This morning, I concluded that I’ve always been a teacher. And my topic is how to be me. I have always tried to learn new skills, be more productive, and improve my performance. And I have never shied away from sharing my life with others.
So I’m going to make sure that I give myself enough time to use my newly-found skills in social media communication to pass on what I’m learning.
The next video in our California Transparency Project is now up on YouTube. The link to it is here.
Providence, R.I. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island today ruled that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HUD Secretary Scott Turner violated the law through their “slapdash imposition of political whims,” when approving new funding restrictions that would have unlawfully conditioned access to federal housing grants on compliance with the Trump-Vance administration’s partisan agenda.
The decision issued today in National Alliance to End Homelessness v. Turner, et al., is a victory for The National Alliance to End Homelessness and Women’s Development Corporation, which filed a lawsuit last September challenging the grant restrictions. The groups are represented by Democracy Forward, National Homelessness Law Center, Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island, and ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island in the matter.
“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means. On behalf of the people and providers we serve, the National Alliance to End Homelessness pledges to continue fighting back against efforts to dismantle homeless response in America.”
“The solution to homelessness is stable, predictable, permanent housing,” said Frank Shea, Executive Director of Women’s Development Corporation. “Organizations providing this housing need fair, predictable programs that are free of politicized criteria. We are glad the court agrees. Our neighbors in need of housing deserve nothing less.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, asserted that HUD’s newly imposed criteria for “Continuum of Care (CoC) Builds” grants were unlawful. This is the third time that HUD has issued this same grant opportunity, even after grant awards had already been announced to Congress. In so doing, HUD introduced extreme political criteria to the application. Under the new funding application rules, service providers and communities were blocked from applying for federal housing funds for new Permanent Supportive Housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness if they operate in jurisdictions with policies the Trump-Vance administration disfavors. This includes states and cities with sanctuary protections and cities that criminalize public camping. The new funding criteria also would have disqualified organizations that provide services considered “harm reduction,” such as Safe Drug Use Criteria practices and those that have inclusive policies for transgender people.
Today’s ruling declares the notice announcing the funding opportunities, the new political criteria used by HUD when deciding to issue grants, and the one-week application period for the grants all to be unlawful and orders the policies vacated and set aside. The court additionally ordered the already-appropriated funding to remain available for award, consistent with the Court’s order.
“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “We are honored to have worked with these brave plaintiffs and co-counsel to hold this administration accountable for their unlawful actions, and we are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”
“Hundreds of thousands of unhoused people need housing and supports to survive. Instead of following Congress’ direction to increase that supply of supportive housing, this Administration unlawfully manipulated a grantmaking process that would have only made homelessness across the country worse,” said Antonia Fasanelli, Executive Director at the National Homelessness Law Center. “We were honored to represent the National Alliance to End Homelessness and to work with our esteemed co-counsel in preventing the Administration from forcing an ideological agenda on a program that is intended to save lives.”
“The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island will continue to fight for Rhode Islanders whenever and however the Trump Administration threatens them with unlawful actions,” said Amy Romero, Chief Legal Counsel of Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island. “We are pleased with this court’s decision that recognizes that this Administration violated the law by imposing their political whims on federal funds intended to address the needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness.”
“The federal government’s distortion of the grant process for blatant political and ideological gains put funding for life-saving services at risk,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “We are extremely gratified that Rhode Island organizations like the Women’s Development Corporation will be allowed to receive federal funding thanks to the court’s decision.”
The plaintiffs are represented by Kristin Bateman, Yenisey Rodríguez, Kristen Miller, and Robin Thurston from Democracy Forward; Amy Romero and Kevin Love Hubbard for the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island; Antonia Fasanelli from the National Homelessness Law Center; and Lynette Labinger for the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island.
Read today’s order here and the original filing here.
We did it.
For the second time in two days, the courts have ruled against the Trump Administration’s efforts to illegally meddle in federal homelessness programs. Today’s ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cannot move forward with its plan to release the December 19th Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to hold an absurd partial-year competition. Our Preliminary Injunction remains in place.
