Why Four Councilmembers Voted Against University Terrace

The City Council's 4-3 vote on January 13 to reject $20.1 million in state Homekey+ funding for the University Terrace homeless housing project continues to reverberate through City Hall. The decision turned down a grant that would have converted the Quality Inn at 1590 University Avenue into 114 studio apartments for homeless and low-income residents.

After Councilmember Mill submitted an explanation of his vote to the Gazette and Councilmember Conder published his on Facebook, the Gazette invited all seven councilmembers to explain their votes to readers. Councilmembers Falcone and Robillard also submitted statements by the Friday deadline. Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson shared her perspective on homelessness policy earlier this week.

A February 2 email from the property seller's representative threatens a tortious interference lawsuit, alleging nearby property owners attempted to purchase the hotel and interfered with the RHDC sale after the seller's representative warned council members and the Gazette in late January emails that rejecting the project would result in the property being leased to weekly tenants, predicting maintenance would stop, police calls would multiply, and spending on "drugs and prostitution" would increase. A February 2 letter from the ACLU of Southern California warns the vote may violate the city's legally binding Housing Element commitments and fair housing laws based on stereotypes against unhoused residents.

Below are their statements, presented in ward order.

Ward 1: Councilmember Philip Falcone

When running for City Council, I knew it would be a demanding and difficult job—one that would expect much from me, and I was prepared for that. What I was not expecting was how nuanced each vote would be. The vote on the Quality Inn conversion project was, by far, the most challenging and layered.

Examining the postmortem of the May and January votes on this topic, two main areas of disagreement became clear. I share this letter with respect for those who see this issue from a different perspective. Although we may differ on this one vote, let's take a step back and see the full picture. My own record of dedication, responsiveness, assistance, voting in favor of dozens of affordable housing projects, has built one of the most pro-housing records of any councilmember. This wasn't NIMBYism. Ward 1 has more affordable housing projects—in the hopper, under construction, and completed—than any other ward and I supported all.

A Failure of Process

It has been said that this was a grant and project blessed by the City Council for two years. This is inaccurate. I was unaware of this project until it was on the City Council agenda in mid-May 2025. Any prior process or conversation was neither discussed nor agreed upon by the Council.

Businesses were not notified until the eleventh hour, the Chambers of Commerce East Hills Business Council were opposed, and most importantly, resident groups on the Eastside (the area I represent) were lukewarm to it at best. All of this could have been avoided if these partners were not blindsided. (Shoot—I would have loved to not be blindsided.)

The May meeting did not give resounding approval for the grant. That was an early sign that this project needed substantial changes to gain support. Over the subsequent months, I spoke with colleagues, staff, and those involved in the grant about this being a project for housing seniors and veterans. This led me to believe that compromises were possible.

City of Riverside data finds the fastest growing homeless population to be seniors. However, at the January meeting, in real time, the City Council was told that this project would not be exclusively for seniors and veterans due to lack of individuals who meet those criteria. If this was never viable, several of my colleagues and I were strung along and then had the rug pulled out from underneath us.

Irrespective of the identified tenant population, the challenges remained that this was incompatible with the University Avenue Specific Plan, was not supported by our first responders—despite the high 911 call volume currently at the Quality Inn, and had no expectation of tenants to be enrolled in services to begin healing.

A Disagreement on How to Address Homelessness

The City Council has different perspectives on how to address this topic. I do not dismiss the data that supports Housing First. However, I do not support a "Housing First Absolute" approach. I recognize that not everyone experiencing homelessness needs services, but without expecting tenants to engage in support, we risk leaving those with addiction and mental health challenges to navigate on their own. It is not enough for services to just be present; we need to actively partner with them toward healing. As humans—myself included—we thrive on structure, reasonable expectations, and daily purpose. I support an amended Housing First approach that provides housing and ensures participation in services by those who need it. Every obstacle I have overcome in my life, especially my family's trauma with the loss of our home and belongings in Hurricane Katrina, has been because of an effort to regain stability through structure, discipline, and expectations placed upon me and aided by a supportive network.

The inability for mutual compromise to find an agreed upon location, a laser focus on our most vulnerable populations, a respect for City processes, and an expectation that sometimes healing requires compulsory services, this proposal reached a stalemate.

