The Davis City Council heard from dozens of citizens during public comment on the city’s response to homelessness—a meeting that highlighted both strong support for expanding local services and rising frustration from neighbors and business owners.
The debate demonstrated growing tension in the community over how best to balance compassion, public safety, and fiscal responsibility.
At the center of this divide were competing priorities: expanding programs like the Respite Center and a new Safe Parking pilot or shifting focus toward enforcement, cleanup, and increased policing downtown.
The discussion came as Davis, like many California cities, grapples with visible homelessness, strained resources, and community divisions over what the solutions should be.
Martha Teeter, president of Davis Opportunity Village, opened public testimony by urging support for services that center dignity and housing. She highlighted the toll towing takes on people living in vehicles, who risk losing not just transportation but all their possessions. “You’re towing their home,” she said.
Teeter strongly endorsed the proposed Safe Parking program, a pilot designed to provide distributed parking spots around the city for people living in their cars—a model she described as cost-effective and scalable.
Echoing that support was Andy Waterhouse of Heart of Davis, which is spearheading the Safe Parking proposal.
“This program provides many benefits, not just to those parking but also to the city’s residential and business communities,” Waterhouse said.
He stressed the program’s built-in safety measures, insurance coverage, and willingness to coordinate with the city. “We’re happy to ensure all volunteers are properly trained.”
But it was the staff and clients of Davis Community Meals and Housing (DCMH) who delivered some of the most powerful testimony of the night. DCMH operates programs ranging from meals and outreach to transitional and permanent supportive housing—and repeatedly made the case that now is the time to bolster what’s already working.
Tracy Fauver, the organization’s executive director, pointed to three priorities: safety, sustainability, and collaboration. “We need to ensure that the programs we know work are stable before we think about starting anything new,” she said, warning of shrinking funding streams at the county, state, and federal levels.
Several DCMH clients shared personal stories illustrating what these services mean.
Brene Spears credited Paul’s Place emergency shelter with saving her life. “My core needs for survival are met at Paul’s Place. In two weeks, I got my ID, a cell phone, and a job interview. For the first time, I feel endless hope for my future.”
Sean Kingston shared how moving into Paul’s Place’s sober living program changed his trajectory. “I have a job now, a license, and I’m almost ready to move out,” he said. “The staff there—Becky, Harmony—care about us as people, not a paycheck.”
Members of the Downtown Streets Team (DST) spoke to the daily labor they contribute to cleaning up downtown. JP Dunleavy, a team member, described how volunteering led to employment and self-worth. “Since DST started, we’ve removed over 77,000 gallons of trash from Davis streets. But this is about more than cleanup—it’s about belonging.”
Yet, frustration and anger from neighbors near the respite center and from downtown businesses were equally palpable.
John O’Neill, who lives a block from the respite center, accused the city of breaking its promises.
“We were told this would be a one-year pilot that moved around the city. That was five and a half years ago,” he said. “Now, empathy is being turned into anger and frustration. It’s time for the rest of Davis to share the responsibility.”
The business community came out strongly in favor of hiring a dedicated downtown police officer—arguing that public safety has deteriorated and customers and employees are increasingly fearful.
Heather Caswell, owner of The Wardrobe and a leader in the Davis Community Vision Alliance, read a list of 14 downtown businesses backing the proposal.
“We just passed the largest sales tax increase in city history—paid largely by downtown businesses. Yet almost every business owner I talked to has a frightening story about their own safety,” she said. “If we won’t commit resources to protect women and vulnerable people, what does that say about us?”
Other residents raised concerns about downtown crime, drug use, and the impacts of encampments.
One longtime Central Park resident described multiple frightening encounters. “There were two murders in my neighborhood last year. I worry about women working alone in shops downtown.”
Property owners also asked for city resources to help clean private property impacted by encampments.
A downtown property manager said their site spends $120,000 annually on cleanup and security. “We’re willing to pay into a city contract if that’s an option.”
While some called for increased policing, others warned against investing heavily in enforcement rather than services.
Elaine Roberts Musser warned of a looming financial crisis. “How does homelessness suddenly jump to the top of our priorities?” she asked. “We’re about to be swallowed fiscally by what’s happening at the national level. We need to save existing programs, not launch new ones.”
Student and community members pushed back on the idea that more police was the answer. “I’ve never felt unsafe downtown,” one UC Davis student told the council. “Funding the respite center or a navigator program would do more good than hiring another cop.”
Judy Ennis, a social services commissioner, urged the city to stay focused on what’s proven to work. “For years, we’ve been told that the priority is shelter and outreach. If you want to get people off the street, you have to give them somewhere to go,” she said.
The Downtown Streets Team’s director, Heather Mundy, cautioned that safe parking and sanctioned camps could have unintended consequences. “Programs like that can attract guests from outside the county,” she said. “It will impact existing services.”
People are ultimately no different than cats. Feed and house them in a given location, and you’re guaranteed to get more.
If that’s the goal, I’d say that the mission is already partially accomplished.
Also, people living in cars is not an answer, unless bathrooms (“cat boxes”) are available 24X7 and located nearby.
“How does homelessness suddenly jump to the top of our priorities?”
I think many Davis residents are wondering the same thing.
