Sacramento leaders surrendered authority on homelessness because NIMBY’s run the show | Opinion

Homelessness is not a uniquely Sacramento problem, but for far too long, leaders in Sacramento, and in other California communities and beyond, have allowed NIMBYs to slow potential solutions.

As someone who doesn’t live in Sacramento, it was fascinating to watch elected city leaders delegate the authority of finding suitable encampments for homeless people to City Manager Howard Chan, who was not elected by voters.

Opinion

In my own neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, residents have come forward against housing migrants in our recreational centers, including the historic Sunset Park which is a staple in the city’s summertime itineraries. Ironically, the majority of the current residents here — and many of the NIMBY protesters amid recent developments — are immigrants too; people working at minimum wage and struggling to pay the same exorbitant rent.

When leaders are slow to make collaborative, educational approaches to poverty, it turns the most vulnerable against each other instead of making new leaders out of us.

To break a political stalemate driven by community opposition, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg gave the recommendation in a July 3, 2023 letter to Chan that he should lead the politically fraught task of where to establish legalized encampments for homeless people within city limits.

The decision, passed by a marginal 5-4 vote during last Tuesday’s council meeting, has already started dividing the city. While some may feel uncomfortable with concentrating this much power over the city’s most vulnerable in the hands of an unelected official — not to mention, the highest-paid city manager in all of California — businesses, residents and several council members are hopeful that a unilateral body will make rapid progress on getting people into temporary housing.

However, whether we are satisfied with Chan’s new position, whether we trust that the new Safe Ground sites will be fairly geographically distributed and whether we believe punting authority to Chan was a way to defer problem-solving, now is not the time for elected politicians, local coalitions and nonprofits, or the residents of Sacramento to take a backseat.

Chan’s forthcoming projects have, and are intended to have, a very temporary mission. There is no guarantee that they will make a dent in moving vulnerable people off the streets in transformative numbers. Chan’s effort will require institutional memory and support from others in the city and county. Now, more than ever, those entities must remain committed to streamlining wraparound support services and basic needs at Safe Grounds.

This is Sacramento’s shot at building on that momentum, but we must also monitor Chan’s approach to homelessness ordinances, and to request regular public updates on those efforts. With another pay raise expected for the city manager, city residents need to make sure that their trust and investment in him is well-placed.

As Chan focuses on the short-term solution for getting people swiftly off the vulnerable streets, fiercer advocacy is required on the municipal, state, and federal levels to incentivize landowners with rental assistance, help connect the homeless with out-of-state opportunities as they arise, and fund innovative private sectors to provide non-duplicative mental health, employment and substance abuse resources. Businesses and private agencies are more adaptable than the government; they can and should build trauma-informed relationships with the community, identifying those most in need of their services.

New York City, widely regarded as a promising beacon for immigrants and with its signature 1981 mandate of a shelter bed for every person who requests one, is notably reaching a breaking point. There are 100,000 individuals without a permanent place to stay here.

Houston, whose successful homelessness measures are often up for contrast against Californian cities, rakes up on federal funding and attention despite having very little city monetary investment. In the last decade, Houston has moved 25,000 people off the streets and into housing. Homelessness in the greater Houston region has been cut by more than 60 percent, according to the most recent homeless counts cited by Houston officials.

What can California learn from New York’s prior examples and Houston’s unified homelessness response, which has brought together public housing committees, philanthropy, religion, private foundations and dozens of nonprofits? On a national scale, nearly all American melting pots are scrambling to house and feed asylum-seeking migrants on limited funds and space. Who are we to disapprove of homeless individuals walking in any one of our neighborhoods?

Unhoused individuals are an undeniable part of our day-to-day because the truth is, this is the world that we have created, contributed to, and currently live in. Sacramento and New York — and all the thousands of miles in between — have to make sacrifices, as our personal and financial boundaries permit. It is not an option to opt-out.

Opposing homeless solutions without regard for the dire needs in our communities is selfish. Calling the authorities on nearby encampments for smelling or littering, and creating legislation around anti-homelessness, is not only expensive — it pales in comparison to all the possibilities for the different types of support services that communities can generate.