Don’t devote county homeless funding to a single group
Give Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian credit for pushing to ensure that vulnerable developmentally disabled people receive the funding they deserve to keep them from being homeless. But carving out 5 percent of Measure A funds approved by voters in 2016 is the wrong way to do it.
The Board of Supervisors should reject Simitian’s proposal at its meeting today. His approach could result in a flood of other vulnerable populations — think foster children, the mentally ill or those with drug or alcohol problems — requesting the same sort of special treatment. It’s essential that the wide array of parties involved in solving the homeless issue work together, rather than in silos, on Measure A housing projects.
The county homeless housing shortage is a $3 billion problem. The supervisors knew that two years ago when they asked voters to approve the $950 million in Measure A funding. They rightly feared that if they went to voters for the full $3 billion that the ballot measure would be rejected. So they devised a formula that prioritized spending the money they did have on those who are the most down and out.
The approach makes sense. Taking care of the chronically homeless first is a moral imperative. They are the people who generate disproportionately high public safety and medical costs that ultimately must be paid by taxpayers. Independent research completed in 2015 found that the county spends $520 million every year on emergency room care, public safety and other services for the homeless.
Simitian argues that the spending formula doesn’t fulfill what the Board of Supervisors promised voters during the Measure A campaign. Some of the funds, he says, should be spent on those who are on the verge of becoming homeless. Advocates for the developmentally disabled add that developers would be ready and willing to push projects forward if the funding were available.
The formula may need to be revisited. But even if the board re-examines its approach, it should avoid singling out any group for special treatment.
There’s no question that the developmentally disabled are a vulnerable group that needs the public’s help. The state worsened their ability to thrive when it failed to keep its promise to provide adequate funding for group homes in California after closing facilities such as San Jose’s Agnews Developmental Center in 2009. But that doesn’t mean that they deserve special treatment any more than other vulnerable segments of society.
It’s also easier to find developers who want to build housing for the developmentally disabled — especially on the Peninsula — because they don’t have to deal with issues surrounding building housing for more socially unpopular homeless populations.
The promise of Measure A was that it could be a major step toward ending a crisis that costs this valley far more — in tax dollars and human misery — than it would take to house the homeless in modest apartments and provide basic services they need to stay there.
The county shouldn’t slow the momentum of that effort.