California saw a slight improvement in homelessness last year, but the crisis remains vast: an estimated 182,000 residents across the state still lack stable housing. In Sacramento, lawmakers are considering a mix of policy changes that reflect ongoing debates over housing, addiction treatment, local authority and accountability for public spending.

One closely watched proposal comes from Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, who is again trying to clarify whether state homelessness dollars may be used for sober housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Haney’s similar bill last year, surprising advocates who had supported the measure. That proposal, Assembly Bill 255, would have allowed cities and counties to spend up to 10% of certain state homelessness funding on “recovery housing,” where residents are required to remain sober.

The idea challenged California’s longstanding “housing first” approach, which generally emphasizes placing people into housing without requiring sobriety, treatment participation or other preconditions.

In his veto message last year, Newsom said state funding already could be used for sober housing. His administration pointed to guidance posted shortly after the veto as evidence that such funding was permissible.

Haney argues the guidance has not been clear enough. He said providers still believe they cannot use state money for sober housing, and he is not aware of any providers who have done so since the veto.

His new measure, Assembly Bill 1556, would spell out requirements for sober housing providers seeking state funds. Providers would need a relapse policy intended to help residents return to sobriety. The policy could also allow eviction if a resident continues using drugs or alcohol and does not comply with program rules.

That provision has drawn concern from critics who warn it could push vulnerable people back into homelessness. Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said the bill could redirect money away from low-barrier housing for people who are not ready or able to stop using substances.

Unlike Haney’s previous bill, AB 1556 does not cap how much state funding could be used for sober housing. It also does not provide additional money, meaning funding decisions would come from existing homelessness resources.

Rapport said the concern is heightened by the Trump administration’s support for prioritizing sober housing with federal dollars.

Haney said this year’s discussions with the governor’s office have been more productive and that he expects a different response if the bill reaches Newsom’s desk.

Another major proposal would require the state to calculate what it would actually take to end homelessness.

Assembly Bill 1165, by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Gardena Democrat, would direct the California Department of Housing and Community Development to produce a financial plan by January 2028. The plan would have to identify the cost of meeting the housing needs of people currently experiencing homelessness, as well as those expected to fall into homelessness in the future. It also would include performance measures to track progress.

California has already estimated that it must plan for 2.5 million homes over the next eight years to meet housing demand and reduce the affordable housing shortage. Gipson’s bill would require the state to go further by identifying the resources needed and creating a road map to reach those goals.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing has estimated that ending homelessness in California would cost $8.1 billion annually for 12 years. By comparison, the budget plan recently proposed by the Legislature includes $900 million for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants, the state’s primary homelessness funding program.

Supporters say AB 1165 could improve accountability, particularly after a 2024 audit found California had not adequately tracked homelessness spending or measured outcomes. However, the bill does not itself provide new funding, which could make implementing any resulting plan difficult in a tight budget year.

A separate proposal, Assembly Bill 1924, would require the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to create a statewide homelessness prevention strategy by July 2027.

Prevention programs have gained attention because keeping people housed is typically less costly and less disruptive than helping them after they have become homeless. Some organizations have found that targeted financial assistance of several thousand dollars can be enough to help at-risk residents avoid losing housing.

Like AB 1165, the prevention bill does not include new funding.

Lawmakers are also debating how much homelessness data cities should be required to report to the state.

Senate Bill 866, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, would require more cities to submit data about homelessness, services and outcomes, even if they do not receive state homelessness funding.

Currently, counties, regional homeless services agencies known as continuums of care, and the state’s 14 largest cities are eligible for funding through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. In exchange, they must report information about their homeless populations, available services and progress in moving people off the streets.

Blakespear argues that homelessness does not stop at city or county lines and that statewide data is needed to understand and address the crisis.

The proposal has faced significant opposition from local governments. The League of California Cities and dozens of cities oppose the bill, saying it would create new reporting responsibilities without providing the staff or funding needed to carry them out.

In response, Blakespear agreed to exempt cities with populations of 50,000 or fewer, which would remove about half of California’s cities from the requirement. Still, some lawmakers remain opposed.

Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, a Modesto Republican, criticized the bill as an unfunded mandate and questioned why it was moving forward despite broad opposition from cities.

Another bill could affect people cited for minor offenses, including many unhoused residents who receive tickets while living outdoors.

Assembly Bill 2122, by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra and Josh Lowenthal, does not specifically mention homelessness. But advocates say it could have major consequences for people who are cited for infractions and then miss court dates.

As cities across California increase enforcement of laws related to camping and public spaces, unhoused people can be cited for unauthorized camping, loitering, trespassing, public urination, park rule violations and other offenses. Police typically issue a paper citation with a court date.

For people living outside, getting to court can be difficult. They may lack transportation, have no safe place to leave belongings or pets, or lose track of court dates while facing the instability of street homelessness. Missing a court date can lead to a bench warrant, meaning the person could be jailed during a later police encounter.

AB 2122 would prohibit someone from being jailed for missing court after being cited for an infraction. It also would prevent courts from issuing arrest warrants for failure to pay traffic tickets.

The bill applies only to infractions, and cities classify offenses differently. Conduct treated as an infraction in one jurisdiction could be a misdemeanor elsewhere.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association opposes the bill, arguing it would weaken accountability for people who fail to appear in court.

Lawmakers are also revisiting the issue of RVs and other vehicles used as shelter, a concern visible in many California communities as more people live in cars, vans, trailers and motor homes parked along streets.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat, carried legislation last year intended to make it easier for local governments to dispose of inoperable RVs left on public streets. He said the goal was to address vehicles that create neighborhood blight and public safety concerns.

The bill was narrowed to apply only to Los Angeles and Alameda counties. But the final language created an unintended problem: the counties themselves could use the law, but cities within those counties could not. The issue became clear when the Los Angeles City Council approved an RV disposal program and a court later blocked it.

Assembly Bill 647 is intended to correct that mistake. It would allow cities in Los Angeles and Alameda counties to destroy RVs valued at $4,000 or less.

Opponents warn the measure could encourage cities to seize more RVs that people are living in, leaving them with no shelter other than the street.

Together, the bills illustrate the competing pressures facing California as homelessness remains one of the state’s most visible and difficult problems. Lawmakers are weighing calls for accountability, treatment-focused housing and local enforcement tools against concerns that some proposals could deepen instability for people already living without permanent homes.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Take Up New Homelessness Bills as Key Measures Advance appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.