Santa Ana city officials are wrestling with whether or not to increase the number of inspections for those living in permanent supportive housing – a potential move that is already drawing weary among some city council members.

Earlier this month, Councilman Phil Bacerra asked his colleagues to consider more routine inspections at supportive housing communities, making visits monthly instead of annually.

This comes after a police investigation back in February found a supportive housing unit in Santa Ana selling narcotics, prompting city leaders to ask city staff to come back with an ordinance in the summer in order to address illegal behavior in these housing units aimed at getting people off the streets and preventing others from falling into homelessness. 

In a May 14 phone interview, Bacerra said that annual inspections for supportive housing units in Santa Ana aren’t cutting it.

“There may be a completely different way to address this issue – and I’m ok with that – but an annual inspection into a community that allowed for a drug den to fester is unacceptable,” Bacerra said.

Permatitive supportive housing often incorporates social services from the county, including mental health resources, for individuals and families with disabilities that are experiencing homelessness or are at high risk of living on the streets.

“The reason someone is in a community with supportive services is because they need the extra attention,” Bacerra said.

In recent years, Santa Ana has seen multiple developments of permanent supportive housing communities, with the most recent being an 89-unit apartment complex called the North Harbor Village on Harbor Boulevard erected by the Jamboree Housing Corporation. 

On the housing developer’s website, it reads “individuals who are coming from homelessness with a disabling condition are typically identified through outreach teams and put on a coordinated entry list to prioritize those with the most immediate needs.”

In some cases, “units are developed for a specific disability such as serious and persistent mental illness or a developmental disability.”

But some city council members publicly pushed back after questions surfaced if the city could afford it.

“I can’t say that I could see this being successful two years from now,” said Councilman David Penaloza at the May 6 city council meeting, highlighting that having city inspectors check every housing unit would be costly.

At the same meeting, Councilman Benjamin Vazquez brought up concerns of the city’s ability to use more tax dollars for more inspections, but said “something needs to be done.”

Councilwoman Jessie Lopez said she’d like city staff to bring back a legal analysis on how to approach an ordinance that allows for more city inspections before considering bringing the item back for a vote.

Councilwoman Thai Viet Phan asked city staff to figure out ways to regulate property managers that’ll help prevent illegal activities taking place in supportive housing communities. 

“This is not about discrimination,” said Mayor Valerie Amezcua, adding that those who sell or use drugs in supportive housing need to be dealt with to prevent further crime.

In response to the council member requested item, some advocacy organizations have called to question the authority that Santa Ana city leaders have when it comes to homelessness.

In a May 6 email to the city clerk’s office, the Fair Housing Council of OC questioned the legality of any ordinance that is intrusive towards those already in need of stable housing.

“Such ordinances have been repeatedly challenged by the U. S. Department of

Justice on the basis that they have a disparate impact or discriminatory effect on the basis of

minority or disability status,” wrote Denise Cato, president of the nonprofit organization.

Richard Walker, a directing attorney on housing and homelessness prevention for the Public Law Center, wrote an email to Santa Ana City Council members that urged against an ordinance that is reacting to illegal activity in supportive housing.

“This is not evidenced-based policy development and is potentially discriminatory in its intent,” Walker wrote.

He continued “individuals in need of Permanent Supportive Housing may be wary of accepting this housing and service option, if they will be subject to monthly inspections which not only violate their privacy, but potentially have negative impacts on disabilities they may have.”

Hugo Rios is a Voice of OC reporting fellow. Contact him at hugo.toni.rios@gmail.com or on Twitter @hugoriosss.