Local leaders call for ongoing state funding to reduce homelessness

By Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor

Cal Cities and its allies sent a letter today urging state leaders to create an ongoing source of funding for housing and supportive services to reduce homelessness. The group also called on the state to honor prior spending commitments, including a key regional homeless prevention program.

The letter was co-signed by Bring CA Home, the Big City Mayors Coalition, and the California State Association of Counties.

State leaders have allocated billions of dollars in one-time spending to reduce homelessness and improve house affordability. However, developers, local leaders, and others have long argued that the current funding system is woefully inadequate.  

The allies argue that the state’s funding system makes it difficult for local leaders and service providers to develop and sustain long-term, comprehensive services. Many supportive service programs were designed as short-term emergency responses. They were not meant to solve a protracted humanitarian crisis. Successful, bold programs need ongoing funding to deliver long-term change.

For their part, state leaders could use ongoing funding to invest in innovative local programs and long-term solutions. If they want to hold local leaders accountable, then they need to provide them with the tools to succeed.

Why ask for funding now?

Cal Cities has consistently called on the state to provide an investment that matches the scale of this crisis. A budget deficit — even an estimated $73 billion one — is no reason to pull back. In fact, it underscores the urgency of the ask.

The number of people entering homelessness is outpacing efforts to get people housed. More people are at risk of falling behind on rent and losing their homes. And tougher fiscal times can exacerbate this by lowering the production of affordable housing and increasing the struggle for resources for unhoused residents.

We cannot afford for these gaps to widen. State leaders should not consider these investments as discretionary: They are a mandate. Punting this problem down the road only causes more suffering.