This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Throughout Gavin Newsom’s governorship, he and local government officials have been squabbling over financial support and accountability for programs to reduce California’s largest-in-the-nation homelessness crisis.

Simply put, Newsom has blamed local officials for not clearing their streets of squalid encampments, while they have complained that piecemeal state appropriations make it impossible to create effective ongoing programs.

With Newsom and state legislators in the final throes of fashioning a new state budget, and facing chronic gaps between income and outgo, the verbal exchanges between the governor and local officialdom have become sharper and the differences between county and city officials have become more obvious.

City-County Divisions Complicate Response

While homelessness is largely found within cities, particularly large cities, county governments operate most of the medical and social programs to combat the syndrome, leading to conflicts over which local government should be held accountable.

The division among local governments is a statewide problem, but it is most apparent in Los Angeles County, where a joint city-county homelessness agency is being dismantled amid sharp criticism of its failures.

When he unveiled his latest version of the budget this month, Newsom pledged to ramp up pressure on the locals by introducing new accountability processes and conditioning state aid on identifiable results. He also proposed a model ordinance he said local governments could use to clear encampments.

Governor Demands Results, Not Excuses

“No one in our nation should be without a place to call home. As we continue to support our communities in addressing homelessness, we expect fast results, not excuses,” Newsom said in a statement. “While we are pleased by the progress many communities have made to address the homelessness crisis, there is more work to do.”

County officials responded combatively, reiterating their position that year-by-year financial support from the state undermines their efforts. They proposed a five-year experiment, dubbed AT HOME, in which multi-year financing would be assured in counties that cooperatively delineate responsibilities for specific programs among local governments.

The California State Association of Counties also released an analysis of nearly $30 billion in state spending on housing and homelessness during Newsom’s governorship that it says failed to be effective.

Competing Visions for Homelessness Solutions

“For years, the state has thrown one-time money at this problem without any real strategy,” Jeff Griffiths, an Inyo County supervisor and president of the association, said in a statement. “Our AT HOME proposal is credible, comprehensive, and directly addresses the state-imposed barriers to reducing homelessness. It’s time to act.”

The Big City Mayors coalition adopted a more conciliatory response to Newsom’s latest crackdown threat, releasing an “accountability update” to highlight what it said had been successful uses of annual state grants and asking Newsom and legislators to renew them.

“I’ve seen firsthand how our cities use (homeless) funds effectively to address homelessness,” the coalition’s chair, Riverside Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson, said in a statement. “In Riverside, we’ve reached functional zero for youth homelessness — ensuring every young person aged 18 to 24 has a path off the street.

“With 94 permanent supportive housing units in the pipeline for vulnerable populations like veterans and individuals with disabilities, we know that real progress is possible. But it takes continued partnership between the state and our cities to keep this momentum going and continue delivering meaningful results.”

The blame game is likely to escalate, even as homelessness continues to fester, the voting public becomes more frustrated and Newsom’s governorship enters its final stage.

When the history of California’s homelessness crisis is written, who will be held accountable for the eventual outcome, either positive or negative?

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Make Your Voice Heard

GV Wire encourages vigorous debate from people and organizations on local, state, and national issues. Submit your op-ed to bmcewen@gvwire.com for consideration.