The Cost of Compliance: How Newsom's Homelessness Funding Conditions Threaten Human Dignity and Local Autonomy

The Policy Shift: From Funding to Conditions

The California homelessness crisis represents one of the most visible policy failures in modern American governance. Despite unprecedented state investments—billions allocated over recent years—tent encampments continue to proliferate across our cities, serving as stark reminders of our collective inability to address this humanitarian emergency. The latest development in this ongoing struggle involves Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration implementing stringent new requirements for cities and counties seeking state homelessness funds, marking a significant shift in California’s approach to addressing this crisis.

Under the proposed conditions, local jurisdictions must enact ordinances regulating homeless encampments that meet state approval and obtain a “prohousing designation”—a special status awarded to communities that exceed standard housing construction efforts. The stakes are substantial: $500 million in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program funding hangs in the balance. What makes this approach particularly concerning is that only 60 of California’s 541 cities and counties currently hold this designation, representing just 15% of the state’s population. The practical implication is that the vast majority of communities may find themselves ineligible for critical funding unless they rapidly comply with these new standards.

The Local Government Perspective: Confusion and Concern

Local officials across California are expressing significant apprehension about these new requirements. Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health program, captures the frustration many feel when he notes that “at times, it feels like the goal post keeps moving a little bit.” His county recently approved an encampment policy and began pursuing the prohousing designation, yet still received their application back with extensive notes and requests for clarification.

The situation in Mendocino County illustrates even more troubling dynamics. Megan Van Sant, senior program manager with the county’s Department of Social Services, reports that the state appears to be “holding funds hostage” until the county explains its plans to pass an encampment ordinance. This creates an impossible position for housing administrators like Van Sant, who emphasize: “We’re housing providers. We try to figure out how to provide people housing. We don’t want to weigh in on enforcement. At all.”

Carolyn Coleman, executive director of the League of California Cities, voices the concern shared by many municipal leaders: “I worry that, one, we may leave more cities out, and, two, that we may cause delays in the ability to get more people housed sooner, which I think is the goal.” This sentiment reflects the fundamental tension at the heart of this policy shift—the potential contradiction between demanding accountability and actually delivering services to those in need.

The Accountability Argument: Justification for Stringent Measures

Supporters of the new requirements, including Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, argue that increased accountability is long overdue. The message to local governments, as Quirk-Silva frames it, is clear: “The state has been moving forward, not only with the investment in dollars, but also with legislation. Now it is your time to show that if you want these dollars…you have to show us what you’re doing.”

Governor Newsom himself has repeatedly emphasized accountability as a central theme in his homelessness strategy. His 2023 statement that “People have just had it. We want to see these encampments cleaned up” reflects both public frustration and his administration’s determination to show concrete results. The gradual tightening of funding requirements represents an escalation of this accountability-focused approach, with the current proposals representing the most stringent conditions yet.

The Dangerous Precedent: Bureaucracy Over Humanity

While accountability in government spending is undoubtedly important, the current approach raises serious concerns about prioritizing bureaucratic compliance over human needs. The requirement for a “prohousing designation” is particularly problematic, as noted by Monica Davalos of the California Budget and Policy Center, who points out that revoking funds from areas lacking this designation amounts to “penalizing service providers for something that is outside of their control.”

This policy direction represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both the homelessness crisis and the appropriate role of state government. Rather than empowering local communities to develop solutions tailored to their specific circumstances, the state is imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that may actually hinder effective responses. The complex web of requirements—housing elements, prohousing designations, local matching funds, and demonstrable progress on multiple metrics—creates a bureaucratic labyrinth that could prevent aid from reaching those who need it most.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s critique hits the mark: “We’re making this way too complicated.” Instead of focusing on concrete outcomes like the number of people actually housed, the state is creating a system that rewards paperwork compliance rather than results. This approach risks diverting resources from direct service provision to administrative compliance, ultimately hurting the very people these programs are designed to help.

The Constitutional and Ethical Implications

Beyond practical concerns, this policy shift raises deeper questions about the proper relationship between state and local governments. The principle of local control—that communities closest to problems are best positioned to solve them—is being undermined by heavy-handed state mandates. While the state certainly has a role in ensuring accountability for public funds, the current approach veers into coercive overreach that may violate the spirit if not the letter of California’s system of governance.

Ethically, the approach is even more troubling. Using homelessness funding as leverage to force compliance with unrelated policy priorities represents a dangerous precedent. The individuals experiencing homelessness become bargaining chips in a political struggle between different levels of government, their basic human needs subordinate to bureaucratic requirements. This violates fundamental principles of human dignity and the government’s responsibility to serve its most vulnerable citizens.

A Better Path Forward: Principles-Based Solutions

A more effective approach would begin with several core principles. First, focus on outcomes rather than process—measure success by the number of people housed, not the number of boxes checked on an application. Second, respect local expertise and variation—what works in San Francisco may not work in Mendocino County, and local governments should have flexibility to develop context-appropriate solutions. Third, separate enforcement issues from service provision—housing administrators should not be forced to become enforcement agents, as this compromises their ability to build trust with vulnerable populations.

Specifically, the state should:

Simplify funding requirements to focus on measurable outcomes in reducing homelessness
Provide technical assistance and resources to help communities meet standards rather than punishing them for failure
Separate encampment policies from housing funding to avoid conflating law enforcement with humanitarian aid
Create a graduated system of accountability that rewards progress rather than imposing all-or-nothing thresholds
Involve people with lived experience of homelessness in designing and evaluating programs

Conclusion: Reclaiming Our Moral Compass

The homelessness crisis represents not just a policy failure but a moral failure of our society. How we respond to our most vulnerable neighbors defines our character as a community and as a nation. The current approach—conditioning essential aid on bureaucratic compliance—threatens to compound this failure by prioritizing process over people, paperwork over practical solutions.

We must reject the false choice between accountability and compassion. We can and should demand that public funds be used effectively while also recognizing that the ultimate measure of success is not compliance with regulations but the restoration of dignity and housing for our homeless neighbors. The state should be a partner to local communities, not a punisher. It should provide resources and support, not create obstacles and conditions.

The individuals mentioned in this debate—Megan Van Sant, Robert Ratner, Carolyn Coleman, and others—are on the front lines of this crisis every day. They understand the complexity of the problem and the human cost of policy failures. Their voices should guide our approach, not political calculations or bureaucratic imperatives.

As we move forward, let us remember that behind every statistic about homelessness funding and encampment policies are human beings—our fellow citizens who deserve compassion, dignity, and a place to call home. No amount of bureaucratic compliance will matter if we lose sight of this fundamental truth. The measure of our society will not be found in how many ordinances we pass or designations we achieve, but in how we treat those most in need of our help and humanity.