In the past decade, the mortality rate among homeless Californians has soared — with an estimated 50,000 paying the ultimate price for our state’s failure to act compassionately to bring everyone indoors.
The cost is not counted only in lives. California has spent more than $24 billion in the past five years, only to see homelessness rise while the state population shrank. In spite of all this spending, nearly half of the nation’s unsheltered homeless population is in California.
In the face of this costly and deadly failure, San Jose and other cities are adopting new tools to protect the homeless and the housed. In San Jose, we are proposing a “Responsibility to Shelter” ordinance that would require people to accept offers of shelter. This is part of our effort to reform our homeless policies, including creating safe parking and camping sites and, most of all, investing in motel conversions and modular units that can be built at a fraction of the cost and time of the legacy “housing-first” model (just over $100,000 per door, versus $1 million).
The majority of formerly homeless people are accepting these new individual homes, and we are helping hundreds escape the streets. These interim housing solutions are designed to be private, often with an en-suite bathroom, and low-barrier, meaning people are allowed to bring their partners, their pets, and their possessions. We do not impose curfews, time limits on stays, or even strict sobriety requirements.
Yet a small group of people repeatedly refuse to come indoors, largely because they are suffering from addiction, mental health challenges, or both. The members of this small group are a danger to themselves, to other homeless residents, and to our wider community. Our first responders know them by name, as this group is responsible for thousands of costly calls for service. A few weeks ago, in two separate incidents, a police officer was stabbed and a child was attacked by a homeless person. But the most frequent victims of this small group who refuse help are other homeless people, who suffer from a dramatically higher rate of assault, rape, and other serious crimes than the population at large.
It is not a crime to be homeless, nor should it be. But we should apply our laws to everyone. That’s why we are proposing a brief interaction with the criminal justice system for those who repeatedly refuse shelter. Our goal is to get people into the treatment they need to recover from the addictions or mental health conditions that keep them trapped on the street. We are not sending people to jail. We are providing them with life-saving treatment.
You would think all responsible political leaders would embrace changes that save lives, save money, protect the most vulnerable, and protect the community at large.
You would be wrong.
A vocal group of advocates and aligned politicians are defending the failed status quo, even after the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling expanded cities’ power to change it. Their argument against our reforms is that we are “criminalizing” homelessness by requiring people to come indoors. That is false. No homeless people will be arrested simply for being homeless. And those suffering from untreated mental illness or addiction who are detained for trespassing or another misdemeanor crime after repeatedly refusing shelter will be sent to treatment, not to jail.
Under our proposal, someone who repeatedly refuses an offer of shelter could be cited for trespassing, then diverted to the local mental health and CARE courts, which have the power to mandate treatment. Because the bottom line is: Camping cannot be a choice in San Jose.
The people who call this a violation of civil liberty cannot in the same breath call themselves compassionate. Not when their compassion doesn’t extend to all of the residents who are victimized by people living on the street, to the city workers who must deal with the problems, and to the greater common good. We have a moral obligation to intervene. And in San Jose, we intend to.
Matt Mahan is the mayor of San Jose.