Let’s stick to facts when we talk about our unhoused problem

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.

When I read Craig James’ recent Lookout op-ed, I was initially tempted to criticize his argument for its ignorance on homelessness policy. (Trigger alert: When I say “ignorance,” it is not a commentary on intelligence. Ignorance simply means lack of information or knowledge – which Mr. James demonstrates in his commentary.)

But … Mr. James makes some very good points, too, and I want to both acknowledge and embrace them as someone who spends as much time as anyone in this community when it comes to trying to figure out constructive homelessness policies. And I also want to thank him for making a serious run at addressing the issue.  

We need more of that.

First, his point about fairness among different local government jurisdictions is spot-on.  

The state has not laid out a framework for the fair distribution of services and resources among jurisdictions and I would join him in advocating for that — though I won’t hold my breath for it. On the other hand, the state has (much to the chagrin of many locals) made serious policy around the creation and fair distribution of housing for lower-income people, including people who are currently unhoused. Since getting people into housing is – by definition – ending their homelessness, we are moving toward a fairer distribution among jurisdictions.

Another area I very much agree with (though his language is a bit troubling – materials are “dumped”; humans are “moved”) is the one about some cities transporting the unhoused people in their communities to other communities. This should not happen unless the homeless person has a specific and supported destination with housing.  

Let’s continue to support legislation on this.

James’ consistent point about coordination and collaboration among organizations and local governments is extremely valuable. I’ve been working in this particular aspect of homelessness policy for many years. Santa Cruz County has made some progress on this – and we still have additional work to do on this one. (For instance, we now have a countywide Housing for Health Policy Board that brings together stakeholders, including local government representatives, to collaborate on state and federal homelessness funding priorities. But our coordination and collaboration around local funds could be improved.)

And, I couldn’t agree with him more that we should definitely see homelessness as a statewide and national crisis that cannot be solved simply by local efforts.

One other point of some agreement: People are attracted to food and shelter and provision of other basic needs when they are in severe need. This is why, historically, many unhoused people have congregated on and around Coral Street. 

But my agreement ends there — because his “magnet” theory doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny when it comes to attracting people from great distances to a spot such as Coral Street. Nobody travels from Fresno or Milpitas to Coral Street in Santa Cruz – because the shelter there is full all the time, with long waiting lists. And there is no food available at Housing Matters (the shelter provider on Coral Street) for people not living inside the shelters at Housing Matters. 

Let’s move on to more significant areas of disagreement. 

It appears that James didn’t read the details in the point-in-time count (homelessness count) he refers to. In 2024, Watsonville had more unhoused individuals than the city of Santa Cruz (from 673 to 659). Kind of wrecks his main argument – in more ways than one. First, Watsonville has fewer resources devoted to homelessness than Santa Cruz so, clearly, spending more does not automatically mean more homeless people flocking to any particular city. The point-in-time count also notes that Santa Cruz city had a significant reduction in unsheltered homelessness between 2023 and 2024 (from 749 down to 384). 

This makes it hard to conclude that the city is wasting money when it uses some of our local funds and other government funds to address homelessness and help people get housed. 

Yes, there are still hundreds of people sleeping outside in the city of Santa Cruz. But the city has made progress that serves everyone in the community.

As someone who’s lived here almost as long as Mr. James, I share his fond memories of some better times back in the good old days. But when he waxes fondly on the crimeless days of yore, I think he misses the fact that Santa Cruz was dubbed the “murder capital” of the United States back in the early 1970s, long before homelessness was on anyone’s radar as a major community problem.  

Mr. James also remembers that he could ride anywhere in town on his bike when he was a kid. However, one can find several references to the local “hobo jungle”  in the Santa Cruz Sentinel archives of the 1950s. I imagine Mr. James’ parents would have advised him not to ride his bike through that area.

Next, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a few well-documented data points that Mr. James was probably not aware of.

Dennis Culhane (University of Pennsylvania) is arguably the most respected researcher in the United States when it comes to homelessness. In more than one study, he has found that the top determinant as to the level of homelessness in a community is the affordability of housing. We all know how renowned Santa Cruz has become for its unaffordability of rental housing. Pretty easy to see that it’s our housing market situation that drives our homelessness challenge – not our level of local government spending.

Almost every county in California does a point-in-time count and develops data on how many people became homeless while living in the county versus those who arrived homeless. Virtually every county in coastal California has a similar ratio: Typically, the ratio is 1 outsider for every 3 to 4 locals. 

Santa Cruz is right in that range. 

As much as we Santa Cruzans like to think we’re unique, this is not one of the ways we are unique. In addition to the point-in-time count data, UC San Francisco conducted a statewide study on people experiencing homelessness in California in 2023 – the most comprehensive homelessness study ever conducted in California. It found that 75% of homeless persons became homeless in the same county that they had been housed in.

Lastly, the City of Santa Cruz isn’t spending all that much city money on homeless services as compared to many other jurisdictions around the state. 

Santa Cruz is certainly spending more on homelessness than many comparable cities, but the lion’s share of that spending is for reactive management of homelessness (waste management, paramedic calls, police calls, etc.) rather than on shelter and related services. The actual services funded with city funds are relatively minor compared to the services funds spent by the county, the state and the federal government.

I doubt there’s anyone in our community who isn’t desirous of making more progress on ending homelessness and the impacts it creates for everyone. 

We’ll make more progress if we make policy and spending decisions based on accurate understanding of the issue. 

Don Lane is a former mayor of Santa Cruz. He serves on the governing boards of Housing Santa Cruz County and Housing Matters and has been a homeowner for 40 years.