreover, they felt an overall loss of
agency from these conditions as they were locked into precarious jobs as well as low-quality
homes. As those stressors wore on over time, tenants felt depleted, overwhelmed, and hopeless
regarding the possibility of future improvements. Together, these observations signal the need
for a new policy framework to analyze the growing uncertainty in residents' lives, which
intersects and extends beyond their housing. This chapter demonstrates that housing stressors
cluster together and reinforce one another. Therefore, policymakers should consider designing
packages of policies–rather than singular interventions–that can address the underlying
mechanisms driving those clusters rather than simply ameliorating the impacts that result.
Mobility
In Chapter 5, analysis focused on answering the following research questions:
1. Do displacement and sense of belonging contribute to the stress process model?
2. How do those processes impact stress and accumulate?
261
Results suggest that the community impacts of displacement occurred as residents
experienced a decrease in support from their community infrastructure and a loss in their sense
of belonging as neighbors and friends relocated further away. The results from this chapter also
highlight the importance of affective and social dimensions of housing to people’s day-to-day
quality of life. Without the community infrastructure in place to facilitate a sense of belonging,
long-time residents struggled to take advantage of the new amenities brought about by
neighborhood change.
To better understand mobility, displacement, and belonging in South L.A., four core
hypotheses were formed and analyzed in this chapter. Those hypotheses are accompanied with
results summarized below.
H1: Overall mobility rates will have a non-significant relationship with stress because of the
need to differentiate between coerced and voluntary moves. Forced moves will be associated
with increased stress.
In regression estimates, overall mobility rates had a negative correlation with stress. In
focus groups, tenants revealed that mobility was a key component of agency, which allowed
them to escape harmful situations and find new housing nearby when expenses became too
much. Participants also mentioned that their mobility was increasingly constrained due to rising
rental prices at the neighborhood level. In addition to economic and social constraints, moving
also entails geographic considerations. People typically do not leave their residence unless they
have somewhere to land. In South L.A., 41% stated they could not remain in their neighborhood
if needed to move and 10% were unsure. Residents were eager for the opportunity to remain,
262
though, with 40% of survey respondents hoping to stay in their homes for longer than 10 years.
As a result, many were forced to subsist in place despite the stressors they experienced.
Additionally, forced moves had a significant positive association with stress, which also
reveals the importance of agency in mobility decisions. Residents also revealed that
displacement was most often the result of an accumulation of stressors that stretched back in
time. Nearly 75% of those that experienced a forced move also encountered landlord issues, and
30% experienced two or more issues. Moreover, the majority of households that were forced to
move also had trouble finding housing (67%). The rental crisis has produced additional stress
around mobility and displacement because residents have so few outside options and higher
likelihood of relocating far outside their infrastructures of care because of those conditions.
H2: Loss in the long-time residents will have a significant, positive correlation with perceived
stress. Increase in new residents will have a null effect because of mixed impacts from positive
amenities attracted by new, wealthier residents and feelings of social exclusion that may also
emerge.
H3: Losses in the built environment will be negatively correlated to stress. New development
will not have a null effect because of mixed effects from the growth in positive amenities but
erasure of meaningful and familiar places.
Overall, 46.1% of survey participants noted people moving out of their neighborhoods
and 32.5% knew someone that had been forced to move. Moreover, significant impacts were
noted in regression estimates with heightened stress observed for those that experienced losses in
263
social infrastructure. No significant effects were noted for changes in the built environment,
however, or an influx of new residents. In total, 58.5% of residents noted losses in the built
environment, 78.1% witnessed new physical additions, and 56% experienced new people moving
into their neighborhood. Although regression estimates did not find significant impacts for those
changes, focus group participants discussed the new form of exclusion they felt as a result. After
decades of neglect, residents spoke to the beauty of new development, but also reflected on how
these investments were out of reach economically and clearly not geared toward their needs.
Nonetheless, tenants remained optimistic about neighborhood changes and excited about the
prospect of new resources entering their neighborhoods. They were also assertive in their
demand to be included in development decisions moving forward so that benefits could be more
evenly dispersed among those that had spent years contributing to the area.
H4: Residents will experience restrictions on mobility through economic and social exclusion as
a result of the rental crisis.
The rental crisis has led to a sharply decreased choice-set among working class tenants–
close to 50% of survey respondents had trouble finding housing in their previous move. Trouble
finding housing was independently statistically significant in the stress process model with those
with difficulties in their previous moves exhibiting higher levels of stress. Lack of mobility also
had secondary effects, though, as it trapped people in stressful situations related to landlord
issues that were also stress producing. In particular, Latino/a households were significantly more
264
likely to face issues finding housing in their search. Tenants were left exhausted from the
constant state of uncertainty around their homes and their surrounding neighborhoods. Social and
economic exclusion layered onto each other so that residents felt under threat from multiple
angles–both within their homes and outside in their communities.
Together, the dynamic between displacement pressure and restricted mobility illustrates
the process of replacement. On one hand, tenants that are stuck in place appear stable because
they do not move, but have the potential to be exposed to hazardous conditions and exploitation
as pressures grow and outside options shrink. On the other hand, people that do move often land
outside their original neighborhood away from the infrastructures of care that allowed them to
survive in the past. This outcome is also undesirable despite the reason for moving being
voluntary or to escape harm. These mobility constraints raise new questions on what constitutes
a forced move and how these outcomes are tracked. These findings also highlight the interaction
between housing quality and mobility in the production of stress. Even those not forced out of
their homes experience feelings of exclusion as the original community deteriorates and their
neighborhoods become less hospitable.
Survival
In Chapter 6, analysis focused on answering the following research questions:
1. What survival tactics and infrastructures of care do residents use to navigate the rental
crisis conditions?
2. How do those tactics impact stress and accumulate?
The evidence presented in this chapter further demonstrates that traditional measures of
affordability are insufficient in tracking the people’s ability to find and maintain stable shelter.
265
Those metrics miss everything that occurs before and after people reach the threshold of
affordability. Tenants are forced to engage in a variety of actions and behaviors to afford the
basic necessities of survival, which also have the potential to create new stressors. For some, this
means putting themselves and their families through additional distress and deprivation just to
remain cost burdened so that they can retain housing.
To alleviate the stressors tenants face, they have built infrastructure of care and support
over generations. However, residents are stretched extremely thin in South L.A. due to legacies
of disinvestment and discrimination before the current rental crisis began accelerating. As a
result, tenants are doing everything they can to support one another, but pressures from the crisis
have led to a continual disintegration of those supports. At the same time, tenants rely on
government resources for material assistance in areas they are unable internalize. Yet, this
system is insufficient and punitive for many while others are simply unable to gain access.
Organizations have attempted to step in and help fill gaps left by government retrenchment and
community replacement, but often lack the funding to make substantial differences in residents’
material circumstances. Those organizations do serve as a vital conduit to information and
formal services as well as provide space for congregation, organizing and resistance.
To better understand mobility, displacement, and belonging in South L.A., five core
hypotheses were formed and analyzed in this chapter. Those hypotheses are accompanied with
results summarized below.
H1: Residents internalize the increased costs and uncertainty associated with the rental crisis by
cutting back on the consumption and making functional adjustments simultaneously.
Consumption cutbacks will have a negative relationship with stress, functional adjustments will
266
have a null relationship because of mixed effects from increased agency but and greater levels of
exhaustion.
H2: Survival strategies will differ by race. Latino/a tenants will be more likely to cutback on
consumption due to mixed status families and higher proportion of immigrants. Families will
also be more likely reduce consumption because of greater expenses due to household size. No
significant differences with functional adjustments.
Among survey respondents, more than half of tenants cut back on food, took debt, or
reduced family and entertainment activities in the past two years–each were significantly
correlated with stress in regression estimates. These cutbacks clustered together as well–57.7%
of those cutting back had reduced expenses in 3 or more areas. Moreover, Latino/a residents
were slightly more likely to engage in those consumption categories. In addition, people made
functional adjustments to make life more affordable with 17.7% living with more people and
26.8% working more hour or jobs. Functional adjustments were strongly clustered with
consumption cutbacks–91.5% of those altering their work or living conditions also cutback on
expenses. Additionally, no significant differences were noted across groups for housing
adjustments, but Latino/a tenants were more likely to live with additional people in response to
the crisis in alignment with previous research.
Survival tactics provided short term relief but also had the potential to create new
stressors and wear people down over time. Because precarious living and work conditions were
not new in South L.A.–instead only magnified by the rental crisis–many tenants were already
stretched thin and surviving off very little due to making cutbacks wherever possible. Thus,
residents had little room left to adjust and the tactics they did use were often not sustainable
267
either because of material deprivation or the additional stress caused to both the individual and
others in their household. This was particularly true for the more than 1 in 4 residents who had
taken on more labor to keep pace with rising housing costs. Residents consistently stated that
increasing the amount of labor they performed had become a requirement of survival. For some,
increased labor offered a degree of agency and helped alleviate stress through higher incomes.
For others, though, work demands created new obstacles to sleep, family time, and community
participation. With few outside housing options available and many of the survival tactics at their
disposal used up, tenants were feeling desperate and overwhelmed with their current situation.
H3:Family and friends will have a null or weakly negative relationship with perceived stress
because the rental crisis has depleted the infrastructures of care that tenants relied on in the past
for social support.
Tenants often internalize costs at the household level, however, their ability to respond or
ask for help is determined collectively with the community that surrounds them. Family and
friends remain foundational to information and in-kind resources, but community-wide impacts
from the rental crisis have resulted in less money and time available for redistribution.
Nonetheless, residents could rely on significant in-kind and instrumental supports–36.3% had
some family that could provide assistance, and 52% had friends nearby that supported them.
Access to these informal supports, though, were stratified as rent burdened and Black residents
were less likely to have people around them that could offer help. While in-kind supports were
268
valuable in helping residents gain access to basic needs, many community members were in
similar precarious situations and did not have much material support to offer. Moreover, as
residents time was increasingly consumed with the demands of survival, they had less time to
contribute back outward to their community, which created a cycle of decreasing support
because people could not reciprocate. Finally, the rental crisis had put residents’ infrastructures
of care under severe pressure as neighbors were displaced out of the community. In the survey
sample, 76.3% of participants had experienced a decline in social support from family and
friends in the past 2 years
H4: Government retrenchment and stigma associated with public programs will result in a null
or weakly positive relationship to stress.
H5: Under-funding of community organizations will result in a null relationship with stress.
Government agencies were the primary source of material support for residents and
helped mediate consumption cutbacks through food stamps, subsidized utilities, and public
health services. Over half received support from the government in some form. Even though the
public welfare system was often deemed harmful in its own right due to stigmatization and the
stress of navigating eligibility requirements, residents prioritized their time so they could gain
access to public resources. Individuals receiving support from the public sector had elevated
levels of stress in regression estimates, though. In part, this was a result of higher needs and
lower incomes. However, focus groups revealed that negative interactions and confusing
269
reporting requirements created additional obstacles and time demands to receive those support
which produced stress in tandem. Additionally, in spite of the supports provided through
government assistance, public resources were often too minimal for residents to achieve stability,
or benefits were reduced before stability could be reached. Uncertainty around receiving public
benefits, having them reduced, or simply not showing up on time added another layer of stress to
residents' lives. Moreover, government officials often fell short in helping residents resolve
issues with landlords and habitability concerns where they needed them most–only 5.3% of
residents experiencing housing problems received assistance from the public sector. These
failures created disillusionment, hopelessness, and feelings of abandonment as residents were
unsure where else to turn.
Organizations were pivotal in connecting tenants with formal services and enforcement.
They also provided space for convening, which was used to nurture community, share
information, and make social ties that could be leveraged to connect to formal assistance. In
regression estimates, tenants with access to organizational support experienced significantly
lower stress levels. Yet, when deciding how to allocate their time, tenants stated they often
needed to prioritize engagement with the public sector over organizations because of the material
resources provided. Furthermore, just 17.1% of survey respondents were connected to an
organization and only 11% of those with housing issues received help from the non-profit sector.
Latino/a residents were significantly less likely to engage with organization as compared to
Black tenants. They stated the primary reasons for this lack of participation as fear, limited time
due to the demands of work, and less knowledge of the supports that existed.
270
Ultimately, tenants were forced to stitch together survival through a variety of strategies
and supports. The demand for increased labor to survive and heightened displacement pressures,
though, had led to a constricted social world and deteriorated bonds among community
members.
271
References
Abdullah, M., & Freer, R. (2010). Bass to Bass. Black Los Angeles: American Dreams and
Racial Realities, 323.
Abood, M. (2018). Wall Street Landlords turn American Dream into a Nightmare. ACCE
Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 5.
Acevedo‐Garcia, D., Osypuk, T. L., Werbel, R. E., Meara, E. R., Cutler, D. M., & Berkman, L.
F. (2004). Does housing mobility policy improve health?. Housing policy debate, 15(1),
49-98.
Adcock, R. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative
research. American political science review, 95(3), 529-546.
Adkins, L., Cooper, M., & Konings, M. (2021). Class in the 21st century: Asset inflation and the
new logic of inequality. Environment and planning A: economy and space, 53(3), 548-
572.
Agarwal, S., Ambrose, B. W., & Diop, M. (2019). Do Minimum Wage Increases Benefit
Intended Households?: Evidence from the Performance of Residential Leases. Research
Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
Aghion, P., Antonin, C., & Bunel, S. (2021). The power of creative destruction. In The Power of
Creative Destruction. Harvard University Press.
Ahluwalia, G., & Staff, V. P. (2005, May). Consolidation of the Home Building Industry. In
Presentation at the Construction Forecast Conference.
