Submitted by Rosario Rodriguez–
A bill moving through the California State Legislature, SB 802, would create a new regional homelessness governing structure for our county. On paper, it sounds cooperative and coordinated. But before we rush into a new system, we should look carefully at what just happened in Los Angeles.
In early 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to pull county funding and staff out of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) and instead create a county run homelessness department. The county removed more than three hundred million dollars annually, which had been the majority of funding inside the regional agency and redirected it into a new department often referred to as the Department of Homeless Services and Housing.
Over 700 employees were transferred into the county bureaucracy and the county assumed coordination and accountability functions that the regional body had performed. Following the decision, the LAHSA chief executive officer resigned amid turmoil and criticism, and a federal task force was announced to investigate potential misuse of homeless funding.
The county is now budgeting $840 million for the new department in the 2026-2027 budget cycle. The city and county will still coordinate, but each now maintains direct control rather than operating under a Joint Powers Authority.
Los Angeles dismantled its longstanding regional JPA because leaders concluded it lacked financial accountability and operational impact given the scale of homelessness in the region. Authority was shared but ownership was not. The county chose to centralize authority within its own government rather than keep a structure where responsibility was divided.
The disruption increased political tensions and raised concerns about continuity of services, yet leaders still decided it was necessary. What happened in Los Angeles was not political drama. It was a structural failure of a regional homelessness JPA that could not clearly connect spending to outcomes.
The regional structure forced consensus between city priorities focused on encampments, county priorities focused on services, advocates focused on housing first approaches, and providers focused on funding stability. The outcome became paralysis. No one owned unpopular decisions such as closing programs, reallocating funding, or moving shelter sites.
Performance metrics were vague. The system tracked contracts, outreach engagements, and referrals but failed to track exits to permanent housing, time spent homeless and returns to homelessness. Spending increased while outcomes remained unclear. As Los Angeles leaders stated, they could not defend billions without line-of-sight accountability.
That lesson should matter to Sacramento. SB 802 proposes building a regional governance structure. Governance and accountability structures matter. A regional agency must build strong fiscal controls and performance metrics, or it becomes a liability. Sacramento County cannot sit back and fund programs it cannot manage.
If a regional body controls planning but not operations, it becomes a liability sponge exactly like what occurred in Los Angeles. The county must have operational authority, not simply coordinate authority.
The risk grows when layers are added. Federal funds flow to the State of California, then to the County of Sacramento, then to the proposed regional JPA, then to a lead agency, then to contractors, then to providers and sometimes additional subcontractors.
Each layer distances decision makers from measurable performance and increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. We need to audit outcomes tied to dollars. Planning without measurable performance leads to failure because systems expand while results remain uncertain.
I have been both a strong proponent of regional collaboration and a strong critic of the current structure based on my experience serving locally. During my campaign in the summer of 2023 to the Board of Supervisors, I raised the need for coordination of all jurisdictions, so decisions made in one municipality did not negatively impact surrounding communities without their awareness.
Approximately 75 percent of the unhoused population is located within the City of Sacramento, yet policy decisions there affect surrounding jurisdictions. Regional awareness is necessary, but removing local authority is different from coordination.
SB 802 also represents a state mandate directing a structure that the county had already been working toward designing locally. SB802 basically took the county’s model and made it a state mandate by restructuring an existing JPA that currently includes SHRA, The County of Sacramento and the City of Sacramento and renames The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to Sacramento Area Housing and Homeless Agency (SAHHA). The county’s first iteration was presented in early 2025 to the Board of Supervisors that coordinated all jurisdictions within the county.
In June 2025, the first contentious model of SB802 was introduced, and since then, has had 3 modifications.
It was disappointing to see several regional partners shift from a unified opposition to SB 802 last June, to taking a neutral position in recent weeks. Leaders in Elk Grove (5-0), Rancho Cordova (5-0), and Citrus Heights (5-0) had expressed concern about the loss of local control and protecting their own housing trust funds, and the City of Folsom remained steadfast in opposition (5-0). I understand the pressure cities face, but governance decisions of this scale extend far beyond any single funding source. This bill reshapes who holds authority over homelessness policy in our region.
There is no shortage of statements about protecting local decision-making from state mandates… the real question is whether we are prepared to act consistently with those principles. If so, this was exactly that moment! When jurisdictions step back rather than stand firm, the state does not pause the proposal, it advances it. Neutral positions do not preserve local control, they surrender the opportunity to shape the system before it is imposed.
Regional collaboration requires shared responsibility. When some partners disengage, the burden shifts to fewer jurisdictions while the consequences still impact every community. Sacramento County and the City of Folsom should not be left to navigate a structural change affecting the entire region alone, and residents should understand that the structure created today will determine who truly makes decisions tomorrow.
The biggest lesson from Los Angeles is simple. A regional homelessness body cannot survive unless someone clearly owns outcomes. Sacramento should learn from that experience before repeating it. Regional collaboration can succeed, but only when accountability is clear, performance is measurable, and authority matches responsibility. Without those elements, structure replaces results and residents lose trust.
The question before Sacramento is not whether to collaborate. The question is whether we will build a system that can be measured, audited, and understood by the public.
*Editor’s note: This guest opinion has been edited for length. Rosario Rodriguez represents Sacramento County Supervisorial District 4, which includes the cities of Citrus Heights and Folsom, and the unincorporated communities of Orangevale, Antelope, North Highlands, Rio Linda, Elverta, and Rancho Murieta.
The Sentinel welcomes letters about local issues. Share your thoughts in a letter to the editor or opinion column: Click here.
