California Legislature May See a ‘Right to Shelter’ Homeless Bill Soon
Despite past failures and statewide unpopularity, another mandatory shelter bill is very likely
By Evan Symon, January 7, 2020 8:29 pm
‘Right to shelter’ laws, which would make cities unable to turn away anyone seeking shelter for the night, are likely making a return in the halls of the state Capitol Building.
Failure of past proposals
In previous years, any talk of ‘right to shelter’ has been quickly talked down.
In March of last year Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) proposed SB 48, a right to shelter bill created ‘because of inconsistent access to shelters.’
“California’s housing crisis, along with our mental health and addiction challenges, are driving people into homelessness, and we must act,” stated Senator Wiener last year. “We must do more to ensure homeless people have access to shelter, as a way to stabilize people’s lives and help them transition to permanent housing.”
While it passed a few Senate subcommittees, the bill was bogged down by amendments and widespread criticism over its effectiveness in getting people out of homelessness and was quickly suspended in May.
Then in July Sacramento mayor Darrell Steinberg proposed ‘right to shelter’ laws and worked with lawmakers in Los Angeles to make it a statewide measure. However, an outpouring of criticism, both from right and left leaning people and groups, quickly killed the plans. Homeless advocates noted that many homeless people could not use shelters due to past traumas or were afraid of violent incidents in a shelter. Some homeless people contended they were safer living in a car alone because shelters have been notorious for thefts. Many politicians pointed out the high costs some cities would have to pay for an adequate number of shelters, with some smaller towns lacking the resources or any temporary shelter. Even Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the plan.
San Francisco’s failed ‘right to shelter’ laws of the 1980’s
An increase in affordable housing has been widely seen as the way to go, with cheap housing bringing non-chronic homeless off the streets, freeing shelter space and homeless resources for those who cannot get out of homelessness easily. While some cities have been fighting more housing developments, most lawmakers and local leaders have generally supported more affordable housing.
There are also lingering memories of prior ‘right to shelter’ laws that failed terribly in California.
“San Francisco already tried something like this,” said San Francisco housing advocate Carl Myers. “In the 80’s San Francisco received a huge influx of people, and Mayor [and future U.S. Senator Dianne] Feinstein only approved temporary shelters for everyone. No money was put into cheaper permanent housing, so the city was stuck with a growing homeless issue.”
“Reagan also reduced the number of psychological asylums, so we ended up with a large wave of them too.* So all we had was shelter space, not permanent places for them. And it took years for us to get out. And now they want this on a statewide level.”
“The crazy thing is that [state Senator] Wiener is from here. He should know this. He should know how a lot of San Francisco was filled with homeless people back then. He should know the terrible mistakes of Feinstein. But apparently not.”
Right to shelter possibilities in 2020
For this coming session ‘right to shelter’ can be coming back in several ways. A renewed or altered SB 48 could make a return – as it’s only suspended it’s very possible. A new bill incorporating right to shelter as part of a larger set of new homeless laws has been hinted at by several lawmakers. And many cities may decide to enact laws similar to San Francisco’s 1980’s policy or Mayor Steinberg’s more recent proposal.
“There’s a lot that may happen,” explained Carl. “Senator Wiener is still very interested in this, as are many other lawmakers both here, in LA and in Sacramento who see this as a quick, short-term fix. If you go long-term with slowly improving places for low-income people, politicians may not survive that long in elections to boast about it. In quick shelters, they can point to the homelessness drop before an election. Or before an election to a higher office
So we’ll see something new about it soon. Someone from one of the major cities will have it in bill form ready to go on the floor before March, like always.
Until homelessness is significantly reduced, we’re just going to keep seeing these bills come up every time. You can almost predict it now.”
*The frequent claim that Reagan reduced the number of psychological asylums was actually done under the final Executive Order from President John F. Kennedy in 1962 in an attempt to reorient asylum residents into localized group homes. Reagan did not do this as President; this was done when he was Governor of California (1967-1975).
- 13th House District Race Between Duarte, Gray Within 351 Votes With 98% Of The Vote In - November 21, 2024
- CA 2025-2026 State Budget Deficit at $2 Billion, Expected To Grow Exponentially - November 21, 2024
- Los Angeles City Council Passes Sanctuary City Ordinance - November 20, 2024
Seems like this sort of thing will further incentivize homelessness. There are already myriad sheltering options. We need to focus on encouraging personal choices that get them off the street.
Incentivize homelessness??! Trust me, shelter programs are not appealing to anyone who is not already sleeping in the dirt without access to clean water and toilet facilities. You’re not even concerned that it is, with all practicality, illegal to sustain necessary activities to survive if you are homeless? If you had to do it you probably would get just as far….given you didn’t have anyone who would bail you out either.
A right to shelter but no obligation to work ! That will travel fast across the country. Come to California the land of free gifts.
Dude, firstly, do you even know how much work it is to be homeless??? And secondly, shelter is a human right, don’t you think? I mean ask any other mammal. It’s not a luxury or a want. You would probably die without the basic procurement of shelter, be it a cardboard box.
The politicians are only supporting their pet industry! The $$ Homeless Industrial Complex $$.
Read again Edward Ring’s article from May 2019. Still applies:
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/the-homeless-industrial-complex/
Incentivize homelessness??! Trust me, shelter programs are not appealing to anyone who is not already sleeping in the dirt without access to clean water and toilet facilities. You’re not even concerned that it is, with all practicality, illegal to sustain necessary activities to survive if you are homeless? If you had to do it you probably would get just as far….given you didn’t have anyone who would bail you out either.
Right. I believe it’s pronounced l ˈjāl l or jail
Ok, my real question is, with this absurd bill ( again with the free) when a homeless person comes to your home ( and they will) and says they have a ‘right’ to shelter and walks in to your home says’ shelter me I have a right!’ Think about it! They will come and you can’t do anything about it.
Really?? No it has nothing to do with YOUR house. They probably just need you to, at the very least, quit calling the cops on them for sleeping on a park bench, popping up a tent or sleeping in their car. If you don’t like to see them then you’re going to have to house them in shelters or the like. The only alternative is to wish them death.
The sad part is that being in a shelter for a person having to enter such a facility is that you’re putting people who became homeless as a result if a fire, flood, earthquake and can’t keep up with the current costs with people who are mentally ill or have substance abuse issues.
The housing authorities like the funds that come in, which means they have to keep people down.
A homeless person is given a cubical to sleep. Some food, but no where to relax, look for an aptbor jib, everything is heavily watched and living in the facility is like living on egg shells
The staff politely puts down people’s accomplishments. Puts the staff’s needs ahead of the residents, or facility that offers services, because it is all about keeping the money coming in.
The services offered need to be more. Locking up electrical outlets so people can’t use their computers is wrong.
The shelters love to say people won’t follow the rules, so they leave. That’s not true. Some people need greater services, some need activities that promote them standing up again, and not tearing people down.
When these new laws are put into place, homeless people who are mentally together and functional should be apart of the discussion bevUse it’s a big insight that’s not being taken into consideration about how to make a program better and reach more people.
When you see the son of a Fwderal Judge in a shelter, or a professor if a university. Attorneys, doctors, and other talented people, one needs to ask ” How did you get here?”