Ahn, S., & Arnott, R. (2022). Market power and urban housing development. Environment and
Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 49(3), 915-932.
Albelda, R., Bell-Pasht, A., & Konstantinidis, C. (2020). Gender and Precarious Work in the
United States: Evidence from the Contingent Work Supplement 1995–2017. Review of
Radical Political Economics, 52(3), 542-563.
272
Allard, S. W., & Small, M. L. (2013). Reconsidering the urban disadvantaged: The role of
systems, institutions, and organizations. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 647(1), 6-20.
American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau.
Anderson, L. M., Charles, J. S., Fullilove, M. T., Scrimshaw, S. C., Fielding, J. E., Normand, J.,
& Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2003). Providing affordable family
housing and reducing residential segregation by income: a systematic review. American
journal of preventive medicine, 24(3), 47-67.
Anenberg, E., & Kung, E. (2020). Can more housing supply solve the affordability crisis?
Evidence from a neighborhood choice model. Regional Science and Urban Economics,
80, 103363.
Angst, S., Rosen, J., De Gregorio, S., Painter, G.. (2021). Housing Affordability in the Wake of
COVID-19. Othering & Belonging Institute. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/housing-
affordability-wake-covid-19
Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging–an analytical framework. Geography compass,
4(6), 644-659.
Appelbaum, R. P., & Gilderbloom, J. I. (1983). Housing supply and regulation: A study of the
rental housing market. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(1), 1-18.
Aron-Dine, S., & Bunten, D. (2019). Yes, Gentrification Displaces People. Working Paper.
Asquith, B. J., Mast, E., & Reed, D. (2021). Local Effects of Large New Apartment Buildings in
Low-Income Areas. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1-46.
Atkinson, R. (2000). Measuring gentrification and displacement in Greater London. Urban
studies, 37(1), 149-165.
Atkinson, R (2015) Losing one’s place: Narratives of neighbourhood change, market injustice
and symbolic displacement. Housing, Theory and Society 32: 373–388.
273
Autor, D., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the US labor market.
August, K. J., Rook, K. S., & Newsom, J. T. (2007). The joint effects of life stress and negative
social exchanges on emotional distress. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62(5), S304–S314.
Autor, D. H., Palmer, C. J., & Pathak, P. A. (2014). Housing market spillovers: Evidence from
the end of rent control in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Journal of Political Economy,
122(3), 661-717.
Avila, E. (2004). Popular culture in the age of white flight: Fear and fantasy in suburban Los
Angeles (Vol. 13). Univ of California Press.
Ayoob, M., Boyce, S., & Ruffer, R. (2008). An Evaluation of the City of Rochester's Lead Law:
2006-2008.
Axelrod, Jeremiah BC. 2007. “‘Keep The ’L’ Out of Los Angeles’ Race, Discourse, and Urban
Modernity in 1920s Southern California.” Journal of Urban History 34(1):3–37.
Azar, J., Marinescu, I., & Steinbaum, M. (2020). Labor market concentration. Journal of Human
Resources, 1218-9914R1.
Bachelder, A. E., Stewart, M. K., Felix, H. C., & Sealy, N. (2016). Health complaints associated
with poor rental housing conditions in Arkansas: the only state without a landlord’s
implied warranty of habitability. Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 263.
Baeten, G., Listerborn, C., Persdotter, M., & Pull, E. (Eds.). (2020). Housing Displacement:
Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Routledge.
Bailey, Z. D., Krieger, N., Agénor, M., Graves, J., Linos, N., & Bassett, M. T. (2017). Structural
racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. The Lancet,
389(10077), 1453-1463.
Barragan, B. (2015, October 29). Underused Train Tracks Along Slauson Avenue to Become
Bike and Pedestrian Path. Curbed Los Angeles.
https://la.curbed.com/2015/10/29/9905642/rail-to-river-bike-pedestrian-path-south-la-
crenshaw-line
274
Barragan, B. (2020, May 6). ‘We are at war’: Crenshaw residents organizing to fight
development. Curbed Los Angeles.
https://la.curbed.com/2019/9/30/20885553/gentrification-south-la-crenshaw-subway-
coalition
Bartram, R. (2021). Cracks in broken windows: how objects shape professional evaluation.
American journal of sociology, 126(4), 759-794.
Basolo, V., Huarita, E., & Won, J. (2022). A Neighborhood-Level Analysis of Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit Developments in the State of California and Los Angeles County.
Urban Science, 6(2), 39.
Bates, L. K. 2006. “Does Neighborhood Really Matter? Comparing Historically Defined
Neighborhood Boundaries with Housing Submarkets.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 26 (1): 5–17.
Bayer, P., & Charles, K. K. (2018). Divergent paths: A new perspective on earnings differences
between black and white men since 1940. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(3),
1459-1501.
Baum, A., Garofalo, J. P., & Yali, A. M. (1999). Socioeconomic status and chronic stress: does
stress account for SES effects on health?. Annals of the New York academy of Sciences,
896(1), 131-144.
Bauer, K. (1945). “Good Neighborhoods,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science. 242: 104-115;
Bauer, K. (1946). “Restrictive Covenants,” Architectural Forum. 38.
Bauer, K. (1948). “Freedom of Choice,” The Nation 166, no. 20, 533-37.
Bauer, K. (1957). “The dreary deadlock of public housing — how to break it,” Architectural
Forum.
275
Bean, F. D., Bachmeier, J. D., Brown, S. K., Van Hook, J., & Leach, M. A. (2013). Unauthorized
Mexican migration and the socioeconomic integration of Mexican Americans. Diversity
and disparities: America enters a new century. New York: Russell Sage, 341-374.
Bell, A., Hedin, T., Schnorr, G., & Von Wachter, T. (2020). An Analysis of Unemployment
Insurance Claims in California During the COVID-19 Pandemic. California Policy Lab.
Benach J & Muntaner C. 2007. Precarious employment and health: developing a research
agenda. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61(4):276–77
Benach, J., Vives, A., Amable, M., Vanroelen, C., Tarafa, G., & Muntaner, C. (2014). Precarious
employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual review of
public health, 35, 229-253.
Benanav, A. (2020). Automation and the Future of Work. Verso Books.
Benner, C., & Pastor, M. (2015). Equity, growth, and community: What the nation can learn
from America's metro areas. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Bentley, R., Baker, E., & Mason, K. (2012). Cumulative exposure to poor housing affordability
and its association with mental health in men and women. J Epidemiol Community
Health, 66(9), 761-766.
Berlant, L. (2011). Austerity, precarity, awkwardness. Supervalent Thought.
Berzin, S. C., Rhodes, A. M., & Curtis, M. A. (2011). Housing experiences of former foster
youth: How do they fare in comparison to other youth?. Children and Youth Services
Review, 33(11), 2119-2126.
Betancur, J. (2011). Gentrification and community fabric in Chicago. Urban studies, 48(2), 383-
406.
276
Bhattarai, A., Alcantara C., & Van Dam, A. (2022, April 21). Rents are rising everywhere. See
how much prices are up in your area.. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/rising-rent-
prices/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&twclid=2-
2jc542j8wfps3v6ck8a6ixof8
Bhattacharyya, G. (2018). Rethinking racial capitalism: Questions of reproduction and survival.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in
attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of behavioral medicine, 4(2), 139-157.
Blunt, A., & Sheringham, O. (2018). Home-city geographies: Urban dwelling and mobility.
Progress in Human Geography, 43 (5), 815–834.
Boccagni, P., & Hondagneu‐Sotelo, P. (2021). Integration and the struggle to turn space into
“our” place: Homemaking as a way beyond the stalemate of assimilationism vs
transnationalism. International Migration.
Boccagni, P., & Kusenbach, M. (2020). For a comparative sociology of home: Relationships,
cultures, structures. Current Sociology, 68(5), 595-606.
Bockmeyer, J. L. 2003. “Devolution and the Transformation of Community Housing Activism.”
Social Science Journal 40:175–88
Boesch, T., Lim, K. & Nunn, R.. (2021). Non-compete contracts sideline low-wage workers.
Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
Borrowman, L., Kazakevitch, G., & Frost, L. (2017). How long do households remain in housing
affordability stress?. Housing studies, 32(7), 869-886.
Bourdieu P. ( 1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
Bourdieu, P., & Richardson, J. G. (1986). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology
of Education.
277
Bratt, R. G. (2002). Housing and family well-being. Housing studies, 17(1), 13-26.
Brickell, K. 2012. “Mapping” and “doing” critical geographies of home. Progress in Human
Geography 36 (2):225–44.
Brickell, K., Arrigoitia, M. F., & Vasudevan, A. (2017). Geographies of forced eviction:
Dispossession, violence, resistance. In Geographies of forced eviction (pp. 1-23).
Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Brown, S. (2020). How COVID-19 is affecting Black and Latino families’ employment and
financial well-being. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-covid-19-
affecting-black-and-latino-families-employment-and-financial-well-being
Brockland, B., Garon, T., Dunn, A., Wilson, E., & Celik, N.. (2019). U.S. Financial Health Pulse
2019 Trends Report. Center for Financial Services Innovations. https://cfsi-innovation-
files-2018.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/16161507/2019-Pulse-
Report-FINAL_1205.pdf
Brooks, R. R. (2011). Covenants without courts: enforcing residential segregation with legally
unenforceable agreements. American Economic Review, 101(3), 360-65.
Brueckner, J. K., & Rosenthal, S. S. (2009). Gentrification and neighborhood housing cycles:
will America's future downtowns be rich?. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
91(4), 725-743.
Brummet, Q., & Reed, D. (2019). The effects of gentrification on the well-being and opportunity
of original resident adults and children.
Bunten, D. M. (2019). Untangling the Housing Shortage and Gentrification. CityLab., accessed
Oct, 23.
Burdette, A. M., Hill, T. D., & Hale, L. (2011). Household disrepair and the mental health of
low-income urban women. Journal of Urban Health, 88(1), 142-153.
278
Burgard, S. A., Seefeldt, K. S., & Zelner, S. (2012). Housing instability and health: findings from
the Michigan Recession and Recovery Study. Social science & medicine, 75(12), 2215-
2224.
Burinsky, G. (2020). Uneven rent growth across rental market segments. The Blog and Site of
Gene Burinskiy. https://kiwiphrases.github.io/research/2020/01/05/growth-across-
segments.html
Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. verso.
Butler, J., & Athanasiou, A. (2013). Dispossession: The performative in the political. John
Wiley & Sons.
Butler, J. (2016A). Rethinking Vulnerability and Resistance. In Vulnerability in resistance (pp.
12-27). Duke University Press.
Butler, J. (2016B). Frames of war: When is life grievable?. Verso Books.
Call, J. (2020). Struggling to Make Ends Meet: Food Insecurity in CA. Nourish California.
Cahill, C. (2006). " At Risk"? The Fed Up Honeys Re-Present the Gentrification of the Lower
East Side. Women's Studies Quarterly, 34(1/2), 334-363.
California Housing Partnership (CHP). (2019). Los Angeles County’s Housing Emergency
Update. California Housing Partnership.
Call, J. (2020). Struggling to Make Ends Meet: Food Insecurity in CA. Nourish California.
https://nourishca.org/publications/fact-sheet/sb-1417-food-insecurity-factsheet-2020/
Capps, R., Ku, L., Fix, M., Furgiuele, C., Passel, J., Ramchand, R., ... & Hays, T. (2002). How
Are Immigrants Faring after Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles
and New York City. Final Report.
279
Cantong, J. (2022). Landlord Harassment & Illegal Eviction. Neighborhood Data for Social
Change. https://usc-ndsc-wordpress.azurewebsites.net/landlord-harassment-illegal-
eviction/
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed‐method evaluation designs. New
directions for evaluation, 1997(74), 19-32.
Carré, F., & Heintz, J. (2009). Different sources of precariousness in a mosaic of employment
arrangements. Gender and the contours of precarious employment, 8, 43.
Carpiano, R. M. (2006). Toward a neighborhood resource-based theory of social capital for
health: can Bourdieu and sociology help?. Social science & medicine, 62(1), 165-175.
Cass, O. (2020). The Cost-of-Thriving Index: Reevaluating the Prosperity of the American
Family. Report, The Manhattan Institute, February.
Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance: the Fourth Wade
Hampton Frost Lecture. American journal of epidemiology, 104(2), 107-123.
Catanzarite, L. (2000). Brown-collar jobs: Occupational segregation and earnings of recent-
immigrant Latinos. Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 45-75.
Chandler, J. (2018, June 26). Mapped: The big development projects headed to South LA.
Curbed Los Angeles. https://la.curbed.com/maps/crenshaw-line-development-map-metro-
inglewood
Chapple, K. (2017, January). Income inequality and urban displacement: the new gentrification.
In New Labor Forum (Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 84-93). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Chapple, K., Greenberg, J., Hwang, J., Jeon, J. S., Shrimali, B., & Zhang, I. (2022). Housing
Market Interventions and Residential Mobility in the San Francisco Bay Area (No. 2022-
01). Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
280
Chambers, E. C., Fuster, D., Suglia, S. F., & Rosenbaum, E. (2015). Depressive symptomology
and hostile affect among Latinos using housing rental assistance: The AHOME study.
Journal of Urban Health, 92(4), 611-621.
Chatterton, P., & Heynen, N. (2011). Resistance (s) and collective social action. A companion to
social geography, 508-525.
Chandler, J. (2018, June 26). Mapped: The big development projects headed to South LA.