The effects of street people has long been at the top of my priorities. Like it or not, suburban goody-two-shoes Davisites, when you support letting street people stay on public and private property and site the Respite Center by a liquor store, you dump the problem on those of us near railroad tracks, bike paths, parks, drainage canals, the Respite-Center/Liquor-Store Glory Center, downtown, etc., while you live out in your suburbs and say those of us who are near where homeless camps should just bend over and take it. Then you say we shouldn’t fund another police officer in the core so we can instead fund ‘homeless services’, again ignoring the real issue of public safety. Then you say don’t prioritize encampment cleanup? So you are in favor of garbage heaps as Davis landmarks?, human poop washing into our waterways? I despise you people with a passion.
I see the comment I put in the previous article also fits well here. This is an email I sent to the council during the meeting:
Council-members,
I did note in my comment that the Beat Cop and Encampment Cleanup were really community safety (& environmental cleanup) and I spoke in favor of those. I did *not* speak against any of the homeless services.
However, those in favor of homeless services seemed to turn it into an *us vs. them*, putting down the public safety aspect, calling these items ‘criminalizing homelessness’, and even gaslighting those of us who have experienced confrontations with annoying and dangerous individuals as if these weren’t real and stating downtown is ‘safe’.
After tonight’s meeting, I am uncomfortable with the public-safety/environmental-cleanup issues being lumped in with homeless services. These are different issues, and pitting the issues and even members of the community against each other on spending priorities by this lumping these was not constructive. With some issue, the rhetoric was unnecessary as the nature of the issue was not fully understood by commenters.
In the future, I’d suggest separating public-safety/environmental-cleanup issues and homeless services issues.
Alan
There are two separate issues here. Unfortunately, they often get conflated.
The individuals who need resources and will accept them.
County typically provides the services, but city staff can help link the people to the appropriate agencies. Short-term housing, overnight shelters, food, referrals and followup for substance abuse, etc. The city and county already provide for this, but clearly the need is greater than the current funding.
In a decent society, we all work together to help these folks. In some cases, it takes effort and time to overcome resistance.
The individuals who commit crimes, endanger themselves and the public, create public health and safety issues, and refuse the services offered.
If they are refusing services, they have no particular right to just hang out wherever they choose and do whatever they want. They are conscious of what they’re doing in most cases.
This quickly becomes a law enforcement and public health issue if their behaviors are tolerated. Hence the calls for more police presence downtown and at 5th and L.
Ultimately the respite center at 5th and L needs to be moved. You just don’t locate a facility like this in a residential neighborhood, nor in the vicinity of liquor stores.
People who want to help everyone need to understand that some people cannot be helped.
“How does homelessness suddenly jump to the top of our priorities?”
It amazes me that Elaine Roberts Musser wonders why this is being prioritized. These are human beings with direct and immediate needs, and they are creating serious adverse impacts on nearby residents and businesses.
I can only assume that she neither sees the needs of the first group, nor experiences the problems caused by the second group. Presumably she doesn’t shop downtown, and likely doesn’t have an encampment near her neighborhood.
DS say, “People who want to help everyone need to understand that some people cannot be helped.”
I “agree”, but really it’s a truth that needs to sink in with those who currently cannot accept this as fact. I heard someone from another country recently say, “The problem with Americans is they cannot accept that some problems cannot be solved”.
You would probably not be happy to hear that some people at the Council meeting suggested that the entrance to the Respite Center needed to be moved to 5th Street
DS say, “It amazes me that Elaine Roberts Musser wonders why this is being prioritized.”
I talked to ERM and I don’t think I’m misrepresenting her by saying her point is that the City is beyond over-extended budget-wise, federal funds are drying up, and her point was strictly from a financial point of view that the Council keeps adding new priorities and new costs.
Don’s categorization is much too broad. There’s at a third group, perhaps the largest and most salient, who do NOT commit crimes but are unwilling to accept the strictures of accepting services for any of many reasons. Many are seriously mentally ill and are incapable to making rational decisions. But that doesn’t mean that the only two options are either incarcerating them or leaving them to die by the side of the road in a remote location. We need to focus on the solutions that work in both the short term and the long term. This rise in homelessness is coming from many stresses that have arisen in our society in the last four decades. It’s going to take serious discussion and sacrifice to solve it. Which means that it does need to rise to the top of our agenda. Maintaining our parks and other amenities is not as important. But we need strong leadership that returns us to our moral and ethical duties to address this.
“Maintaining our parks and other amenities is not as important.”
Does that include potholes?
Keith: The answer to that depends upon whether or not one is (already) supportive of development (which would “obviously” fill in those potholes).
“It’s going to take serious discussion and sacrifice to solve it. Which means that it does need to rise to the top of our agenda. Maintaining our parks and other amenities is not as important. But we need strong leadership that returns us to our moral and ethical duties to address this.”
Residents and businesses in East Davis have had five years of discussion and have made considerable sacrifices.
Strong leadership brought us the respite center.
So please tell us what policies you are espousing with respect to:
— how to deal with addicted individuals who are living on the streets;
— whether camping should be allowed on public property;
— how to address the public health and safety issues that exist in East Davis and downtown.
It would also be useful if David Greenwald would address these issues directly.
I have no idea what the evidence is for this assertion. But for those for whom it is literally the case, those individuals need to be in protective custody. More likely they are unable to get or keep jobs, don’t qualify for housing in most cases, and have lost the foundation of support that would be provided by family and friends. That’s really for caseworkers to sort out. Obviously we continue to try to link them to services. I support expanded services that are working and have no problem with the council trying other things as well.
I disagree with your premise if it is being applied to those who are using drugs and alcohol. People who abuse substances are generally aware of what they are doing.