This week’s SGV Connect/StreetSmart Podcast reconnects with the Reclaimers (full coverage), the group of formerly homeless people that moved into Caltrans-owned houses at the start of the pandemic without the agency's permission. Over the past five years, the Reclaimers have been on a legal odyssey that’s involved not just the state transportation department Caltrans and the three cities where Caltrans owns houses (acquired to extend the 710 Freeway, now surplus with that project cancelled), but also the California Highway Patrol, and even the Governor’s Office.
This interview focuses mostly on the story of Benito Flores, a 76-year old handyman still residing at a Caltrans-owned home in El Sereno. Flores has resisted eviction, and plans to stay in the house until he is forcibly removed. When the Sheriffs eventually arrive to remove him, he plans on escaping to a treehouse he has built on the property.
He hopes his action continues to draw attention to how the housing system continues to work against people of lesser means. He is promoting a rent strike he hopes will materialize in December of 2026.
Flores claims that the Housing Authority for the City of Los Angeles has lied about him in court filings when they stated that he refused permanent supportive housing. At Flores’ request, we asked HACLA to comment on this. Their full comment is below, right before the audio from the podcast.
Statement from HACLA:
For the past five years, The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) has managed the El Sereno Temporary Housing Program under a lease with Caltrans, providing essential resources including utilities, case management, housing navigation placement support and financial subsidies to over 44 households and close to 150 individuals, including Mr. Benito Flores. This program has helped over 90% of our families find permanent housing, with more placements underway.
We understand that for Mr. Flores, this is not just about a house but a home, which is why he has been provided with the fullest array of services and housing search assistance including referrals to multiple permanent affordable housing sites as well as access to an emergency housing voucher, which unfortunately, he refused. HACLA offered several housing referrals, including some deeply affordable options, including senior housing and permanent supportive housing.
During the pandemic, HACLA offered Mr. Flores an emergency housing voucher which could be used in the private market to expand his housing options. Additionally, People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) attempted to complete applications on Mr. Flores’ behalf so he could be prioritized in the Coordinated Entry System for placement into permanent supportive housing. Regarding documentation, it is our general policy not to release private information about our program participants and we have confirmed with PATH that we cannot release any of Mr. Flores' case notes.
SGV Connect is supported by Foothill Transit, offering car-free travel throughout the San Gabriel Valley with connections to the new Gold Line Stations across the Foothills and Commuter Express lines traveling into the heart of downtown L.A. To plan your trip, visit Foothill Transit. “Foothill Transit. Going Good Places.”
Sign-up for our SGV Connect Newsletter, coming to your inbox on Fridays!
Fanny Guzman
Hi, everybody. My name is Fanny Guzman. My gender pronouns are she, they, them.
Benito Flores
My name is Benito Flores, I am getting evicted, and I am the man on the tree, and I am resisting.
Sandra Saucedo
Hi. This is Sandra Salcedo.
Roberto Flores
Hello. Roberto Flores, East Side Cafe.
Damien Newton
Thank you all for being here today. We usually check in on your story about once a year at Streetsblog, which is not to say a lot doesn't happen all the time. Pasadena Now does updates occasionally. There's some others: KTLA, LAist; there's a lot of sources that are able to be out here a little more regularly. But we like to let you guys tell the story, because it's your story. We will link to our other coverage in the text that accompanies this podcast. We're here discussing the Reclaimers movement.
In March 2020, a group of people moved into Caltrans owned properties without, let's say, without the proper paperwork, as far as the state would be concerned. They did this both to get off the streets at the start of the pandemic, and as a statement that in a time when the city, region, state, country, world, are all dealing with an explosion of homelessness.
There's actually a lot of unused property. Some of it's owned by the government, some of it's owned by private interests. but especially ones being owned by the government, should not be empty, especially during a homeless crisis, especially during a pandemic. Instead of, I guess there wasn't exactly a warm welcome, but the governor stepped in, a lot of Reclaimers were moved to other state owned property that Los Angeles County homeless services had....You were given contracts to stay in those houses. Eventually, those contracts expired, and was an ongoing effort to either relocate people again or, in this case, do an eviction.
This is where we are now. The last time we were together for a podcast was May of 2025, about 14 months ago. At the time, there was a lawsuit where the Reclaimers were claiming that they had rights as renters, full rights, under the Roberti Act, to have a chance to purchase their houses that they were living in. I don't believe that case was successful, correct me if I'm wrong.
