The New Mexican asked Santa Fe City Council candidates to weigh in on services for the homeless, something the next council will be responsible for overseeing at a time when many residents cite homelessness as one of their top concerns.
Below are the responses of District 1 candidates David Montoya, Katherine Rivera and Pat Feghali, District 2 candidates Liz Barrett, Paul Bustamante and Aurora Martinez, District 3 incumbent Lee Garcia and District 4 incumbent Amanda Chavez. Responses that surpassed the 150-word limit have been trimmed.
District 2 candidate Leroy Trujillo did not respond to the The New Mexican’s questionnaire.
Question: What is your vision for how the city should address homelessness, and where would the money to support this come from?
Montoya: We need to fully fund the existing services that provide valuable outreach to the homeless population. We currently do not have enough beds for the amount of homelessness in our city. With homelessness increasing by more than 80% over the last six years, we need to act to respond to this crisis. We need to support mental health, addiction and transitional housing. We also need to commit to increasing the amount of affordable housing on city and county land. Finally, we need to advocate for the Interfaith Community Shelter’s efforts to build the “ROCk,” a congregate shelter with a wraparound trauma-based case management system.
Rivera: My vision for addressing homelessness would incorporate the full spectrum of offerings including both congregate and noncongregate shelters, transitional housing, treatment housing and permanent supportive housing types. I support a mix of compassionate and no-nonsense actions. This vision includes mandated drug treatment through specialized drug courts offering mandatory drug treatment as an alternative to jail. A collaboration with Santa Fe County will be the best way to establish the complete set of housing and services.
Feghali: I believe any city should — and must — be able to house all its residents. Santa Fe has the opportunity to address both current homelessness and the housing crisis faced by workers who must commute due to lack of affordability. To do this, we should invest in infill housing across income levels, expand affordable housing options, and evolve our sheltering model toward more flexible and humane solutions — such as noncongregate Pallet shelters — paired with “Housing First” programs. Funding can come from a combination of city budget allocations, state and federal grants, public–private partnerships and creative use of underutilized public land to lower costs.
From the private, nonprofit sector, I would invite the Tunnels to Towers Foundation, whose mission it is to end veteran homelessness, consult on possible solutions they could provide for Northern New Mexico veterans.
There is no statutory requirement for the government to address homelessness. The government should take the lead in providing services and developing long-term solutions.
The ultimate end game is to solve homelessness, not maintain it.
Barrett: My vision for Santa Fe’s homelessness crisis starts with the understanding that housing is a human right. The focus should be on a “Housing First” model, eventually moving away from temporary shelters and toward providing stable, permanent housing with services like mental health care, addiction treatment and job training. This approach is not only more humane but is proven to be more cost-effective. The city’s current approach to Palette homes to provide a safe, secure, and private place for people who need temporary housing, is a good first step.
We should double our investment in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, aggressively pursue state and federal grants, and revisit tools voters already supported, like the mansion tax, which passed with over 70% support but was blocked in court. Santa Feans spoke up for affordable housing. I believe we should appeal that decision and fight for the resources we need to keep our city livable for everyone
Bustamante: Everyone knows we have an increasing unhoused population in Santa Fe. Some studies and articles have come out over the past few years saying the majority of Americans are just one or two financial incidents away from finding ourselves in that position. We can decide to demonize the unhoused for being in circumstances we hope we never find ourselves in, or we can provide the services and shelter they need to lift themselves up. Transitional housing with wraparound services, the pallet shelter program — all of these can be successful with the right community involvement, Without it, we are setting ourselves up to fail. The state just distributed $120 million to address housing and homelessness projects, yet most of that went to areas outside Santa Fe. As a city councilor, I would ensure we stay in touch with our state officials to make sure Santa Fe’s needs are met.
Martinez: I believe housing and shelter should be treated as shared infrastructure, with every district contributing not just a few. One option worth exploring is the model at Consuelo’s Place in District 2, where transitional housing is paired with wraparound services like mental health care, case management and transportation. It’s helped many residents stabilize and move toward permanent housing and it’s done so without incidents or crime.
As a former CYFD investigator, I’ve seen firsthand how these services make a real difference in people’s lives. Stability doesn’t come from shelter alone it comes from support.
To avoid overburdening any one area, we should consider multiple shelters and supportive housing sites across the city. Planning must be community-led and done in partnership with the city. Funding could come from a mix of state and federal grants, nonprofit partnerships, and smarter use of city resources. Every district deserves a seat at the table.
Garcia: The city should focus on accountability and self-sufficiency, offering treatment, job training and transitional housing while keeping public spaces safe.
We should leverage existing state and federal funds, and partner with nonprofits and private groups, without raising new taxes. I would request that the funds received from the Purdue Pharma lawsuit be used toward this. In addition, we should tap in to funding from the state GRT that comes from alcohol tax and marijuana dispensaries.
Chavez: Santa Fe should adopt a housing-first approach, which national studies show can reduce chronic homelessness by up to 80%. This means prioritizing permanent supportive housing, expanding transitional units and ensuring access to wraparound services like case management and behavioral health care.
