California's Homeless Policy Chaos: A Dangerous Gamble With Human Lives

The Facts: Bureaucratic Confusion and Political Pressure Collide

California is experiencing profound confusion in its homelessness policy, with Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoing Assembly Bill 255—legislation that would have explicitly allowed cities to use up to 10% of state funds for “recovery housing” requiring sobriety. Newsom claimed the bill was unnecessary because “recent guidance” already permitted such funding, but this guidance document, dated July 2025, wasn’t published online until October 2—the day after the veto. Assemblymember Matt Haney, who spent two years developing the bill, expressed shock and frustration, stating that neither he nor any stakeholders had seen this document previously.

This bureaucratic breakdown occurs amid significant political pressure to shift California’s homeless housing strategy. The state faces pressure from multiple fronts: some legislators recently visited a massive sober shelter in San Antonio, Texas, and returned advocating for increased temporary shelter capacity. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has signaled it will redirect federal homeless funding away from permanent housing toward temporary shelters with sobriety requirements. California may face federal funding losses if it doesn’t align with this approach.

The state’s official “Housing First” policy, in place since 2016, requires that homeless programs offer housing without preconditions like sobriety, mental health treatment, or employment. The newly revealed guidance attempts to reconcile sober housing with Housing First principles by requiring that sober housing be client-choice-driven, that non-sober options remain available locally, and that providers cannot evict residents for relapsing. However, the guidance provides no additional funding for creating new sober housing beds.

Key figures in this debate include Senator Catherine Blakespear, who argues California needs to break from “dogma” that only permanent housing is acceptable, and Jennifer Loving of Destination Home, who worries that shifting focus to sober and temporary housing will divert resources from permanent solutions. The fundamental conflict pits immediate shelter needs against evidence-based permanent housing strategies, all while underlying income inequality remains unaddressed.

Opinion: This Policy Chaos Betrays Our Humane Principles

What we’re witnessing in California isn’t just bureaucratic incompetence—it’s a profound moral failure that treats human beings as political footballs. The revelation that Governor Newsom vetoed a bill based on guidance that nobody—not even the bill’s author or stakeholders—had seen demonstrates a shocking disregard for transparent governance and collaborative policymaking. This isn’t how a functioning democracy should operate, especially when vulnerable lives hang in the balance.

The push toward temporary shelters and sobriety requirements represents a dangerous retreat from evidence-based solutions. Housing First isn’t just a policy—it’s a philosophy rooted in human dignity that recognizes housing as a fundamental right, not a reward for good behavior. The notion that we should force people to achieve sobriety while living on the streets before granting them shelter is not only cruel but counterproductive. Study after study has shown that stability precedes recovery, not the other way around.

What disturbs me most is the political cowardice on display. When legislators look to Texas—a state with fundamentally different values and resources—for homeless solutions, they’re admitting defeat in crafting policies that reflect California’s professed commitment to human rights. The fact that land is scarce and expensive in California makes the Texas model particularly unsuitable, yet the political pressure to “do something” visible seems to be overriding evidence-based decision-making.

The real tragedy is that this debate completely misses the root cause: catastrophic income inequality and a severe shortage of affordable housing. Instead of addressing these systemic issues, we’re arguing about how to manage the symptoms. We’re fighting over whether homeless people deserve housing with or without strings attached, rather than asking why so many Americans can’t afford housing in the first place. This is a betrayal of our democratic principles and our basic humanity. We must demand better from our leaders—policies grounded in compassion, evidence, and unwavering respect for human dignity.