Gov. Gavin Newsom and his favorite nemesis, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, are ramping up pressure on cities to resolve homelessness — in very different ways.
In neighboring Arizona, a November ballot measure calls for an even more punitive approach to force local governments to clear out homeless encampments.
Newsom recently raised the prospect of doing something he has suggested before: withholding state funds from local governments that don’t for spending on homelessness or evaluating progress.
Last month, DeSantis signed a law that forces cities to prohibit people from camping or sleeping on public property. The measure, which goes into effect Oct. 1, also requires cities to designate camping areas for homeless people — and provide them with various services — if there are not enough shelter beds available.
The law does not call for penalties against people living on the street, but, according to USA Today, allows residents, businesses and the state attorney general to sue local governments that don’t follow the restrictions.
Meanwhile, if Arizona voters approve the ballot measure, property owners could receive property tax refunds if they can prove monetary damages were caused by a local government’s failure to clear out homeless encampments and enforce nuisance laws.
How much money Newsom is willing to withhold from local governments that don’t comply with his ability demands remains to be seen.
At the same time Newsom verbally turned up the heat, he also announced grants totaling nearly $200 million for cities and counties to move homeless people from unauthorized encampments into housing and shelters.
Meanwhile, this week San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria ed other California mayors in lobbying the governor and Legislature for a permanent state revenue stream to fund homeless programs.
California has no statewide homeless camping ban, though various cities have enacted their own. Last week, the California Senate Public Safety Committee rejected a bipartisan bill banning camping in certain public places if shelter space is available.
The measure, carried by Sens. Brian Jones, R-Santee, and Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, was modeled after the camping-ban ordinance enacted by the city of San Diego last year.
Unlike the Florida law, neither Senate Bill 1011, nor the city ordinance, requires public land be made available for so-called safe sleeping sites if shelter space is lacking. However, San Diego did open two such facilities on parking lots in and around Balboa Park in conjunction with the ordinance.
Still, anecdotal evidence suggests the San Diego ordinance has resulted more in moving homeless people to less visible places, raising the question of how much it contributes to a long-term solution.
The Jones-Blakespear bill would require individual violators to be warned and eventually fined or charged with a misdemeanor if they persist, but did not include penalties for local governments that don’t comply.
It’s unclear whether the high-profile case regarding homeless encampment bans before the U.S. Supreme Court will affect the approaches among states and cities.
This week the court heard oral arguments regarding an ordinance in Grants , Ore., and a majority of the justices appeared to be leaning toward decoupling homeless bans on sleeping and camping in public from requirements to provide shelter space.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in past cases that such bans can’t be enforced if shelter beds or other housing are unavailable. Even if the high court strikes down that requirement, it’s unlikely Democratic enclaves like California and San Diego would drop ongoing efforts to provide shelters and services for homeless people, at least in the near future.
But the state and local governments already are straining under the high cost of providing beds, counseling, mental health treatment and substance abuse programs aimed at getting homeless people back on their feet.
Despite billions of dollars spent in California, the unhoused population continues to grow and the public is clamoring for tougher enforcement against homelessness — with or without such services.
DeSantis and Republican legislative leaders in Florida stressed the anti-camping law is geared toward helping the homeless with “wraparound services” and the shelter-campsite requirement while improving overall public safety and sanitation.
But some city officials and homeless advocates in Florida expressed concern that despite promises, the state will not provide enough resources to do the job. Across the country, critics of this approach contend the focus should be on creating more housing, both permanent and transitional, rather than “criminalizing” homelessness.
In Arizona, the Republican-controlled Legislature put the property-tax refund proposal on the ballot, circumventing Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who last year vetoed a bill that would force cities to dismantle homeless encampments and charge people living in them with misdemeanor violations.
If it es, property owners could claim tax refunds for “documented expenses,” such as the cost of security bars, if they can show they were harmed by a local government’s pattern of failing to enforce laws against camping, obstructing thoroughfares, loitering, panhandling, public drinking or using illegal substances, according to the Los Angeles Times.
A business’s lost revenue would not be an eligible expense. Initially, including lower land values that could be attributed to nearby homelessness was proposed, but was subsequently dropped from the measure.
Advocates suggest the Arizona property-tax proposal could become a model for other states. It’s hard to imagine anything like that getting out of California’s Democratic Legislature, though there’s always the initiative process.
For many years, governments at all levels have prioritized providing more housing and shelters, and substance and mental health treatment to help move people out of homelessness.
But increasingly, the stick, more so than the carrot, is becoming the policy focus — for cities as well as for the people living on their streets.