Curbed Los Angeles. https://la.curbed.com/maps/crenshaw-line-development-map-metro-
inglewood
Chavez, L. R. (1990). Coresidence and resistance: Strategies for survival among undocumented
Mexicans and Central Americans in the United States. Urban Anthropology and Studies
of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development, 31-61.
Chen, Y. H., Glymour, M., Riley, A., Balmes, J., Duchowny, K., Harrison, R., ... & Bibbins-
Domingo, K. (2021). Excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic among
Californians 18–65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation: Marcvh through
November 2020. PLoS One, 16(6), e0252454.
Chisholm, E., Howden-Chapman, P., & Fougere, G. (2020). Tenants’ responses to substandard
housing: Hidden and invisible power and the failure of rental housing regulation.
Housing, Theory and Society, 37(2), 139-161.
Christophers, B. (2021). How and Why US Single-Family Housing Became an Investor Asset
Class. Journal of Urban History, 00961442211029601.
Christophers, B. (2021). A tale of two inequalities: Housing-wealth inequality and tenure
inequality. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(3), 573-594.
Cimini, K., & Botts, J. (2020). Close Quarters: California’s Overcrowded Homes Fuel Spread of
Coronavirus among Workers. Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/projects/overcrowded-
housing-california-coronavirus-essential-worker/
City of Los Angeles Fiscal Budgets, 2008-2020. https://cao.lacity.org/budget/
281
Clark, J., & Kearns, A. (2012). Housing improvements, perceived housing quality and
psychosocial benefits from the home. Housing Studies, 27(7), 915-939.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic medicine.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). Perceived stress scale. Measuring stress: A
guide for health and social scientists, 10(2), 1-2.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Colburn, G., & Aldern, C. P. (2022). Homelessness Is a Housing Problem: How Structural
Factors Explain US Patterns. Univ of California Press.
Cole, H. V., Triguero-Mas, M., Connolly, J. J., & Anguelovski, I. (2019). Determining the health
benefits of green space: Does gentrification matter?. Health & place, 57, 1-11.
Collins, M. E., & Curtis, M. (2011). Conceptualizing housing careers for vulnerable youth:
Implications for research and policy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(3), 390.
Coolen, H. 2006. The meaning of dwellings: An ecological perspective. Housing, Theory and
Society 23 (4):185–201.
Community Coalition. (2021). The People’s Poll: COVID-19 in South L.A. Report. Community
Coalition.
Cort, D. A. (2011). Reexamining the ethnic hierarchy of locational attainment: Evidence from
Los Angeles. Social Science Research, 40(6), 1521-1533.
Cort, D. A., Lin, K. H., & Stevenson, G. (2014). Residential hierarchy in Los Angeles: An
examination of ethnic and documentation status differences. Social science research, 45,
170-183.
282
Cosman, J., & Quintero, L. (2021). Fewer players, fewer homes: concentration and the new
dynamics of housing supply. Johns Hopkins Carey Business School Research Paper, (18-
18).
County of Los Angeles Public Health. (2015). Social Determinants of Health: Housing and
Health in Los Angeles County. County of Los Angeles Public Health.
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/reports/LAHealthBrief2011/HousingHealth/SD_Hous
ing_Fs.pdf
Couture, V., Gaubert, C., Handbury, J., & Hurst, E. (2019). Income growth and the distributional
effects of urban spatial sorting (No. w26142). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Couture, V., & Handbury, J. (2015). Urban revival in America, 2000 to 2010. Unpublished
paper.
Coley, R. L., Leventhal, T., Lynch, A. D., & Kull, M. (2013). Relations between housing
characteristics and the well-being of low-income children and adolescents.
Developmental psychology, 49(9), 1775.
Conger, R. D., Wallace, L. E., Sun, Y., Simons, R. L., McLoyd, V. C., & Brody, G. H. (2002).
Economic pressure in African American families: a replication and extension of the
family stress model. Developmental psychology, 38(2), 179.
Crawford, B., & Sainsbury, P. (2017). Opportunity or loss? Health impacts of estate renewal and
the relocation of public housing residents. Urban policy and research, 35(2), 137-149.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(3),
212-225.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological review, 96(4), 608.
Cronin, F. J. (1983). Market structure and the price of housing services. Urban Studies, 20(3),
365-375.
283
Cronon, W. (2011). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England.
Hill and Wang.
Crosby, A. (2020). Financialized gentrification, demoviction, and landlord tactics to demobilize
tenant organizing. Geoforum, 108, 184-193.
Cutter, S. L. (2003). The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 1-12.
Cuff, Dana. 2000. The Provisional City: Los Angeles Stories of Architecture and Urbanism. MIT
Press.
Cummings, S. L. (2008). Mobilization lawyering: community economic development in the
Figueroa corridor. J. Affordable Hous. & Cmty. Dev. L., 17, 59.
Cutrona, C. E., Wallace, G., & Wesner, K. A. (2006). Neighborhood characteristics and
depression: An examination of stress processes. Current directions in psychological
science, 15(4), 188-192.
Damiano, A., & Frenier, C. (2020). Build baby build? Housing submarkets and the effects of
new construction on existing rents. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs Working
Paper, University of Minnesota.
Daniels, C. B. (1975). The influence of racial segregation on housing prices. Journal of Urban
Economics, 2(2), 105-122.
Danley, S., & Weaver, R. (2018). “They’re not building it for us”: displacement pressure,
unwelcomeness, and protesting neighborhood investment. Societies, 8(3), 74.
Dantzler, P. A. (2021). The urban process under racial capitalism: Race, anti-Blackness, and
capital accumulation. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City, 2(2), 113-134.
Davidson, M. (2009). Displacement, space and dwelling: Placing gentrification debate. Ethics
Place and Environment (Ethics, Place & Environment (Merged with Philosophy and
Geography)), 12(2), 219-234.
284
Davis, M. (2006). City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. Verso Books.
De Certeau, M., & Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life: Living and Cooking.
Volume 2 (Vol. 2). U of Minnesota Press.
Deener, A. (2021). The problem with feeding cities: The social transformation of infrastructure,
abundance, and inequality in America.
De Gregorio, S., Smith, R., Painter, G., Creighton, M. (2021). Examining the Complex Social
Safety Net for Low-Income Working Families: How Benefits and Resources Respond to
Increases in Wages. Sol Price Center for Social Innovation.
De La Cruz-Viesca, M., Chen, Z., Ong, P. M., Hamilton, D., & Darity Jr, W. A. (2016). The
color of wealth in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, Duke University, The New School, and The
University of California.
Delgado Bernal, D., Burciaga, R., & Flores Carmona, J. (2012). Chicana/Latina testimonios:
Mapping the methodological, pedagogical, and political. Equity & excellence in
education, 45(3), 363-372.
Delmelle, E. C. (2016). Mapping the DNA of urban neighborhoods: Clustering longitudinal
sequences of neighborhood socioeconomic change. Annals of the American Association
of Geographers, 106(1), 36-56.
DeLuca, S., Garboden, P. M., & Rosenblatt, P. (2013). Segregating shelter: How housing
policies shape the residential locations of low-income minority families. The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647(1), 268-299.
Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American city. Crown.
Dowd, J. B., Simanek, A. M., & Aiello, A. E. (2009). Socio-economic status, cortisol and
allostatic load: a review of the literature. International journal of epidemiology, 38(5),
1297-1309.
Desmond, M., Gershenson, C., & Kiviat, B. (2015). Forced relocation and residential instability
among urban renters. Social Service Review, 89(2), 227-262.
285
Desmond, M., & Kimbro, R. T. (2015). Eviction's fallout: housing, hardship, and health. Social
forces, 94(1), 295-324.
Desmond, M., & Shollenberger, T. (2015). Forced displacement from rental housing: Prevalence
and neighborhood consequences. Demography, 52(5), 1751-1772.
Desmond, M., & Wilmers, N. (2019). Do the poor pay more for housing? Exploitation, profit,
and risk in rental markets. American Journal of Sociology, 124(4), 1090-1124.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage publications.
Devine, J. A., & Sams-Abiodun, P. (2001). Household survival strategies in a public housing
development. In Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Diamond, R., McQuade, T., & Qian, F. (2019). The effects of rent control expansion on tenants,
landlords, and inequality: Evidence from San Francisco. American Economic Review,
109(9), 3365-94.
Diamond, R., & Moretti, E. (2021). Where is Standard of Living the Highest? Local Prices and
the Geography of Consumption (No. w29533). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Díaz McConnell, E. (2012). House poor in Los Angeles: Examining patterns of housing-induced
poverty by race, nativity, and legal status. Housing Policy Debate, 22(4), 605-631.
Díaz McConnell, E. (2013). Who has housing affordability problems? Disparities in housing
cost burden by race, nativity, and legal status in Los Angeles. Race and social problems,
5(3), 173-190.
Díaz McConnell, E. (2017). Rented, crowded, and unaffordable? Social vulnerabilities and the
accumulation of precarious housing conditions in Los Angeles. Housing Policy Debate,
27(1), 60-79.
Ding, L., & Hwang, J. (2016). The consequences of gentrification: a focus on residents' financial
health in Philadelphia. Cityscape, 18(3), 27-56.
286
Ding, L., Hwang, J., & Divringi, E. (2016). Gentrification and residential mobility in
Philadelphia. Regional science and urban economics, 61, 38-51.
Dixon, L. B., Winkleby, M. A., & Radimer, K. L. (2001). Dietary intakes and serum nutrients
differ between adults from food-insufficient and food-sufficient families: Third National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. The Journal of nutrition, 131(4),
1232-1246.
Dillon, L. (2022, February 24). LA must move quickly to rezone the city, officials say. Los
Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-02-24/la-needs-
to-rezone-for-a-lot-more-housing
Divringi, E., Wallace, E., Wardrip, K., & Nash, E. (2019). Measuring and Understanding Home
Repair Costs: A National Typology of Households. Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia.
D'Lima, W., & Schultz, P. H. (2019). How Wall Street Investors Rescued the Market for Single
Family Homes. Available at SSRN 3457303.
Dockery, A. M., Ong, R., Colquhoun, S., Li, J., & Kendall, G. (2013). Housing and children’s
development and wellbeing: evidence from Australian data (Vol. 192, pp. 1-98).
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Dominguez, S., & Watkins, C. (2003). Creating networks for survival and mobility: Social
capital among African-American and Latin-American low-income mothers. Social
problems, 50(1), 111-135.
Doucet, B., Van Kempen, R., & Van Weesep, J. (2011). ‘We're a rich city with poor people’:
municipal strategies of new-build gentrification in Rotterdam and Glasgow. Environment
and Planning A, 43(6), 1438-1454.
Dragan, K. L., Ellen, I. G., & Glied, S. A. (2019). Gentrification and the health of low-income
children in New York City. Health affairs, 38(9), 1425-1432.
Dreier, P. (1982). The status of tenants in the United States. Social Problems, 30(2), 179-198.
287
Easter, M. 2019. Destination Crenshaw art project aims to reclaim the neighborhood for black
L.A. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. 30 Jan 2019.
Economic Roundtable. (2018). Escape Routes: Meta-Analysis of Homelessness in Los Angeles
County. Economic Roundtable. https://economicrt.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/Escape-Routes-LA-Homeless-Meta-Analysis.pdf
Edin, K., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a day: Living on almost nothing in America. Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt
Edlund, L., Machado, C., & Sviatschi, M. (2022). Gentrification and the Rising Returns to Skill.
Economica, 89(354), 258-292.
Ehrenreich, B. (2010). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. Metropolitan Books
Ellen, I. G., Horn, K. M., & Reed, D. (2017). Has Falling Crime Invited Gentrification?, US
Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No. CES–WP–17–27.
Ellen, I. G., Mijanovich, T., & Dillman, K. N. (2001). Neighborhood effects on health: exploring
the links and assessing the evidence. Journal of urban affairs, 23(3-4), 391-408.
Ellen, I. G., & O'Regan, K. (2008). Reversal of fortunes? Lower-income urban neighbourhoods
in the US in the 1990s. Urban Studies, 45(4), 845-869.
Ellen, I. G., & O'Regan, K. M. (2011). How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and
enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), 89-97.
Ellen, I. G., & Torrats-Espinosa, G. (2019). Gentrification and fair housing: Does gentrification
further integration?. Housing Policy Debate, 29(5), 835-851.
Elliott-Cooper, A., Hubbard, P., & Lees, L. (2020). Moving beyond Marcuse: Gentrification,
displacement and the violence of un-homing. Progress in Human Geography, 44(3), 492-
509.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University
of Chicago Press.
288
Engels, F., & Dutt, C. P. (1935). The housing question (Vol. 23). New York: International
Publishers.
Engels, F. (1945). Condition of the Working Class in England 1844. New York: International
Publishers.
Erving, C. L., Satcher, L. A., & Chen, Y. (2021). Psychologically resilient, but physically
vulnerable? Exploring the psychosocial determinants of African American women’s
mental and physical health. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 7(1), 116-133.
Evans, A. W. (1991). On monopoly rent. Land Economics, 67(1), 1-14.
Evans, G. W., Saltzman, H., & Cooperman, J. L. (2001). Housing quality and children’s
socioemotional health. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 389-399.
Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2007). Childhood poverty and health: Cumulative risk exposure and
stress dysregulation. Psychological Science, 18(11), 953-957.
Ewing, E. L. (2018). Ghosts in the schoolyard: Racism and school closings on Chicago's South
Side. University of Chicago Press.
Faber, J. W. (2013). Racial dynamics of subprime mortgage lending at the peak. Housing Policy
Debate, 23(2), 328-349.