Fanny
So the case is for the civil lawsuit of Roberti rights. It was denied, but there was an appeal that was refiled. And so, the case is moving forward. It's a strong case, but understanding that we live in a system that is under a system that is based on capitalism and imperialism. So yeah, the government acquires land and housing to develop freeways and roads and also to prevent the working class people, the people of color, from becoming homeowners. So the Roberti Act stipulates that any occupant living in those units after two years have the right of refusal.
First refusal means that they can become homeowners. And the Roberti Act also stipulates that Caltrans has to sell these units at the original price that they were acquired 50 years ago. Let's say they acquired it for $13,000 or $20,000 then that's what they have to sell it to the current occupant after two years. But because Caltrans is very racist in their bureaucracies, they continue to create their own internal guidelines to block occupants or tenants from acquiring the Roberti Act lands. That lawsuit is still moving forward right now, as we speak
Damien
So briefly, for anyone that's listening to this that hasn't kept up with this story or listened to our past coverage, the Roberti Act was made in the 1970s specific to when Caltrans was buying property. Eventually, they could eventually, as they say, complete the 710 freeway by connecting it to the 210. That project's not happening. And so Caltrans is very belatedly, and with much foot dragging, now beginning to sell those properties off. There's certainly some evidence in the historical record that Caltrans isn't following the intent of the Roberti Act, which is why we end up at court with judges trying to look at not just the words of the Roberti Act, but the intent of the law was written over 50 years ago.
Fanny
It goes even bigger than that. You know, here we are, five years later, all the Reclaimers lost their cases in the court, but they lost it not because it didn't merit. Technically, the cases for the Reclaimers shouldn't have been heard at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (editor's note: LA County courts), because technically, under their master lease agreements, they're not recognized as tenants.
There should have never been a case that was argued for them and for them to lose, but because we have judges that are so biased in their own internal racism that they would actually stop and make corrections to mistakes that the opposing council was doing so they can move forward with evicting the families from their homes.
Understanding that that's what we're facing...it's the conditions that we're living under right now. We're in a moment where Benito's direct action is calling out all of the harm that is done and that is created when they manufacture homelessness and a housing crisis, when we have empty homes that are boarded up, that are owned by the state, bought by and paid for by our taxes.
Benito
Which brings us right to where we are today. We are at the house that Benito has been living in for roughly five years...maybe a little less.
Damien
The City of Los Angeles is trying to evict you at the moment. We're in El Sereno, which is a community in the City of Los Angeles. Last year, when we got together and were talking about this, there was some hope that with the new city council member, things would change a little bit, as far as how the Reclaimers have been treated. But what we've seen is that evictions are moving forward. We've heard stories of some people being evicted, but you're still here for now. Has there been anyone that's come here that's tried to make you physically remove you from the property, or is it right now still just sort of a threat on paper?
Benito
The Sheriff already came to close and to lock the house. We lost all the eviction process. We lost in court. We lost the writ asking the judge to reverse the decision. And then the Sheriffs came and put the fight they noticed. And then Sandra and Tina were actually locked out. Then they came to look for me on June 3.
The people were here, the community people were here, and they stopped the sheriff. They don't allow the Sheriffs to pass, and the sheriffs need to go back home empty handed. And that was a very good, very good action on behalf of the people who resisted the sheriff.
Now, the Sheriff promises to come back. But this was June three. Now we have July two. So one month, and the sheriff is not showing up. We speculated because of the protests, the sheriff is busy trying to to stop the protests. We don't know.
Damien
But right now, there's no legal effort to stop the sheriff from coming and doing the evictions. You're just taking a civil action to resist.
Benito
Yeah, there is no legal action. This is, this is direct action. The legal action we are intending is an appeal. There is some lawyer who agreed to make an appeal regarding the eviction, because the eviction is illegal. And then also we have another appeal.
We are fighting the right to purchase…the Roberti rights. They deprived us of the Roberti rights in a very illegal way. And then we went to our civil lawsuit, and we lost. But we appeal. We have a very good attorney. This attorney used to work with Caltrans Tenant Union. Caltrans Tenant Union, they have won many cases on appeal.
So we are very, very optimistic, and we think we are going to win, we're going to win, and then they are going to reverse everything. When we have the right to purchase, then the eviction is illegal automatically, and then we need to come back. We are going to demand to come back to the houses.
Damien
How many of the original Reclaimers are still in reclaimed property? I know some have taken deals with LAHSA. I don't think it's just you, but is there still a group out there?
Benito
Yeah, we are, we continue with the group. Some Reclaimers took some money...a settlement.
But when they took the settlement, they automatically lost their Roberti rights. So if we win the appeal, all these Reclaimers, who took them to the settlement, are not part of the Roberti rights. There are no good benefits to purchasing the property. This is the downside. They got a settlement, and then some of them are well. Are they helping? I don't know if they are helping.
