Why Sacramento’s ‘right to housing’ proposal is not the right solution for homelessness

No one can argue that Sacramento needs a transformative solution to its mounting homelessness problems. Since then-Mayor Kevin Johnson exposed a tent city along the American River a dozen years ago on the “Oprah Winfrey Show,” our region’s political leaders have spent hundreds of millions of our tax dollars without any significant signs of success.

Sacramentans are understandably frustrated. They recoil at the spread of encampments through their neighborhoods, the squalor surrounding state highways, rising crime and the degradation of the American River Parkway.

Yet there are some small signs of progress. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “Project Homekey” has provided housing by converting 48,000 in hotel rooms statewide. “Little houses” are another answer but have been mired in government bureaucracy. There’s a new shelter on X Street offering wrap-around services (though dozens are camped at its doorstep). New housing? Of course. But with an estimated cost per unit hovering in the $500,000 range, it’s an unsustainable solution for the city’s 10,000 or so unhoused.

Meanwhile, Newsom and the Legislature have announced plans to spend billions more, and the Biden administration has also promised billions for the state as a result of the infrastructure and Build Back Better programs.

Yet government at all levels still seems to be failing to address homelessness.

To his credit, Mayor Darrell Steinberg has worked on this problem throughout his long career in public service. However, his latest proposal, providing a binding “right to housing,” seems borne out of his frustration. It’s an idea that seems uncooked, without the mayor’s usual thoughtfulness, and could quickly lead to a myriad of unintended consequences for the city and our unhoused population.

A “right to housing” means that the city will be responsible for providing housing to any unhoused citizen within its boundaries. If the city doesn’t provide that housing, it will be exposed to an onslaught of lawsuits. Attorneys could adopt any unhoused person living in the city and file suit over its failure to meet its housing obligation. It’s a trial lawyer’s dream come true in a city that has already doled out millions in settlements on homelessness-related matters.

Where will the money come from to fund a right to housing? Most likely from Sacramento taxpayers. The same taxpayers who were told Measure U would help end homelessness. The same taxpayers who have overwhelmingly supported state housing bonds.

Yet, sadly, no one has any clue how much the right to housing will cost, either in the short or long term. Credit to Councilman Jeff Harris for raising this question.

There’s no guarantee of funding from the federal, state or county government to pay the tab, and we’re already dependent on federal and state dollars during the current economic boom. That means other city services, which are already stressed, would likely be slashed when times get tough — or that taxpayers would be asked to pay even more when housing costs and the cost of living in Sacramento are already among the most expensive in the nation.

Furthermore, Sacramento would be an island in adopting this policy. Even if you agree with it on philosophical grounds, it makes little sense for the city to enact it without the county and state doing so.

Yes, everyone should have a roof over their head. However, as former Gov. Jerry Brown put it, “I think you have to provide some kind of program where people have to earn their housing or ... do something to the extent of their capacity to contribute to solving this problem.”

Brown, a skinflint always mindful of the cost of government, is rightly skeptical of the “right to housing.” Sacramento needs cost-effective efforts that work for the unhoused and provide value to city taxpayers, not costly bumper sticker “solutions” that serve neither the homeless nor our citizens.