At a special meeting of the Modesto City Council on Friday, October 20, Councilmembers rejected a motion to direct staff to study safe sleeping sites for managing homelessness. The vote was four to three.
Approximately 100 people turned out for the event, and public support for the proposal was overwhelming. As Councilmember Eric Alvarez noted, no member of the public spoke against the proposal.
Opponents of the proposal made questionable claims about safe sleeping and safe camping for homeless people. Mayor Sue Zwahlen said she had never seen a successful safe camping program for homeless people and that the campsites were not truly safe. Police Chief Brandon Gillespie said he had visited cities, including Chico, that had implemented safe ground and found it didn’t work.
Both statements appeared erroneous to people who routinely study homeless management tactics throughout the state. Just a few days ago, San Diego opened its second safe sleeping site, featuring 400 two-person tents. San Diego’s first safe sleeping site contains 122 tents and provides shelter for 148 people. It’s highly unlikely San Diego would commit to 400 more two-person tents if the first site were unsuccessful, yet Modesto Mayor Zwahlen insists there are no successful examples of safe camp sites.
In May of this year, the City of Chico celebrated the first anniversary of a homeless community whose residents live in pallet shelters. City officials agreed the pallet village has been a success.
“We can make a lot more improvements moving forward, but I do agree that we are in a much better place today than we were a year ago,” said City Councilmember Deepika Tandon. Butte County Supervisor Tod Kimmelshue said, “I believe that what we have done here today is an example for the rest of California as many communities work to find solutions to homelessness,”
Nonetheless, and despite ample evidence to the contrary, some Modesto officials continue to insist safe ground for homeless people does not work.
The safe ground proposal offered by Councilmembers Eric Alvarez, Nick Bavaro and Chris Ricci asked the mayor and council to approve a staff study that would develop a plan for safe sleeping sites to be managed by an outside contractor. The staff study would have been developed within sixty days and then submitted to councilmembers for approval.
In rejecting the plan, city officials made it clear they support the sweeps, rousts, and citations that make up the city’s current management tactics for homelessness. They also made it clear they disagree with people on the ground who claim local shelters are often at full capacity and therefore can’t accept referrals.
Councilmember Chris Ricci summed up the feelings and thoughts of the majority of public speakers in the room when he said:
The issue is that what we’re doing isn’t making a big enough impact on the problem right now. The city’s official policy is we house 30 to 60% of the homeless in our parks, on our streets, in our neighborhoods, and at our businesses….I will continue to advocate for emergency shelter. It is something that Councilmember Bavaro describes as street to camp. Right now I have three parks in my district that are homeless shelters — Enslen, Pike, and Sutter Parks — there are dozens of shelter options we can do, but we aren’t doing it. I cannot accept the status quo. I can’t accept cleaning up all the drugs at some of our parks, but then 2 months later we’re back right where we started….We have a responsibility to take this problem head on and our residents don’t need to tolerate it anymore.
Jeremiah Williams, after assuring people for months that he favors safe camping for homeless people, joined Mayor Zwahlen and Councilmembers David Wright and Rosa Escutia-Braaton in voting against the proposal. Meanwhile, the city’s parks, streets and neighborhoods remain the default sleeping sites for people with nowhere to go.
That shindig put on, October 20, 2023, was another wasted expense. The vote was already in before it ever started. Police Chief Gillespie had already made his thoughts know at a previous City Council meeting, he does not want to be further bothered, period.
All that for a study to accomplish what?
Likely, the decision makers in the Chico, CA, suit settled without a study involved.
Studies cost money and time. What has this city come to that a study was even considered necessary? A waste of more money that belongs to Homeless victims, of callous naysayers!
Governor Newsom passed something recently allowing the Church to use land to provide for the unhoused. “Yes In God’s Back Yard” (YIGBY) Newsom emphatically stated. Anyone also looking into what is involved to make something on Church land happen for the unhoused? If I recall, right, there were no complicated zoning, etc. issues to stand in the way. Perhaps he choose that path, to circumvent political NIMBY’s who think they can consistently ride roughshod over the needs of the unhoused, and, the wants of the housed who are sincerely concerned for them.
I see a legal suit in Modesto’s near future. There is no more playing it safe for the Mayor or MPD intent on criminalizing the impoverished with Sweeps and Citations.