Fairbank, D. T., & Hough, R. L. (1979). Life event classifications and the event-illness
relationship. Journal of Human Stress, 5(3), 41-47.
Favilukis, J., Mabille, P., & Van Nieuwerburgh, S. (2019). Affordable housing and city welfare
(No. w25906). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Federal Reserve Board. (2019). 2019 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households (SHED). Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/report-economic-well-being-us-
households.htm
289
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). (2017). Incomes determine house prices An illustration
for San Francisco. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2017/10/incomes-determine-house-
prices/?utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_reso
urces&utm_campaign=fredblog
Feins, J. D., & Lane, T. S. (1981). How much for housing?: new perspectives on affordability
and risk. Abt Books.
Feldman, J. M., & Bassett, M. T. (2021). Variation in COVID-19 Mortality in the US by Race
and Ethnicity and Educational Attainment. JAMA network open, 4(11), e2135967-
e2135967.
Ferrer, A. (2021). Beyond Wall Street Landlords. Strategic Actions for a Just Economy.
https://www.saje.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final_A-Just-Recovery-
Series_Beyond_Wall_Street.pdf
Fine, M. (2017). Just Research in Contentious Times: Widening the Methodological
Imagination. Teachers College Press.
Fischel, W. A. (2005). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government
taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Harvard University Press.
Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. Circles of care: Work and
identity in women’s lives, 35-62.
Flippen, C. A. (2012). Laboring underground: The employment patterns of Hispanic immigrant
men in Durham, NC. Social problems, 59(1), 21-42.
Flores, J. (2019, September 30). 16 developments set to sprout along the Crenshaw Line,
mapped. Curbed Los Angeles. https://la.curbed.com/maps/crenshaw-line-development-
map-metro-inglewood
Fogarty, M. S. (1982). The determinants of residential succession with renewal effects. Journal
of Urban Economics, 11(1), 1-10.
290
Folbre, N. (1994). Who pays for the kids?: Gender and the structures of constraint. Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.
Vintage.
Formoso, D., N Weber, R., & S Atkins, M. (2010). Gentrification and urban children’s well-
being: Tipping the scales from problems to promise. American journal of community
psychology, 46(3), 395-412.
Fraser, N. (2016). Expropriation and exploitation in racialized capitalism: A reply to Michael
Dawson. Critical Historical Studies, 3(1), 163-178.
Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement New York City in the 1990s.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52.
Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying
neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 463-491.
Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Temple
University Press.
Freeman, L. (2011). There goes the hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Temple
University Press.
Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement New York City in the 1990s.
Journal of the American planning association, 70(1), 39-52.
Freemark, Y. (2020). Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a zoning reform on property values and
housing construction. Urban Affairs Review, 56(3), 758-789.
Frederick, T. J., Chwalek, M., Hughes, J., Karabanow, J., & Kidd, S. (2014). How stable is
stable? Defining and measuring housing stability. Journal of Community Psychology,
42(8), 964-979.
291
Fried M (1966) Grieving for a lost home: The psychological costs of relocation. In: Wilson J
(ed.) Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Friedman, S., & Rosenbaum, E. (2004). Nativity status and racial/ethnic differences in access to
quality housing: Does homeownership bring greater parity?. Housing Policy Debate,
15(4), 865-901.
Fullilove, M. T. (2016). Root shock: How tearing up city neighborhoods hurts America, and
what we can do about it. New Village Press.
Fussell, E., & Lowe, S. R. (2014). The impact of housing displacement on the mental health of
low-income parents after Hurricane Katrina. Social Science & Medicine, 113, 137-144.
Gabriel, S., & Painter, G. (2020). Why affordability matters. Regional science and urban
economics, 80, 103378.
Galea, S., Ahern, J., Rudenstine, S., Wallace, Z., & Vlahov, D. (2005). Urban built environment
and depression: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,
59(10), 822-827.
Galster, G. (1997). Comparing demand‐side and supply‐side housing policies: Sub‐market and
spatial perspectives.
Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban studies, 38(12), 2111-2124.
Galster, G., & Lee, K. O. (2021). Housing affordability: A framing, synthesis of research and
policy, and future directions. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 25(sup1), 7-58.
Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian
valley. University of Illinois Press.
Geronimus, A. T., Pearson, J. A., Linnenbringer, E., Schulz, A. J., Reyes, A. G., Epel, E. S., &
Blackburn, E. H. (2015). Race-ethnicity, poverty, urban stressors, and telomere length in
a Detroit community-based sample. Journal of health and social behavior, 56(2), 199-
224.
292
Gibbons, A. (2018). City of Segregation: 100 Years of Struggle for Housing in Los Angeles.
Verso Books.
Gibbons, J. (2019). Are gentrifying neighborhoods more stressful? A multilevel analysis of self-
rated stress. SSM-population health, 7, 100358.
Gibbons, J., & Barton, M. S. (2016). The association of minority self-rated health with black
versus white gentrification. Journal of urban health, 93(6), 909-922.
Gilderbloom, J. I. (1985). Social factors affecting landlords in the determination of rent. Urban
life, 14(2), 155-179.
Gilderbloom, J. I., & Appelbaum, R. P. (1987). Toward a sociology of rent: Are rental housing
markets competitive?. Social Problems, 34(3), 261-276.
Gilman, S. E., Kawachi, I., Fitzmaurice, G. M., & Buka, S. L. (2003). Socio-economic status,
family disruption and residential stability in childhood: relation to onset, recurrence and
remission of major depression. Psychological medicine, 33(8), 1341-1355.
Gilmore, R. W. (2002). Fatal couplings of power and difference: Notes on racism and
geography. The professional geographer, 54(1), 15-24.
Gilmore, R. W. (2007). Golden gulag. University of California Press.
Giurgescu, C., Misra, D. P., Sealy-Jefferson, S., Caldwell, C. H., Templin, T. N., Slaughter-
Acey, J. C., & Osypuk, T. L. (2015). The impact of neighborhood quality, perceived
stress, and social support on depressive symptoms during pregnancy in African American
women. Social Science & Medicine, 130, 172-180.
Glaeser, E. L., and J. Gyourko (2003). The Impact of Building Restricts on Housing
Affordability. Economic Policy Review, pp. 21–39.
Glaeser, E., & Gyourko, J. (2018). The economic implications of housing supply. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 3-30.
293
Glaeser, E. L., Kim, H., & Luca, M. (2018, May). Nowcasting gentrification: using yelp data to
quantify neighborhood change. In AEA Papers and Proceedings (Vol. 108, pp. 77-82).
Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2001). Consumer city. Journal of economic geography,
1(1), 27-50.
Glass, R. (1964) Introduction: aspects of change. In London: Aspects of Change, ed. Centre for
Urban Studies, London: MacKibbon and Kee, xiii–xlii
Godman, H. (2021, September 1). How many fruits and vegetables do we really need? Harvard
Health Publishing. https://www.health.harvard.edu/nutrition/how-many-fruits-and-
vegetables-do-we-really-need
Goetz, E., Lewis, B., Damiano, A., & Calhoun, M. (2019). The diversity of gentrification:
Multiple forms of gentrification in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Center for Urban and
Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity (No. HV4967 G6).
Goodman, A. C., & Thibodeau, T. G. (1998). Housing market segmentation. Journal of housing
economics, 7(2), 121-143.
Gorman-Murray, A., & Dowling, R. (2007). Home. M/C Journal, 10(4).
Gottlieb, R., Freer, R., Vallianatos, M., & Dreier, P. (2006). The next Los Angeles: The struggle
for a livable city. Univ of California Press.
Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, R. (2009). The rising instability of US earnings. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 23(4), 3-24.
Gourzis, K., Herod, A., & Gialis, S. (2019). Linking gentrification and labour market precarity in
the contemporary city: A framework for analysis. Antipode, 51(5), 1436-1455.
Graziani, T., Montano, J., Roy, A., & Stephens, P. (2022). Property, personhood, and police: The
making of race and space through nuisance law. Antipode, 54(2), 439-461.
294
Greene, S., & McCargo, A. (2020). New data suggest COVID-19 is widening housing disparities
by race and income. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/new-data-
suggest-covid-19-wideninghousing-disparities-race-and-income
Greenwald, D. L., Lettau, M., & Ludvigson, S. C. (2019). How the wealth was won: Factors
shares as market fundamentals (No. w25769). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Grier, G., & Grier, E. (1978). Urban displacement: A reconnaissance. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Grier, S. & Perry, V. (2018). Dog parks and coffee shops: Faux diversity and consumption in
gentrifying neighborhoods. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 37(1), 23–38
Grineski, S. (2008). Childhood asthma, public housing, and environmental control: differences
between families renting with section 8 vouchers and those living in the projects. Journal
of poverty, 12(4), 432-455.
Grineski, S. E., & Hernández, A. A. (2010). Landlords, fear, and children's respiratory health: an
untold story of environmental injustice in the central city. Local Environment, 15(3), 199-
216.
Grodsky, E., & Pager, D. (2001). The structure of disadvantage: Individual and occupational
determinants of the black-white wage gap. American Sociological Review, 542-567.
Gromis, A., & Desmond, M. (2021). Estimating the prevalence of eviction in the United States.
Cityscape, 23(2), 279-290.
Groves, R. M., Fowler Jr, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.
(2011). Survey methodology. (Vol. 561). John Wiley & Sons.
Guerrieri, V., Hartley, D., & Hurst, E. (2013). Endogenous gentrification and housing price
dynamics. Journal of Public Economics, 100, 45-60.
Gurun, U. G., Wu, J., Xiao, S. C., & Xiao, S. W. (2022). Do Wall Street Landlords Undermine
Renters’ Welfare?. The Review of Financial Studies.
295
Gyourko, J., Mayer, C., & Sinai, T. (2013). Superstar cities. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 5(4), 167-99.
Hacker, J. S. (2019). The great risk shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the
American dream. oxford University press.
Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification. Tijdschrift voor
economische en sociale geografie, 92(4), 464-477.
Hage, G. (1997). At home in the entrails of the west: multiculturalism, ethnic food and migrant
home-building. Home/world: Space, community and marginality in Sydney’s west, 99-
153.
Haider, A. and Mohandesi, S. (2013). Workers’ Inquiry: A Genealogy. Viewpoint Magazine.
Hall, M., & Greenman, E. (2013). Housing and neighborhood quality among undocumented
Mexican and Central American immigrants. Social science research, 42(6), 1712-1725.
Hall, M., & Greenman, E. (2015). The occupational cost of being illegal in the United States:
Legal status, job hazards, and compensating differentials. International Migration
Review, 49(2), 406-442.
Hall, M., & Stringfield, J. (2014). Undocumented migration and the residential segregation of
Mexicans in new destinations. Social science research, 47, 61-78.
Hallman, H. W. (1984). Neighborhoods: Their place in urban life (Vol. 154). SAGE
Publications, Incorporated.
Hall, S. (1980). Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance (pp. 16-60). na.
Halpern, D. (2014). Mental health and the built environment: more than bricks and mortar?.
Routledge.
Han, C. (2018). Precarity, precariousness, and vulnerability. Annual review of Anthropology, 47,
331-343.
296
Harkness, J., & Newman, S. J. (2005). Housing affordability and children's well‐being: Evidence
from the national survey of America's families. Housing Policy Debate, 16(2), 223-255.
Harter, C. (2022, February 15). HCD rejects City’s Housing Element, demands revisions. Santa
Monica Daily Press. https://www.smdp.com/hcd-rejects-citys-housing-element-demands-
revisions/213343
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of
population health inequalities. American journal of public health, 103(5), 813-821.
Hanh, T. N., & Berrigan, D. (2009). The raft is not the shore. Conversations Toward A Buddhist-
Christian Awareness (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1975, 2001), 31.
Harris, Cheryl I. 1993. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 1707–91.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. University of Georgia press.
Harvey, D. (1974). Class-monopoly rent, finance capital and the urban revolution. Regional
studies, 8(3-4), 239-255.
Harvey, D. (1982). The limits to capital. Verso books.
Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban
governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: series B, human geography, 71(1),
3-17.
Hepburn, P., Louis, R., & Desmond, M. (2020). Racial and gender disparities among evicted
Americans. Sociological Science, 7, 649-662.
Hernández, D., Jiang, Y., Carrión, D., Phillips, D., & Aratani, Y. (2016). Housing hardship and
energy insecurity among native-born and immigrant low-income families with children in
the United States. Journal of Children and Poverty, 22(2), 77-92.
Henderson, A. S. (1992). Social support and depression.
297
Henderson, T. (NAR). (2019). Rural America Faces a Housing Cost Crunch. Pew Charitable
Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/03/25/rural-america-faces-a-housing-cost-crunch
Herscher, A. 2020. The Urbanism of Racial Capitalism: Toward a History of “Blight”.
Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 40(1): 57-65.
Hertzman, C., & Boyce, T. (2010). How experience gets under the skin to create gradients in
developmental health. Annual review of public health, 31, 329-347.
Heynen, N. (2006). “But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only”: Radicalism as survival.
Antipode, 38(5), 916-929.
Heynen, N. (2009). Bending the bars of empire from every ghetto for survival: the Black Panther
Party's radical antihunger politics of social reproduction and scale. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 99(2), 406-422.
Heynen, N., Hossler, P., & Herod, A. (2011). Surviving uneven development: Social
reproduction and the persistence of capitalism. New Political Economy, 16(2), 239-245.
Hirsch, A. R. (2009). Making the second ghetto: Race and housing in Chicago 1940-1960.
University of Chicago Press.
Hobart, H. I. J. K., & Kneese, T. (2020). Radical care: Survival strategies for uncertain times.
