The "compassionate conservatism" of Traci Park

CD11 Councilmember Traci Park's motion today to provide limited eviction protections for tenants is a hollow gesture that fails to address the real struggles renters face. Park has positioned herself as a champion of renters with this motion allowing tenants to take in guests and pets, but her legislative history and rhetoric tell a far different story. Backed by real estate interests, Park has consistently sided with landlords over tenants, earning her the title of the most anti-renter councilmember in Los Angeles. This latest motion is no exception—it’s a watered-down, performative attempt to gain credit for protecting renters while doing little to actually help them.  

The motion, which claims to protect tenants who take in people or pets displaced by wildfires, is so narrowly tailored that it excludes the vast majority of renters impacted by these disasters. It only applies to tenants who house those directly displaced by fires, leaving out countless others who may be struggling with housing instability due to the broader economic and emotional toll of these crises. This limited scope fails to address the widespread need for robust tenant protections in a city already grappling with a severe housing crisis.  

To make matters worse, the burden of proof placed on tenants is excessive and unrealistic. Renters are required to provide their landlords with a notice within 30 days, accompanied by a long list of documentation to prove they qualify for these protections. For tenants already dealing with the stress and chaos of wildfires, this bureaucratic hurdle is an unnecessary barrier that many will struggle to overcome. It’s clear that the motion is designed to appease landlords rather than genuinely support renters.  

Councilmember Park’s motion is a prime example of political posturing at the expense of vulnerable tenants. By offering minimal protections that apply to only a small fraction of renters, she is attempting to create the illusion of progress while continuing to prioritize the interests of real estate developers and landlords. This is not the leadership Los Angeles renters need or deserve. 

Conservatives have long mastered the art of crafting social support legislation that appears compassionate on the surface but is designed to do as little as possible to address systemic issues. By narrowly tailoring these policies, they create the illusion of helping vulnerable populations while ensuring that the actual impact is minimal. This strategy allows them to claim credit for "taking action" without challenging the status quo or upsetting their corporate and wealthy donors.
 
This approach is not unique to housing. Across the country, conservatives have used similar strategies to gut social programs. For instance, welfare reforms often come with stringent eligibility requirements, excessive paperwork, and arbitrary time limits, making it nearly impossible for those in need to access support. These barriers are not accidental—they are intentionally designed to reduce the number of people who can benefit, thereby cutting costs and appeasing anti-government ideologues.

The same pattern emerges in healthcare. Conservative-led efforts to expand Medicaid or provide subsidies often come with so many restrictions—like work requirements or income caps—that they leave millions of people uninsured. These policies are marketed as "common-sense solutions," but in reality, they are calculated moves to undermine the effectiveness of social safety nets while maintaining a veneer of compassion.

By narrowly tailoring social support legislation, conservatives can claim they are "doing something" without actually challenging the systems that perpetuate inequality. They get to look good in the eyes of moderate voters while ensuring that their corporate backers and wealthy constituents remain unaffected. Meanwhile, those who rely on these programs are left to navigate a labyrinth of red tape, often only to be denied the help they desperately need.

This strategy is not just ineffective—it’s deeply cynical. It prioritizes political optics over people’s lives, leaving vulnerable communities to bear the brunt of systemic failures. Real progress requires bold, inclusive policies that address the root causes of inequality, not half-measures designed to placate the public while maintaining the status quo. Until conservatives are willing to prioritize people over profits, their so-called "solutions" will continue to fall short.

In the wake of the devastating LA fires, what tenants truly need are comprehensive eviction protections that address the full scope of the housing crisis, including those indirectly impacted by wildfires and other disasters. They need policies that prioritize their well-being over the profits of corporate landlords. Until then, motions like this one will remain nothing more than empty gestures, leaving renters to fend for themselves in an increasingly hostile housing market.