Unconcerned citizens need to ask the Modesto City Council why it is that other cities have allowed safe encampments, and are currently developing and looking into developing even more of the same safe encampments. Those cities have made the effort to look at all the angles from various perspectives and decided to do what was best for the unhoused under prevailing circumstances.
Modesto wants to continue chancing fate,
gambling on reinventing what has yet to work. Their lackluster get up and go has cost the unhoused severely, it has long been time to pass the cost directly into the city of Modesto severely. Make those making the wrong decisions wonder to themselves why they did not make the just, merciful decisions. They cannot say they did not have opportunity to do right by those too poor to afford safety. How many deaths do they have on the docket?
How many years have they been pussy footing around with poor defenseless marginalized people they oppress?
I’m a homeless female who has been homeless here in Modesto since 2013.
Tent city wasn’t perfect but it was manageable&do able. The crime rate was down and me personally I vote to bring back Another “tent City” and I feel. The City of Modesto is so far off their rocker it’s pathetic get it together so to speak.
Dear Donna Wheat
Thank you for stating your choice for some kind of a safe encampment with at least tents.
I would like to read more choices from unhoused and housed as to wanting at the very least tents at safe ground encampments.
Eight unhoused people sued the city of Chico, CA and much changed for the better for Chico homeless. Even 177 pallet homes placed, if the number is correct. Plus rules on how the Chico police had to change their ways towards the homeless.
Research “Chico, CA, Sued by Homeless.” Modesto’s homeless can sue just like in Chico. Details are in the news in Chico. Spread the word amongst your selves, please…
If the unhoused tried suing for the violations against us, I assure you we would receive a lot more harassment and we would likely be forced to drop it. Even the people who are charged with trying to protect us are more to be feared than trusted. Many unhoused people work, are not criminals, and soon enough there will be so many more priced out of the housing and rental market. When it costs $1200 for a studio in Airport, somebody needs to do something. Modesto is ALWAYS 25 years behind the places that actually work, why are we so darn happy about such mediocrity?
I am certainly not aware of one person who deserves security and safety over another. NIMBY will one day be a as laughable as the pet rock, but only when those who practice it find themselves the victims of poorly designed legal and ethical legislation that they can no longer exploit. I assure you the ones acting entitled as homeowners now will feel just as entitled to be first in line for non existent services the day they wind up out here.
People forget that there ARE way more unhoused people like them than not, and the unspoken rules about who is falling into it aren’t the same as even a decade ago.
No one is safe from capitalism. Period.
I can’t believe how this city will keep playing with the homeless lives by moving them around and taking their motor homes away and not treating them like human beings…wtf,,,that’s why this city looks like a fourth world country….all this country out here and you can’t find a safe place,,,fire them all…oll vote for that…
[…] Story continues […]
This city of Modesto’s irresponsibility toward the unhoused is contemptuous!
It seems leaders (like the ones that voted against “safe housing”) aren’t real leaders but are more concerned about the money it might cost. I grew up in Modesto, joined the military, and have been to cities without many homeless at all. The church plays a much more priority role in feeding and housing the homeless. Housing is expensive here and all homeless should receive help. Voting “no” shows me… you’re all no leaders at all.
Yes, Desert Storm Veteran, they cower before the NIMBY posse. They would rather spend money developing Kidde parks and putting in sidewalks, where
those without housing are not welcome.
Yes, the church does much of what it is commissioned to do, feed the sheep, and provide for the poor.
Let us see how much they fulfill their mandate to house the poor now that zoning and other complications have been lifted off of their God gifted land.
Pray along with me, and the rest of God’s church, that it chooses wisely. Much of the church seems to have forgotten why they live in Messiah.
I’m interested to see if there is an alternative solution to be presented. The issue cannot be defined. The question remains, what’s the solution?
I suggest all the board members go live unhoused for a month in the winter and then a month in the hottest time in the summer. No money and just a back pack of items. No car. No family. No job. And see what it’s like. That’s reality. Until you’ve had to do it. You have absolutely no idea how it is to live like this.
I mean, not be able to use their insurance. Have to go get their daily meal at Salvation Army brown bag. Which is a peanut butter sandwich and a couple other things. The clothes on their back. They might be able to catch up w/the shower truck guy or the wash/dry truck person. This might make a difference. I’d love to sit down w/some people and talk about being educated and non addicted, having had a career and ending up homeless in Modesto. What it was like. I’ve got a lot of input that needs to be talked about.