Social Text, 38(1), 1-16.
Homelessness Policy Research Institute (HPRI). (2020). Rent Burden Housing Subsidy in
California. Homelesness Policy Research Institute. https://socialinnovation.usc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/Right-to-Housing-Subsidy-2.pdf
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Pastor, M. (2021). South central dreams: Finding home and building
community in South LA (Vol. 13). NYU Press.
hooks, . (1990A). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.
298
hooks, b. (1990B). Marginality as a site of resistance. Out there: Marginalization and
contemporary cultures, 4, 341-343.
hooks, b. (2009). Belonging: a culture of place. New York: Routledge.
Horan, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2015). From childhood maltreatment to allostatic load in
adulthood: the role of social support. Child maltreatment, 20(4), 229-239.
Howell, J., & Korver-Glenn, E. (2021). The increasing effect of neighborhood racial composition
on housing values, 1980–2015. Social Problems, 68(4), 1051-1071.
Huang, Y., Heflin, C. M., & Validova, A. (2021). Material hardship, perceived stress, and health
in early adulthood. Annals of Epidemiology, 53, 69-75.
Hulse, K., & Milligan, V. (2014). Secure occupancy: A new framework for analysing security in
rental housing. Housing Studies, 29(5), 638-656.
Huynh, M., & Maroko, A. R. (2014). Gentrification and preterm birth in New York City, 2008–
2010. Journal of urban health, 91(1), 211-220.
Hwang, J. (2015). Gentrification in changing cities: Immigration, new diversity, and racial
inequality in neighborhood renewal. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 660(1), 319-340.
Hwang, J. (2016). Pioneers of gentrification: Transformation in global neighborhoods in urban
America in the late twentieth century. Demography, 53(1), 189-213.
Hwang, J. (2020). Gentrification without segregation? Race, immigration, and renewal in a
diversifying city. City & Community, 19(3), 538-572.
Hwang, J., & Ding, L. (2020). Unequal displacement: gentrification, racial stratification, and
residential destinations in Philadelphia. American Journal of Sociology, 126(2), 354-406.
299
Hwang, J., & Sampson, R. J. (2014). Divergent pathways of gentrification: Racial inequality and
the social order of renewal in Chicago neighborhoods. American Sociological Review,
79(4), 726-751.
Hyra, D. (2008). The new urban renewal: The economic transformation of Harlem and
Bronzeville. University of Chicago Press.
Hyra, D., Moulden, D., Weted, C., & Fullilove, M. (2019). A method for making the just city:
housing, gentrification, and health. Housing Policy Debate, 29(3), 421-431.
Iceland, J., & Bauman, K. J. (2007). Income poverty and material hardship: How strong is the
association?. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 376-396.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2004). Exclusionary land-use regulations within suburban communities: A
review of the evidence and policy prescriptions. Urban Studies, 41(2), 261-283.
Inglis, A., & Preston, D. (2018). California Evictions are Fast and Frequent. Tenants Together.
https://www.tenantstogether.org/sites/tenantstogether.org/files/CA_Evictions_are_Fast_a
nd_Frequent.pdf
IPUMS; American Community Survey Micro-data 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates.
Izenberg, J. M., Mujahid, M. S., & Yen, I. H. (2018). Health in changing neighborhoods: A study
of the relationship between gentrification and self-rated health in the state of California.
Health & place, 52, 188.
Jacobs, F. (2019). Black feminism and radical planning: New directions for disaster planning
research. Planning Theory, 18(1), 24-39
Jelleyman, T., & Spencer, N. (2008). Residential mobility in childhood and health outcomes: a
systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62(7), 584-592.
Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS). (2019). The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2019. Joint
Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_State_of_the_Nations_H
ousing_2019.pdf
300
Joseph, M. (2002). Against the romance of community. U of Minnesota Press.
Jupp, E. (2017). Families, policy and place in times of austerity. Area, 49(3), 266-272.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs. New York.
Kallin, H., & Slater, T. (2014). Activating territorial stigma: gentrifying marginality on
Edinburgh's periphery. Environment and planning A, 46(6), 1351-1368.
Kang, S. (2019). Why low-income households become unstably housed: Evidence from the
panel study of income dynamics. Housing Policy Debate, 29(4), 559-587.
Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2019). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the
United States, 1995–2015. ILR review, 72(2), 382-416.
Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality
in twentieth-century America. WW Norton & Company.
Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban health,
78(3), 458-467.
Keller, S. I. (1968). The urban neighborhood: A sociological perspective (No. 33). Random
House.
Kim, J. (2010). Neighborhood disadvantage and mental health: The role of neighborhood
disorder and social relationships. Social science research, 39(2), 260-271.
Kirkpatrick, S. I., & Tarasuk, V. (2007). Adequacy of food spending is related to housing
expenditures among lower-income Canadian households. Public health nutrition, 10(12),
1464-1473.
Kirkpatrick, S. I., & Tarasuk, V. (2011). Housing circumstances are associated with household
food access among low-income urban families. Journal of urban health, 88(2), 284-296.
301
Knudsen, H. K., Ducharme, L. J., & Roman, P. M. (2007). Job stress and poor sleep quality: data
from an American sample of full-time workers. Social science & medicine, 64(10), 1997-
2007.
Koebel, C. T. (1997). Housing conditions of low‐income families in the private, unassisted
housing market in the United states. Housing Studies, 12(2), 201-213.
Korver-Glenn, E. (2018). Compounding inequalities: How racial stereotypes and discrimination
accumulate across the stages of housing exchange. American Sociological Review, 83(4),
627-656.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Krieger, N. (2012). Methods for the scientific study of discrimination and health: an ecosocial
approach. American journal of public health, 102(5), 936-944.
Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). Housing and health: time again for public health action.
American journal of public health, 92(5), 758-768.
Krueger, A. B., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in
the United States, 1995-2015.
Lambert, S. J., Henly, J. R., & Kim, J. (2019). Precarious work schedules as a source of
economic insecurity and institutional distrust. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal
of the Social Sciences, 5(4), 218-257.
Landis, J. D. (2016). Tracking and explaining neighborhood socioeconomic change in US
metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2010. Housing Policy Debate, 26(1), 2-52.
Landis, J., & Reina, V. J. (2021). Do Restrictive Land Use Regulations Make Housing More
Expensive Everywhere?. Economic Development Quarterly, 35(4), 305-324.
Laslett, B., & Brenner, J. (1989). Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives.
Annual review of sociology, 381-404.
302
L.A. Times (2018, October 12). Seriously, Beverly Hills? Cut your Purple Line hysteria, already.
Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-beverly-hills-
purple-line-20181012-story.html
Lawson, V. (2007). Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers,
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance?.
Urban studies, 45(12), 2449-2470.
Lees, L., Annunziata, S., & Rivas-Alonso, C. (2018). Resisting planetary gentrification: The
value of survivability in the fight to stay put. Annals of the American Association of
Geographers, 108(2), 346-355.
Lee, S., & Lin, J. (2018). Natural amenities, neighbourhood dynamics, and persistence in the
spatial distribution of income. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(1), 663-694.
Lees, L., Shin, H. B., & López-Morales, E. (2016). Planetary gentrification. John Wiley & Sons.
Le, T., Muña, E. Treuhaft, S, & Phillips, R. (2022). The Shrinking Geography of Opportunity in
Metro America. National Equity Atlas. https://nationalequityatlas.org/dashboard-
neighborhood-affordability-for-renters
Lefcoe, G., & Swenson, C. W. (2014). Redevelopment in California: The demise of TIF-funded
redevelopment in California and its aftermath. National Tax Journal, 67(3), 719-744.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (p. 85). Blackwell Publishers Limited.
Lens, M. C., Nelson, K., Gromis, A., & Kuai, Y. (2020). The neighborhood context of eviction
in Southern California. City & Community, 19(4), 912-932.
Leventhal, T., & Newman, S. (2010). Housing and child development. Children and Youth
Services Review, 32(9), 1165-1174.
303
Li, X. (2019). Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents. NYU Wagner and NYU
Furman Center, Job Market Paper, 57.
Lim, S., Chan, P. Y., Walters, S., Culp, G., Huynh, M., & Gould, L. H. (2017). Impact of
residential displacement on healthcare access and mental health among original residents
of gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City. PloS one, 12(12), e0190139.
Lin, N. 1982. "Social Resources and Instrumental Action." Pp. 131-45 in Social Structure and
Network Analysis, edited by Peter V. Marsden and Nan Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lin, N. 1990. "Social Resources and Social Mobility: A Structural Theory of Status Attainment."
Pp. 247-71 in Social Mobility and Social Structure, edited by Ronald L. Breiger.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Linton, J. (2014, March 19). Los Angeles Revisits Its Zoning Code via “re:code LA” Process.
Streetsblog LA. https://la.streetsblog.org/2014/03/19/los-angeles-revisits-its-zoning-code-
via-recode-la-process/
Lipsitz, G. (2011). How racism takes place. Temple University Press.
Lincoln, K. D., Lloyd, D. A., & Nguyen, A. W. (2019). Social relationships and salivary
telomere length among middle-aged and older african american and white adults. The
Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 74(6), 1053-1061.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of
health and social behavior, 80-94.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology, 27(1),
363-385.
Liu, J. J., Wei, Y. B., Forsell, Y., & Lavebratt, C. (2017). Stress, depressive status and telomere
length: Does social interaction and coping strategy play a mediating role?. Journal of
affective disorders, 222, 138-145.
Liu, L., McManus, D., & Yannopoulos, E. (2022). Geographic and temporal variation in housing
filtering rates. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 93, 103758.
304
Liu, Y., Njai, R. S., Greenlund, K. J., Chapman, D. P., & Croft, J. B. (2014). Relationships
between housing and food insecurity, frequent mental distress, and insufficient sleep
among adults in 12 US States, 2009.
Logan, J. R., Molotch, H. L., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of
place. Univ of California Press.
Logan, T. (2014, July 31). LA is working on major zoning code revamp. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-zoning-code-revamp-20140731-
story.html
Lombard, M. (2013). Struggling, suffering, hoping, waiting: Perceptions of temporality in two
informal neighbourhoods in Mexico. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
31(5), 813-829.
Londoño, J. (2020). Abstract barrios: the crises of Latinx visibility in cities. Duke University
Press.
Lopoo, L. M., & London, A. S. (2016). Household crowding during childhood and long-term
education outcomes. Demography, 53(3), 699-721.
Lorey, I. (2015). State of insecurity: Government of the precarious. Verso Books.
Los Angeles Crisis Housing Taskforce. (2000). Los Angeles City Planning Department
Recommendation Report. Los Angeles City Council Housing Crisis Task Force.
https://planning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Housing/StaffReport.pdf
Los Angeles City Council. (2021). Report Relative to Citywide Equitable Distribution of
Affordable Housing. Los Angeles City Council.
https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/0062db2b-073b-4e96-8217-
8b103ccde78b/Fair_Share_Report.pdf
Los Angeles City Open Data. (2018). Total and Affordable Housing Units. Los Angeles Open
Data. https://data.lacity.org/Housing-and-Real-Estate/Total-and-Affordable-Housing-
Units/rckt-8prm/data
305
Los Angeles City Planning (2013). City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2013-2021.
Department of City Planning Los Angeles.
https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/0167d499-88fd-4f23-bf3d-
d2579c1477ac/HousingElement_20140321_HR.pdf
Los Angeles City Planning (2021). City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2021-2029.
Department of City Planning Los Angeles.
https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/55fdecf6-e185-4910-b690-2df603093d76/2021-
2029_Housing_Element_Book_(Adopted)_-_Low_Res..pdf
Los Angeles City Planning (2021). Housing Progress Dashboard. Department of City Planning
Los Angeles. https://planning.lacity.org/resources/housing-reports
Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD). (2009). Economic Study of the Rent Stabilization
Ordinance and the Los Angeles Housing Market. City of Los Angeles Housing
Department.
Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD). (2020). Removal From Rental Market – Renters.
City of Los Angeles Housing Department. https://housing.lacity.org/residents/removal-
from-rental-market-renters
Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD). (2021). Report Dashboard for Ellis. City of Los
Angeles Housing Department. https://housing.lacity.org/ellis
Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD). (2021). Rent Stabilization Ordinance Dashboard.
City of Los Angeles Housing Department. https://housing.lacity.org/rso
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA). (2009-2019). Homeless Count
Dashboards. Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-
count/
Loyd, J. M., & Bonds, A. (2018). Where do Black lives matter? Race, stigma, and place in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Sociological Review, 66(4), 898-918.
Ludden, A. (2022, May 4). Eviction filings are up sharply as pandemic rental aid starts to run
out. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/04/1095559147/eviction-
filings-are-up-sharply-as-pandemic-rental-aid-starts-to-run-out
306
Lutfey, K., & Freese, J. (2005). Toward some fundamentals of fundamental causality:
Socioeconomic status and health in the routine clinic visit for diabetes. American Journal
of Sociology, 110(5), 1326-1372.
MacDonald, J. M., Ollinger, M., Nelson, K. E., & Handy, C. R. (2000). Consolidation in US
meatpacking (No. 1473-2016-120772).
MacRoy, P., and D. Farquhar. 2010. Creating Healthier Housing Through Standards.
Washington, DC: National Safe and Healthy Homes Coalition.
http://www.nchh.org/portals/0/contents/coalition_briefing_paper_standards.pdf.
MaCurdy, T. (2015). How effective is the minimum wage at supporting the poor?. Journal of
Political Economy, 123(2), 497-545.
