A Walk My Town Editorial
Community • Housing • Transportation • Public Affairs
By Walk My Town Editor Rick Lavin
A new train line can connect communities. New housing can create opportunity. At the same time, changes in transportation, housing and population can raise questions about planning, infrastructure, public services and neighborhood conditions.
Those questions are increasingly relevant to the foothill communities of the San Gabriel Valley.
From Pasadena and South Pasadena east through Monrovia, Duarte, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona and surrounding communities, residents and public officials are considering interconnected issues involving homelessness, transit expansion, housing density, historic neighborhoods, schools, infrastructure and quality of life.
These issues involve competing priorities and should be evaluated with reliable information rather than assumptions.
Useful questions include: What does the evidence show? Which programs have produced measurable results? What information is missing? And what can neighboring communities learn from one another?
Walk My Town supports transparent public discussion and community work groups focused on practical, evidence-based solutions.
A Line Expansion: An Opportunity and a Planning Responsibility
According to Metro, the approximately nine-mile A Line extension from Azusa to four new stations serving Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne and Pomona opened September 19, 2025. At Pomona North, riders can connect with Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line.¹
The extension connects foothill residents with Pasadena, downtown Los Angeles, Long Beach and the broader regional transportation network.
Transportation planning should also consider conditions around stations, including traffic, parking, development, public safety and homelessness.
Metro reported in August 2026 that its estimate of people experiencing homelessness aboard the transit system had declined approximately 57% since 2024. Metro also reported connecting 354 people to permanent housing during fiscal year 2026.²
Those figures are encouraging, but they do not by themselves establish what happened at individual stations or whether every person no longer counted aboard trains entered shelter, obtained housing or moved elsewhere.
That leaves an important regional question:
When homelessness decreases aboard trains, are people entering shelter and permanent housing—or are some moving into surrounding communities?
At present, publicly available evidence does not establish that the A Line extension caused homelessness to move eastward.
That question requires better station-level and longitudinal data.
Homelessness: A Regional Issue With Local Effects
LAHSA’s 2026 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count provides countywide, Service Planning Area and smaller geographic information that can help communities examine local conditions.³
Pasadena conducts its own detailed count. Its 2026 results reported 577 people experiencing homelessness, approximately 1% fewer than in 2025. Unsheltered homelessness declined approximately 6%, while sheltered homelessness increased approximately 7%. Pasadena also reported that 76% of surveyed unsheltered residents had close ties to Pasadena.⁴
That finding is important because it cautions against assuming that every unhoused person near a Metro station arrived from another city.
At the same time, the available data still do not adequately measure movement between communities along the A Line.
Pasadena Is Considering a Stronger Encampment Policy
A particularly important development occurred in Pasadena in September 2026.
Pasadena’s Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee scheduled a special September 14 meeting to examine how Glendale, Los Angeles and Santa Ana regulate homeless encampments and public camping as Pasadena considers whether it should adopt a more specific policy of its own.¹⁵
This is an important distinction: Pasadena has not yet adopted the proposed new citywide encampment ordinance. The September review is part of the policy-development process, and Pasadena’s City Council retains authority to adopt an ordinance.
Nevertheless, the discussion signals an important shift in the local homelessness debate.
Pasadena is examining not only how services are provided to people experiencing homelessness, but also what standards should govern the use of sidewalks, parks, schools and other public spaces.
Pasadena already prohibits certain conduct, including tent camping and public drug and alcohol use. At the same time, City officials have emphasized that being homeless itself is not illegal and that unhoused people who are behaving lawfully generally retain the same right to be present in a neighborhood as other members of the public.
That distinction should remain central to any future policy.
Schools, Neighborhoods and Public-Space Concerns
The Pasadena discussion has become especially relevant because of recent concerns around Hill Avenue and nearby schools.
Residents and school representatives have raised concerns about visible homelessness, alleged public drug activity and conditions near students. Pasadena officials responded with increased police patrols while the City’s PORT and HOPE outreach teams have been visiting the area and attempting to connect individuals with services.
Some community representatives have also raised the possibility of establishing enhanced “safe zones” around schools.
That proposal deserves careful public consideration.
Parents and students have legitimate expectations that routes to school, sidewalks and public spaces will be safe and accessible.
At the same time, a person should not be excluded from an entire neighborhood merely because he or she is homeless.
The appropriate policy should therefore distinguish between status and conduct.
Homelessness is a condition.
Illegal drug use, obstruction of sidewalks, threats, violence, unlawful camping and other prohibited conduct are behaviors that government may regulate subject to applicable law.
That distinction can help communities maintain both compassion and public order.
What Should Happen When an Encampment Is Removed?
This may be the most important question arising from Pasadena’s review.
An encampment disappearing from one sidewalk does not necessarily mean homelessness has been reduced.
If the people simply establish another encampment several blocks away—or travel to another city—the underlying problem remains.
That is why Walk My Town believes cities should measure more than the number of encampments removed.
They should ask:
How many people were contacted?
How many accepted services?
How many were offered shelter?
Was an appropriate bed actually available?
How many entered interim housing?
