Ambitious proposals to address homelessness and mental health issues are moving forward in San Diego and statewide.
The plans come with considerable promise of improving the quality of life for people without shelter and those with mental and brain illnesses, including substance use disorders.
But history has shown there’s reason to temper expectations heading down this path. For one thing, they may not receive necessary approval, whether from the public or elected officials.
If they do, they might not be all they’re cracked up to be, whether it’s a huge homeless shelter near San Diego International Airport or a $6.4 billion bond to greatly expand California’s mental health and substance abuse facilities and treatment.
Then there’s the question of who gets to define “success.”
That debate is at the heart of public camping bans that have taken root in San Diego and other cities. Last week, state Sen. Brian Jones, R-Santee, renewed his effort to such prohibitions statewide.
After his initial bill failed last year, Jones retooled the measure to narrow the areas where the camping ban could be enforced.
He also picked up bipartisan — no small matter in the Democratic-controlled Legislature — that includes state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, as a co-sponsor. Jones noted his Senate Bill 1101 is modeled after the San Diego city ordinance.
“They are having great success so far,” he said.
City police have issued few tickets against violators and have hardly made any arrests. But since the ordinance went into effect in July, homelessness downtown has dropped dramatically.
Blake Nelson of The San Diego Union-Tribune noted that encampments had increased along the San Diego River bed and cited evidence that some homeless people may have moved to neighboring cities.
“There is . . . not enough shelter space for everyone who wants a spot,” Nelson wrote.
In the view of critics, that success is more like sleight of hand.
Mayor Todd Gloria has pledged to make more shelter beds available. Central to that promise is placing what would be the city’s largest shelter — by far — on property near San Diego International Airport where the U.S. Navy’s abandoned H Barracks are located.
The temporary facility would house up to 700 people and provide them with a variety of services for food and health care screenings, along with connecting them with programs to help get them back on their feet. In about five years, the property is expected to be taken over by San Diego’s Pure Water recycling system.
Opening shelters is never easy and this proposal may face bigger hurdles than most. As with other homeless facilities, potential neighbors object. The H Barracks plan faces broad, well-organized opposition in Point Loma — particularly at Liberty Station, which is adjacent to the site.
Further, the city plans to rely heavily on philanthropic contributions for the project — and unproven funding source in San Diego for a project of this size.
Regardless of where money is coming from, San Diego has been unable to step up when it comes to big proposed solutions to tackle homelessness. (It’s questionable whether the H Barracks plan would be considered one, given the city’s unsheltered population was 3,285, according to the 2023 annual point-in-time homeless count.)
Several years ago, homeless advocates and service providers, civic leaders and elected officials moved toward building a more permanent “campus” that would provide various types of housing and shelter for 2,000 to 3,000 people. The project was proposed for city property at 20th and B streets, the current location of a safe sleeping site that has space for about 135 tents.
The campus was to include services to assist residents with physical and mental health issues, substance abuse, employment and housing searches, and everyday needs such as food and laundry services — even a dog clinic.
The plan had considerable momentum with some powerful people behind it, but it fell apart for various reasons, according to some of those involved.
As ambitious proposals go, it’s tough to top Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 1 on the March 5 primary election ballot. The measure calls for a $6.4 billion bond to expand the state’s mental health and substance abuse treatment facilities and programs.
Most of the money would go toward providing 10,000 in-patient and residential treatment beds across the state. The measure also would fund permanent ive housing with half set aside for veterans with mental illness or addiction disorders.
In addition, Proposition 1 would force counties to change how they spend existing mental health dollars, requiring them to prioritize housing for people who are chronically homeless.
CalMatters recently told the cautionary tale of a 2018 ballot measure dubbed “No Place Like Home.” The proposition, handily approved by voters, called for a taxpayer-financed $2 billion bond for mental health treatment. At the time, backers said the money, combined with federal and local dollars, would provide for 20,000 new units of permanent ive housing
“More than five years later, the state has completed just 1,797 No Place Like Home units,” CalMatters reported, adding that the latest state forecast is the measure eventually will pay for 7,702 such units.
The news organization said the 2018 measure was “a case study of big promises, good intentions and urgent need caught in a tangle of NIMBYism and red tape.”
California has spent billions of dollars to combat homelessness, yet the state’s unhoused population has grown dramatically. State lawmakers have launched an audit to find out why that is.
It’s not just big ideas that can face a daunting reality.
Last spring, a county proposal to place dozens of small cabins for homeless people in Santee was withdrawn amid local opposition. The same thing happened in Lakeside.
The county recently announced it is buying 100 such cabins — and is looking for help in finding locations for them.
What they said
Timothy McSweeney (@mcsweeneys), who operates a humor website, on X.
“’I’m so glad the Deep State brought us together,’ Taylor says to Travis.”