Maeckelbergh, M. (2012). Mobilizing to stay put: Housing struggles in New York City.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(4), 655-673.
Mallett, S. (2004). Understanding home: a critical review of the literature. The sociological
review, 52(1), 62-89.
Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2016). Going back in time? Gender differences in trends and
sources of the racial pay gap, 1970 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 81(5), 1039-
1068.
Manzo LfC, Kleit RG and Couch D (2008) ‘Moving three times is like having your house on fire
once’: The experience of place and impending displacement among public housing
residents. Urban Studies 45: 1855–1878
Manville, M., Monkkonen, P., Lens, M., & Green, R. (2021). End of the pandemic, but not renter
distress. UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies.
Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: Connections, causes, and
policy responses in New York City. Wash. UJ Urb. & Contemp. L., 28, 195.
Marsh, A., Gordon, D., Heslop, P., & Pantazis, C. (2000). Housing deprivation and health: a
longitudinal analysis. Housing Studies, 15(3), 411-428.
307
Mason, K. E., Baker, E., Blakely, T., & Bentley, R. J. (2013). Housing affordability and mental
health: does the relationship differ for renters and home purchasers?. Social science &
medicine, 94, 91-97.
Massey, D. S. (1987). Do undocumented migrants earn lower wages than legal immigrants? New
evidence from Mexico. International Migration Review, 21(2), 236-274.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1997). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the
underclass. Routledge.
Mast, E. (2019). The effect of new market-rate housing construction on the low-income housing
market. Upjohn Institute WP, 19-307.
Mattern, S. (2018). Maintenance and care. Places Journal.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational
review, 62(3), 279-301.
May, V. (2011). Self, belonging and social change. Sociology, 45(3), 363-378.
Mazzara, A. (2019, September 27). Census: Income-Rent Gap Grew in 2018. Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/census-income-rent-gap-grew-in-2018
Mazzara, A., & Knudsen, B. (2019). Where Families With Children Use Housing Vouchers.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3.
McCall, L. (2001). Sources of racial wage inequality in metropolitan labor markets: Racial,
ethnic, and gender differences. American Sociological Review, 520-541.
McCarthy, J. D., and M. N. Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America:
Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning press.
McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1988). Typologies of resilient families: Emerging roles of
social class and ethnicity. Family relations, 247-254.
308
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of
the New York academy of sciences, 840(1), 33-44.
McKinnish, T., Walsh, R., & White, T. K. (2010). Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods?.
Journal of urban economics, 67(2), 180-193.
McKittrick, K. (2011). On plantations, prisons, and a black sense of place. Social & Cultural
Geography, 12(8), 947-963.
Mejia, M. C., & Cha, P. (2020). Overcrowded Housing and COVID-19 Risk among Essential
Workers. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/blog/overcrowded-
housing-and-covid-19-riskamong-essential-workers
Meltzer, R., & Schwartz, A. (2016). Housing affordability and health: evidence from New York
City. Housing Policy Debate, 26(1), 80-104.
Meltzer, R., & Schuetz, J. (2012). Bodegas or bagel shops? Neighborhood differences in retail
and household services. Economic Development Quarterly, 26(1), 73-94.
Mense, A. (2020). The impact of new housing supply on the distribution of rents.
Menjívar, C., Simmons, W. P., Alvord, D., & Valdez, E. S. (2018). Immigration enforcement,
the racialization of legal status, and perceptions of the police: Latinos in Chicago, Los
Angeles, Houston, and Phoenix in comparative perspective. Du Bois Review: Social
Science Research on Race, 15(1), 107-128.
Menjívar, C., & Abrego, L. (2012). Legal violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central
American immigrants. American journal of sociology, 117(5), 000-000.
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of
mixed methods research, 1(3), 212-225.
Merton, R. K. (1987). The focused interview and focus groups: Continuities and discontinuities.
The Public opinion quarterly, 51(4), 550-566.
309
Metzger, J. T. (2000). Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life‐cycle theory and national
urban policy.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method
sourcebook. CA, US: Sage Publications.
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States.
Joseph Henry Press.
Mills, C. W., & Mills, C. (2003). From class to race: Essays in white Marxism and black
radicalism. Rowman & Littlefield.
Moffitt, R. A. (2015). The deserving poor, the family, and the US welfare system. Demography,
52(3), 729-749.
Mohan, G. (2006). Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment.
Molina, E. T. (2016A). Foreclosures, investors, and uneven development during the great
recession in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(4), 564-580.
Molina, E. T. (2016B). Neighborhood Inequalities and the Long–Term Impact of Foreclosures:
Evidence from the Los Angeles–Inland Empire Region. City & Community, 15(3), 315-
337.
Molina, N. (2006). Fit to be Citizens?. In Fit to Be Citizens?. University of California Press.
Morduch, J., & Schneider, R. (2017). The financial diaries. In The Financial Diaries. Princeton
University Press.
Morenoff, J. D., & Tienda, M. (1997). Underclass neighborhoods in temporal and ecological
perspective. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
551(1), 59-72.
Morrow, G. (2013). The Homeowner Revolution: Democracy, Land Use and the Los Angeles
Slow-Growth Movement, 1965–1992. University of California, Los Angeles.
310
Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well‐being of children and
young people: a critical review. The sociological review, 47(4), 744-765.
Mueller, E. J., & Tighe, J. R. (2007). Making the case for affordable housing: Connecting
housing with health and education outcomes. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(4), 371-
385.
Mukhija, V., Regus, L., Slovin, S., & Das, A. (2010). Can inclusionary zoning be an effective
and efficient housing policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Journal
of Urban Affairs, 32(2), 229-252.
Muñoz, S. (2018). Urban precarity and home: There is no “right to the city”. Annals of the
American Association of Geographers, 108(2), 370-379.
Muraida, L. & Wat, E. (2020). South Central Rooted. Building Healthy Communities South Los
Angeles
Myers, D., Calnan, R., Jacobsen, A., & Wheeler, J. (2012). California Roller Coaster: Income
and Housing in Boom and Bust, 1990–2010. Reports from the Population Dynamics
Research Group, Sol Price School of Public Policy, http://www. usc.
edu/schools/price/research/popdynamics (accessed 3 July 2011).
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). (2021). NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing
Opportunity Index (HOI). National Association of Home Builders.
https://www.nahb.org/News-and-Economics/Housing-Economics/Indices/Housing-
Opportunity-Index
National Association of Realtors (NAR). (2022). 2022 Housing Wealth Gains for the Rising
Middle-Class Markets. National Association of Realtors Research Group.
https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-housing-wealth-gains-for-the-
rising-middle-class-markets-03-09-2022.pdf
National Association of Realtors (NAR). (2022). NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity
Index (HOI). National Association of Realtors Research Grou.
https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-housing-wealth-gains-for-the-
rising-middle-class-markets-03-09-2022.pdf
311
Nelson, K., Gromis, A., Kuai, Y., Lens, M. C. (2021). Spatial Concentration and Spillover:
Eviction Dynamics in Neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California, 2005–2015. Housing
Policy Debate, 31(3–5), 670–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2020.1847163
Next 10. (2019). Missing the Mark Examining the Shortcomings of California’s Housing Goals.
Newman, K., & Wyly, E. K. (2006). The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance
to displacement in New York City. Urban studies, 43(1), 23-57.
Newman, S. J., & Holupka, C. S. (2014). Housing affordability and investments in children.
Journal of Housing Economics, 24, 89-100.
Newman, S. J., & Holupka, C. S. (2015). Housing affordability and child well-being. Housing
Policy Debate, 25(1), 116-151.
Newman, S., & Holupka, C. S. (2016). Housing affordability and children’s cognitive
achievement. Health Affairs, 35(11), 2092-2099.
Niño, M. D. (2021). Poverty, Material Hardship, and Telomere Length Among Latina/o
Children. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 1-10.
Ochoa, E. C., & Ochoa, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). Latino Los Angeles: transformations, communities,
and activism. University of Arizona Press.
O’Connor, A. 1996. “Community Action, Urban Reform, and the Fight Against Poverty—The
Ford Foundation’s Gray Areas Program.” Journal of Urban History 22 (5): 586–625.
O'Neill, M., Biber, E., Gualco-Nelson, G., & Marantz, N. (2021). Examining Entitlement in
California to Inform Policy and Process: Advancing Social Equity in Housing
Development Patterns. Available at SSRN 3956250.
Ong, P., Comandon, A., Cheng, A., & González, S. (2018). South Los Angeles Since the Sixties.
UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge.
https://www.aasc.ucla.edu/news/SLA_Since_The_60s_FullRpt.pdf
312
Ong, P., Gonzalez, S. & Nazario, P. (2021). Housing insecurity persists for renters of color amid
the COVID-19 pandemic. UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge.
https://knowledge.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2022/04/Housing_Insecurity_COVID_Report.pdf
Owens, A. (2012). Neighborhoods on the rise: A typology of neighborhoods experiencing
socioeconomic ascent. City & Community, 11(4), 345-369.
Owens, A., & Candipan, J. (2019). Racial/ethnic transition and hierarchy among ascending
neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 55(6), 1550-1578.
Padilla, A. M., Cervantes, R. C., Maldonado, M., & Garcia, R. E. (1988). Coping responses to
psychosocial stressors among Mexican and Central American immigrants. Journal of
community Psychology, 16(4), 418-427.
Pain, R. (2019). Chronic urban trauma: The slow violence of housing dispossession. Urban
Studies, 56(2), 385-400.
Paret, M. (2016). Towards a precarity agenda. Global Labour Journal, 7(2).
Park, G. R., & Seo, B. K. (2020). Revisiting the relationship among housing tenure, affordability
and mental health: Do dwelling conditions matter?. Health & Social Care in the
Community, 28(6), 2225-2232.
Park, M., Verhoeven, J. E., Cuijpers, P., Reynolds Iii, C. F., & Penninx, B. W. (2015). Where
you live may make you old: the association between perceived poor neighborhood quality
and leukocyte telomere length. PloS one, 10(6), e0128460.
Pastor Jr, Manuel. 1995. “Economic inequality, Latino poverty, and the civil unrest in Los
Angeles.” Economic Development Quarterly, 9(3), 238-258.
Pastor, Jr, M. (2001). Common ground at ground zero? The new economy and the new
organizing in Los Angeles. Antipode, 33(2), 260-289.
Pastor, M., Carter, V., & Abood, M. (2018). Rent Matters: What are the Impacts of Rent
Stabilization Measures?. Los Angeles: USC Dornsife Program for Environmental and
Regional Equity.
313
Pastor, M. & Segura, G. (2021). No Going Back: Policies for an Equitable and Inclusive Los
Angeles. USC Dornsife.
Pathak, E. B., Menard, J. M., Garcia, R. B., & Salemi, J. L. (2021). Social Class, Race/Ethnicity,
and COVID-19 Mortality Among Working Age Adults in the United States. medRxiv.
Pattillo, Mary. (2007). Black on the block. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Pattillo, M. (2013). Housing: Commodity versus right. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 509-531.
Peake, L., Koleth, E., Tanyildiz, G. S., & Reddy, R. N. (Eds.). (2021). A feminist urban theory
for our time: Rethinking social reproduction and the urban. John Wiley & Sons.
Pearlin, L. I. (1999). The stress process revisited. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health
(pp. 395-415). Springer, Boston, MA.
Pelletiere, D. (2008). Getting to the heart of housing's fundamental question: How much can a
family afford? A primer on housing affordability standards in US housing policy. A
primer on housing affordability standards in US housing policy.
Pendall, R., Theodos, B., & Franks, K. (2012). Vulnerable people, precarious housing, and
regional resilience: an exploratory analysis. Housing policy debate, 22(2), 271-296.
Pennington, K. (2021). Does Building New Housing Cause Displacement?: The Supply and
Demand Effects of Construction in San Francisco. The Supply and Demand Effects of
Construction in San Francisco (June 15, 2021).
Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2015). Is racism a fundamental cause of inequalities in health?.
Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 311-330.
Pollack, C. E., Griffin, B. A., & Lynch, J. (2010). Housing affordability and health among
homeowners and renters. American journal of preventive medicine, 39(6), 515-521.
powell, J. A., & Cardwell, K. (January 01, 2014). Homeownership, wealth, and the production of
racialized space. Homeownership Built to Last.
314
Prior, L., Manley, D., & Jones, K. (2018). Stressed out? An investigation of whether allostatic
load mediates associations between neighbourhood deprivation and health. Health &
place, 52, 25-33.
Proudfoot, J., & McCann, E. J. (2008). At street level: Bureaucratic practice in the management
of urban neighborhood change. Urban Geography, 29(4), 348-370.
Pulido, L. (2006). Black, Brown, Yellow, and Left. In Black, Brown, Yellow, and Left.
University of California Press.
Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is housing unaffordable? Why isn't it more affordable?.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 191-214
Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2005). Regulation and the high cost of housing in California.
American Economic Review, 95(2), 323-328..
Raetz, H., Forscher, T., Kneebone, E., & Reid, C. (2020). The Hard Costs of Construction:
Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California.
Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter. berkeley.
edu/hard-construction-costs-apartments-california.
Ramiller, A. (2021). Displacement through development? Property turnover and eviction risk in
Seattle. Urban Studies, 00420980211004214.
Rankin, K. N., & McLean, H. (2015). Governing the commercial streets of the city: New terrains
of disinvestment and gentrification in Toronto's inner suburbs. Antipode, 47(1), 216-239.
Rauh, V. A., Landrigan, P. J., & Claudio, L. (2008). Housing and health: intersection of poverty
and environmental exposures. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1),
276-288.