How many eventually obtained permanent housing?
How many returned to homelessness?
And how many appeared later in neighboring jurisdictions or transit stations?
The policy objective should be to distinguish encampment resolution from simple encampment displacement.
Enforcement Should Be Connected to Services
Pasadena’s evolving discussion provides an opportunity to develop a balanced model.
Public sidewalks, parks, transit stations and school areas should remain safe and accessible.
Reasonable laws governing conduct should be consistently enforced.
But whenever practical, enforcement involving an encampment should be coordinated with professional outreach.
A stronger model would be:
Outreach → Assessment → Confirmed Shelter or Treatment → Transportation → Case Management → Permanent Housing
If an individual accepts assistance, outreach workers should ideally be able to identify an appropriate available placement during the same encounter.
If someone declines assistance, cities must still determine what public-space rules apply and enforce those rules consistently and lawfully.
The two objectives—compassionate assistance and reasonable public-space standards—do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Preventing City-to-City Displacement
Pasadena’s discussion should also be viewed regionally.
An enforcement policy in Pasadena can potentially affect neighboring communities. The same is true of policies in Los Angeles, Glendora, Monrovia, Azusa, Pomona or any other city.
If one jurisdiction aggressively clears encampments while neighboring jurisdictions follow substantially different approaches, people may move between communities for many reasons.
That does not prove that a city is intentionally “sending” homeless individuals elsewhere.
In fact, Pasadena officials have previously stated that the City does not place unsheltered individuals on trains or send them to neighboring cities.¹⁸
Nevertheless, the possibility of unintended geographic displacement deserves serious study.
The San Gabriel Valley therefore needs a regional standard for measuring what happens after major encampment resolutions.
Metro Should Provide Better Station-Level Data
This issue becomes particularly important along the A Line.
Annual Point-in-Time counts cannot determine where an individual was previously contacted, how frequently someone uses transit or where that person went following an outreach encounter.
Metro, Los Angeles County and participating cities should consider publishing additional de-identified station-level information.
A useful measurement system would follow:
Total contacts → Unique individuals → Repeat contacts → Station → Services offered → Shelter accepted → Placement destination → Repeat encounter → Permanent-housing outcome
This information could help answer a question that residents currently cannot answer with confidence:
Are homelessness interventions reducing homelessness—or changing its location?
From the Last Train to Shelter
Terminal stations deserve particular attention.
When final trains arrive, people experiencing homelessness should not simply be removed from trains and left outside stations without an appropriate opportunity for assistance.
Where demonstrated by local need, Metro could establish coordinated end-of-line outreach operations involving trained outreach personnel, Metro Ambassadors and appropriate security.
When assistance is requested and an appropriate placement is available:
Train/Station → Voluntary Assessment → Confirmed Placement → Transportation → Shelter/Treatment → Case Management → Housing
The effectiveness of the program should be measured by placements and longer-term outcomes—not simply by whether a station appears clear the following morning.
Community Volunteers Can Help
Pasadena reported that approximately 200 volunteers participated in its January 2026 Homeless Count, working across 28 geographic zones under City supervision.⁵
A Foothill Community Ambassador and Volunteer Program could build on this model.
Properly trained volunteers could distribute resource information, assist with approved counts, identify individuals requesting professional assistance and document general station and neighborhood conditions.
Volunteers should not replace professional outreach workers, behavioral-health specialists or public-safety personnel.
A practical division of responsibility would be:
Community observes and reports → Professional outreach assesses → Services are offered → Placement is confirmed → Transportation and case management follow
Housing, Density and Infrastructure
California has also substantially changed residential-development law.
Senate Bill 9 established ministerial procedures for qualifying single-family properties, including certain additional residential development and urban lot splits. California Department of Housing and Community Development guidance describes circumstances in which an eligible property may accommodate as many as four residential units.⁶
SB 9 does not authorize four units on every single-family property. Eligibility requirements, exclusions and other state and local standards apply.
Accessory dwelling unit laws have also expanded housing opportunities.
The important community question is not whether housing should be built.
It is whether housing growth and infrastructure planning are occurring together.
Communities should examine the cumulative effects on traffic, parking, water and sewer systems, schools, fire and emergency response, parks, public safety, trees, open space and neighborhood character.
Historic Neighborhoods
Pasadena and South Pasadena provide useful examples of cities attempting to accommodate additional housing while protecting historic resources.
Pasadena’s ADU regulations include additional standards affecting historic areas.⁹ South Pasadena’s housing and planning materials similarly address development involving historic properties.¹⁰
These approaches deserve study throughout the foothill corridor.
Meeting California’s housing requirements and protecting historic resources do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
Housing and Local Schools
More housing also does not necessarily produce a dollar-for-dollar increase in discretionary funding for neighborhood schools.
Most California school districts operate under the state’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Funding calculations combine state resources and local property-tax revenue and depend substantially upon student attendance and other statutory factors.¹¹ ¹²
Communities experiencing additional residential development should therefore examine actual enrollment projections, school capacity, staffing, developer fees, capital needs and district finances.
The question should be:
If population and housing increase, are schools and public infrastructure keeping pace?