This will bring immense relief to communities across the country who were faced with the prospect of running overlapping local CoC NOFO competitions. Most importantly, this means HUD must renew all awards expiring this year — which will keep people in their homes, program staff employed, and landlords paid their rent. The full opinion can be found here:Read the Full Press ReleaseAnd it’s not over yet. Preventing the December NOFO is just a part of our ongoing litigation. The full merits of our case remain before the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island awaiting final judgment, and we trust our legal counsel has put forth a strong set of arguments for the Court to consider. Democracy Forward and the ACLU Foundation of Rhode Island represent the coalition of nonprofit organizations in the matter; the National Homelessness Law Center represents NAEH and NLIHC; Public Rights Project represents the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Nashville, and Tucson as well as King County; Santa Clara County and San Francisco are also plaintiffs. The Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island represents all plaintiffs.
Today, two local advocates whose dedication to those living on the street here in Santa Rosa is unequaled, joined HEAPA’s Transparency Project. Each were given Fieldy devices and a short course in how to use them. Their addition to the growing number of community activists who are helping HEAPA capture the words and actions of our public servants is greatly appreciated. As part of their training, we are sharing with them what my Fieldy device has to say about the conversation which occurred before and after we met.
Here is a link to the Powerpoint (coming soon) outlining the recent settlement terms between Homeless Action! and the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa resolving their 8-year old federal lawsuit over the rights of the unhoused during clearance of their encampments.
Here is a summary of each:
City Settlement Highlights
The settlement with the City of Santa Rosa provides that the City will not remove unhoused people’s belongings from public property except in very limited circumstances:
There are exigent circumstances—e.g., an immediate threat to health and safety—that require the items’ removal;
When the police arrest someone and safekeep their property; or
When items are collected for evidence.
Instead—and even in exigent circumstances, where possible—the City agrees to give people time to move their own belongings, including letting them move their belongings in multiple trips and other accommodations based on individual needs and circumstances.
The language also includes requirements for City staff and contractors to document instances when they remove belongings from public property, including posting notices where feasible and sharing information on the City’s website.
The City also agreed not to use threats of citation or arrest to pressure people into abandoning their belongings.
These and other requirements will be incorporated into the written policies for SRPD and the City’s Debris Response Team, and the City will train staff on the policy changes.
The City settlement will remain in effect for one year.
County Settlement Highlights
The settlement with Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Community Redevelopment Commission includes policy commitments related to the County’s treatment of unhoused people’s personal property, reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, and due process in County shelter facilities.
The settlement requires the County—including sheriff’s deputies on the Joe Rodota Trail—to provide reasonable written notice of no less than 10 hours before it removes unhoused people’s belongings from public property, as well as storage of those belongings for at least 90 days, with limited exceptions. It also requires a post-removal notice and a process for people to get their belongings back.
The County settlement includes requirements for certain County policies, protocols, and contracts to include language regarding reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities to ensure fair treatment and meaningful access for unhoused people with disabilities.
The County will also comply minimum due process requirements that must be followed before people can be “exited” from County homeless shelters, ensuring that individuals have notice of the reason for the exit and an opportunity to challenge the exit if they disagree.
The County settlement will remain in effect for three years.
Charge your Fieldy. Clip it on (or wear it on your wrist). Press once to record. Today, have a short conversation while wearing Fieldy. It can be anything – a quick chat, a meeting, even a reminder to yourself. Later, simply ask: “What did we talk about?” That’s the easiest way to experience what Fieldy really does.One press. One conversation. And you’ll get it.Go to user manual
Greetings! Here is some resources being considered by HEAPA.org for a local project. We posed to Homeless Action and SAVS that we would help unhoused maintain charge cell phones more easily. Our thought was to place a solar-powered battery-based charger, similar to those used to provide auxiliary power to houses during power outages, at the Arline Francis Center in a pull wagon supervised by Nina Butterfly and her friends. Then, Chessey Etheridge provided us with other options (with links below). We’re trying to decide how much funding we can absorb, and which works best.
Finding effective outdoor charging solutions is a major focus for many cities, as a dead phone can be a total barrier to accessing housing services, employment, and emergency help.
There are a few different models that have seen success across the U.S., ranging from “street furniture” to secure locker systems.
1. Solar Charging Pedestals (“Street Furniture”)
These are stand-up stations designed for high-traffic public areas like parks and transit hubs.