Ray, V., & Seamster, L. (2016). Rethinking racial progress: a response to Wimmer. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 39(8), 1361-1369.
Razack, S. (Ed.). (2002). Race, space, and the law: Unmapping a white settler society. Between
the Lines.
315
Razack, Sherene H. 2018. “When Place Becomes Race.” Race and Racialization: Essential
Readings 113–29.
Ready, Douglas, Valerie Lee, and Kevin Welner. 2004. “Educational Equity and School
Structure: School Size, Overcrowding, and Schools-Within-Schools.” The Teachers
College Record 106 .10.: 1989–2014.
Redelings, M., Lieb, L., & Sorvillo, F. (2010). Years off your life? The effects of homicide on
life expectancy by neighborhood and race/ethnicity in Los Angeles County. Journal of
Urban Health, 87(4), 670-676
Redford, L. (2017). The intertwined history of class and race segregation in Los Angeles.
Journal of Planning History, 16(4), 305-322.
Regoeczi, W. C. (2008). Crowding in context: An examination of the differential responses of
men and women to high-density living environments. Journal of health and social
behavior, 49(3), 254-268.
Reina, V. and Goldstein, S. (2021). An Early Analysis of the California COVID-19 Rental Relief
Program. Housing Initiative at Penn.
https://www.housinginitiative.org/uploads/1/3/2/9/132946414/hip_carr_7.9_final.pdf
Reina, V, Aiken, R., & Epstein, J. (2021). Exploring A Universal Housing Voucher. The
Housing Initiative at Penn. https://www.housinginitiative.org/universal-voucher.html
Remes, J. A., & Horowitz, A. (Eds.). (2021). Critical disaster studies. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Rérat, P., Söderström, O., & Piguet, E. (2010). New forms of gentrification: issues and debates.
Population, space and place, 16(5), 335-343.
Richardson, S., Ruser, R., & Suarez, P. (2003). Latino workers in the United States: An analysis
of employment distributions, fatal occupational injuries, and non-fatal occupational
injuries and illnesses. Contained in safety is seguridad (pp. 43-82).
316
Ribeiro, A. I., Amaro, J., Lisi, C., & Fraga, S. (2018). Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation
and allostatic load: A scoping review. International journal of environmental research and
public health, 15(6), 1092.
Rigg, J., Oven, K. J., Basyal, G. K., & Lamichhane, R. (2016). Between a rock and a hard place:
Vulnerability and precarity in rural Nepal. Geoforum, 76, 63-74.
Riley, A. R. (2020). Advancing the study of health inequality: Fundamental causes as systems of
exposure. SSM-Population Health, 10, 100555.
Rivera-Batiz, F. L. (1999). Undocumented workers in the labor market: An analysis of the
earnings of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States. Journal of
Population Economics, 12(1), 91-116.
Robinson, P. (2010). Race, space, and the evolution of Black Los Angeles. Black Los Angeles:
American dreams and racial realities, 21-59.
Robinson, C. J. (1983). Black Marxism: The making of the black radical tradition. UNC press
Books.
Robinette, J. W., Charles, S. T., Almeida, D. M., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2016). Neighborhood
features and physiological risk: an examination of allostatic load. Health & place, 41,
110-118.
Rognlie, M. (2016). Deciphering the fall and rise in the net capital share: accumulation or
scarcity?. Brookings papers on economic activity, 2015(1), 1-69.
Roithmayr, D. (2010). Racial cartels. Mich. J. Race & L., 16, 45.
Rolnik, R. (2014). Place, inhabitance and citizenship: The right to housing and the right to the
city in the contemporary urban world. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(3),
293-300.
Rolnik, R. (2019). Urban warfare: Housing under the empire of finance. Verso Books.
317
Rosen, E. (2014). Rigging the Rules of the Game: How Landlords Geographically Sort Low–
Income Renters. City & Community, 13(4), 310-340.
Rosen, E. (2017). Horizontal immobility: how narratives of neighborhood violence shape
housing decisions. American Sociological Review, 82(2), 270-296.
Rosen, J., Angst, S., De Gregorio, S., & Painter, G. (2022B). How do Renters Cope with
Unaffordability? Household Level Impacts of Rental Cost Burdens in Los Angeles.
Journal of Urban Affairs.
Rosenberg, J. (2013, March 25). Exceptions Rule: The Dirty Little Secret of L.A.'s Zoning.
KCET Los Angeles. https://www.kcet.org/history-society/exceptions-rule-the-dirty-little-
secret-of-l-a-s-zoning-code
Rosenthal, S. S. (2008). Old homes, externalities, and poor neighborhoods. A model of urban
decline and renewal. Journal of urban Economics, 63(3), 816-840.
Rosenthal, S. S. (2014). Are private markets and filtering a viable source of low-income
housing? estimates from a" repeat income" model. American Economic Review, 104(2),
687-706.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated
America. Liveright Publishing.
Routhier, G. (2019). Beyond worst case needs: Measuring the breadth and severity of housing
insecurity among urban renters. Housing Policy Debate, 29(2), 235-249.
Roy, A., & Rosenstock, C. (2021). We Do Not Forget: Stolen Lives of LA’s Unhoused During
the COVID-19 Pandemic. UCLA Luskin Institute for on Inequality and Democracy
Rubery, J. (2015). Change at work: feminisation, flexibilisation, fragmentation and
financialisation. Employee Relations.
Rucks-Ahidiana, Z. (2021). Theorizing Gentrification as a Process of Racial Capitalism. City &
Community, 15356841211054790.
318
Ruffer, R., and S. Boyce. 2008. An Evaluation of the City of Rochester’s Lead Law: Year One
Report. Rochester, NY: Centre for Government Research.
http://www.nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/Year_1_Evaluation_Report_12-03-07.pdf.
Ryan-Collins, J., Lloyd, T., & Macfarlane, L. (2017). Rethinking the economics of land and
housing. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Saito, L. T. (2012). How Low–Income Residents Can Benefit from Urban Development: The LA
Live Community Benefits Agreement. City & Community, 11(2), 129-150.
Saito, L., & Truong, J. (2015). The LA live community benefits agreement: Evaluating the
agreement results and shifting political power in the city. Urban Affairs Review, 51(2),
263-289.
Sakamoto, A., & Kim, C. (2010). Is rising earnings inequality associated with increased
exploitation? Evidence for US manufacturing industries, 1971–1996. Sociological
Perspectives, 53(1), 19-43.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect.
University of Chicago Press.
Sandel, M., & Zotter, J. (2000). How substandard housing affects children's health.
Contemporary pediatrics, 17(10), 134-134.
Schill, M. H., Nathan, R. P., Nathan, R. P., & Persaud, H. (1983). Revitalizing America's cities:
Neighborhood reinvestment and displacement. Suny Press.
Schnorpfeil, P., Noll, A., Schulze, R., Ehlert, U., Frey, K., & Fischer, J. E. (2003). Allostatic
load and work conditions. Social science & medicine, 57(4), 647-656.
Schulz, A. J., Mentz, G., Lachance, L., Johnson, J., Gaines, C., & Israel, B. A. (2012).
Associations between socioeconomic status and allostatic load: effects of neighborhood
poverty and tests of mediating pathways. American journal of public health, 102(9),
1706-1714.
319
Scott, A. J. (2019). Residential adjustment and gentrification in Los Angeles, 2000–2015:
Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence. Urban Geography, 40(4), 506-528.
Scott, A. J., & Soja, E. W. (Eds.). (1996). The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of
the twentieth century. Univ of California Press.
Seamster, Louise. (2015). The white city: Race and urban politics. Sociology Compass, 9(12),
1049-1065.
Seeman, T. E., Singer, B. H., Ryff, C. D., Love, G. D., & Levy-Storms, L. (2002). Social
relationships, gender, and allostatic load across two age cohorts. Psychosomatic
medicine, 64(3), 395-406.
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Re-Examined; Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sewell, A. A. (2016). The racism-race reification process: A mesolevel political economic
framework for understanding racial health disparities. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity,
2(4), 402-432.
Shannon, Fred A. 1936. “The Homestead Act and the Labor Surplus.” The American Historical
Review 41(4):637–51.
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial
equality. University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, P. (2018). Uneasy peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next
war on violence. WW Norton & Company.
Shaw, K. S., & Hagemans, I. W. (2015). ‘Gentrification without displacement' and the
consequent loss of place: The effects of class transition on low‐income residents of
secure housing in gentrifying areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 39(2), 323-341.
Shaw, M. (2004). Housing and public health. Annual review of public health, 25, 397.
320
Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social science &
medicine, 32(6), 705-714.
Shertzer, Allison, Tate Twinam, and Randall P. Walsh. 2016. “Race, Ethnicity, and
Discriminatory Zoning.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8(3):217–46.
Sides, Josh. 2004. LA city limits: African American Los Angeles from the Great Depression to
the present. University of California Press.
Shields, R. (2012). Urban trauma: Comment on Karen Till’s ‘wounded cities’. Political
Geography, 1(31), 15-16.
Siliunas, A., Small, M. L., & Wallerstein, J. (2019). We can help, but there’s a catch: nonprofit
organizations and access to government-funded resources among the poor. Journal of
Organizational Ethnography.
Sims, D. P. (2007). Out of control: What can we learn from the end of Massachusetts rent
control?. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(1), 129-151.
Sims, J. R. (2016). More than gentrification: Geographies of capitalist displacement in Los
Angeles 1994–1999. Urban Geography, 37(1), 26-56.
Simone, A. (2004). People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in Johannesburg. Public
culture, 16(3), 407-429.
Simone, A. (2021). Ritornello:“People as Infrastructure”. Urban Geography, 1-8.
Singh, D. (2019, October). Do property tax incentives for new construction spur gentrification?
Evidence from New York City. In 112th Annual Conference on Taxation. NTA.
Slater, T. (2006). The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. International
journal of urban and regional research, 30(4), 737-757.
Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City, 13(2-3), 292-311.
321
Slater, T. (2021). Shaking Up the City: Ignorance, Inequality, and the Urban Question. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Small, M. L. (2006). Neighborhood institutions as resource brokers: Childcare centers,
interorganizational ties, and resource access among the poor. Social Problems, 53(2),
274-292.
Small, M. L., Manduca, R. A., & Johnston, W. R. (2018). Ethnography, neighborhood effects,
and the rising heterogeneity of poor neighborhoods across cities. City & Community,
17(3), 565-589.
Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. Oxford
University Press.
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing
literature. Annual review of sociology, 37.
Smith, N. (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification a back to the city movement by capital, not
people. Journal of the American planning association, 45(4), 538-548.
Smith, N. (1982). Gentrification and uneven development. Economic geography, 58(2), 139-155.
Smith, N. (1983). Uneven development: the production of nature under capitalism (Doctoral
dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University).
Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. University
of Georgia Press.
Smith, N. (1987). Gentrification and the rent gap.
Smith, N., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (1986). Gentrification of the City. Routledge.
Soja, E. W. (2013). Seeking spatial justice (Vol. 16). U of Minnesota Press.
322
Soja, E., Morales, R., & Wolff, G. (1983). Urban restructuring: an analysis of social and spatial
change in Los Angeles. Economic Geography, 59(2), 195-230.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
Somerville, C. T., & Holmes, C. (2001). Dynamics of the affordable housing stock: Microdata
analysis of filtering. Journal of Housing Research, 115-140.
Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism
and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.
South, S. J., & Crowder, K. D. (1997). Escaping distressed neighborhoods: Individual,
community, and metropolitan influences. American Journal of Sociology, 102(4), 1040-
1084.
Stansbury, A., & Summers, L. (2020). Declining worker power and American economic
Performance. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 156.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of
inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology
of education, 116-135.
Standing, G. (2011). The Precariat-The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Standing, Guy (2014) A Precariat Charter: From Denizens to Citizens. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies
of qualitative inquiry (pp. 119-149). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
State of California Employment Development Department (EDD). (2021). Employment
Projections. State of California. https://data.edd.ca.gov/
State of California Employment Development Department (EDD). (2019). EDD Data Library.
State of California Employment Development Department. https://data.edd.ca.gov/
323
Stewart, S., & Haynes, C. (2019). Black Liberation research: qualitative methodological
considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(9), 1183-
1189.
Stiglitz, J. (2015). The great divide. Penguin UK.
Stockdale, S. E., Wells, K. B., Tang, L., Belin, T. R., Zhang, L., & Sherbourne, C. D. (2007).
The importance of social context: Neighborhood stressors, stress-buffering mechanisms,
and alcohol, drug, and mental health disorders. Social science & medicine, 65(9), 1867-
1881.
Stone, M. E. (2004). Shelter poverty: The chronic crisis of housing affordability. New England
Journal of Public Policy, 20(1), 16.
Stone, M. E. (2006). What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach.
Housing policy debate, 17(1), 151-184.
Stone, M. E., Burke, T., & Ralston, L. (2011). The residual income approach to housing
affordability: The theory and the practice.
Stone, M. E. (2006). Housing affordability: One-third of a nation shelter-poor.
Strauss, K. (2017). Precarious work. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the
Earth, Environment and Technology, 1-9.
Suglia, S. F., Duarte, C. S., & Sandel, M. T. (2011). Housing quality, housing instability, and
maternal mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 88(6), 1105-1116.
Sulaiman, S. (2014, January 22). So, Ground Has Officially Been Broken for the Crenshaw Line.
What Does That Mean for People in the Area? L.A. Streetsblog.
https://la.streetsblog.org/2014/01/22/so-ground-has-officially-been-broken-for-the-
crenshaw-line-what-does-that-mean-for-people-in-the-area/
324
Sulaiman, S. (2017A, July 28). Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza Offers Window into History of
Redevelopment, Legacy of White Flight L.A.
