Will California Go Forward or Backward on Homelessness?
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Not long ago, I visited a public park in San Francisco and witnessed a most astonishing thing: The park was orderly, lots of kids were playing, the public bathrooms were clean and there wasn’t a homeless person — let alone an open-air drug market — in view. Outside of a few neighborhoods, San Francisco has never been as tawdry as its detractors alleged, but there have been plenty of signs of unchecked panhandling and disorder. Perhaps the city is turning a corner.
People I know who live there have mostly pointed to improvements on a wide number of fronts, the result of a noticeable political self-correction. The city has a new mayor, Daniel Lurie, the wealthy Levi’s heir and former nonprofit executive. Last week, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that he “raised $37.5 million from wealthy donors” to deal with the homelessness problem, “making good on one of his early pledges to supplement taxpayer funds by tapping private dollars to clean up streets and get more people into treatment and housing.”
We’ve seen other signs of self-correction, as voters replaced a leftist district attorney with one who actually seems committed to fighting crime — and their replacement of an ideologically motivated school board with reasonable people. San Francisco will never be managed in a way that suits conservatives, but the reemergence of traditional liberals (hey, it’s a city with only an 8 percent GOP voter registration) over the far left represents a step forward.
The homelessness situation has long been the most visible sign of municipal decay. And it’s not only confined to San Francisco, of course. Cities throughout California (and the state) have dumped tens of billions of dollars into the problem, only to see homeless numbers rising — albeit at a slower rate than before. Voters made their opinions clear in November by passing Proposition 36, which steps up punishments for theft and other crimes often associated with the homeless. There’s little tolerance even among Democratic voters for crime and disarray.
In response to public angst, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his plan to clamp down on homeless encampments. As CalMatters reported this week, the governor “called on every local government in the state to adopt ordinances that restrict public camping ‘without delay.’ He provided a hypothetical model ordinance that lays out exactly what he’d like to see banned: Camping in one place for more than three nights in a row, building semi-permanent structures such as make-shift shacks on public property and blocking streets or sidewalks.”
California cities are aided by the Grants Pass decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last June that allowed that Southern Oregon city to enforce anti-camping ordinances in public parks. In its 6–3 decision, the court found — quite sensibly — that such ordinances do not amount to cruel and unusual punishment, as they apply to everybody. It functionally overturned the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 Martin v. Boise decision, which forbade cities from enforcing such ordinances if they didn’t have a place to house the homeless. Basically, that decision gave cities the greenlight to clear out these encampments. Not all cities have taken advantage of that opportunity, however — hence the governor’s proposal.
But a measure in the California Legislature reminds us that this battle is far from over. In late March, Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, introduced a bill championed by so-called homeless advocates. Senate Bill 634 bans localities from passing any law that “prohibits a person or organization from providing support services, as specified, to a person who is homeless or assisting a person who is homeless with any act related to basic survival.”
The original version was far worse, as it would have prohibited ordinances that impose penalties on any homeless person “for any act related to homelessness or any act related to basic survival.” As I read it, that would undermine Grants Pass because, well, sleeping or defecating in a park would be arguably related to basic survival. The goal now apparently is to keep cities from fining nonprofits or others who provide food and water to the homeless.
Supporters of the bill aren’t shy about their distaste for the Grants Pass ruling. “Post-Grants Pass, there is nothing preventing jurisdictions from acting on their worst impulses towards houseless people and several jurisdictions are enacting cruel and harmful ordinances,” said one bill supporter in a statement.
I strongly support treating the state’s homeless people with compassion, but a huge percentage of them have addiction and mental health issues. California’s “Housing First” policies, which prioritize the construction of affordable housing units, will never work. The units often go to people who aren’t actually homeless. There’s not enough money in the world to build $800,000-a-unit apartments for everyone who wants one. And, again, most of the homeless need support services. Homelessness is not primarily a housing issue, even though the state’s housing shortages exacerbate it.
As author Wesley Smith explained:
Many among the unhoused — certainly not all, but a large percentage — became homeless because of their own dysfunctional personal behaviors. Housing First does nothing to address this aspect of the problem. To the contrary: Housing First forbids requiring beneficiaries, as a condition of receiving assistance, to attend drug rehabilitation programs, look for work, or even take their mental health medicines as directed by a doctor.
The most promising approach is to use the funds now being spent to build campuses for the homeless with community services, then have a place for them. That’s what San Antonio, Texas, did — and with much success. But without the Grants Pass decision, municipalities would have few tools to humanely get them the help they need. The homeless court system, whereby homeless people who commit minor crimes are “sentenced” to help programs, also show promise. California shouldn’t step backward after years of it finally making forward progress.
Newsom’s plan isn’t binding on cities and counties, per an AP report, but it comes with the promises of significant grant funding — and I doubt there’s much appetite anywhere from the public for the failed policies of the past. If San Francisco can self-correct a bit, so can every other California municipality. It’s time for the Legislature to get with the program.