Where do we go from here? Instead of wringing our hands, let's roll up our sleeves and look to the next project. One that, as Mayor Lock Dawson said, is community accepted and community led.

Ward 3: Councilmember Steven Robillard

My vote on January 13 regarding the University Terrace project was not a change in position. It was consistent with the position I have held since this proposal was first brought before me.

The first time this project came forward was in a committee setting. That meeting was also the first time I had heard of the proposal. In a single, brief presentation, councilmembers were introduced to a complex, multi-million-dollar project with significant land use, operational, and neighborhood impacts, and were then expected to advance it almost immediately. That raised serious concerns. Projects of this scale and consequence should not debut with minimal notice, limited documentation, and an expectation of rapid approval.

Despite those concerns, I allowed the project to move forward at that initial stage and made clear comments about the rushed nature of the presentation and the need for deeper scrutiny. As the project returned for subsequent consideration, those concerns were not resolved, and my position remained unchanged.

This project was structured under the state's Homekey Plus program, and that structure matters. Homekey Plus is not a flexible framework that allows cities to meaningfully redesign projects once they are proposed. Core elements such as the population served, the operating model, service delivery, and long-term obligations are largely fixed.

Under Homekey Plus, eligibility is specifically centered on individuals who are unhoused and who are experiencing serious mental illness and substance use disorders. These conditions are not incidental or secondary. They are foundational requirements of the program. That distinction is important, because public discussion often framed the project as housing primarily for unhoused seniors and veterans. While seniors and veterans could be included, the governing program is explicitly designed to serve a population with behavioral health challenges and documented substance abuse.

Homekey Plus also operates under a Housing First model. Under that framework, housing is not conditioned on sobriety, treatment participation, or behavioral compliance. That policy choice is established at the state level, not locally, and it is not something the City has the authority to alter through conditions or later adjustments. Reasonable people may hold different views about this approach, but public trust depends on a clear and honest understanding of how the program functions. When expectations are set without that clarity, even well intentioned proposals can lose public confidence.

Throughout this process, residents were repeatedly told that concerns could be addressed later or mitigated through conditions. In reality, many of the most significant concerns raised by the community were embedded in the program requirements themselves and could not be meaningfully altered without undermining compliance.

Equally troubling was how narrowly the project was advanced. Nearby businesses, employees working at the Quality Inn who would have lost their jobs, and residents in the surrounding area were not meaningfully engaged early in the process. At the same time, we later heard claims that the project had been years in the making. If that is true, then the late inclusion of key stakeholders represents a fundamental failure of engagement. That is not how sound public policy is built, and it is not how trust is earned.

Public debate around this project was also framed in an unhelpful and inaccurate way. Opposition was characterized as a lack of compassion or concern for unhoused seniors and veterans. That framing is false. Compassion does not require abandoning judgment, process, or accountability. Good intentions do not excuse poor execution. Cities are not obligated to approve every proposal simply because it is presented as morally urgent, especially when legitimate questions remain unanswered.

I was also concerned by the repeated use of fear as a governing tool. Claims that Riverside faces inevitable lawsuits or the loss of housing certification if this project was not approved were often stated as certainty rather than opinion. The reality is far more nuanced. Disagreement does not equate to legal recklessness, and councilmembers have a duty to exercise independent judgment rather than vote under pressure.

None of this means Riverside should abandon the pursuit of housing solutions. On the contrary, it means we must pursue better ones. My commitment to addressing homelessness and housing insecurity is real and ongoing. That work includes the hundreds of affordable housing units planned and built specifically for seniors and veterans, as well as the dozens of programs and facilities the city already supports. These efforts reflect a balanced approach that combines compassion with accountability and has earned broad community support.

As the mayor has rightly said, the path forward is not further division, but coming together. Riverside can and should pursue solutions that are community led, transparent from the beginning, and built through collaboration rather than confrontation. That is how trust is rebuilt and progress is sustained.

This project did not fail because of a lack of compassion. It failed because of a flawed process, rigid constraints, and a deliberate narrowing of participation. My vote reflects that reality. It has been consistent, deliberate, and rooted in my responsibility to govern carefully on behalf of the entire city.

Ward 4: Councilmember Chuck Conder

On January 13, I cast the deciding vote to stop the Quality Inn Motel on University Avenue from being turned into a taxpayer subsidized homeless apartment complex.

