☆ Pam Foley's misguided opposition to community shelters

Depicted: The Nevada Cares Campus emergency shelter. Image by Washoe County.

Thanks to the groundbreaking work of new Housing Director Erik Soliván, the SJ Council appears to be (finally) pivoting towards a Shelter First homelessness strategy. But Soliván & team will still have to overcome a lot of false narratives from councilmembers and Housing First advocates alike, as evidenced by CM Pam Foley's comments made while she rejected consideration of congregate shelters at a 2024 Rules Committee meeting. We explore the mistaken assumptions in Foley's anti-shelter statements, below in this Opp Now exclusive.

False assumption #1: The homeless prefer dangerous and unsanitary creekside living to being in a shelter.

CM Foley: "I look at those pictures and, frankly, I think, 'Who's going to live in that congregate care?' Some will, but most won't. I think of myself sleeping in them. Some look like there's a lot of beds. And the woman shared her story of her son who has apnea. I have concerns about that, as well. So the quality of sleep, or lack of sleep, in that many beds is a concern." (1:00:05–1:00:35)

Analysis: Perhaps Foley hasn't spent much time living in a creekside encampment with no bathrooms, just a tent, constant fires, high crime and sexual assault rates, and rampant drug use. Data suggests that, by far, most homeless people would prefer the safety and comforts of a managed shelter. There is a long *waiting list* to get into SJ's current shelters (6-9 months at HomeFirst's Reception Center). And other cities with large scale shelters find they fill up immediately.

Go Deeper:

• Nat'l homelessness group supports congregate shelters for the most needy
• How Housing First dogma exacerbates and perpetuates homelessness pain and suffering in California and Silicon Valley
• Pre-engineered shelters: A proven alternative to SJ's failed Housing First orthodoxy

False assumption #2: Paying $1m/door for new apartments for the homeless is more cost-effective than $30k/bed.

CM Foley: "So I have a lot of issues—not to mention, a couple of the areas are landfill areas; and remediation would have to occur, which also could be very expensive, and expensive in the millions of dollars. And then I look at the numbers, and I'm not sure about the cost of construction." (1:01:38–1:02:03)

Analysis: Foley (and the SJ City Council, generally) has a long history of approving the funding of Permanent Supportive Housing, which generally costs upwards of $500k/unit, and often up to $1m/unit. And takes years—often up to a decade—to build. Compare this to the fact that shelter costs generally are:

• $30k/bed

• Remediation costs for these sites—even if necessary—generally will be less than the cost of a handful—if that—of the PSH units Foley has regularly approved.

• Any remediation costs will also be recovered as land value improvements, if and when the city sells the community shelter sites.

False assumption #3: It's okay to keep people on the streets while we develop a preferred solution.

CM Foley: "It's true we don't have enough shelters right now, but I'm not sure shelters are the right solution, either. I'm more of a fan of safe sleeping sites, as I was several years ago, when Councilmember Cohen and I brought it forward." (58:51–59:07)

Analysis: Foley acknowledges, correctly, that lack of shelter is at the core of the city's homelessness crisis. But when given the opportunity to add more shelter—at a scale that would actually make a dent in homelessness—she rejects the idea in favor of safe sleeping sites, which have little ability to substantially and quickly address our urgent need for shelter at scale.

Here's why:

• Safe sleeping sites are generally much smaller in scale and less efficient with using land than community shelters, and therefore can only help a smaller number of unsheltered people per square foot.

• Safe sleeping sites are less humane than community shelters. Safe sleeping sites offer only a designated area for people to pitch their tents, oftentimes on a palletized flooring system, lacking many of the services and protections that community shelters provide such as heating, air conditioning, and protection from the weather. Safe sleeping sites offer no provisions for personal security like lockers or sanitation services, and these sites typically have less oversight, which can increase the risk of fires, assaults, or criminal activity. Shelter generally requires sobriety and enforces other site rules, where safe sleeping sites do not. For these reasons and more, safe sleeping sites are actually less humane and potentially more dangerous than community shelters.

False assumption #4: Doing the right thing will take up too much staff time.

CM Foley: "Finally, I'm concerned about the cost of the study and the staff time involved. And what are they—where are they taking their time away from in order to do this study? It can't be the storm water permits, but it's the same group of people who would be working on it." (1:02:23–1:02:43)

Analysis: Reassigning staff from strategically flawed programs and onto more efficient, humane, and cost-effective solutions is the Council's job.

Watch the whole Rules Committee meeting here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles

Email Address:

First Name:

Last Name:

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.