Two Perspectives on University Terrace: Should Riverside Reconsider?

With a Feb. 3 deadline approaching for the council to reconsider its rejection of $20.1 million in state Homekey+ funding, the debate over the University Terrace homeless housing project divides residents. The council voted 4-3 on Jan. 13 to turn down the grant that would convert the Quality Inn at 1590 University Ave. into 114 studio apartments for homeless and low-income residents.

Below, two community members present contrasting views on whether the council should reverse its decision. Mark Elliott, a Ward 1 resident along the University Avenue corridor, argues the project represents an unaccountable use of public funds. Dan Hoxworth, a retired Ward 3 resident and board member of the Inland SoCal Housing Collective, contends the project offers a rare opportunity to address homelessness and public safety.

Only a councilmember who voted against the project can file a motion to reconsider before the Feb. 3 deadline: Philip Falcone, Steven Robillard, Chuck Conder or Sean Mill.

The Gazette is publishing perspectives from both sides to help readers understand the competing values at stake.

University Terrace Isn't a Win. It's a Liability.

By Mark Elliott, Ward 1 Resident

As a resident of the University Avenue corridor and someone in contact with dozens of affected businesses and neighbors, I feel a responsibility to speak plainly about the University Terrace project. The public deserves more than emotional appeals and selective framing. We deserve the full picture.

We've been told that opposing this project is heartless. That we're rejecting $20 million in "free money." That Housing First is working. That this is about veterans and seniors. But none of that holds up under scrutiny.

This isn't just a disagreement about values. It's a disagreement about facts.

Misrepresentation. This project is not veteran housing. It is not senior housing. The language is clear. And yet, that is how it has been marketed, to new speakers, to the public, and to this Council. Even the official report leaned heavily on emotional framing while sidestepping the project's structural flaws. That is not transparency. That is narrative control.

Outsider Advocacy. Of the 30-plus speakers who came to support reconsideration, only one was from the University corridor. A few others may have been from Wards 1 and 2, but not from the area directly impacted by this project. Many were tenants of the nonprofit developer, an entity that stands to gain a debt-free asset with no capital investment, no long-term risk, and no obligation to house veterans, seniors, or maintain sobriety standards. Others appeared to be part of the same group that routinely shows up to push through Councilmember Cervantes' projects, regardless of neighborhood impact. Let's be clear: RHDC is the only party guaranteed to benefit from this deal. Everyone else is left holding the risk.

Financial Liability. We're told the city turned down $20 million. But that money came with strings—a 55-year obligation, and no city ownership. And to make it work, the City itself committed over $9 million in local funds. That is not free money. That is a long-term liability, underwritten by the public, for a project the public doesn't control.

Optional Services, No Recovery Path. We're told this project includes wraparound services. But participation is optional. Sobriety is optional. Treatment is optional. So what is the incentive to change? There isn't one. We are not solving the crisis. We are subsidizing it.

This isn't about being anti-housing. It's about being pro-accountability. Pro-transparency. Pro-community. And right now, this project is none of those things.

Mark Elliott is a Ward 1 resident and corridor advocate who has documented the University Avenue project since its inception.

People Rise, Cities Follow: Reconsider the University Terrace HomeKey Grant

By Dan H. Hoxworth, Retired Ward 3 Resident, Board Member, Inland SoCal Housing Collective

As Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson said in her State of the City speech, "Cities don't rise — people do." A powerful example of that principle is the proposed 114-unit University Terrace Permanent Supportive Housing project, which would lift up 94 of Riverside's most vulnerable residents—seniors and veterans experiencing homelessness and living with mental illness or substance use disorders—by providing stable housing and on-site services to help them rebuild their lives. In doing so, it would reduce by nearly one-third the number of homeless Riversiders on the Coordinated Entry Waiting list actively seeking housing.

The project would convert the deteriorating Quality Inn on University Avenue into a secure, professionally managed supportive housing community. It would include gated access, 24-hour security, on-site staff, and six dedicated case managers to help residents connect with medical care, behavioral health treatment, and benefits. Residents would contribute 30% of their adjusted income toward rent, ensuring both affordability and personal investment in their housing stability. In addition to 94 homeless individuals, the facility would also provide 20 low-income people a home.

City staff chose this site intentionally, spending three years identifying the site. The site is near shopping, transit, and medical services, and includes community space for on-site programs such as recovery meetings and group counseling. Kudos to the staff for quickly assembling this project to successfully secure a highly competitive $20 million State Homekey grant—one of only 5 awarded statewide.

