California Governor Gavin Newsom has once again faced fierce backlash over his decision to veto Assembly Bill 255, a bipartisan measure aimed at addressing the state’s growing homelessness crisis through expanded recovery housing programs. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Matt Haney, sought to allocate up to 10% of state homelessness funds to support recovery housing models that integrate shelter with sobriety requirements, accountability measures, and supportive services. Critics view Newsom’s veto as a failure to address a systemic crisis that has worsened significantly under his tenure, despite the state’s commitment to the ‘Housing First’ approach since 2016.
Newsom’s veto of AB 255 comes at a critical juncture, as California’s homeless population has surged by 40% since 2016, marking a stark contrast to the state’s 2013 pledge to end homelessness in a decade. The governor’s administration dismissed the bill as ‘unnecessary,’ claiming current guidelines already permit sober housing and warning against ‘duplicative’ categories. However, advocates argue that recovery housing provides a more effective solution for individuals suffering from addiction and mental illness, offering community, structure, and accountability that align with the realities of those in crisis.
Under the ‘Housing First’ model, which California adopted as a state policy, homeless individuals are provided immediate housing without conditions such as sobriety or treatment. However, this approach has been criticized for failing to address the complex needs of many homeless individuals, particularly those struggling with addiction or mental health disorders. Statistics show that despite a 300% increase in federal and state spending on homelessness since 2013, the crisis has only intensified, with homelessness rising nationally by 35% and sharply in California.
Recovery housing, the core focus of AB 255, is seen as a crucial alternative. Research, including a 14-year Boston study, indicates that residents of recovery housing are more likely to achieve long-term stability, with significantly higher retention rates compared to traditional housing models. Critics of the ‘Housing First’ policy argue that its reliance on voluntary engagement often fails to provide the necessary support for individuals who lack the capacity to make decisions due to conditions like anosognosia, a brain-based disorder that results in self-awareness deficits.
Newsom’s veto of AB 255 is being interpreted not just as a policy decision but as a moral failure. Advocates argue that by blocking the bill, he has prioritized ideological rigidity over compassion, leaving those in desperate need without access to the resources and support that recovery housing could provide. With California home to approximately 30% of the nation’s homeless population and nearly half of its unsheltered homelessness, the need for innovative, compassionate solutions has never been more urgent. The rejection of AB 255 represents a missed opportunity to balance ideological principles with effective, real-world interventions for one of the state’s most pressing challenges.