Despite the shouts, complaints, and threats from the Homeless Industrial Complex, I absolutely stand by my vote and will not be changing it no matter how much money or pressure they bring against me.

The reason for my NO vote is simple: this project would have done NOTHING to reduce homelessness or crime. Any claims to the contrary are pure fantasy, if not outright lies.

This project would not legitimately help any homeless individuals and would result only in increased criminal activity. How do I know this? Because this happens under the failed Housing First, Accountability Never feel good model this project would use.

It Is well documented that Housing First homeless facilities that do not hold their residents accountable to basic standards of good behavior and sobriety become epicenters of crime. Felonies including the use, sale, and manufacture of illegal drugs; human trafficking and prostitution run rampant and place unnecessary strains on police officers.

Advocates and activists have been spreading false information to the public about who the tenants would be. They claim that would be elderly and veterans. That is untrue.

This project would be Section 8 Public Housing, meaning that anyone who met the federal criteria for such assistance could not be turned away. They would not have been able to reserve places specifically for veteran or senior individuals.

Approving this project would have essentially turned the Quality Inn Motel into a heartless "Warehouse of the Homeless" that did not require residents to obey our laws, or have treatment for any substance abuse or mental problems as a condition of being able to live in this facility.

Critics claim the City turned down a $20 million state grant by not approving this project. The word "grant" in this matter is better replaced with the word "bribe" as the money was nothing more than a taxpayer funded bribe that the Sacramento Establishment dangled before the City Council to coerce us into approving this project.

Had the City accepted the money, it would have locked Riverside into a long-term contract to keep this "Warehouse of the Homeless" in operation for the next 55 years no matter what the consequences. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does approving such a facility on University Avenue at this location. Riverside has spent many years and millions of dollars to clean up the blighted University Avenue, buying bad properties, assembling them, and then offering them for development. The city has invested tens of thousands of man hours from our Police Department and Code Enforcement getting rid of those bad areas, bad people and bad businesses.

University Avenue is also zoned for retail and commercial development, not residential. There are not any homes where people actually live on University Avenue. UC Riverside recently announced its largest ever incoming freshman class. In conjunction with UCR, the City is working hard to restore University Avenue as the economic generator it once was, and as a safe connector from UCR to downtown.

Locating an incubator of crime less than a mile from North High School and about a mile from UCR would have been a grave risk to the lives and safety of the over 29,000 students, faculty who attend and work at the high school and the university.

Moreover, believing criminal activity would have stayed on University Avenue is pure fantasy. Criminals travel to where there is opportunity.

They easily would make their way to nearby neighborhoods like Canyon Crest, Mission Grove, and Orangecrest where they would break into mail boxes, burglarize homes, and assault people on the street.

I have a sworn duty as a Riverside City Councilman to keep the residents, families, and neighborhoods of Ward 4 (as well as the entire city) safe from crime and violence. Approving this Warehouse of the Homeless would have violated that oath of office.

These are the reasons why I voted against this project. I stand by my vote as it is a vote for common sense and the safety of our neighborhoods and families.

Ward 5: Councilmember Sean Mill

Riverside is a compassionate city. We care deeply about our homeless neighbors, and we should. But compassion, if it is to be meaningful, must do more than manage suffering, it must restore dignity, stability, and the possibility of recovery. That belief is why I did not support the proposed Quality Inn Project, and why I am advocating for a different path forward, one that blends what works in Housing First with a treatment-oriented, accountability-based Housing Readiness approach.

Let me be clear: my vote was not a rejection of housing, nor a denial of the seriousness of homelessness in Riverside. It was a rejection of a single-track model that, as presented, asked the City to commit to permanent supportive housing with no enforceable expectations around treatment, recovery, or stabilization for individuals suffering from severe addiction and mental illness.

It is also important to clarify something that has been widely misunderstood in the public conversation. Although the project was frequently described by supporters as serving veterans, seniors, families, or a broad cross-section of homeless residents, those populations were not specifically designated, reserved, or protected in the grant language or grant terms that were actually before the City Council. As Councilmembers, we are required to vote on what is written and enforceable, not on messaging, aspirations, or assurances made outside the binding documents.

