The Claremont United Church of Christ first proposed a safe overnight parking program for unhoused residents living in their cars in late 2025, and subsequently held a community information session on Oct. 22. At this meeting, the church assured attendees that the program — which would operate out of its parking lot on 6th Street in collaboration with Safe Parking LA — was designed as a transitional step in participants’ search for permanent homes. It was not intended to be an affordable housing development like Larkin Place. Participants would be thoroughly vetted to ensure they had connections to Claremont, and a security guard would be present at all times.
After breaking down the various amenities and social services Safe Parking LA would provide on site, the church opened the floor to discussion. As city residents spoke, it became increasingly clear that this was not a popular proposal. Every point the church made about the initiative’s safe and organized nature was shot down immediately, and no amount of explanation seemed to pacify fears of the supposed welfare-induced chaos to come. What these neighbors were most concerned about, I learned, was not safety but rather the undermining of Claremont’s upper-class suburban aesthetic. Rich homeowners were stricken with a deep-seated hostility to change and a refusal to confront Claremont’s exorbitant cost of living. As a result, the Safe Parking program did not secure city funding and was not implemented.
In a socioeconomically diverse city with 35,000 residents, maintaining a rich enclave is both ignorant and exclusionary. Wealthy Claremont homeowners must abandon their emphasis on gentrified aesthetics in favor of creating a livable place for everyone who calls Claremont home.
The most striking component of the church meeting discussion was its array of ominous anecdotes about past encounters with homeless people in the neighborhood. One man told the story of a time he and his wife were “actively trying to have a child” when a homeless man marched up to their window. Another woman chimed in about a time she saw homeless people seemingly under the influence at Mallows Park. These colorful recollections, even if entirely true, paint an incomplete picture of unhoused people as thoughtless vagrants who exist to make homeowners uncomfortable. This narrative signifies rich Claremont residents’ widespread unwillingness to expand their community beyond its affluent confines.
When I went canvassing for the parking initiative on 6th and 7th Street alongside fellow Inclusive Claremont members, the prevailing us-versus-them mentality surfaced yet again; residents outlined their fears of a reduction in “quality of life,” unpleasant “second-story views” and “undesirables” snooping around the houses they worked so hard to afford.
The elitist “neighborhood preservation” mindset is not exclusive to Claremont. Californians have established a pattern of relying on their neighborhoods’ supposed historical significance to slow affordable housing development. In 2024, residents from some of LA’s richest districts urged the city not to fast-track plans for new low-income apartments because their streets were within the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ). The HPOZ designation process, while intended to preserve some of LA’s most prominent architectural and cultural centerpieces, has been appropriated by Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) proponents looking for an excuse to prevent the construction of cheaper homes in their high-class sanctuaries. Likewise, when UC Berkeley tried to build new student housing in the surrounding area in 2022, a group called “Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods,” led by investment banker Phil Bokovy, sued the university. The group claimed that construction would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Their underlying concern, however, was not environmental degradation but rather the maintenance of neighborhood aesthetics. Experts agree that increased housing density is actually better for the environment, yet the group hoped that by fabricating a CEQA violation, they would be able to prevent dense housing development and “save” their neighborhoods.
A similar form of legal weaponization took place when a neighbor gave a public comment at a Claremont City Council meeting on Nov. 12, arguing that the safe parking lot violated Claremont’s Cultural Resources Preservation Ordinance, because the 6th Street neighborhood is part of a “historic district.” Though this is true, it’s difficult to understand how allowing cars to park in a parking lot on private property could undermine a neighborhood’s historic character. Nevertheless, the neighbor insisted that the historical significance of the Claremont Village area was reason enough to bar the project from going forward.
From a moral standpoint, Claremont neighbors seemed to understand that serving the homeless is theoretically a good thing. Almost every conversation I had with opposed residents began with some acknowledgement of the project’s nobility — “I understand and support what you’re trying to do, but…” followed by some foreboding statement about how they fear for the lives of children at Sycamore Elementary School, or are scared that there will be an increased incidence of homeless people peeing in bushes. Yet their logic is plainly fallacious: the unhoused people that homeowners are so afraid of sharing a community with already live or work in Claremont alongside them. By helping keep unhoused residents off the streets, the parking program would have actually reduced the likelihood of the nightmare scenarios they described.
In a city full of NIMBYs, it is our job to show up as YIMBYs (Yes-In-My-Backyard). While the Safe Parking program was specifically designed to aid unhoused people, expanding housing supply in Claremont is a project that extends beyond the unhoused — setting a city-wide precedent by bolstering projects that provide space for residents from all walks of life could transform Claremont from a high-class community into a place we can all afford. Most 5C students can’t live in Claremont after they graduate due to its socioeconomic exclusivity, which leaves many young people unable to capitalize on the local connections that they made during college.
We all have a part to play in working toward a more equitable Claremont. Join Inclusive Claremont or the Encampment Support Network, give public comment at semimonthly city council meetings. Vote for representatives who support affordable housing development and programs for unhoused residents — organizations such as Abundant Housing LA provide endorsements for pro-housing candidates.
A neighborhood’s true character is not defined by manicured lawns and single-family houses, but by how its people work together to create an inclusive and livable place for everyone. As humanitarian and sociologist Matthew Desmond said, “Housing is absolutely essential to human flourishing. Without stable shelter, it all falls apart.”
Zara Seldon PO ’29 is actually a sandwich.
Facebook Comments