Roberto
I think most of them are still active. All of them are still active, doing something to resist and to settle in somewhere else. But the group that is resisting with Benito is a smaller, smaller group, and is a smaller subset of the entire group of Reclaimers. There are two. There's one Reclaimer who also has not been locked out. And we don't know how Caltrans works. We've seen Caltrans wait up to a year before they evict somebody. In this situation where they're resisting. We don't know how long they're going to take. In this case, it's HACLA when we talk about the city evicting, it's HACLA, particularly, or specifically, that is evicting him. It's the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles. They're trying to give Caltrans the house back, you know? And from that master lease that they had with Caltrans,
Damien
Just to clarify, this is a Caltrans owned property? When they, when you, were moved by HACLA, I wasn't 100% sure we were still in a Caltrans property.
Roberto
HACLA has a five year agreement contract called the master lease, where they leased 24 houses. I think 20 of them were single family homes, and four of them were multi-family, like here. They're still trying to end that agreement. Nowhere does it say that HACLA had to evict to secure the house, but HACLA took it upon themselves. They didn't have to evict. They could have even agreed and filed an amicus. What do they call it? An amicus brief with the appeal for Roberti Bill rights. I mean, it's a legal, straightforward legal argument that's in the Roberti bill, and they could have looked it up and studied it, and they could have agreed that the people in these houses, the occupants, had Roberti Bill rights, but they didn't.
Damien
What is the goal at this point for you staying here Benit?, Is it to stay in this house long enough for the Roberti case to move through court and you to be given those the right of first refusal? Is that the timeline that we see in the best case scenario?
Benito
The original intent of this movement was to create a standoff with the sheriff and the Highway Patrol, and make a lot of publicity about the rent, about the abuse, about how HACLA is lying under penalty of perjury, about how this eviction is illegal. But now, because the Sheriff is busy with other things, this is going to stand a lot of times.
We don't know if it is HACLA who is pushing for eviction or is Caltrans? Maybe Caltrans is going to take a lot of time to come and to lock me out. We don't know. So we are going to achieve our strategic goals right now. We are interested in spreading the word about the city-wide rent strike that is going to start in December 2026. We are going to try to convince every tenant to participate and strike.
Then there is a form, a pledge, that the tenant can sign the pledge and promise to participate in the strike. Also, there is a pledge for the landlord where the landlord understands that landlords have been taking advantage of the tenants, and the landlords promise to charge only the 30% of the tenant income. So we will call the form, the reasonable landlord pledge. So we are going to promote these two pledges, one for the landlord to sign, and one for the tenant to sign.
Not all the landlords are evil. There are many good people who are landlords, but they are charging over-priced rent because everybody is doing that, and nobody is asking them to slow down. Nobody's telling them that overcharging the rent more than 3% is a crime, is an abuse. No politician is telling them that, so we are going to be the first to tell the landlord that that system is abusive and they need to slow down.
Damien
So this is about more than just trying to find a place for you to stay...to have a roof over your head. The movement is about quite a bit more than that. It's about drawing attention to a lot of the inequities that exist in the local housing market and rental market and to draw attention to bring about larger systemic change.
Benito
Exactly, this is the idea
Damien
Have you been tempted by any of the offers, the settlement offers?
Benito
They offered me four years in a hotel, the Hotel Luna, no rent...no paying rent. All free: The rent, the internet and everything. And I say, "no" for two reasons. The first is that they offer me four years and only to me. And what about Tina? What about Sandra? What about the other Reclaimers that don't get 4 years? Why me? Because I am the dog who is barking louder, or what? And they went to destroy our movement. They try to corrupt me and make me think only of myself and say, "Oh, I got four years. I don't care about the other guys, the other reclaimers." I'm not like that.
The second reason I didn't accept is we don't know what is going to happen after four years. I am 70 now. In four years, I will be 74 and I will be living on the street. So start out again when I am older and tired and weaker. So I am asking them to follow the law. The law says, "permanent housing as quickly as possible." That is what the law is saying, and that is why I am asking. Thank you.
Let me tell you about the law. California Health and Safety Code, 50801 I. In the second paragraph it says, "With the ultimate goal to move a recently homeless person to permanent housing as quickly as possible."There's no question of their obligation, "as quickly as possible." They are ignored until now. This law... the first paragraph says the housing is for 24 months. HACLA uses the first part of the law to evict us because they say, "Oh, the 24 months already are gone, so you are out."
And they started the eviction, but they don't pay attention to the second part. They have the obligation to provide permanent housing. The judge ignored that, and then HACLA lied to the judge under penalty of perjury. HACLA told the judge that they offered us permanent housing, and we rejected the housing.
