Comments
GUEST WORDS - A North Hollywood lawsuit tests whether public funding comes with meaningful oversight and neighborhood accountability.
A North Hollywood lawsuit raises broader questions about Los Angeles’ homelessness-response system, provider oversight, public spending, and neighborhood safety. As billions of public dollars move through government agencies, nonprofit providers, property owners, and contractors, residents are increasingly asking: who is responsible for ensuring publicly funded facilities are safely and effectively operated?
That question is at the center of a lawsuit filed by NoHo Villaggio, a North Hollywood homeowners association, against transitional housing operator A Step to Freedom and property owner 113 Huston, LLC.
The lawsuit alleges that residents living next to an A Step to Freedom facility have experienced repeated emergency responses, security and supervision failures, trespass, noise, drug-related activity, and constant interference with the use and enjoyment of their homes.
The case is not an argument against transitional housing. It is about how transitional housing is operated — and whether publicly funded providers can be held accountable when inadequate management affects surrounding homes and neighborhoods.
Los Angeles residents have repeatedly supported public investment in homelessness solutions. Over the past decade, voters approved Proposition HHH in 2016, Measure H in 2017, and Measure A in 2024 because they understood the urgency of moving people out of homelessness and into housing, treatment, and supportive services.
Residents should not have to choose between supporting homelessness solutions and protecting their homes, families, and neighborhoods. Those goals are not in conflict.
Rapid Growth, Public Funding and Questions About Outcomes
Those questions gained urgency after a 2025 court-ordered audit by Alvarez & Marsal, commissioned under U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, found Los Angeles could not accurately track homelessness spending or consistently reconcile spending with services provided. The findings made it difficult to determine whether some services worked, or, in certain instances, had been delivered at all.
Public tax filings show that A Step to Freedom reported annual revenue of roughly $26,000 to $47,000 between 2015 and 2018. By 2024, its revenue had grown to $5.26 million. Public records also show that the organization received Measure H funding during this period of rapid growth.
Rapid growth is not itself evidence of wrongdoing, but it raises legitimate questions about whether staffing, supervision, operational controls, and oversight kept pace.
A Step to Freedom reports that 27% of participants secured permanent housing in 2025. Applied to the 303 people it reported serving in 2024, that would equal approximately 82 permanent housing placements. These figures span different reporting years; the organization's most recent placement rate is applied here to its most recent reported participant count.
Against the $5.26 million in 2024 revenue, that represents roughly $64,000 in revenue per permanent-housing placement — more than a full year's per capita income in the surrounding ZIP code 91601, where per capita income is $54,140 and residents say they are absorbing the facility's impacts.
This comparison does not suggest that all revenue was spent on permanent housing placements. Rather, it underscores why taxpayers may ask how the money is used, what outcomes result, and who is monitoring performance.
The property itself raises additional questions about public spending and site suitability. Units were previously marketed for as much as $6,000 per month, or $72,000 annually.
Yet residents say the facility lacks appropriate indoor common areas and furnishings, resulting in garages and outdoor parking areas being used for staff operations and participant activity. Are taxpayers funding an expensive housing arrangement that is neither properly designed nor responsibly operated for its current use?
The Consequences Next Door
NoHo Villaggio residents describe three recurring problems.
Inadequate supervision: Residents report constant noise and activity throughout the day, often continuing late into the night, including participants gathered in outdoor parking areas, employees congregating in an open garage allegedly used as an operations hub, smoking, open gates, unlocked areas, and activity in spaces residents say should have been controlled.
Public-safety spillover: Residents cite repeated LAPD and paramedic responses, including a reported attempted assault, two reported arrests, and police helicopter activity, trespass, fighting, and alleged drug activity.
Loss of normal family life: Two mothers say the conditions changed how their families live at home. One family moved out and has reportedly been unable to sell or rent the now-vacant unit for 15 months. Another mother, whose teenage son is on the autism spectrum, says she no longer allows her children to take out the trash or walk to school alone.
Residents say the conditions have affected their safety, daily routines, quiet enjoyment, and property value.
Their argument is straightforward: a publicly funded provider should not receive the benefits of operating a homelessness program while shifting the consequences of inadequate management onto surrounding families.
A Familiar Accountability Principle
The lawsuit tests a broader theory rooted in a familiar environmental law principle: organizations should not be allowed to externalize the costs of their operations onto surrounding communities.
Under the federal Superfund program, parties responsible for contamination can be required to perform or pay for cleanup rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers and surrounding communities. California nuisance law similarly recognizes that conduct that interferes with the comfortable use and enjoyment of property may create a legally remediable nuisance.
NoHo Villaggio argues that a similar principle should apply when a publicly funded operator allegedly imposes recurring safety, noise, trespass, emergency-response, and property impacts on neighboring families.
The issue is not the purpose of transitional housing. It is whether facilities are safely operated, whether agencies monitor the providers they fund, and whether remedies exist when operations harm neighbors and the people the program is meant to serve.
Public Support Requires Public Accountability
Los Angeles cannot solve homelessness without housing providers, service organizations, treatment programs, property owners, and public investment.
But public funding must come with enforceable standards.
That means transparent performance measures, adequate staffing, meaningful supervision, responsible site management, accurate financial reporting, effective contract monitoring, and a clear process for responding when communities document recurring problems.
Properly operated transitional housing should protect participants, preserve neighborhood safety, and maintain public confidence in the system.
NoHo Villaggio’s lawsuit asks whether Los Angeles’ current system is doing that - and who will be held accountable when it does not.
(David Boisclair is an award-winning director and veteran creative executive with 20+ years of experience across television, film, and documentary. He is currently working with a noted investigative journalist on For-Profit, a documentary about the billion-dollar homeless industrial complex that costs California taxpayers $649,000/hour since 2019.)