Streetsblog. https://la.streetsblog.org/2017/07/28/the-baldwin-hills-crenshaw-plaza-
project-offers-window-into-history-of-redevelopment-legacy-of-white-flight/
Sulaiman, S. (2017B, November 14). When Your Renderings Suggest the Black Population Has
Been Abducted by Aliens, It May Be the Least of Your Problems A look at the TOD
proposal for two lots at Exposition and Crenshaw. L.A.
Streetsblog. https://la.streetsblog.org/2017/11/14/when-your-renderings-suggest-the-
black-population-has-been-abducted-by-aliens-it-may-be-the-least-of-your-problems/
Super, D. A. (2011). The rise and fall of the implied warrant of habitability. Calif. L. Rev., 99,
389.
Susin, S. (2007). Duration of rent burden as a measure of need. Cityscape, 157-174.
Sutton, S. (2020). Gentrification and the increasing significance of racial transition in New York
City 1970–2010. Urban Affairs Review, 56(1), 65-95.
Taylor, M. M. (2002). Harlem: Between heaven and hell. U of Minnesota Press.
Taylor, K. Y. (2019). Race for profit: How banks and the real estate industry undermined black
homeownership. UNC Press Books.
Telles, E. E., Ortiz, V., & Moore, J. W. (2009). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans,
assimilation, and race.
Thierry, A. D. (2020). Association between telomere length and neighborhood characteristics by
race and region in US midlife and older adults. Health & place, 62, 102272.
Thoits, P. A. (2010). Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of health
and social behavior, 51(1_suppl), S41-S53.
Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next?.
Journal of health and social behavior, 53-79.
325
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response.
Cambridge University Press.
Tronto, J. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality and justice. New York: New York
University Press.
Thomas, R., Evans, S., Huxley, P., Gately, C. & Rodgers, A. (2005) Housing improvement and
self-reported mental distress among council estate residents, Social Science and
Medicine, 60, pp. 2773–2783.
Thomson, H., Thomas, S., Sellstrom, E., & Petticrew, M. (2009). The health impacts of housing
improvement: a systematic review of intervention studies from 1887 to 2007. American
journal of public health, 99(S3), S681-S692.
Till, K. E. (2012). Wounded cities: Memory-work and a place-based ethics of care. Political
Geography, 31(1), 3-14.
Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. In Durable Inequality. University of California Press.
Timberlake, J. M., & Johns-Wolfe, E. (2017). Neighborhood ethnoracial composition and
gentrification in Chicago and New York, 1980 to 2010. Urban Affairs Review, 53(2),
236-272.
Travis, A. (2019). The organization of neglect: Limited liability companies and housing
disinvestment. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 142-170.
Trounstine, J. (2018). Segregation by design: Local politics and inequality in American cities.
Cambridge University Press.
Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. U of Minnesota Press.
Turner, R. J. (2009). Understanding health disparities: The promise of the stress process model.
In Advances in the conceptualization of the stress process (pp. 3-21). Springer, New
York, NY.
326
Turner, R. J., Turner, J. B., & Hale, W. B. (2014). Social relationships and social support. In
Sociology of mental health (pp. 1-20). Springer, Cham.
Turner, R. J., Brown, T. N., & Hale, W. B. (2017). Race, socioeconomic position, and physical
health: a descriptive analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(1), 23-36.
UCLA Labor Center. (2018). Hour Crisis. University of California Los Angeles.
https://www.labor.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FINAL_UCLA-Scheduling-
Report-3-12-2018.pdf
United Neighbors In Defense Against Displacement (UNIDAD). (2021). Affordable Housing
Report Los Angeles City Council District 8. UNIDAD. https://www.unidad-la.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/UNIDAD-Affordable-Housing-Report-1.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2018 LIHTC Tenant Tables. U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development .
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Datasets/lihtc/LIHTC-TenantDataDocumentation-
Tables.pdf
Urban Displacement Project. (2020). Mapping Neighborhood Change in Southern California:
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Urban Displacement Project.
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/los-angeles-gentrification-and-displacement/
Valle, V. M., & Torres, R. D. (2000). Latino metropolis (Vol. 7). U of Minnesota Press.
Valli, C. (2015). A sense of displacement: Long‐time residents' feelings of displacement in
gentrifying Bushwick, New York. International Journal of Urban and regional research,
39(6), 1191-1208.
Valverde, M. (2012). Everyday law on the street: City governance in an age of diversity.
University of Chicago Press.
Vandermark L.M. (2007) Promoting the sense of self, place, and belonging in displaced persons:
The example of homelessness. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 21(5): 241–248.
327
Van Zandt, S., Peacock, W. G., Henry, D. W., Grover, H., Highfield, W. E., & Brody, S. D.
(2012). Mapping social vulnerability to enhance housing and neighborhood resilience.
Housing Policy Debate, 22(1), 29-55.
Vasudevan, A. (2015). The autonomous city: Towards a critical geography of occupation.
Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 316-337.
Vigdor, J. L., Massey, D. S., & Rivlin, A. M. (2002). Does gentrification harm the poor?[with
Comments]. Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs, 133-182.
Villa, R. (2000). Barrio-logos: Space and place in urban Chicano literature and culture.
University of Texas Press.
Wacquant, L. (2008). Relocating gentrification: The working class, science and the state in
recent urban research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1),
198-205.
Wallace A (2015) Gentrification interrupted in Salford, UK: From new deal to ‘limbo-land’ in a
contemporary urban periphery. Antipode 47: 517–538.
Waite, L. (2009). A place and space for a critical geography of precarity?. Geography Compass,
3(1), 412-433.
Watson, C. L., & Ziv, O. (2021). Is the Rent Too High? Land Ownership and Monopoly Power.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 2).
University of California press.
Weeden, S. (2021). Black and Hispanic renters face greatest threat of eviction in pandemic. Joint
Center for Housing Studies, 11.
Weiss, M. A. (2002). The rise of the community builders: The American real estate industry and
urban land planning. Beard Books.
328
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Whittemore, A. H. (2012). Zoning Los Angeles: a brief history of four regimes. Planning
Perspectives, 27(3), 393-415.
Whittemore, Andrew H. 2017. “The Experience of Racial and Ethnic Minorities with Zoning in
the United States.” Journal of Planning Literature 32(1):16–27.
Williams, D. R., Spencer, M. S., & Jackson, J. S. (1999). Race, stress, and physical health: the
role of group identity.
Williams, D. R., Priest, N., & Anderson, N. (2019). Understanding associations between race,
socioeconomic status, and health: patterns and prospects. In The Social Medicine Reader,
Volume II, Third Edition (pp. 258-267). Duke University Press.
Williams, M. J. (2020). The possibility of care-full cities. Cities, 98, 102591.
Williams, R. A. (2020). From racial to reparative planning: Confronting the white side of
planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X20946416.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 1(3), 181-203.
Wilson, W. J. (1997). When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. Vintage.
Wisner, B., Gaillard, J. C., & Kelman, I. (2012). Framing disaster: Theories and stories seeking
to understand hazards, vulnerability and risk. In The Routledge handbook of hazards and
disaster risk reduction (pp. 18-33). Routledge.
Wolch, J. (1996). From global to local: the rise of homelessness in Los Angeles during the
1980s. The city: Los Angeles and urban theory at the end of the twentieth century, 390-
425. University of California Press
Wolf, P. (1981). Land in America: Its Value, Use, and Control . New York: Pantheon
329
Wolff, J., & De-Shalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford university press on demand.
Woods, Clyde Adrian. [1998]2017. Development Arrested: The Blues and Plantation Power in
the Mississippi Delta. Verso.
Wright, Erik Olin (2005) Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wyly, E. K., & Hammel, D. J. (2004). Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the
American urban system. Environment and Planning a, 36(7), 1215-1241.
Wyly, E., Moos, M., Hammel, D., & Kabahizi, E. (2009). Cartographies of race and class:
mapping the class‐monopoly rents of American subprime mortgage capital. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(2), 332-354.
Wyly, E., Newman, K., Schafran, A., & Lee, E. (2010). Displacing new york. Environment and
Planning A, 42(11), 2602-2623.
Wyly, E., Ponder, C. S., Nettling, P., Ho, B., Fung, S. E., Liebowitz, Z., & Hammel, D. (2012).
New racial meanings of housing in America. American Quarterly, 64(3), 571-604.
Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their children.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.
Young, M. (2010). Gender differences in precarious work settings. Relations
Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 65(1), 74-97.
Zaimi, R. (2021). Rethinking “Disinvestment”: Historical geographies of predatory property
relations on Chicago’s South Side. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
02637758211013041.
Zhu, L., Burinskiy, E., De la Roca, J., Green, R. K., & Boarnet, M. G. (2021). Los Angeles'
Housing Crisis and Local Planning Responses. Cityscape, 23(1), 133-160.
330
Zillow. (2021). Zillow Observed Rent Index (ZORI). Zillow.
Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrification: culture and capital in the urban core. Annual review of
sociology, 129-147.
Zukin, S. (2016). Gentrification in three paradoxes. City & Community, 15(3), 202-207.
Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A. H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2018).
Gentrification, displacement, and the role of public investment. Journal of Planning
Literature, 33(1), 31-44.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This dissertation examines the conditions, tactics, and infrastructure underlying the processes of affordability and neighborhood change. Using South Los Angeles (South L.A.) as a case study, it details the mechanisms that push renters toward the threshold of instability and the stress produced from their everyday conditions. More specifically, I use a framework of housing precarity to analyze how the current rental crisis reproduces inequality and exposes people to stressors resulting in decreased life spans, lower quality of life, and social death. Through the framework of precarity, we can observe the interaction between structural conditions and the behaviors of landlords, employers, and tenants at the local level. Rather than identifying the attributes that predict a particular outcome, the project interrogates the actors, institutions, and systems that undermine residents ability to maintain secure housing. In spite of the obstacles, residents in South L.A. have consistently struggled against discrimination, exclusion, and violence by forming their own institutions and fighting for policy changes that acknowledge their right to live.
The book begins by investigating the histories, structural forces, and precarious conditions that produce the situational context tenants navigate day-to-day. Then, I analyze how those conditions are experienced, navigated, and resisted by residents in their daily lives. Finally, I propose a new index of survivability that incorporates economic, environmental, social, and political dimensions of housing insecurity, and reflects the tactics and supports tenants use to maintain housing stability.
The study was composed of three interrelated phases. First, 17 focus group conversations were facilitated with residents consisting of a 20 minute survey followed by a 75 minute conversation. Second, a door-to-door survey was collected from 402 households using stratified randomization at the census block group level. The survey was administered as a semi-structured interview taking roughly 45 minutes. Third, 104 hours of participant observation was conducted by walking the study neighborhoods, conversing with residents, attending community meetings, and photographing the built environment.
Leveraging this unique primary data, the dissertation seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. How do tenants describe the conditions of the rental crisis?
2. Do displacement and sense of belonging contribute to the stress process model?
3. What survival tactics and infrastructures of care do residents use to navigate the rental crisis?
4. How do those conditions and tactics impact stress and accumulate?
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of mobility and government rental subsidies on the welfare of households and affordability of markets
PDF
The role of social media for community-based organizations focused on environmental justice in southeast Los Angeles
PDF
Reshaping Los Angeles: housing affordability and neighborhood change
PDF
The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society
PDF
The demand for reliable travel: evidence from Los Angeles, and implications for public transit policy
PDF
Reproducing inequity in organizations: gendered and racialized emotional labor in pubic organizations
PDF
Crowded with potential: housing and social mobility strategies among China's educated migrants
PDF
A better method for measuring housing affordability and the role that affordability played in the mobility outcomes of Latino-immigrants following the Great Recession
PDF
Household mobility and neighborhood impacts
PDF
University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts
PDF
The geography of Black commerce and culture: Los Angeles, California, and beyond
PDF
Three essays on aging, wealth, and housing tenure transitions
PDF
Community development agreements: addressing inequality through urban development projects
PDF
Environmental justice in real estate, public services, and policy
PDF
No place like home: a three paper dissertation on K-12 student homelessness & housing affordability
PDF
The film industry and urban development in metropolitan Los Angeles, 1920-1975
PDF
Organizational dimensions of energy justice: affordable energy program implementation in California's San Joaquin Valley
PDF
Diverging pathways to citizenship and immigrant integration in the U.S.
PDF
Housing market crisis and underwater homeowners
PDF
Essays on mitigation, adaptation, and resilience to urban fiscal crises
Asset Metadata
Creator
Angst, Sean T.
(author)
Core Title
Affordable south Los Angeles: survival, support, and different futures
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Public Policy and Management
Degree Conferral Date
2022-08
Publication Date
07/18/2022
Defense Date
04/11/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
affordability,affordable,Care,consumption,displacement,gentrification,Housing,housing quality,landlord,maintenance,neighborhood change,OAI-PMH Harvest,Planning,Power,precarity,Public Policy,sense of belonging,social support,Stress,Survival,urban studies
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Painter, Gary (
committee chair
), Schweitzer, Lisa (
committee chair
), De Lara, Juan (
committee member
)
Creator Email
angst@usc.edu,sean.angst@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111372143
Unique identifier
UC111372143
Legacy Identifier
etd-AngstSeanT-10846
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Angst, Sean T.
Type
texts
Source
20220718-usctheses-batch-954
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
affordability
affordable
consumption
displacement
housing quality
neighborhood change
precarity
sense of belonging
social support
urban studies