Advancing Indigenous Housing Rights in Los Angeles: International Best Practices and a Legal Framework

admin

by the Promist Institute for Human Rights, UCLA School of Law

Urban Reserves (p. 11)

Urban spaces posit a particular challenge for land-back, as “settler states continue to pursue the violent transformation of Indigenous land into settler property and to police Indigenous place-making and self-determination particularly aggressively in relation to cities […]. This includes the active “forgetting” of the historical geographies of urban areas as Indigenous, often unceded, territories.”1 Urban reserves have not yet been used to address housing concerns, and moreover are part of a different legislative landscape. However, they provide an interesting example of an urban, government-supported “land-back” program that could be adapted to address AIAN homelessness in Los Angeles.
“Many First Nations in Canada are located in rural areas, far from the cities and towns where most wealth and jobs are created. This geographic remoteness can sometimes pose challenges for First Nations trying to increase their economic self-sufficiency.”2 One way Canadian governmental entities have chosen to combat these challenges (after significant pressure and resistance from First Nations) is via the creation of “urban reserves.” “The majority of urban reserves are created as a result of specific claim and Treaty Land Entitlement settlements, which provide First Nations with cash
payments that may be used to purchase land” within or adjacent to the city.3 The land purchased is then granted “reserve” status by the federal government, which largely means that the land is not subject to taxation; that First Nations people are exempt from sales tax for products purchased on that land;4 and that First Nations people do not have to pay income tax on money earned there.5 “There are now more than 120 urban reserves across Canada,” the majority of which are in the prairie provinces.6

The urban reserve program has not been without criticism. Envisioned by the settler state as “narrowly [serving] economic development objectives,” urban reserves are posited “as modernizing agents that legitimize a limited form of First Nation jurisdiction and corporate presence in cities.”7 The federal government gets final say on which projects may be granted reserve status, and has been more willing to approve economic development projects than community or housing projects.8 “More generally, a fundamental problem with this process of addressing the land debt owed to First Nations is that they are forced to buy land in their Treaty and traditional territories from willing sellers at market rate.”9 Urban reserves can therefore be seen as part of a larger neoliberal project of individualization and privatization, where “Indigenous sovereignty is […] converted into private property and framed as “progress” by the settler state.”10
However, some First Nations have been successful in subverting this narrative and using urban reserves as spaces of resistance and community, “repurposing neoliberal governance arrangements to fight marginalization.”11 Successful economic development projects on urban reserves still constitute a “subversion of the colonial socio-spatial order[…], which has excluded First Nations from the right to the city.”12 “For example, Muskeg Lake Cree Nation’s urban reserve, which was created in 1988 as one of the first of its kind, sits on 35 acres on the eastern edge of Saskatoon, on land originally purchased by the federal government to build a correctional institution. […] The urban reserve, known as the McKnight Commercial Centre, employs over 300 people in over 30 businesses and organizations.”13 Moreover, recent urban reserves have pushed back on the notion that these
spaces should be purely about economic development. The first urban reserve to serve educational purposes was created in Regina, Saskatchewan in February of 2019; the 32 acre reserve in the middle of the city encompasses a First Nations university, and the Star Blanket Cree Nation plans to add residences and daycare facilities.14

Would state or local governments in Los Angeles consider transferring public or municipal land to the land-based tribes or tribal organizations in recognition of Native American land entitlement?
Once land has been located for housing, is there a way for the city to designate that space as a sovereign or quasi-sovereign, Indigenous space?
Are there certain benefits or exemptions that can be granted to that space by the city, county, or the state? The analogy to urban reserves may also help us think about the ways in which the city or state can acknowledge and support a broader vision of Indigenous reconciliation and well-being by supporting Indigenous housing developments in urban spaces.
To some extent precedent has been established for land return or reparations in Los Angeles County vis-a-vis the reparations given to the Bruce Family, a Black family whose beach front land was used for a beach lodge and resort that welcomed Black beachgoers. Their land was unjustly taken through eminent domain for the purpose of building a park, but was shrouded under racist motivations. Nearly 100 years later the land was returned to the Bruce Family. The family has since decided to sell the land back to LA County for $20 million dollars. Significantly, though, there was no recognition of the land as Tongva land originally.
Although different than government land return, the Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa Conservancy did generate general awareness of LandBack when they received a well-publicized one-acre land transfer from a private citizen in Altadena. “We’re working towards one common goal, and that is to have a place of safety, security, where we can have ceremonies and where we can exercise our self-determination,” said Kimberly Johnson, vice president of the Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa Conservancy, the nonprofit set up by the community to receive the land. “That’s where the healing has begun.”15

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Connection with Land and Housing (p.14)

Ending Indigenous homelessness will ultimately require the allocation of land or physical space for those experiencing homelessness, but as discussed earlier in this paper, Indigenous claims that focus on the return of their lands are often difficult and long-term struggles.
Moreover, while land-back claims have been successful in some cases, it is difficult to measure their effectiveness in urban settings due to the complexities of municipal governments.16 Focusing instead on the historic displacement and cultural disintegration of Indigenous communities not only creates space for conversations about reparations but also helps highlight the importance of holistic solutions to Indigenous homelessness. This strategy could be especially effective in a city like Los Angeles, which has a diverse Indigenous population composed of many different Indigenous
diasporas, in addition to the land-based tribes of LA County.17 While the diasporic communities have no claim to the land Los Angeles sits upon, nearly all of them share a history of colonization, which could provide a legal and moral basis for demanding the improvement of their economic and social conditions in an urban context together with the land-based tribes.
UNDRIP explicitly recognizes the fact that “Indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests” as a justification for the rights described in the declaration. In addition to the rights discussed above, UNDRIP specifies numerous rights that are relevant to Indigenous homelessness:

Article 21

1.Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of Indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Article 23

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, Indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.

