An Open Response to the City of Fremont

On July 29, the City of Fremont issued an open letter from Mayor Lily Mei regarding the controversial navigation center that has been proposed by the city. In this letter the Mayor calls on the people of Fremont to have compassion for the homeless.

This letter is an open response to the Mayor’s comments from a compassionate, yet concerned citizen.

Mayor Mei,

Thank you for taking the time to engage the public on the navigation center. This proposed center has generated a great deal of controversy within the city and the promotion of an open, honest, and inclusive dialog is the best way to gain the trust and support of the community as we seek to deal with this great challenge. Yet in your letter, you seem to gloss over some key points.

In your letter you point out that while Fremont has been ranked as the “happiest city” in America in the past, recently many residents have been quite unhappy. You attribute this growing discontent among the citizenry as the result of the city studying the potential creation of a temporary Housing Navigation Center as a part of a comprehensive program to address the growing homeless population in Fremont.

We can all agree that homelessness is one of the many great challenges facing our society today. Bay area cities are particularly impacted, as the homeless population has been surging across the region. There are many reasons for the increase in the homeless population. For many it is a case of good, hard working people who suffered an unexpected problem, such as a loss of employment, injury, illness, or other unforeseen issue. Given the number of people that are challenged with simply existing paycheck to paycheck, combined with the high cost of living in our region, and it does not take much for someone – for some family – to find themselves homeless.

The over $2 Million in Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) grant funds that you refer to can, and should, be used to help these people. We all agree on that. The people of Fremont would be happy to see that happen.

But those are not the people that a homeless navigation center is designed to serve. According to current California legislation, Subdivision (b) of Section 8409 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations states that “projects shall operate in a manner consistent with housing first practices including the following:

• (1)Ensuring low-barrier, easily accessible assistance to all people, including, but not limited to, people with no income or income history, and people with active substance abuse or mental health issues;”

Further, Section 8255 of the Welfare and Institutions Code states that “Housing First providers offer services as needed and requested on a voluntary basis and that do not make housing contingent on participation in services.”

Simply put, as a low barrier to entry facility, navigation centers were specifically designed for long term chronically homeless adults. This particular segment of the homeless population is more likely to consist of those with active addiction issues and while the centers do offer addiction treat programs, there is no requirement that participants actively engage in those programs. Drug and alcohol users are encouraged, but not required, to seek sobriety.

Further, as an adults only facility, children cannot be housed at the center. Families will not be served there.

No one is suggesting that we stigmatize or ignore the needs of this segment of the homeless population. We can and should develop a plan to address the needs of these people. But are they the top priority? Should we not first focus our limited resources on those good, hard working people who simply had something go wrong?

Also, consider the following:

Even though the City of Newark has elected to pool their HEAP grant money with Fremont, the total grant funding only equals $2,078,880.00. This is insufficient to cover even a single year of operational costs for the center, which are quoted as being $2,306,033.00. This is the figure quoted by BACS, the provider that has already been chosen by Fremont to operate the facility. And this does not even take into consideration the construction costs of the center.

Other than a strong hope for another one-time grant from the state, how this center will be paid for on an on-going basis has not been disclosed by the city. Let us not build this center, only to see it close due to a lack of funding shortly after opening.

You correctly state that some cities, such as Hayward, have chosen to build navigation centers. However, you fail to mention that they have actively chosen to place them in commercial or industrial areas. Only Fremont is considering placing a navigation center in a residential area. No other city is doing this.

Further, other cities, such as Union City, have determined the money could be better spent in other ways. The grant does not require the money be spent on a navigation center. The money can be spent on alternative programs that are designed to help the recently homeless and those in imminent danger of becoming homeless.

In your letter you state that the Navigation Center concept is operating successfully in other cities, but conclusive evidence of this remains elusive. San Francisco has been operating a number of these centers for years, yet they have a poor track record. Officially published results show that across all centers and over time, only 14% of San Francisco navigation center residents have successfully transitioned to long term housing. The majority of that city’s “success” is attributed to the Homeward Bound program which simply ships people out of town. Other centers, such as the one in Berkeley that is the basis of the Fremont facility, claim wildly successful numbers. Officially, however, their numbers have yet to be published.

Even if Fremont were to move forward on the center, by the city’s own estimates, it will not open until sometime in mid-2020, with the first residents moving to housing at the end of that year. During that time the problem will only get worse.

And finally, where exactly is this affordable housing that the residents of this center are going to navigate to? This is a question that the city has yet to answer.

So, I ask you, would it not be more compassionate to spend the money now on services and programs that can have a material impact today? HEAP Funding guidelines state that the money can also be spent on:

“Services: Street outreach, health and safety education, criminal justice diversion programs, homelessness prevention activities, and other service activities.

Rental Assistance or subsidies: Housing voucher, rapid re-housing programs, flexible housing subsidy funds, and eviction prevention strategies.”

We are a compassionate city, and that is why we want to see the money spent effectively on programs that can help people today. We want the money to be spent on real solutions, to help real people in need, right now. Not on unproven, underfunded centers that may or may not help someone, sometime next year.