Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to reverse cuts to We Care funding; speakers warn of human and legal costs
Summary
Multiple residents criticized the council's decision to cut We Care funding (speakers said the council blocked $267,000), urged restoration or renewed negotiations, and warned of consequences for unhoused people and the city's reputation and grants eligibility.
During public comment, several residents urged the council to restore or revisit its decision to reduce funding for We Care, the local homelessness-response group.
"Your We Care decision screams that you don't care," said Scott Siegel, a longtime Turlock resident, criticizing the council's action and urging compassion and honesty from elected officials. John Sorrell, a retired professor, said he was "baffled" after learning the city moved to block $267,000 in funding for We Care and warned of consequences including loss of state housing and transportation grants and potential lawsuits tied to missed housing-element deadlines.
Anne Strom said cutting We Care was "completely unacceptable" and framed the council's broader interest in charter status as a worrying signal about local governance and protections for marginalized residents. Other public commenters asked the council to resume negotiations, restore funding, or provide clearer justification for the decision.
Speakers raised several points the council may address: whether We Care had high administrative costs, whether it served nonresidents, and whether facilities and 24-hour services had been discussed in prior negotiations. Residents also asked the council to consider the wider effects of reduced local services on homelessness, public health and street conditions.
Council members acknowledged the concerns raised and noted ongoing efforts to coordinate with nonprofits and other governments; no immediate restoration motion was made during the meeting. Public comment also included a request that a previously adopted 2017 anti-bias resolution be re-posted in the civic lobby after speakers said it had been removed.
