The City of Los Angeles is renting properties from the State for the next few years, as bridge housing; while legislation, regulations, and litigation to sell these State owned dwellings gets resolved.

Legally, I can see why the City of Los Angeles legitimized, the squatters (Reclaimers) already occupying some of the dwellings (that the City is leasing from the State), through a formal sublease agreement.

Those sublease agreements are now the controling document in the relationship between the the City and the squatters (Reclaimers). Formal sublease agreements compared to squatters rights (sic.. no adverse possession against the State) is better for all parties.

Ethically, legitimizing the occupancy of the squatters (Reclaimers) is spurious, in my opinion, as it blocked the use of these dwellings by needy families that applied, were approved, and promised aid through the City of Los Angeles' bridge housing program.

Also ethically, legitimizing the the first group of squatters (Reclaimers) emboldened additional takeover attempts and the disheartening clashes seen in the linked video.

The squatting is a crime / housing is a right, debate is tough... I would like to see all of the vacant and habitable State own dwellings rented out to Locals (Cal State Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, City of South Pasadena, City of Pasadena, etc.) for their respective housing programs until these properties can ultimately be sold.