Funding should come from a diverse mix of sources, including:
- Federal HUD Continuum of Care grants.
- State affordable housing trust funds.
- Local reallocation of resources currently spent on enforcement.
- Public-private partnerships with local developers to increase affordable housing stock.
To make this sustainable, we must simultaneously invest in behavioral health infrastructure. Housing and services must grow together. Santa Fe can strengthen its behavioral health system by braiding together federal grants (SAMHSA, HUD, CCBHC), Medicaid funding, state appropriations, opioid settlement dollars and local investments. Partnerships with hospitals and philanthropic organizations can further expand crisis services and ensure long-term stability.
This integrated, evidence-based strategy will not only reduce homelessness but also improve public health, safety and community well-being.
Montoya: I did not support the way the Urban Alchemy shelter management contract was handled and decided. It should have gone out for competition instead of excluding the Interfaith nonprofit organization who previously operated the shelter. I also feel that there is a universal lack of transparency that excludes public input until the decisions have been made. This is incongruent with democratic values. I fear for the future of Consuelo’s Place if the current strategy for homelessness from the city continues on its current course.
Rivera: The city’s strategy includes maintaining a “by-name list” of homeless individuals in the city and assessing their needs. The average citizen rarely gets an update on this effort. The total number, breakdown, etc. I believe the overall data should be made public along with number of beds to homeless ratio numbers. It is hard to defend the inhumane conditions of living on the street.
Sadly, it seems Santa Fe (along with other cities) refuses to use congregate shelters, which leaves the homeless unsheltered rather than sheltered. I support the use of congregate shelters as a first step to getting folks out of the elements for their own safety and well-being.
Regarding Urban Alchemy, I wish they had a better reputation, but we need to give this change a chance. Personally, I have not seen much improvement in their location area or Harrison Road since they took over.
Feghali: While I appreciate the city’s efforts to address homelessness, I believe we must continually assess efficacy, transparency and community impact. Urban Alchemy’s low-barrier shelter approach deserves close evaluation to ensure it meaningfully advances safety, dignity and pathways to housing. As we deliberate on future contracts, criteria should include measurable outcomes, local accountability and alignment with “Housing First” priorities.
Barrett: I think the strategy, on paper, makes sense. The strategy is evolving, with emergency shelters, transitional housing and micro communities offering privacy, safety and support. The city’s contracts with Urban Alchemy to manage Agape House and millions for trauma-informed street outreach, and to stabilize services while engaging people with compassion and dignity. It’s a lot, but I think it’s the right idea. Again, I support these ideas on paper. How it is executed matters the most.
At the end of the day, any solution to homelessness has to be part of a larger Housing First vision. Shelter and outreach are just the start. We have to throw the kitchen sink at this problem. We need to build permanent housing, expand and invest in mental health services, and other long-term solutions.
Bustamante: The current action plan is good on paper, but it highlights a very necessary element in order for it to work: community support. There have been more calls for transparency from our city government because many feel (and they are right to feel this way) that the city is making decisions behind closed doors and then calling for public input. This needs to change. We need to make sure communities are involved and fully informed about possible changes to their neighborhoods before making decisions for locations for future services. Education and involvement is key.
The way the contract came about is a good example of lack of transparency; however, at the recent Public Safety Committee meeting, there was a presentation on how Urban Alchemy is doing. The initial reports were very encouraging, but it is too early to tell if the money used to contract with them was worth it.
Martinez: I’m optimistic about the city’s current homeless response strategy because it offers short-term relief, though early data looks promising. But I opposed this solution and remain upset about how the city moved forward. The Emergency Homelessness Action Plan was not clearly communicated as temporary, and many residents still believe it’s a permanent fix. That lack of transparency matters.
Residents weren’t invited to help shape the model or choose micro-community locations. Instead, decisions were made behind closed doors, and public input came only after the fact. Recommended tools for civic engagement were not fully used, which undermines trust.
Contracting with Urban Alchemy may offer capacity, but it raises concerns about outsourcing public safety and accountability.
We need to be honest about what this plan is and isn’t. And we must begin planning now for a long-term, community-led solution rooted in housing, behavioral health and affordability, not just temporary fixes.
Garcia: We have taken steps to address homelessness through micro-shelters, outreach and data tracking, which show some promise.
Santa Fe needs accountability and real results in addressing homelessness. I believe Urban Alchemy offers exactly that. Through a proven structured outreach program, local hiring and a focus on helping people rebuild their lives. The Interfaith community served us for years and for that we are grateful; however, the city must prioritize outcomes over tradition. With clear oversight, this partnership can balance compassion with responsibility, keep public spaces safe and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively.
Chavez: The city’s partnership with Urban Alchemy is a positive step forward. Their trauma-informed, peer-led model prioritizes dignity and safety — critical values, especially considering that an estimated 30% of Santa Fe’s unhoused population report untreated mental health needs. Urban Alchemy’s track record in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles demonstrates that community trust and stabilization services can effectively reduce street homelessness and ease pressure on emergency systems.