Comparing Pasadena, South Pasadena and Glendora
These communities offer different approaches worth studying.
Pasadena combines major transit infrastructure, historic neighborhoods and an increasingly active debate about homelessness, outreach, enforcement and public-space standards.
South Pasadena offers experience balancing housing requirements with extensive historic resources.
Glendora is simultaneously adapting to state housing requirements and the arrival of expanded A Line service, while planning additional development around its station.
None should automatically be presented as the model.
Instead, communities should compare measurable results and determine which policies can reasonably be adapted elsewhere.
Walk My Town Proposal: Foothill Community Work & Study Groups
Walk My Town proposes voluntary Foothill Community Work & Study Groups involving residents, homeowners, renters, educators, businesses, nonprofits, planners, transportation representatives, homelessness-service providers, students and public officials.
Five subjects deserve particular attention:
Homelessness, Encampments & Transit — Follow Pasadena’s encampment-policy debate and compare outreach, enforcement, shelter placements and geographic movement throughout the corridor.
Housing & Responsible Growth — Examine ADUs, SB 9, multifamily development, population trends, traffic, parking and infrastructure.
Historic Neighborhood Preservation — Compare Pasadena, South Pasadena, Glendora and neighboring communities.
Schools & Infrastructure — Examine whether public facilities and educational resources are keeping pace with housing and population changes.
Regional Foothill Cooperation — Encourage Pasadena, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, Covina, West Covina, La Verne, Pomona and Claremont to share data and successful practices.
An Invitation to Our Communities
Pasadena’s current encampment debate provides exactly the kind of issue that should involve serious regional discussion.
Should cities adopt clearer public-camping standards?
Should enhanced protections exist around schools and other sensitive locations?
What services should be offered before an encampment is removed?
What happens when shelter is unavailable?
How should cities measure whether people were housed or simply moved elsewhere?
And how can neighboring communities avoid solving one city’s problem by unintentionally transferring it to another?
Walk My Town welcomes residents, public officials, nonprofit organizations, educators, Metro representatives, homelessness-service providers and people with lived experience to contribute information and constructive perspectives.
Responsible Growth and Measurable Results
Supporting housing does not require ignoring neighborhood impacts.
Protecting historic neighborhoods does not require opposing development.
Compassion for people experiencing homelessness does not require ignoring illegal or unsafe conduct.
Maintaining safe public spaces does not require treating homelessness itself as a crime.
And supporting public transportation does not prevent communities from asking Metro and local governments to address the consequences associated with their respective systems.
Our goal should be straightforward:
Safe public spaces. Compassionate and effective outreach. Available shelter and treatment. Permanent housing whenever possible. Responsible growth. Protection of community character. And policies measured by results rather than appearances.
Join the Discussion
What should Pasadena’s final encampment policy include?
Should other foothill communities adopt similar standards—or take a different approach?
What should happen to individuals after an encampment is resolved?
Would you participate in a Foothill Community Work & Study Group examining these questions?
Walk My Town welcomes constructive disagreement, factual corrections and practical solutions.
The question is not simply whether an encampment disappeared. The question is whether the underlying problem was actually solved.
⸻
Footnotes and Sources
1. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, A Line Extension to Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne/Fairplex and Pomona North, September 2025.
2. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metro’s Integrated Public Safety Model Drives 57% Reduction in Homelessness on Transit System Since 2024, August 3, 2026.
3. Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 2026 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Data, September 2026.
4. Pasadena Homeless Count, 2026 Point-in-Time Count.
5. City of Pasadena, City of Pasadena Conducts 2026 Homeless Count, January 22, 2026.
6. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Duplexes and Lot Splits (SB 9) Housing Law Fact Sheet, April 2026.
9. City of Pasadena, Accessory Dwelling Units, current planning guidance.
10. City of South Pasadena, 2021–2029 Housing Element and related historic-preservation planning materials.
11–12. California Department of Education, Local Control Funding Formula Overview and state apportionment materials.
15. Pasadena Housing, Homelessness and Planning Committee, Special Meeting, September 14, 2026. The committee reviewed approaches to public camping and encampments in Glendale, Los Angeles and Santa Ana. The review was informational; Pasadena had not adopted a new citywide encampment ordinance as of the publication of this editorial.
16. City of Pasadena, Encampment Resolution Fund Round 4 materials concerning approximately $2.77 million awarded for prioritized encampment locations and related outreach and emergency-shelter activities.
17. City of Pasadena, Pasadena Outreach Response Team program reporting concerning outreach, referrals and housing placements.
18. City of Pasadena, City Council Minutes, September 9, 2024, concerning regional homelessness coordination and discussion of individuals using transit.
⸻
Walk My Town — Public Affairs
Editor’s Note — September 14, 2026: This article has been updated to reflect Pasadena’s current review of encampment and public-camping policies. Pasadena has not yet adopted the new citywide encampment ordinance under discussion. Walk My Town will update this article if the City Council subsequently adopts or rejects a new policy.
Walk My Town welcomes factual corrections, community experiences, differing perspectives and constructive proposals.
hi