Article 24

Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.
Because they are contextualized in the historic injustices faced by Indigenous peoples and require affirmative action by the state, these rights may be linked to reparations as a path towards their full exercise and enjoyment. Rather than just focusing on the return of land, however, these rights prioritize the holistic well-being of Indigenous peoples, regardless of their claims to the land they live on.
Such an approach is well-suited to addressing Indigenous homelessness in Los Angeles because it recognizes that the issue is much broader than the number of Native American and Indigenous people who are unable to find physical shelter. Of course, increasing access to affordable housing must be a priority for any person or entity attempting to solve the problem.18 But recognizing the multifaceted nature of Indigenous homelessness and acknowledging Indigenous notions of “home” is imperative when considering possible interventions or supportive services for Native American and
Indigenous populations.

19Unlike the common colonialist definition of homelessness, Indigenous homelessness is not defined as lacking a structure of habitation; rather, it is more fully described and understood through a composite lens of Indigenous worldviews. These include: individuals, families and communities isolated from their relationships to land, water, place, family, kin, each other, animals, cultures, languages and identities. Importantly, Indigenous people experiencing these kinds of homelessness cannot culturally, spiritually, emotionally or physically reconnect with their Indigeneity or lost relationships.
This definition, drafted by Canada’s Aboriginal Standing Committee on Housing and Homelessness, contemplates the complexity of Indigenous homelessness and identifies struggles specific to the AIAN experience that require specialized attention. Bringing light to those struggles could help bolster essential healing and reconciliation efforts and pave the road for meaningful conversations about the role of reparations.
Perhaps more importantly, “Establishing Indigenous concepts of home will allow governments, service providers and Indigenous people themselves to direct ample funding to culturally sensitive social, cultural and material supports for Indigenous Peoples, especially those in crisis situations.”20 This notion is exemplified by New Zealand’s approach to Maori homelesness:
Derived from the principles of Te Tiriti [a treaty signed in 1840 between the British Crown and most (but not all) Māori leaders of Iwi], New Zealand has a framework for Māori wellbeing, called Whānau Ora, grounded in the central role of whānau/family in Māori well-being. Whānau Ora, literally meaning the complete wellbeing of Māori families, is a government model that deconstructs artificial barriers between housing, health, and education, integrating them into one model of care that is driven by the whānau based on their priorities.21
Whānau Ora also emphasizes the importance of “solutions to Māori homelessness that are grounded in connection to Māori communities, cultural practices, worldviews and values.”22 By centering Indigenous knowledge, this approach enables the Government of New Zealand to approach Indigenous homelessness in a holistic way.

Looking beyond physical shelter, addressing Indigenous homelessness requires creating a sense of community, culture, and belonging. UNDRIP repeatedly acknowledges the importance of preserving and protecting Indigenous traditions and customs:

Article 11

  1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures[…].

Article 13

  1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected[…].
    Given the long history of cultural disintegration caused by colonization, local governments should prioritize policies that allow Indigenous communities to reconnect with their cultures. The Wiyot tribe’s reclaiming of Dulawat island is a perfect example of this.
    Although the tribe has no plans to inhabit the island, tribal chair Ted Hernandez argued that the tribe’s renewed ability to perform its most sacred ritual could help “to bring balance back, to get rid of all the addictions hidden in Humboldt County—children not having homes, being homeless.” According to Hernandez, “everybody here needs that healing. That’s why the world renewal ceremony is important to us.”23 In this regard, reclaiming sacred spaces of the land-based tribes could play an important role in the healing process.
Advancing-Indigenous-Housing-Rights-in-Los-AngelesDownload

Full Report Available Above.

  1. Settler Cities at 928. ↩︎
  2. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016331/1100100016332 ↩︎
  3. Id. ↩︎
  4. Id. ↩︎
  5. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/demystifying-urban-reserves-1.2993051 ↩︎
  6. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016331/1100100016332 ↩︎
  7. Julie Tomiak, Contesting the Settler City: Indigenous Self-Determination, New Urban Reserves, and the Neoliberalization of Colonialism, 49(4) Antipode 928, 930 (2017). ↩︎
  8. Id. at 934. ↩︎
  9. Id. at 930. ↩︎
  10. Id. at 934. ↩︎
  11. Id. at 935. ↩︎
  12. Id. at 939-40. ↩︎
  13. Id. at 38. ↩︎
  14. https://globalnews.ca/news/4958633/first-nations-university-of-canada-urban-reserve-educational-purposes/ ↩︎
  15. Jonah Valdez, “After nearly 200 years, the Tongva community has land in Los Angeles County.” Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-10-10/after-nearly-200-years-the-tongva-community-has-land-in-los-angeles-county. ↩︎
  16. AIAN peoples have successfully secured affordable housing and similar services for their communities in some US cities, but it is difficult to determine whether land-back claims played a role in those victories without reaching out to the leaders of those movements directly. ↩︎
  17. https://mila.ss.ucla.edu/ ↩︎
  18. https://everyoneinla.org/about-us/ ↩︎
  19. https://www.homelesshub.ca/IndigenousHomelessness ↩︎
  20. Id. at 14 ↩︎
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827319300333 ↩︎
  22. Id. ↩︎
  23. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/11/duluwat-island-wiyot-tribal-native-land-return-california/600991/ ↩︎

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *