The division among local governments is a statewide problem, but it is most apparent in Los Angeles County, where a joint city-county homelessness agency is being dismantled amid sharp criticism of its failures.
When he unveiled his latest version of the budget this month, Newsom pledged to ramp up pressure on the locals by introducing new accountability processes and conditioning state aid on identifiable results. He also proposed a model ordinance he said local governments could use to clear encampments.
“No one in our nation should be without a place to call home. As we continue to support our communities in addressing homelessness, we expect fast results, not excuses,” Newsom said in a statement. “While we are pleased by the progress many communities have made to address the homelessness crisis, there is more work to do.”
County officials responded combatively, reiterating their position that year-by-year financial support from the state undermines their efforts. They proposed a five-year experiment, dubbed AT HOME, in which multi-year financing would be assured in counties that cooperatively delineate responsibilities for specific programs among local governments.
The California State Association of Counties also released an analysis of nearly $30 billion in state spending on housing and homelessness during Newsom’s governorship that it says failed to be effective.
“For years, the state has thrown one-time money at this problem without any real strategy,” Jeff Griffiths, an Inyo County supervisor and president of the association, said in a statement. “Our AT HOME proposal is credible, comprehensive, and directly addresses the state-imposed barriers to reducing homelessness. It’s time to act.”
The Big City Mayors coalition adopted a more conciliatory response to Newsom’s latest crackdown threat, releasing an “accountability update” to highlight what it said had been successful uses of annual state grants and asking Newsom and legislators to renew them.
“I’ve seen firsthand how our cities use (homeless) funds effectively to address homelessness,” the coalition’s chair, Riverside Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson, said in a statement. “In Riverside, we’ve reached functional zero for youth homelessness — ensuring every young person aged 18 to 24 has a path off the street.
“With 94 permanent supportive housing units in the pipeline for vulnerable populations like veterans and individuals with disabilities, we know that real progress is possible. But it takes continued partnership between the state and our cities to keep this momentum going and continue delivering meaningful results.”
The blame game is likely to escalate, even as homelessness continues to fester, the voting public becomes more frustrated and Newsom’s governorship enters its final stage.
When the history of California’s homelessness crisis is written, who will be held accountable for the eventual outcome, either positive or negative?
CalMatters
Lots of focus on drugs, mental illness, alcoholism, criminals…yet as always, no mention of people being pushed out on the streets simply because they are poor. That seems to be the biggest hushed up factor contributing to exploding homelessness. Retirees on Social Security, workers earning minimum wage, the disabled, people who have the misfortune to be facing catastrophic illness and job loss, and more…not one of these situations is even whispered, let alone discussed out loud. It’s always “they’re drunk/addicted/criminals/lazy/mentally ill/families with children” all the usual pigeonholes.
Our economy is spiraling down the toilet on an hourly basis, but we keep focusing on these same categories of people to the exclusion of the fact that more and more people out there are just poor. They can’t keep up. They don’t need to be funneled into “programs and services” to be ear-tagged, logged-in and herded into tracking systems and rooms in what are little more than modern-day versions of poorhouses/workhouses.
I know it is awful to acknowledge and face this, but it’s not going away, and it is just going to get worse no matter how deeply we stick our fingers in our ears and cover our eyes to the ever-worsening economic facts.
Get a CluCarradine. If someone is being “forced out onto the streets” here in ultra-expensive SB and winds up homeless, they’ve made a bad choice. Why not move somewhere more affordable that fits their means? You’re saying instead they just have to live on the streets here, “unhoused”, because while they have income it’s just not enough to make it in SB?? Only a fool would choose to live on the streets over moving to a more affordable home somewhere else, of which there are very, very many. Not buying it.
Grampa Basic is so resentful and self hating about the fact that he isn’t wealthy he channels all of his rage towards those who are poor.
Totally wrong. We’re doing great. But if I were struggling financially and choosing to become homeless vs. just moving to one of many less expensive places to live, I’d just move. Reread.
Your childish “attacks” are really sad.
That sounds great for you, but we’re not talking about people like you pretend to be.
So again, when NECESSARY professions like cops, teachers, nurses, etc make that choice and move outside of commuting range, what will SB and other cities in the County do?
Got a “basic” answer for that one?
“You want to select certain professions to subsidize their housing”
Paul, I have never said any such thing. You HAVE GOT TO STOP MAKING STUFF UP. You’re constant lying or actual inability to read/comprehend simple English sentences is exhausting.
You clearly have no idea what is going on. Funny you questioning my work history here, given what you do.
You think people should accept making LESS here as a trade off for living here? How TF are people in lower income professionals (stop referring to the “poor doctor” BS) supposed to afford living here with even less? You have no clue man.
And no, when $100K is “low income” (meaning hard to find a home) in all of SB COUNTY, not just SB City (again, read the effing articles), simply moving to another county to drive here is not the answer.
Why TF should people commute to SERVE people like you? They won’t. They’ll work in the towns they live in, NOT SB COUNTY.
That’s the whole problem. Yeah, I’m off the “deep end…..”
Dude, read.
Sure, it’s simple – employers will get folks who are willing to drive farther, or choose to live here making much less than their peers in their professions (ie, doctors – look it up), and/or spend less on things that aren’t necessary. This has been happening here forever dude. It’s the sacrifice many professionals make to live in a nice place. Maybe you aren’t aware because you haven’t worked? I don’t know.
There’s your answer.
You want to select certain professions to subsidize their housing and build the hell out of our nice community so the chosen “necessary” professions can live here. I call that social engineering, and it’s completely biased and unfair to the greater good. Not to mention completely foolish. Hard to believe you super such stuff. That’s pretty off the deep end stuff.
Congratulations on the privilege you have that you didn’t earn.
Sounds to me like he/sh squandered their privilege. They brag about growing up a Cito rat, and now they’re among the unwashed of Goleta.
Woah, ALEX. “Unwashed of Goleta?”
When you run with the royalty of Montecito as an entitled ‘Cito rat it can only be a lifelong disappointment to find one’s self grinding out a desk job and going home to a tract home where no one knows you’re a genius.
You know, like being “banished to the Hinterlands”.
Lag wagon-Santa Barbara boredom.
Goleta post mortem.
Wasn’t much of a Lagwagon fan, more into Indica and Creature Feature back then.
Huh? I earned my way. Why would you even say something like that? That’s just rude, not to mention completely clueless.
But hey, look at you muppets – one comes after me claiming I don’t make enough money, pand then another jumps in saying how privileged I am for earning enough to live here. You guys are really sad. Pure haters, always about personal attacking and off-topic garbage plays. It’s tired.
Ah yes, because it’s easier to accept if you keep the narrative that “if people are poor, it’s their own fault.” Whatever helps you sleep at night. You should read a book once in awhile Paul.
BASIC – as usual, you’re the only one clueless here. This article and the homeless problem itself, is not limited to SB. Figure it out dude.
While you’re at it, you and BEES still owe us an answer: Where are people who provide necessary services (teachers, cops, nurses, firefighters, EMTs, etc etc etc) but can’t afford housing in SB supposed to live?
I mean, you guys know it all, so why can’t you answer the simple question?
Sacjon: You ask:
“Where are people who provide necessary services (teachers, cops, nurses, firefighters, EMTs, etc etc etc) but can’t afford housing in SB supposed to live?”
Obvi Answer = These people can live in Goleta, Carpinteria, Summerland, Ojai, Ventura, Oxnard, Lompoc, Buellton, Santa Maria, etc.
BEES – Goleta? Carp? Summerland? LOL do you even live around here? Those places are just as expensive as SB for the most part. As for the rest, they’re already living there, at least those who commute. That solves nothing. Eventually, people are going to stop working in SB. THEN WHAT DO YOU DO?
The point you and your alter ego BASIC are missing: When people can’t afford to live where they work, they will eventually stop working in that town/county. How do cities expect to survive without these people?
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Your “obvi answer” is 100% not a solution.
BASIC – it’s not “all wrong,” it’s actually happening. Look at the declining teacher numbers just for one.
I really need to stop thinking you’re capable of understanding anything.
“When people can’t afford to live where they work, they will eventually stop working in that town/county. How do cities expect to survive without these people?”
All wrong. Why oh why do you fail to understand these things is on you. People commute. People move. Companies offer incentives if they need to.
Stop freaking out. Panic never works.
A question was asked. An answer was provided. No need to be intimidated by or have fear of an honest answer. That part is on you.
I’m not intimidated by simpletons.
Amused by a ridiculous non-answer.
Talk about clueless! Bends Knees takes the cake.
LOL, yeah of course it’s “easy” if you have a myopic, child-like simplicity about you.
You must have already forgotten the article where this recently came up.
https://www.edhat.com/news/state-finds-that-earning-100000-per-year-is-low-income-in-santa-barbara-county/
How far do you think it’s ok for them to have to commute each day to come provide YOU with lifesaving services and education? 2 hours each way? 3?
Do you even think about the costs of commuting this often? Missing time with family, pollution, wait… LOL of course you don’t think of this….
You see, it’s so “easy” for you to just tell them to work somewhere else if they need, but what about what YOU need? Who will put out fires? Teach our kids? Keep us safe? If they can’t afford to live here or close enough here to work here, then how do cities in our county expect to survive?
You really need to think more, about everything. Cities need these people. You of all people should know that. You love to shriek about people wanting to “defund the police,” but you don’t give a rats a$$ about paying them enough to live here.
And no, you don’t know what “socialism,” means, dude.
Easy. They’re “supposed to live” where they choose, based upon their personal income and their personal choices about commuting time and money, just like it’s always been. This isn’t rocket science. And we don’t live in a socialist country, dude.
CLU – it’s because no one wants to face the hard truths. It’s far easier to just dismiss the homeless as people who made poor choices instead of admitting that in many cases, it’s our fault as a society as we place a higher value on money than our own people. That’s capitalism. ‘Murica.
You’re right on one thing here Sack – facing the “hard truths” is hard for some, but not “no one”, as you stated. A few folks like you can’t face the “hard truths” that living outside your means doesn’t earn you a subsidized home in SB. What’s so hard to understand about that? I can’t afford a Montecito mansion, a private jet flying in and out of SBA, a second home in Monaco, etc. Everyone has means.and means have limits. Everyone has choices too. You sound like a socialist on the verge of becoming a communist, actually. Crazy.
“You sound like a socialist on the verge of becoming a communist, actually. ” Once again proving you have no idea what either of those two words mean, Paul.
It’s telling how you compare owning a private jet to simply putting a roof over your family’s heads. You’re so completely out of touch with reality. Well, not really surprising for a Montecito-raised, 2 boat owning, “retired” middle aged doctor. Or are you just not very smart? Your constant comments portray the latter.
Oh Gavin, I almost feel sorry for you, but alas – you reap what you sow.
I had to see if Dan Walters was their only opinion writer. He’s not.
https://calmatters.org/category/commentary/
Is it just me, or does this seem like an article cut off in the middle? It just seems to end with no conclusion. Besides that, his pieces are usually much longer.
This is ALL Newsome’s fault. I work in the homeless sector in Santa Barbara and ha
I work in the homeless sector in Santa Barbara and have in LA. I have seen Newsome throw millions at programs with completely no oversight or success rate in placing homeless individuals in housing. I see a “housing first” program that is placing people with major drug problems or/and mental issues in housing without giving them the support to deal with those issues and then most lose their housing. I see Newsome just vetoing a law which would make all counties show where all the homeless money is going. Homelessness is getting worse and unless are states policies are changed
Curious to learn more about your perspective. Are there enough housing programs for all that need it? Are there any programs in other states that have “solved” this problem?
It’s Newsom. No second “e”.
Also, housing first is being touted because it works. People with mental health issues and drug problems cannot get any help WITHOUT housing. (And yes, we need to give them the support they need, eventually.)
So interesting when people with limited brain cells say things like, “well I can’t afford a Montecito mansion” and “can’t afford to live here, then don’t.” Basic and essential needs are not the same as a Montecito mansion. No one is advocating for mansions or ocean view homes. We’re advocating for a safety net that provides basic needs for people when they need help. Heartless to think humans don’t deserve this.