The developer, Riverside Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), brings a strong track record, managing more than 1,300 units over 35 years with minimal operational issues. Its board includes respected civic leaders, and the organization will oversee the project along with City Staff and the City Council. RHDC recently developed Cypress Springs and Autumn Ridge Apartments, which transformed a previously crime-ridden and blighted area into a neighborhood asset—something Councilmember Jim Perry lauded at the City Council meeting on May 20, 2025, when the grant application was approved.

Beyond housing outcomes, the project would also address a current public safety concern. The Quality Inn site generated approximately 200 police service calls in 2025 and has become a recurring problem property along the University Corridor. Short-term stays and unstable conditions have contributed to ongoing calls for service and neighborhood disruption. Renovating and converting the property into well-managed supportive housing would replace an unstable use with structured oversight, security, and services.

Riverside has seen what happens when redevelopment opportunities are missed. A long-vacant property near Fairmount Park—where earlier funding was declined—has remained an eyesore and nuisance for years. Without reinvestment, properties rarely improve on their own. The same risk exists here if action is not taken.

Given that every Councilmember has expressed commitment to reducing homelessness and improving public safety, one might expect broad support for a project that addresses both. The proposal received letters of support from more than 30 organizations, and the super majority of testimony in support. Ward 2 Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, whose district includes the site, championed the project.

Nevertheless, 4 City Council members (Falcone, Robillard, Conder and Mill) overruled the expertise of City & RHDC staff, the City's strategic plan on housing and state housing law by voting to reject the Homekey funding and halt the project. The City stands to waste a $250,000 investment made by both the City and by RHDC. Councilmembers cited business opposition and one questioned the Housing First model required by the City's strategic plan. Those concerns deserve to be heard—but they should also be weighed against evidence and experience. Supportive housing developments with professional management, security, and services do not function like unmanaged properties. In fact, research shows the life-saving apartment buildings save money when the cost of emergency interventions by police, fire and medical personnel and hospitals for the homeless are measured.

Importantly, opponents have not presented a funded, actionable alternative plan for improving the Quality Inn site. Increased police enforcement alone is not a redevelopment strategy and would likely increase ongoing public cost without addressing root causes. In the meantime, the homeless issue on University Avenue and in front of the Quality Inn will only get worse with no solutions in sight.

The decision also carries broader consequences. Turning down a major state housing grant may affect Riverside's competitiveness for future funding at the State. The City's Pro-housing designation at the State could be eliminated costing the City of Riverside millions of dollars and leading to direct intervention by the State, eliminating self-determination. Affordable housing developers may choose other more receptive cities to invest their resources in. One national philanthropic funder considering a $100 million investment with Family Promise to end family homelessness in Riverside has expressed deep reservations because of the Council's vote. Thus, building more affordable housing for our growing workforce and to move the homeless off our City's streets into safe, secure environments will now be harder.

Fortunately, there is still a window to act. RHDC has secured a short extension on the Homekey award, allowing the Council an opportunity to reconsider. Any one of the 4 City Councilmembers (Falcone, Robillard, Conder, or Mill) who voted "No" against accepting the HomeKey+ grant may make a motion to revisit the decision by February 3rd.

This project represents a rare alignment of funding, planning, location, services, and experienced development capacity. It addresses homelessness, public safety, neighborhood revitalization, and fiscal leverage in one coordinated investment.

Riverside can convert a troubled property into a community asset, bring vulnerable residents indoors, and strengthen the University Avenue corridor. That is not only good housing policy—it is good city-building.

If cities rise when people rise, then investing in solutions that help people stabilize, recover, and contribute is one of the most practical steps we can take. Supportive housing is not simply about shelter—it is about saving lives, restoring stability, improving neighborhoods, and using public resources wisely.

Riverside should seize that opportunity.

Dan H. Hoxworth is a retired Ward 3 resident and board member of the Inland SoCal Housing Collective.

Editor's Note

The Gazette fact-checked specific factual claims where possible:

• On police calls: Hoxworth states the Quality Inn "generated approximately 200 police service calls in 2025." City records show 164 calls to the property since January 2024. The city's May 2025 press release cited 97 calls over a 15-month period ending in spring 2025.
• On veteran and senior housing: Both authors reference veterans and seniors in their arguments. According to city documents and the Homekey+ application, the 94 permanent supportive housing units prioritize veterans and seniors on the waiting list but are not exclusively reserved for these populations. As of November 2025, the list included 91 seniors aged 55 and older out of 312 prescreened individuals. Eighteen units are reserved for people with mobility disabilities and 12 for people with hearing or vision disabilities.
• On funding structure: All 114 units would be income-restricted under the project: 94 units at 30% of area median income (permanent supportive housing) and 20 units at 50% of area median income (affordable housing). The project includes a 55-year affordability covenant.

Some claims—including assertions about speaker demographics, RHDC tenant status, and private funding conversations—could not be independently verified and remain the authors' assertions.