Sunbolt & Legrand: Companies like these produce “Solar Stand-up” stations. They are often ADA-accessible and include USB/USB-C ports and Qi wireless pads.+1
Why they work: They are rugged, weather-resistant, and don’t require trenching for electrical lines if they are solar-powered.
The Challenge: They don’t provide security. Users have to stay with their devices while they charge, which can be difficult for people who need to be elsewhere for appointments.
2. Secure Charging Lockers
This is often considered the “gold standard” because it allows someone to leave their phone safely while it charges.
HonestWaves & Blessings and Beyond: These organizations provide lockers specifically designed for unhoused populations. Some versions use fingerprint scanners or unique PINs for access.
Stevens Point, WI: Recently implemented a set of 24 outdoor lockers (approx. 42″ tall) specifically for unhoused residents to store and charge items. They placed them in well-lit, camera-monitored areas with 24/7 access.
The “SHWASHLOCK” Program (Santa Monica): While tied to a service center (The People Concern), this model combines showers, laundry, and lockers. It’s been successful for nearly 30 years because it builds a “continuum of care” where charging is the first point of contact.
3. Portable Solar Distribution
Rather than a fixed station, some cities distribute individual ruggedized solar power banks.
Santa Barbara (New Beginnings Counseling Center): They partnered to hand out solar-powered chargers with built-in lights to people living in their vehicles.
Community Seva (San Jose): This group raises funds to distribute waterproof, shock-proof solar chargers.
Why they work: They offer mobility and privacy. The user doesn’t have to congregate at a single (sometimes stigmatized) location.
Summary of Best Practices
Feature
Benefit for Unhoused Users
Security
Lockers or fingerprints prevent theft while charging.
Durability
Must be “marine-grade” or powder-coated to handle 24/7 exposure.
Lighting
Stations should be illuminated to increase safety for users at night.
Visibility
Placing them near existing service hubs (shelters/libraries) increases trust and usage.
1) answer questions; 2) provide information to the public; 3) or to solicit information from the public.
Recent changes to the California Brown Act make permanent the allowance by members of legislative bodies to use internet-based social media platforms, “to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body provided that a majority of the members of the legislative body do not use the internet-based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. A member of the legislative body shall not respond directly to any communication on an internet-based social media platform regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body that is made, posted, or shared by any other member of the legislative body.” Section 54952.2 of the Government Code, Paragraph b(3).
What does that mean?
It means that the conversations which have traditionally only taken place in formal, short, difficult to attend meetings of legislative bodies are now allowed on websites like this – as long as my colleagues on the legislative body (Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board) do not participate in the conversation.
They can’t comment on the posts.
They can’t “like” the posts.
They can’t drop an imoji on it.
Like you, they’re invited to read it, but that’s all.
As I am an appointed member of three “legislative bodies” in Sonoma County (Sonoma County Measure O Oversight, Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board, and the Santa Rosa Housing Authority), I can legally utilize the newly-permanent functions enacted by SB707 described above for any of the three legislative bodies. I will be placing posts on a social media platform to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative bodies of which I am a member. Documents which I place on www.heapa.org are accessible free of any charge, in a PDF format, which allows commenting.
The website I’m choosing to communicate with the public is HEAPA (Homeless Emergency Assistance Program Association (www.heapa.org) is a 501(c)(3) public benefit nonprofit established several years ago by my friends and I to support homeless in California. The conversations I post daily on that website will comply with the allowances enacted in the recent Brown Act Update, effective on January 1st of this year. In addition, I will be using a Google Blog (www.californiatransparencyproject.blogspot.com) to post documents I believe the public should review.
I will be sharing with you any and all information from my work on these legislative bodies that I think you ought to know about, answering your questions, and soliciting information from you. I can then do my job of bringing that feedback from all stakeholders into my participation as a member of the legislative body. With all that’s changing in the funding designs for local county safety net human service programs, and the California Legislature and voter direction that local Behavioral Health Boards play a central role in planning solutions, I feel that community involvement is crucial to moving forward. And hopefully you gain a better understanding of what we’re doing and proposing, and have a good chance of impacting it.
Homeless Emergency Assistance Program Association 