Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homekey University Terrace topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and service providers urge Riverside council to reconsider Homekey funding for University Terrace conversion
Summary
Scores of residents, nonprofits and service providers urged the Riverside City Council to reconsider its recent vote to decline roughly $20–21 million in state Homekey funding for a Quality Inn conversion on University Avenue, saying the Housing First project would house veterans, seniors and other vulnerable residents and could trigger outside investments if revived.
Scores of residents, nonprofit leaders and providers urged the Riverside City Council on Jan. 27 to reverse a recent decision and accept state Homekey funding to convert the Quality Inn into University Terrace Homes.
Speakers at a lengthy public-comment period said the project — backed by a $20 million state grant and local development partner Riverside Housing Development Corporation — would provide permanent supportive housing for about 114 people, with on-site services and security. ‘‘Housing is not the end of the work. It is the foundation that makes all other work possible,’’ said Ernesto Rangel, a Ward 2 resident and organizer who urged reconsideration.
The appeals came after the council declined the grant at an earlier meeting. Several speakers said the state had extended the acceptance deadline and asked council members who voted no to move for reconsideration. ‘‘If this amount of money is turned away, what does that say about us and what we really mean about homelessness and housing in the city of Riverside?’’ Janice Ruth said during public comment.
Nonprofit leaders described costs and capacity: Claire Jefferson Glipa of Family Promise of Riverside said private investment and the project’s support services could be at risk if the council does not reverse course. Supporters noted research on a Housing First approach and gave local examples where conversions reduced emergency calls and hospital visits.
Opponents and some council members have raised questions about service capacity, local control and long‑term public costs. Several callers and speakers urged clearer plans for wrap‑around services, security and how the city would cover any costs beyond the state grant. Council members who opposed the earlier acceptance said they wanted additional assurances and financial detail before accepting the award.
The meeting record shows no motion to reconsider the earlier vote was made during this session. City staff noted that the state had extended the deadline for approval and that council members who had previously voted no could file a motion for reconsideration. The council did not take a formal vote on reconsideration at this meeting.
What happens next: supporters asked one or more council members to file a motion to reconsider so the council could vote before the state’s extended deadline. The administration and nonprofit partners said they are available to provide more detailed cost projections and program oversight plans if the council asks staff to return with that information.
