Two weeks after San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan advocated for a pair of bills he believed would help reduce unsheltered homelessness, state lawmakers dealt a setback to his legislative push, gutting a key provision in one of the bills that would have compelled counties to do their fair share.
Believing San Jose had shouldered too much of the homelessness burden, Mahan sponsored SB 16 from state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) that would have forced the largest counties to cover at least 50% of the operating costs their cities expend to run interim housing and shelters. But on Tuesday, those cost requirements were stripped entirely from the bill’s language.
“I went up to Sacramento and stood beside Sen. Catherine Blakespear to announce statewide legislation that would make sure every level of government does its fair share on homelessness. Today, the bill I stood in support of is unrecognizable,” Mahan said Tuesday.
“The powers that be decided this bill would threaten the status quo — which, to be fair, was exactly our goal. I will not stop fighting for an end to unsheltered homelessness, but the hard truth is, a city can’t do it alone, which is why I am grateful to have leaders like Sen. Blakespear on our side, who I know will continue to push her colleagues to enact the change we need.”
As one of the pillars of his mayoral campaign, Mahan has targeted ending the “era of encampments” and touted a model released by San Jose’s housing department this year that showed what he argued was a more feasible path for unsheltered homelessness to reach functional zero — when the number of people exiting homelessness exceeds the number of people falling into it.
Over the coming year, San Jose will add more than 1,400 shelter placements between safe sleeping and safe parking sites, hotel and motel room conversions and tiny home communities. This week, the city will open a 135-unit community at Via del Oro in South San Jose.
However, dspite San Jose’s push to drastically increase interim housing, it does not have enough spaces for the estimated 5,500 unsheltered homeless population in the city.
With financial resources serving as the most significant inhibitor, Mahan has argued that the city could move closer to its goal of providing enough shelter quicker if it focused on building interim housing and the county contributed to operating them.
In this year’s budget, San Jose has allocated $220.4 million towards homelessness efforts, representing about 3.5% of its budget.
Related Articles
Supportive housing project in Oakland pushes ahead with property deal
Opinion: Criminalizing homelessness won’t fix our housing shortage
Bay Area food banks, pantries struggle with funding cuts as demand continues to rise
San Jose will clear out large RV encampment near Microsoft data center project
Prop 36 aims to force drug offenders into treatment. That’s yet to happen in these Bay Area counties
San Jose is not the only large city in California that has taken issue with its county’s role in addressing homelessness.
In January, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria criticized the county of San Diego in his State of the City address, saying the county needed to fulfill its responsibility in the region.
“It is my hope that anytime you see a person on the street suffering from extreme mental illness or addiction that you think of the County of San Diego and ask when will they step up to provide the services they need to end this crisis once and for all,” Gloria said.
Before the bill even had its first hearing, Santa Clara County officials vehemently opposed it, raising concerns that they would lose autonomy over their finances to the city. Santa Clara County Supervisor Susan Ellenberg referred to the focus on interim housing solutions as “short-term camouflage” and stressed that building more housing was the best long-term solution to the homelessness problem.
She added that Mahan had misrepresented the county’s investment in the full continuum of homelessness solutions, which amounted to $435 million during the current fiscal year.
The California State Association of Counties also opposed the bill, joining a coalition composed of Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, the County Behavioral Health Directors Association and the County Welfare Directors Association, and characterized it as “a misguided approach that will exacerbate homelessness and redirect funding that is needed for safety net services and housing for the most vulnerable Californians.”
On Tuesday, the California State Association of Counties welcomed the amendments to the bill.
“Counties are ready to comprehensively address the homelessness crisis by addressing the two fundamental problems with the current broken system: clear responsibilities for each level of government — state, city and county; and reliable funding so local governments can follow through on what they start,” California State Association of Counties CEO Graham Knaus said. “We’re working with elected officials in both parties at the state and local levels to identify real solutions.”
Santa Clara County Executive James R. Williams also thanked the committee for the amendments and recognized the role counties play.
“We agree with the Senate’s decision that ultimately cities and counties should decide for themselves how to most effectively collaborate on solutions. That’s the only way we’ll be able to make real progress on ending street homelessness.”
Meanwhile, with the cost-sharing requirement removed, Mahan said the bill has added another process requirement instead: a state analysis to achieve functional zero.
Although he called it progress, Mahan lamented the decision, calling it “another incremental step that continues to let other levels of government off the hook for acting decisively to get everyone indoors.”
