“Throw them in jail!”
“Round them up and send them all to the desert!”
“Build housing somewhere else, just not in my neighborhood”
These are among the many comments or “suggestions” I hear from our residents about addressing homelessness in Riverside. My favorite is the “you’re doing NOTHING about the homeless situation”.
So, I thought I would take some time this month to let you know exactly what we can and can’t do under the law and what we are doing to address this complex issue.
But first let’s start by addressing the above comments.
We cannot throw homeless people in jail for being on the street or for acting erratically. As much as some would like it to be, homelessness is not a crime. Additionally, being mentally compromised is also not a crime. If someone is behaving erratically, they must pose a danger to themselves or others in order to be placed on a 5150 hold, and only then can they be transported to an emergency treatment facility, but they typically cannot be held for more than 72 hours.
Usually, we see that there are three ways out of homelessness: housing, jail, or hospitalization/rehabilitation. And the reality is: we do not have enough of any of those options. We do not have enough housing, we do not have enough jail space, and we do not have enough behavioral health centers or mental health professionals to provide services.
Homelessness is not driven by a single cause. It is the collision of so many challenges, including housing shortages, untreated mental illness, substance use disorders, and a policy framework that too often asks cities to solve problems without giving us the tools to do so.
And I can assure you we are not “doing nothing.”
A Compounding Mental Health Crisis
In California, homelessness is deeply intertwined with a behavioral health system stretched beyond capacity. We face a severe shortage of mental health treatment beds, insufficient behavioral health professionals, and laws that provide limited authority to compel treatment for individuals suffering from severe mental illness.
For decision makers, this creates an impossible situation: we are expected to resolve homelessness yet often lack the authority and clinical capacity to intervene when someone is clearly unwell but unwilling or unable to accept help. And CARE Court, which I advocated with my fellow Big City Mayors, is not being implemented as intended.
A 2021 RAND study found that California faces a shortfall of 4,767 psychiatric beds and 2,963 community residential beds for individuals with chronic behavioral health needs.
But help is coming. Thanks to more than $300 million in Proposition 1 funding, Riverside County will move forward with construction of a 100-bed acute psychiatric facility, finally closing a critical gap in our regional behavioral health system. This will help move people off our streets and out of emergency rooms and into treatment, providing them the specialized care they need.
Substance Use and the Limits of ‘Housing First’
Mental illness is only part of the picture. Substance use disorders are another painful reality on our streets fueling public frustration. The reality is that we have very few options or places to send people seeking treatment for their addiction.
I frequently hear that “Housing First has failed” or that people struggling with addiction should be required to be sober in order to remain housed. But cities that accept state funding to build housing cannot compel people to enter rehabilitation or stay sober.
California’s homelessness funding programs are largely built around a Housing First framework, which prioritizes moving people indoors before addressing other underlying challenges. This approach has helped many individuals find stability, and that progress matters. At the same time, it also limits the flexibility cities need to respond to the complex realities on our streets. While cities may choose to forgo state funding if they wish to pursue a different model, doing so can mean walking away from millions of dollars dedicated to addressing homelessness — placing the full financial burden on local governments and, in some cases, making the creation of new housing simply unattainable.
And so, we are left with little choice but to accept those state dollars if we want to get people off the street.
Accountability Without Capacity – Prop 36
Proposition 36 increased penalties for repeat drug and theft offenses and in certain circumstances, allows courts to mandate substance use or mental health treatment in lieu of incarceration.
In theory, this approach offers accountability paired with care.
In practice, however, the system lacks the capacity to deliver on that promise.
Proposition 36 did not include funding to expand the substance use treatment programs necessary to serve those referred by the courts. At the same time, jails in Riverside County are already operating at or near capacity. The result is a policy gap that leaves cities asking a fundamental question: if we are neither funded to treat nor able to incarcerate, where are people supposed to go?
Riverside Keeps Moving Forward
Despite these constraints, Riverside goes to work every day to address this problem.
The 2024 Grants Pass Supreme Court decision gave local governments greater authority to enforce public camping ordinances. But enforcement alone is not a solution.
Over the past several years, we have invested in rental assistance programs to prevent people from falling into homelessness. We have expanded shelter capacity. We have built housing by leveraging state and federal funds and forged strong public-private partnerships. We also offer people transportation back to their places of origin where they can get the support they need.
Today, we have 335 affordable, 43 transitional, and 24 permanent supportive housing units in the pipeline.
And still — it is not enough.
That is why we have brought together our faith community to help, including building homes on excess church land — projects like Crest Cottages and The Grove Village — turning compassion into tangible solutions.
A Commitment to Keep Going
Homelessness is not simple. And it is not solved with slogans or shortcuts.
But it is solvable — if we are honest about the challenges, serious about the investments, and willing to give cities the tools to do the work.
As many of you know, city council recently voted not to move forward with the Quality Inn housing project which became a divisive issue in the community. At the end of the meeting I made a statement that “I don’t want to do this again” meaning the process for this project was flawed from the beginning and it didn’t have to be. Moving forward, the next project, and the process used to develop it, should be community led and community supported; one we can all agree on.
And we know this kind of unity works. When we focus on intervention and are targeted in our approaches to various population needs, we are successful. We’ve reached functional zero for both veterans and youth.
So as mayor, I will not be deterred.
Because doing nothing is not an option, but neither is giving up.
