Politicians often find themselves in a prickly position. I’m not sympathetic.
While there are a few innocents, most people running for office know they will be called upon to make difficult decisions. They know that sometimes there are few, if any, happy choices to be found. Indeed, that is why they run: they relish tackling tough issues.
Homelessness certainly qualifies.
The city of Sacramento’s attempts to resolve the homeless issue demonstrate the relentless nature of the underlying problem. In our case, the issue hit the front pages in 2009 when Oprah Winfrey sent reporter Lisa Ling to Sacramento to report on a homeless camp down by the American River. The footage of the encampment, and the abysmal and unhealthy conditions in which the residents were living, was national news. It was also, as you can imagine, a wake-up call in our liberal city.
The homeless folks weren’t hiding, of course. They were simply living someplace where there wasn’t a lot of foot traffic. They had been there a while. Soon after the Oprah show, the city cleared the camp.
There might be legitimate criticisms of the city’s homeless efforts over the years, but there is consistency in one aspect: clearing camps. This approach continues today, 15 years later.
I’m sure you’ve heard of court decisions that restrict the city’s ability to clear encampments. The courts have generally held that being without a home, or being poor, is not a crime. The basic rule: if you are going to remove someone from public property for making it their home, you must offer them a new home. It can be a tent, or a “tiny home,” or a bed in a shelter, but you cannot simply kick them out without offering an alternative.
This may sound reasonable, but the devil is in the details. For one thing, there are some places where camping conflicts with other concerns. The federal government, for example, passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and wants sidewalks open for people with wheelchairs, and blind people. Move your tent!
The local school district runs schools for young, impressionable and sensitive young people. They need a safe path to walk to and from school. Move your tent!
The city serves clean water to its residents and runs a water treatment plant. It doesn’t want pollutants or trash interfering with its operations. Move your tent!
The city and county have cooperated with local groups to establish a parkway along the American River. Camps produce trash, fire and health hazards, and pollute the river. Move your tent!
The question that has dogged local officials for 15 years is simple: move to where? It is acknowledged that the city does not have thousands of spaces to offer to the homeless, and that’s what it would take for an overnight solution. Building permanent housing takes time and money, and there are political considerations when it comes to identifying a site for an “official” encampment—things like neighbors.
Homelessness has, very simply, confounded the locals. Oprah’s show in 2009 occurred early in the first term of the mayor. Seven years later, as he was leaving office, he noted that the city was well aware of the homeless problem, had spent $5.1 million on solutions and relief, and was appointing a task force to deal with the issue.
The task force is long gone, but homelessness remains on the front page. Meanwhile, our city auditor reports that the city spent $57 million in 2023 responding to homeless issues. In fact, money is at the heart of the problem.
I’ve mentioned a basic principle of politics (POP?) before: a politician can be ignorant, but they can’t be incompetent. Local officials might have been able at one time to claim ignorance of folks camping all over the city, but the problem was out in the open once Oprah got involved.
There is a corollary to this POP: if you’re running for office, telling potential voters that you cannot solve a problem is not a good campaign strategy. No—instead you tell voters either that you will solve the problem, or that you have some really good ideas about how to solve it.
Setting aside political issues such as neighbor opposition, it might seem fairly simple to establish a campground for the homeless. A safe place (“safe ground” is in common use) if you will. The costs and logistical difficulties quickly pile up, though.
If the city is involved, it must provide some kind of security, lighting, and sanitary facilities (at a minimum porta potties, but also washing stations and perhaps showers.) Even you’ve had the occasion to check out the cost of a fence for your small backyard you’ll still be shocked at the price of putting up a chain link fence to enclose two acres for a safe ground.
In 2009 the city’s position was simple: we do not provide homeless services—that is a responsibility of the county. Fifteen years later there are still echoes of that, but the city now has a separate department for homeless outreach. Think of that POP again: city council candidates may have wanted to steer clear and leave the county to deal with it, but city voters demanded solutions, and that has dragged the city into the role of a social services agency. That is expensive.
Money is such a tawdry concern, though, when dealing with real people who are hurting, and in some cases helpless. Nonetheless, the city does not have unlimited resources, and cost must be addressed.
The big numbers don’t provide much context. A couple of nonprofits have reported their estimate: California can solve the homeless problem by investing $8.1 billion a year for 12 years. Maybe. Maybe we could have a bond issue. (Maybe we could turn it over to the same people building the sloth rail down in Bakersfield. Don’t get me started…)
The more relevant number is the amount of money it takes to provide meaningful relief for the homeless at the local level. This includes, remember, people (often police officers and firefighters), equipment, a safe location, facilities, and professionals for mental health and social services. The Corporation for Supportive Housing estimates an annual cost of $42,000 per person. My own estimate is $38,000. Some shelter spaces cost a lot more. I haven’t seen many that cost less, given the basic site requirements.
There are always different estimates of the extent of the problem, but it seems to be generally agreed that there are about 5,400 people living unsheltered on the streets of the city. The cost of the fix? 5,400 x $38,000 = $205,200,000.
Let’s be realistic. The first draft of the city ’s budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 shows a deficit of $66 million. Does it seem reasonable to think city spending can be reduced elsewhere (hmmmm…lay off cops? firefighters?) by $66 million, and then increased four-fold to $200+ million for homeless? Not.
Sure, the politicians can tell the voters that homelessness is Priority #1 (the Sacramento City Council did exactly this a few months ago). That isn’t true, though, and everyone knows it. Our top priorities? We want the water and sewer to work; we want police protection; we want firefighters when there is a fire or medical emergency; we want potholes fixed; and we want someone to answer the damn phone when we call City Hall!
It is the job of a politician to find ways to hold a peaceful (maybe even friendly) public discussion, identify the competing interests, and resolve the conflicts. Fifteen years after Oprah we still seek success in that effort.
There are alternatives. The city could make it clear that the homeless are not welcome here. How? By sweeps that move people along, even if there is no place to go.
This would, of course, be harassment. It would almost certainly violate court strictures. One must wonder, though, whether such an approach could quietly and unofficially (that is, off the front page) send a message to the homeless: find some other town in which to camp. Politicians are, after all, prone to frustration just like the rest of us.
The city council has spent a lot of time on this. It has approved several initiatives that have resulted in real relief, real housing. Oprah could still find plenty of material for new video footage, though.
Another POP: there are always competing priorities. Next Tuesday, for example, the City Council will consider a resolution addressing Israel, Gaza, and the Palestinians. The resolution has been carefully crafted in such a manner so it will satisfy everyone, and offend nobody. If we haven’t been able to accomplish that with homelessness in fifteen years, though, I am skeptical that our city council will now solve a problem thousands of years in the making.
[Disclosure: I am a city employee, and my job sometimes calls for me to review City actions for compliance with California environmental review requirements. I have had something of a front row seat to the City’s homeless response, but the views expressed here are entirely my own.]