Questions
Plain answers, including the hard questions people raise against this plan.
- Does an online petition force the council to vote?
No. California courts have held that electronic signatures do not count on an initiative petition (Ni v. Slocum, 2011). This petition works by showing the council, in writing and in person, how many Santa Monica residents want each demand. If the council does not act, the next step is a paper initiative petition signed in ink by registered Santa Monica voters, which the plan lays out.
- Is my signature legally binding on anyone?
No. An online petition binds no official in California and electronic signatures do not count on ballot initiatives. Its force is a count of self-identified Santa Monica residents delivered in public. If the council does not act by March 31, 2027, a paper initiative needs 6,984 valid signatures.
- Can the city make homeless people leave Santa Monica?
Not by force. Courts have struck down laws that expel or bar poor people, and banning a person from whole areas of a city. The city can ban camping citywide, offer a bed, pay for travel to a verified family member, and ask a court for a place-specific stay-away order after a conviction.
- Why open beds before enforcing?
Under In re Eichorn, a person cited for sleeping outside can win a necessity defense if no bed was available. In every city on the evidence page where the street count fell after a ban, beds opened at the same time.
- What will it cost?
About $14.1M to $19.1M a year gross. If the county funds 150 interim beds, the city's new cost is $4.3M to $6.4M a year; if not, $12.9M to $17.9M.
- Does this change anything about drug use?
Yes. The City Attorney files repeat drug cases, the DA files Prop 36 treatment felonies, and the county opens locked and residential beds so a treatment order has somewhere to go.
- How will we know it worked?
A monthly public report of open beds, offers, filings, missed court dates and reunifications, and RAND's street counts each January.
- What happens to my information?
Officials receive your name, your ZIP or neighborhood, and your comment. Your email is never delivered or shown. Residence is self-reported by ZIP and neighborhood; it is not verified.
The strongest objections, answered
- Enforcement just pushes people to Venice.
RAND supports that when enforcement runs alone. This plan opens beds first, coordinates with the county, and measures with RAND's counts, which capture people sleeping rough.
- This criminalizes being poor.
Every enforcement step away from schools, parks and transit requires a documented, available bed offered first. The ban covers conduct, the same rule for everyone, which Grants Pass and Tobe uphold.
- Why not just bus people out of town?
Forcing people out of a city is unlawful under Edwards v. California and Saenz v. Roe, and banning a person from whole areas is unlawful under In re White. Nevada paid San Francisco $400,000 after busing patients. Paid travel to a verified family member is lawful, and the plan expands it.
- The city cannot afford it.
If the county funds the interim beds, the city's net cost is $4.3M to $6.4M a year. If it funds nothing, $12.9M to $17.9M, about 3.4% of the General Fund at most and less than half the $42.5M the city spent in 2022 without a plan or outcome data.
- Treatment does not work under Prop 36.
Statewide only 17% chose treatment, and LA County does not track referrals. That is a bed and data problem; the plan funds locked and residential beds and requires published numbers.
- The unsheltered count already fell 18.7%, so this is unnecessary.
RAND puts Santa Monica's population at a stable 800 to 1,000 since 2017, and the 2026 count ran on about a third of the old volunteers. Targets lock in any real gain.
- Sweeps destroy people's IDs and medication.
The plan requires 48 hours' notice and 60-day storage of property, as the state model ordinance and the Ninth Circuit's Garcia ruling require.