Governor Newsom vetos bill to expand sober housing

The Facts

Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed AB255 on October 1, a bill that would have allowed San Francisco and other cities to spend up to 10% of state homeless funding on sober housing for people in recovery, according to David Sjostedt at The Standard. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Matt Haney and co-sponsored by Mayor Daniel Lurie, aimed to provide dedicated funding for "recovery-focused" housing that emphasizes abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

In his veto message, Newsom claimed existing state guidance already permits such housing within California's Housing First framework, calling the bill "duplicative and costly." Lurie slammed the veto, saying "We are starting to see progress, but the governor's veto of this bill threatens to stop that progress in its tracks."

The Context

The veto directly threatens San Francisco's expanding sober housing initiatives under Lurie's Breaking the Cycle program. The city opened its first abstinence-based homeless shelter last month and has several similar projects in development. The need for drug-free alternatives is stark: at least 166 people fatally overdosed in city-funded hotels in 2020 and 2021 alone, according to Chronicle data.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey called the veto "disappointing," telling The Standard it has caused confusion: "I feel like this could've clarified the law, and now I feel like there's less clarity than before." Haney demanded Newsom clarify whether "recovery housing is fully allowed under current law," warning that without guidance, the state will leave "housing providers paralyzed" and "people in recovery without the homes they need."

The GrowSF Take

This veto exemplifies how state bureaucracy blocks effective local governance. Lurie has fundamentally transformed the city's response to San Francisco's overdose crisis. Yet Sacramento's rigid adherence to Housing First ideology prevents cities from accessing funding for proven alternatives.

Newsom's claim that existing law already permits sober housing funding only makes the veto more frustrating—if that's true, why not clarify it through legislation rather than force cities to navigate bureaucratic ambiguity? This is government dysfunction at its worst: preventing local leaders from implementing solutions that save lives because of process disputes and ideological rigidity.