That is a lie. The judge didn't ask for proof. That is why this is an illegal eviction. There is a principle. The principle is: the state and the city are under the moral and legal obligation to provide permanent housing to homeless, elders, disabled and families with children.
Who else?Who is going to provide permanent housing to elders and disabled? The elders who are in Social Security cannot pay the rent. So they have the right to live on the street? No, they don't have the right to live on the street, because there is 4118. 4118 is charging you a $500 fine every day for sleeping in the street, so nobody can live on the street. So why is the city sending the elders to live on the street, the disabled to live on the street?Nobody has an obligation but the city in the state. That is why I am fighting.
Damien
For anyone that might not know; 41:18 is the city ordinance that prohibits "camping," as the term that is used in the ordinance, on public public spaces. What we're saying here is the city and county government can't provide or isn't providing permanent supportive housing, but it's also, at the same time making it illegal to live on the street. So
Fanny
It's a contradiction that is exacerbating our conditions for the most vulnerable, for the disabled, for the elderly, for women of color with children. HACLA shares that they spend a million dollars on this program alone annually. But that's a mismanagement of public funds that they're using because none of those resources or services actually did a tangible thing in providing and doing the work to provide them with direct services.Services that we, at times, had to pick up as a community and do in a collective way for ourselves and our members.
They threw Joseph out into the streets over a year ago, and nobody was taking care of him but Benito, Roberto, Sandra, myself, and Tina and other members in the community. Last Wednesday, they finally placed him in housing with assisted living for a whole year. His health has deteriorated. He is not the same Joseph that I first met when I started with the Reclaiming Our Homes campaign. And it is heartbreaking to see that the system is a failure. It's a failure to the most vulnerable.
This is the reasoning behind this direct action of the tree house for Benito. It is not something that just happens once in a blue moon. It's a consistent pattern that we find ourselves in because the rents continue to increase every year, but our wages remain stagnant, and we have empty homes boarded up. I'm sure not just across the 710, defunct freeway extension, but all across the state right that are owned by the state and that are acquired through eminent domain.
They should give back to the people that they hurt. They should allow for people to access these homes, to do the opposite of what the system is doing, creating a housing and homelessness crisis and allowing the community to have self-determination and do something different, holistic, where we do not throw people into the streets in a violent way.
Damien
The 710 houses that Caltrans owns were in three cities, correct? El Sereno in Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena. Now, I know Pasadena has started selling some of the homes. Do we know who they're being sold to? Is any of it going to --
Roberto
market buyers .
Damien
So they're using the market they're turning into market rate housing.
Roberto
It's still under Caltrans, still under the Roberti law. But, it's an amended Roberti Law. Portentino and Holden amended the Roberti bill for South Pasadena and Pasadena. So, the amended sections allow the city to have first right of refusal to purchase a house, empty houses, and then sell them at market, and utilize the market money and build affordable housing. That's what they're both doing.
I wanted to comment a little bit more about Benito, and the mission. From day one, Benito has been saying who's at fault for not regulating rents, who's at fault for allowing for not bringing up wages or minimum wage. It's a city council, it's a state government. It is that understanding that we're having a very difficult time getting corrupt government bodies to go against their benefactors, which are wealthy people. And so there's no regulation. So who now has to regulate them? It has to be the people. So Benito is calling for a strike that puts the working people, the renters, in charge of carrying out an action. A rent strike is a very difficult thing to do.
So Benito is saying, "December 2026 it's a year and a half from here, but it'll give us enough time to start detailing. The pledges are already a defining instrument, a tool, but it'll give us enough time to prepare because we have to prepare escrows, where people deposit their rents. We have to get rid of that fear, because a rent strike is a fearful, anxious thing to do. We have to take the action, though it has to be the renters that control this whole thing, because city council, state bodies, legislators, are not going to do it for us. We have to do it. Now, he's calling for December 2026 which is close to the Olympics, you know, so it'll give us enough time to start organizing, because it's going to get worse as we get nearer to the Olympics and they're going to the disdain for homeless people is going to is going to grow and manifest itself in hiding the homeless, in pushing them away from the Olympic activities and so on.
So Benito's idea to launch a campaign is getting a lot of attention from folks that are fighting housing, fair housing advocates or advocates for affordable housing. So nobody has done this. Nobody has resisted in this way.
So the goal of the whole thing is to get the attention, like Benito says, get a standoff going where they're trying to get him off a tree, and he-- from the tree--is putting out manifestos, statements, positions, regarding the strike, the power of the people, the mechanics as to how we can actualize that power. So that's the whole goal.
