San Jose considering sanctioned encampments as interim options face long wait lines, timelines

San Jose may try sanctioned encampments for the first time as part of its homelessness strategy

In an effort to shrink the number of homeless people living on city streets, San Jose’s mayor said he is considering sanctioned encampment sites for those residents — an approach that may be unique in its scale and more permanent than what other Bay Area cities have tried.

Envisioned by Mayor Matt Mahan as “safe sleeping” sites that will help move the city’s over 4,000 unsheltered residents into the pipeline of interim housing, the concept is still in its infancy, and size and placement are still being worked on, city officials said.

Like other safe sleeping sites that have been tried before throughout the region and state, the mayor said they would essentially be comprised of tents on top of a wooden pallet, paired with services such as security and bathrooms.

Mahan said he is inspired by the city of San Diego, which recently opened its second sanctioned camp, capable of holding 400 tents, and wants to prevent uncontrolled fires and crimes at unmanaged sites. The San Diego encampments prohibit on-site drug or alcohol use, missing the curfew more than three times and violent behavior.

“To me, it’s a math problem,” said Mahan on Friday afternoon during a tour of the city’s interim housing sites. “You’ve got to find solutions that are scalable and move people incrementally to greater levels of self-sufficiency.”

The sanctioned encampment idea comes as the city continues to build out its portfolio of interim options for the city’s homeless, which includes three hotel rooms, six tiny home-style shelters and one safe parking site for RVs. The idea, started under Mahan’s predecessor, Sam Liccardo, is to get unhoused residents into a stable environment for months or even a year until they can transition to finding a more permanent solution.

But the interim strategy does carry some pitfalls. It currently takes around one and a half to two years to complete some of the sites, though the City Council is exploring ways to speed up the planning and construction.

In addition, 400 people are currently waiting to get into one of the city’s interim options, according to officials.

The cost can also be steep. In June, the city’s budget director estimated that the city’s portfolio of interim housing options could reach about $60 million by 2030, describing the situation as a “challenge” considering San Jose has traditionally seen tight budgets over the years. The mayor has pushed back on the cost concerns, however, stating that external funding streams could cut down the price.

Another big question is where the city would put a sanctioned encampment — and whether residents in a particular area would support it. In recent years, the city’s interim options have faced some pushback, though city officials say more of its residents understand the need.

“I think you can have many rungs on the ladder,” said Mahan.

In San Jose, sanctioned encampments were first considered in 2021, but city officials decided not to go ahead with the concept at the time. Instead, the City Council put more resources into expanding services for unmanaged encampments, such as hygiene stations and trash pick up. It was estimated that setting up a managed site would cost $1.5 million a year.

Since then Mahan has taken a more hard-line approach toward unsheltered homelessness, describing the situation as a humanitarian crisis and comparing it to those who were displaced during the 1906 earthquake that struck San Francisco.

Other cities have tried sanctioned encampments, including San Francisco, which built out temporary sites near its City Hall and on Haight-Ashbury during the height of the pandemic to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among its unhoused population.

Dr. Margot Kushel, director of UC San Francisco’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, said San Francisco suffered “eye-popping” costs related to the sites, because of staffing. One analysis by the San Francisco Chronicle found each tent cost $61,000 a year to manage. Kushel said while she isn’t against the idea of sanctioned camps, the problem comes down to having enough interim or permanent options on the other end so the unhoused can find a solution to their situation.

“There’s really no way around the facts,” said Kushel. “The solution here has to be housing. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a role if these managed encampments are low barrier. That can help. But none of this is going to solve the problem. Creating housing helps.”

Silicon Valley Law Foundation attorney Tristia Bauman, who has battled cities over their homelessness policies, said sanctioned sites could be impactful — but also worried about San Jose using the strategy as a way to abate unmanaged camps by utilizing law enforcement.

“An outdoor encampment falls far short of housing,” she said. “And it should never be seen as a solution to homelessness. It can, however, be a crisis intervention. To provide (homeless residents) with stability, security, and some resources and dignity. So long as we are urgently working on their access to permanent housing, which ultimately is what every household in this community needs and deserves.”