San Benito County and the City of Hollister are funding 40 additional homeless shelter beds this year at the projected total cost of $197,000 in anticipation of an unusually cold and wet winter. This is an expensive program with no assurances that it will used by the homeless population, but I support it because it’s in my self-interest to do so. It is my evaluation that based on weather forecasts and the size of the homeless problem, being unprepared is far too risky an option and the total costs, if things go bad, will far exceed the cost of this “insurance policy.”
The county’s $150,000 comes from grant money and the city’s $47,000 contribution is from Hollister’s General Fund. The problems of the homeless tend to center around urban areas where they can find some support and/or services.
I’m no bleeding heart and I’m extremely pessimistic about solving the homeless problem, especially in California. There are a multitude of reasons for homelessness and in most cases several of them apply to each individual or family unit. They include, but are not limited to, substance abuse of every type, mental illness, psychological disorders, societal dropouts, restricted earning capability, and the cost of housing, which is driven by economic, environmental, and social factors.
The notion that we are going to untie this Gordian Knot when we have been unable to solve even a single primary issue on a significant scale reinforces my pessimism. Therefore, I do not support this program with the notion that the sun will come up tomorrow and things will be a lot better, but this will prevent some of them from getting a lot worse.
A “no cost option” does not exist for middle-class taxpayers such as me. If a mean, wet, winter comes in and the homeless are still encamped along the San Benito riverbed at night there is a good chance that many of them will be sick or injured; if the rainfall causes the river to suddenly flood, lives will surely be at risk. For every emergency in this dangerous area, our public safety employees will respond often risking injury to themselves with the associated pain, career jeopardy, and significant costs to the county and/or city. When a sick or injured homeless person is taken to the local hospital they will be covered by Medi-Cal, which, in my opinion, does not even approach the actual cost of treatment – you and I pay the difference. Limited bed space occupied by those with easily preventable problems are not available to others and the same goes for staff time. Funding shortages for medical care eventually impacts all users of the county healthcare system and county taxpayers.
Will the homeless choose to use the extra beds we are going to provide? Probably not. The reason is that the shelter rules will require that they be sober and have no drugs with them. If you’re addicted, as many of the homeless are, giving up your “pain pill” of choice – alcohol or drugs – is a lot harder than the non-addicted realize. However, things can always go from bad to worse, and if we are going to even try and clean up the riverbed encampment as the city proposes, we have to have something available. Having people laying in the streets is not a viable option.
Additionally, having beds and meals accessible during a forecasted very nasty winter will come in handy for those who might end up needing temporary shelter due to the irresistible forces of Mother Nature. It can happen to anyone and has happened to millions of people; FEMA trailers do not show up on the day following a disaster and your plans to ride out the immediate aftermath of a mudslide, flood, or big earthquake in a tent in your backyard will not look as good in cold and pouring rain and fast flowing water as it did in June when you made them.
Like I said, this is an insurance policy and like every other insurance policy we will complain mightily about the premiums, but we carry it for a reason; the alternative is a lot worse.