Davis, CA – It was a rare 3-2 two weeks ago. Normally a second reading of an ordinance is a perfunctory exercise. Whether that holds in the current situation remains to be seen.
In their resolution, the Council found “that public camping can negatively impact public health and safety, create unsanitary conditions, and contribute to the deterioration of public spaces” and that “unauthorized camping areas and encampments generate hazardous waste, including human waste, creating dangerous health conditions within the City and such unsanitary conditions can lead to infestation of vermin and the spread of communicable diseases.”
The ordinance sets force a violation of the camping ordinance as a “misdemeanor” subject to “fines and imprisonment.”
At the previous meeting, Councilmember Will Arnold noted, “ultimately, I’m thankful that everyone here seems to recognize that this is a complex challenge and that it requires thoughtful, nuanced attention. It’s a humanitarian crisis.”
Arnold spoke in support of the staff recommendation, arguing it is “human and reasonable.”
He said, “I think it offers a framework that strives to balance compassion with accountability.”
While Arnold acknowledged concern “surrounding the proposed ordinance and its reliance on criminalization, and I share those concerns,” at the same time, he said he felt constrained under the previous Boise decision (by the 9th Circuit) which he said, “we had no options… all we had were carrots.”
He said, what the Supreme Court decision last summer changed is “now we need to recognize that a balanced approach, the Boise decision was unbalanced and that we should achieve greater balance.”
He said, “This is not, in my opinion, this is not an overreaction. This is not the pendulum swinging in the full other direction. But this is instead recalibrating to maybe the balance that should have been there the whole time where it not for what I think was sort of a, well-meaning, but bad decision on the Boise decision.”
Councilmember Gloria Partida acknowledged that this is “a very complicated issue.”
She said, “I understand that we don’t want to criminalize homelessness. Absolutely not. I think that is important, and I absolutely agree that this is something that we’ve brought upon ourselves.”
Partida linked it to the housing crisis, stating, “. We’ve refused to build housing. We have made it so difficult for people to get social services. We’ve made it so difficult for people to access just some of the basic needs that are out there.”
There remains considerable debate over the wisdom of such policies.
A Brookings Institute report found “The costs to both community wellbeing and city budgets for criminalizing homelessness are steep.”
They found the “cyclical churn between homelessness and incarceration is estimated to cost taxpayers $83,000 per person per year—far more costly than providing treatment and housing.”
For instance, in LA County, “it costs an average of $548 per day to incarcerate a person in a mental health unit, compared to just $207 per day to provide housing and community treatment.”
The Brooking Institute argued, “Rather than double down on costly and ineffective enforcement approaches, state and local leaders have the opportunity to embrace the evidence and implement more humane and evidence-based practices that get to the root of the challenges underlying homelessness—and, in so doing, increase public safety for all people.”
While Councilmember Parida and others noted the impact of lack of housing on homelessness, Brooks noted, “It is well-known that the most effective long-term solution for homelessness is increasing the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing.”
But they added, “What is often overlooked, however, is the connection between the supply of affordable housing and positive public safety outcomes more generally.”
While Davis leaders embraced law enforcement at least as a tool to address public concerns about homelessness and the both crime and nuisance, the Brooking Institute cites the best solution as housing – “The cities and regions that have embraced the evidence on housing and homelessness have seen positive results.”
Perhaps most notable is the success of the City of Housing and Harris County in Texas.
They “provided more than 25,000 homeless people with apartments and houses between 2011 and 2022, they saw a 64% reduction of homelessness during the same time period.”
One of the problems that Davis faces is that these types of solutions are long term and citizens are complaining about conditions right now and want instant results – these programs take some time to work.
But they do work.
“After Milwaukee County implemented its housing-first program in 2015, its unsheltered homelessness population decreased by 92%,” Brookings found.
When the City and County of Denver “implemented its Social Impact Bond (SIB) Program in 2016, which provided housing and support services to chronically homeless individuals, 77% of participants maintained stable housing after three years, the usage rates of the city’s detoxification services reduced by 65%, and arrests reduced by 40%.”
It’s not only humane, but cost effective.
“The significant cost savings associated with these reductions in public service usage offset the spending associated with supportive housing,” the report added.
In fact, those concerned about public safety should not that a smart housing policy links up with improved public safety.
Brooks cited a “strong body of evidence” that shows that “when people are housed stably, they commit fewer survival crimes like theft, robbery, trespassing, loitering, and prostitution. Increasing access to rental housing in low-income neighborhoods has also been found to significantly reduce violent crime, and providing permanent housing subsidies is correlated with reduced rates of intimate partner violence.”
But it is much easier to attempt to clear encampments and say you are doing something than implement longer term but more cost-effective programs. Nevertheless, the research seems pretty clear on this point.
This policy isn’t about “solving homelessness.” It’s not a binary choice.
We as a community provide services and support. The city does and the county does provide those services. Those are offered, repeatedly. But it is well known that many will refuse lodging for their own individual reasons and will refuse treatment programs. If they refuse services, the harm they are doing to others needs to be addressed. Allowing unlimited camping in public areas creates safety and health concerns for everyone.
Your policy proposal underlying all of these articles seems to be that
— the city must provide direct housing for an unknown number of people at all times, regardless of whether they accept it, regardless of the unknowable costs, and
— that no action should be taken about those who refuse the services.
— That the city must prioritize this issue above all other budget items.
This policy isn’t about addressing the root causes of homelessness. We have at least a couple of dozen programs already in place for that. It is about addressing the adverse impacts of public camping.
“In fact, those concerned about public safety should not that a smart housing policy links up with improved public safety.”
You don’t address what to do about those who refuse the housing.
“But it is much easier to attempt to clear encampments and say you are doing something…”
They are doing something. There are programs and services and staff dedicated to this issue.
“… the research seems pretty clear on this point.”
This doesn’t address how to deal with those who refuse services.