Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homekey Plus Reconsideration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, advocates urge Riverside council to reconsider rejecting Homekey Plus funding
Summary
Scores of residents, students, faith leaders and legal advocates urged the council to revisit its vote to decline roughly $20 million in state Homekey Plus funds for a University Terrace/Quality Inn supportive‑housing project, warning the city could lose a rare funding opportunity and citing legal and fairness concerns.
Mayor Patricia Slack Dawson opened a special workshop meeting on Feb. 10 and began the session with an extended public‑comment period in which dozens of speakers urged the Riverside City Council to reconsider a prior vote that declined Homekey Plus funding for a proposed supportive‑housing project at the Quality Inn/University Terrace site.
Speakers repeatedly cited a roughly $20,000,000 Homekey Plus grant and said the proposal would have created permanent supportive housing for people who are unhoused, a figure various speakers described as roughly 94 to 114 units. "This vote carries more moral gravity than most council business," one resident said, urging a motion to reconsider so the city can accept state funds to serve "114 community members and all who will follow." Another commenter said rejecting the grant was "fiscally irresponsible" and warned the city will continue paying for emergency responses and hospital visits if those residents remain unhoused.
Multiple speakers tied the matter to Riverside's Housing First commitments. "Housing First is rooted in evidence, experience, and a moral conviction that stability must come before transformation," Luke Lopez told the council during his two‑minute public comment. Faith leaders and nonprofit representatives echoed that view: Adam Weddington, board president of the Universal Unitarian Church Riverside, said permanent supportive housing has an "85 to 97 percent success rate in stabilizing people experiencing chronic homelessness" and urged the council to reverse course.
Legal and compliance concerns were also raised. Veronica Garcia, housing practice group director with Inland County's legal services (calling in by phone), told the council a formal letter sent to the city earlier that day outlined "new and significant information" and warned the rejection raises "immediate concerns relating to the housing element compliance, the city's pro‑housing obligations, and its duty to affirmatively further fair housing." Several speakers referenced an ACLU review of the council's decision and suggested the denial could expose the city to legal risk.
Student speakers and University of California, Riverside students said the project would have helped students and younger residents and criticized council members who opposed the grant. A number of commenters also focused on fairness and local preference, saying the staff report and nonprofit partners had indicated priority would be given to local residents, seniors and veterans and that reversing the decision would allow Riverside to use the state funds rather than cede them to other jurisdictions.
Council members did not take a motion or vote on reconsideration during the public‑comment period in this workshop; the meeting moved on to a series of department presentations described as the city’s 2026 "book of work." Mayor Dawson announced a closed‑session item earlier in the meeting and the council returned to hold the workshop and departmental briefings after closed session.
What happens next: Several callers and community groups asked the council to place a motion to reconsider on a future agenda so the city could evaluate whether accepting the Homekey Plus funds remains feasible. At least one caller said legal organizations had provided new materials for the council to consider; the council did not vote on the matter at this meeting.
