Newsom Vetoes Bill on Homes for Homeless Homeless

From Marisa KendallCalmness

This story was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

Legislators’ efforts to release state money for homeless homeless homes for the second consecutive year after governor Gavin New, vetoed a bill that sailed to his desk with a little voice.

A assembly Bill 255 They would allow cities and counties to spend up to 10% of their state funding for “recovery housing”, where people live in a sober environment and work to overcome addiction. This move would fix the “residential first” strategy in California, which usually frowned to programs that put barriers in front of housing – such as the requirement of people to remain clean or participate in treatment.

“It is disappointing that the governor vetoed AB 255,” the author of the bill, Assembly Matta Matt HaniDemocrat from San Francisco, said in a statement. “This bill was about giving people to restore a real choice to have a safe and sober home when they need it. Californians who work hard to remain sober are often forced to accommodate where drug use is allowed, and this exposes their recovery and their lives at risk.”

The governor stated that the bill was unnecessary and would create a “duplicate and expensive new legal category” for recovery housing. The Last Guidelines already allow cities and counties to spend state funds on a sober housing, Newsom said in its VetoS

It was news for Hani.

“Unfortunately, this is not the understanding shared by the housing suppliers themselves, the legislature, cities, counties and their lawyers or people looking for a home for recovery,” he said in a text on Calmatters. “I hope that the governor can urgently issue clear instructions that the home recovery home is fully authorized under the current legislation and will authorize the use of state funds for these facilities.”

Without this guide, home suppliers will not be able to move forward on sober live projects, local authorities will remain confused and the state will continue its model not to invest in a sober housing, Hani said.

The Newsom Office did not respond to an email asking for more details about the state’s policies for financing sober housing.

“California remains committed to improving homes for recovery within housing,” Newsom says in its veto message. “I encourage the author and stakeholders to continue working with my administration to strengthen these opportunities in ways that supplement, instead of complicating the state’s approach.”

The bill would create a new system for the country’s housing department to regulate homes for recovery, which would cost approximately $ 4.12 million in the first year, according to the Senate Budget Committee AnalysisS Recovery programs would pay a state certification fee. But these fees, probably in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, would not fully compensate for the costs of the state, according to the analysis.

“I was a little surprised,” said Sharon Gape, director of California’s state policy for housing maintenance, for the veto of the governor. “But when I thought, I decided it probably made sense, because part of the bill was required to create a certification program and there was no funding for it.”

The Rapport organization works with the Hani office on some changes to the bill, including a reduction in the percentage of state funding, which can go to a sober housing of 25% to 10%.

Newsom’s veto message cited the original 25% version of the account. His service did not answer an email with the question why he used the old number.

In an effort to adhere to the first principles of the housing, Hani’s bill stated that residents of the residents of recovery would not be expelled only for recurrence. If they no longer wanted to participate in the recovery, they could continue to live on the spot until the program operator finds a new place to live.

It was Hani’s second attempt to transfer the state’s money to recovery housing. His firstAssembly bill 2479, died last year Against the backdrop of worries that it will take too much money from the low barrier homes and that people can lose their location if they recur.

Since 2016, California requires home suppliers to accept a Model “Housing First”Which emphasizes the introduction of people into housing, even if they are addicted to drugs or alcohol or fight a mental illness. Instead of requiring people to participate in treatment programs as a condition for obtaining housing, providers offer voluntary services. The idea is to accommodate people as quickly and easily as possible, because it is much easier to deal with other problems for someone – like drug addiction – after the person has a roof over his head.

While both Hani and Governor are trying to work a sober home in the existing California strategy, the Federal Administration, meanwhile, is trying to Bride the whole policyS

President Donald Trump has released this summer Enforcement order Targeting federal agencies to cease support for “housing first” policies that “deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery and self -sufficiency.” It directs these agencies to require people involved in Federal Housing funded to participate in the addiction and treatment of mental health.

Hani said he remained a firm believer in the housing first.

“I don’t think it’s meant to help us to be more responsive and effective,” he said about changing federal politics. “He aims to undermine the answers of homelessness and homes at affordable prices.”

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.