Based on what we were asked to approve, the Quality Inn project was structured as permanent supportive housing serving individuals experiencing chronic homelessness associated with long-term substance use disorders and/or serious mental illness, with services that were entirely voluntary and no mandated participation in treatment or clinical care. That distinction matters. Talking points, however well intentioned, do not create enforceable outcomes. Once approved, the City would have had no mechanism to ensure priority placement for veterans, seniors, or families, nor the ability to require engagement in treatment when individuals were clearly unable to care for themselves.

Riverside's frontline workers, our police officers, fire personnel, outreach teams, and service providers, have been candid with us. A significant portion of our unsheltered population is not merely unhoused; they are deeply unwell. Housing alone, without meaningful engagement in treatment, does not resolve that reality. In too many cases, it simply relocates the crisis indoors. I do not believe it is compassionate to place people who are actively suffering from untreated addiction or psychosis into permanent housing with no pathway, or expectation, toward recovery. Nor is it fair to surrounding neighborhoods, residents, or even other vulnerable tenants within those facilities. At the same time, I reject the false choice that often dominates this debate: that we must either accept Housing First exactly as designed or be accused of opposing housing altogether. That framing is neither honest nor productive.

There are components of Housing First that work. Speed to housing matters. Reducing bureaucratic barriers matters. Stability matters. But Housing First, when applied rigidly and without accountability, too often assumes that people will seek help when ready, ignoring the reality that addiction and severe mental illness frequently impair that very capacity. That is why I support a hybrid approach. California has already provided tools to move in this direction. Senate Bill 43 expanded the definition of "grave disability," allowing intervention when individuals are incapable of caring for themselves due to severe substance use disorder. Care Court provides a civil, treatment-oriented framework to connect people to services while preserving due process and dignity. Used appropriately, these tools allow us to intervene before people deteriorate further, before encampments harden into long-term despair, and before individuals become permanent wards of the state.

A hybrid model means housing paired with expectations. It means support with structure. It means compassion that intervenes, not compassion that looks away.

I believe people are capable of more. Our policies should reflect that belief, not by punishing failure, but by aligning housing, treatment, and accountability toward recovery and independence.

Riverside can lead by rejecting extremes and choosing balance. We can build housing. We can demand better outcomes. And we can do both without abandoning the humanity of the people we are trying to help. That is the path I am committed to pursuing, and why I voted the way I did.

Editor's Note

The Gazette fact-checked specific factual claims where possible:

• Section 8 designation: The claim that anyone who met federal criteria for Section 8 housing assistance could not be turned away is inaccurate. The project will receive 94 Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers, which function differently from traditional Section 8 housing. Project-based vouchers are tied to specific housing units rather than portable vouchers. The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside awards these vouchers to the development, not to individual applicants.
• University Avenue zoning: The claim that "there are not any homes where people actually live on University Avenue" is inaccurate. While the Quality Inn site is located within a "commercial retail specific plan zone," the surrounding area is heavily residential. Within a half-mile radius of the site, there are approximately 2,500 apartment units (Gazette analysis), largely concentrated in blocks immediately north and south of University Avenue. The city report notes "multifamily housing units to the south" of the site, and the proposed project qualifies as "a use by right" under Health and Safety Code Section 50675.15.
• Veterans and seniors designation: The claim that veterans and seniors were not specifically designated, reserved, or protected in the grant language is accurate. The city report states only that "Priority will be given to local residents who are seniors and veterans" - indicating preference rather than reservation. The state's announcementdescribes the 94 units as serving "the Homekey+ target population of people experiencing homelessness with a behavioral health challenge." Other Homekey+ projects across California explicitly reserve units for veterans, but Riverside's project does not include such reservations.
• Housing First requirements: The claim that Homekey+ program requirements center on individuals experiencing homelessness with mental health or substance use challenges, and that housing is not conditioned on sobriety, treatment participation, or behavioral compliance, is accurate. These characterizations align with city reports on the Homekey+ program structure and California's Housing First policy framework.
• Fastest-growing homeless population: The claim that seniors are the fastest-growing homeless population is supported by a city press release stating "the largest group of those recently falling into homelessness were seniors over the age of 55."

Residential Units within 1/2 Mile of 1590 University Ave

Some claims in these statements reflect policy interpretations, predictions about outcomes, or characterizations of community engagement processes that cannot be independently verified through available documentation.

Updated Sat. Feb. 7, 6:45 a.m.
This story was updated to include additional context from emails sent to council members before the threatened tortious interference lawsuit.