I. Regional Governance Approach
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the burden of dealing with the issue of homelessness has fallen mainly to a few so-called “liberal” municipalities: San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Richmond, while neighboring communities contribute less to the solution and/or actively try to deter the homeless in various ways. A single municipality or county cannot be expected to be able to solve this problem. Once a homeless population is “chased” from one location. They often move on to another location, often in another city. There have been many attempts at the municipal, county, and state level to address homelessness, most have proven inefficient. And while there may be better solutions for single aspects of homelessness, I suggest that these may not in the end be effective until we reexamine and reform our system of federalism.
In the US there have been a few attempts to address regional problems to deal with some levels of community safety, health, development, and infrastructure such as ABAG in the Bay Area, the governance structure is weak and often suggestive rather than authoritative.
I believe we need to consider implementing, widening, and strengthening the power and scope of regional governance. This system could be applied to the major population regions in the state–San Diego, Los Angeles, Bay Area, and Sacramento.
In the case of homelessness, in a regional governance scenario,
- All of the neighboring municipalities would be obliged to contribute materially and monetarily to the issue.
- This would entail coordinated construction of housing infrastructure distributed evenly throughout the Bay Area and not only in the usually overburdened municipalities.
- Proportional taxation to even out resource imbalance would also be implemented.
- No bending of regulation via exceptions would be allowed (such as the community of Woodside’s attempt to declare itself a mountain lion sanctuary to avoid building affordable housing).
Mayor weighs charging other towns if their homeless people move to Oakland
II. Nuts and Bolts
- Increase access to housing affordable (construction and subsidies) to households making less than 30% of the Area Median Income.
- Expand homelessness prevention (financial support, legal assistance, and support for behavioral health needs).
- Increase household incomes through evidence-based employment support (training, support for job search, and transportation).
- Increase outreach and service delivery to people experiencing homelessness.
- Embed a racial equity approach in homeless system service delivery.
California Statewide Study Investigates Causes and Impacts of Homelessness