Damien
Let's talk about the tree house looks like. It's about 30 feet off the ground? Maybe a little more?
Benito
Yeah, I say 28 feet to 30 feet high. If I fall, it's death. It's death assured. I am risking my life to defend my house. I have said many times, I will not surrender the house. I will not surrender myself. And I, if I need to die as a martyr, I will die to call attention to this corruption.
I already had an accident. I was using a pulley to make an elevator to go up and down. A pulley was broken because I didn't use more strong material. I'm not an engineer. I am just a handyman, and everything I do has been my experience about welding as a handyman. I make mistakes. And so I was very lucky that that pulley broke when I was four feet high. If the pulley broke when I was 20 feet or 30 feet, I am dead now.
So my life is at risk. I ask myself, why? Why? Why am I climbing the trees? I should be in a house, enjoying my retirement. Playing dominoes or whatever, doing whatever, things a retired person does. And no, I am here fighting for my house because the people who are obligated to provide me with permanent housing are lying. They are saying that I rejected the permanent housing. How can I reject permanent housing? If they offer me permanent housing, I said, "No?I don't need permanent housing." Why? Why does the judge believe them without asking for proof?
The people who are supposed to uphold the law are lying. So, the judge who is supposed to protect the people are making bad decisions based on lies and helping an illegal eviction. That is why I am fighting. That is why I am risking my life. And that is why when the sheriffs come, when the highway patrol comes, I'm not going to surrender. So they are going to have to do all the work, to go upside down and to take all the risk that I am taking. If they have an accident, it's not my responsibility.
It's HACLA's responsibility. It is their legal responsibility if some officer gets in an accident, has an accident, trying to arrest me. If I have an accident, my blood will be on their hands. I will resist as strongly as I can. I don't plan to commit suicide, but I still can die because violence, violence of the sheriff and the Highway Patrol.
Damien
To be clear you, because sometimes when people say, "If they have an accident, it's their fault," there's an implied threat there. There's no threat here. You're not planning to attack a police officer, you actually mean, "If they have an accident trying to arrest you, similar to what you had on the pulley system, that's that's not on you?"
Benito
Yeah, yeah. I'm no, I'm not a violent person. I'm not planning to attack the police.
Damien
I've known you for five years. I knew that wasn't what you meant. I just wanted to make sure we were super clear about it on the audio, in case, God forbid, there is some sort of accident here. I don't want the audio from this interview being used as any sort of evidence that, "Well, he kind of said..." that's not what we're talking about. We're literally talking about if during the process of eviction or removing you from the property or arrest, if someone gets hurt because they fell, because they did something, they made a mistake of some sort of their own that that's not something you would feel guilty about. That's on HACLA for not creating a better situation here.
Benito
I hope, if they come, they they bring professional person who knows how to work in the heights who has the safety belts also provided. I want them to take all the all the protection possible, and don't make mistakes.
But if they make a mistake is not my fault. It's HACLA fault. HACLA the organization who lied, telling that I rejected housing, so that is not credible. So if they they are believing that, is because they are not acting in good faith.
I am asking the sheriff, "Don't come to me. Don't come to lock me. Why don't you go and ask HACLA, where is the permanent house that we supposedly rejected?" I am writing a letter for the judge, and I am going to ask him the same thing. Go and ask HACLA, where is the permanent house that I supposedly rejected.
What, I am a fool to reject the permanent housing? So why do they believe that? What is the housing that I supposedly rejected? I have been asking this to to the LA Times, to all the press people. I am asking this to you, go to HACLA and ask them, where is, where is the housing that I supposedly rejected...that we supposedly rejected. They said they offer permanent housing to all of us, and that is a lie. This is making me very angry that the government agency, who is supposed to represent the law, is lying. That is a crime.
Damien
That is a powerful statement to end on. As always, our best wishes for a peaceful resolution that is positive for all parties involved, well, at least the parties at this table and the folks that you're working with. So thank you again for your time, and we'll talk again soon.
Sandra
Okay, can I say one last thing? Let's not forget about Palestina. Viva Palestina.
Damien
Yeah, I think that's how we ended last year too, with a Viva Palestina,
Fanny
So, going back to what's happening in Gaza, it's a it's an ethnic cleansing that's happening, that's been happening for like, seven decades, but it's very aggressive in the last 20 months or so, but it's the same thing that's happening as the differences that is happening slowly, the ethnic cleansing of our communities as they acquire the properties and prevent the people that are from this community from accessing the right to to become homeowners or to even live in this units. Thank you.
Damien
No, no, thank you guys.