The city’s efforts to develop micro communities are also promising. These offer safe, stable and dignified transitional housing while connecting residents to essential services and pathways to permanent housing. Proven models like Community First! Villages in Austin, Texas, and similar initiatives in Seattle show that micro communities can reduce chronic homelessness, lower public costs and foster supportive, self-governing environments that promote long-term stability and reintegration.
Santa Fe should continue building on these strategies while ensuring that local voices and culturally responsive services remain central to implementation.
Montoya: The problem that the city needs to address is the location of Pete’s Place. It has outgrown the current Cerrillos Road location. The city needs to commit to partnering with Interfaith to build a new shelter and the current Urban Alchemy shelter management contract needs to be put out to bid in an open, fair process that allows transparency and public input into the process. This will ensure a smooth transition from Pete’s current location to a new larger location away from the Cerrillos Road and Harrison Road location.
Rivera: Ahead of that deadline, a new, safer location must be identified that is not in close proximity to any major roadway artery. The current services must be relocated, and the exiting site should cease being a shelter. What happens next for that location/site will be up for the city to discuss.
Feghali: As the current contract approaches its July 2026 expiration, I’d support a data-informed decision-making process: evaluate outcomes such as how many residents successfully transitioned to permanent housing, cost efficiency and neighborhood impact. If the model proves effective, we should renew with improvements; if not, we must pivot — perhaps toward noncongregate or transitional housing models that pair stability with individualized support. It’s vital to align future plans with what actually works.
Barrett: After July 2026, we need a clear plan to transition from emergency shelters to permanent supportive housing, the core of a true Housing First approach. The shelter can continue serving as a vital resource in the short term, but our goal must be to provide stable, affordable homes paired with wraparound services like mental health and job training. Whatever happens next, we need a transparent process and community engagement.
My personal feeling is that we should move away from the congregate shelter model. Instead, we should focus on expanding noncongregate options like micro communities, Pallet shelters and other models that provide greater dignity, privacy and safety for people experiencing homelessness. These options respect people’s humanity and offer a better foundation for connecting to services and permanent housing.
Bustamante: Early reports show some progress being made at the current location in addressing the problems that have plagued the residents and businesses nearby, but the fact is, the current location does not work. Another factor highlighted in the city’s homelessness action plan in order for it to be successful is political will. The Webber administration has failed to take responsibility for the problems people in the area have faced. The administration has “kicked the can down the road” repeatedly instead of owning up to the fact that a newer and larger facility is needed, preferably in a nonresidential area that has better access to health facilities and transportation. A larger transitional facility is needed to address not only the growing population, but the need for on-site services for mental distress and drug intervention. Referrals can then be made for more permanent housing solutions.
Martinez: After July 2026, I believe the shelter at 2801 Cerrillos Road should remain a shelter but with a more focused purpose. This area has seen real concerns from neighbors about safety and loitering, much of it stemming from a lack of transparency and shared planning. To rebuild trust, the city should work with neighborhood residents, nearby businesses and service providers to guide the next phase of this site.
One option is to focus the shelter exclusively on a small number of transitioning families, those close to securing permanent housing supported by strong wraparound services like case management, housing navigation, and behavioral health care. Keeping the scale modest can help ensure stability and build public confidence.
This site should be part of a broader citywide strategy that spreads responsibility across all districts. We’ve seen success with this kind of approach at Consuelo’s Place when services are well-designed and outcomes are clear, and public support grows.
Garcia: The Cerrillos Road shelter has served its purpose, but it’s not a long-term fit. After the contract ends in 2026, I’d support closing it. Only once a viable site is found on the outskirts of town that can provide the services our unhoused community needs. This balances compassion with accountability while protecting neighborhoods and businesses.
Chavez: After 2026, Santa Fe should transition the 2801 Cerrillos Road shelter to a larger, service-rich facility modeled after Houston’s successful Navigation Center approach. Over the past decade, Houston reduced homelessness by 63% by centralizing services — mental health care, workforce development, housing navigation and more — within a safe, low-barrier environment.
Adopting a similar model in Santa Fe would not only ensure adequate shelter capacity but also provide clear, coordinated pathways to permanent housing. This kind of integrated facility would better meet the complex needs of our unhoused neighbors while reducing reliance on emergency systems and improving long-term outcomes.
Question: The city has significantly fewer shelter beds than homeless residents, but attempts to create additional shelter sites frequently lead to significant pushback from nearby residents concerned about crime, decreases in property values or other issues. How would you navigate this conundrum as an elected official? Would you be open to supporting additional transitional housing or homeless shelter facilities in your district?
Montoya: Everyone in every quadrant of the city needs to do their part. In District 1, we have five shelters. A real bottleneck in the system is housing that can be rented and owned with a HUD Section 8 voucher. We need to make this a priority as we move forward. We should be looking at all options from modular and manufactured homes to proto designs that are fast-tracked through permitting and land use. Finally, we need to fully fund the ROCk supported and designed by Interfaith. This model works in other cities and can be successful here in Santa Fe.
Rivera: Support for the homeless has long been present in multiple areas of District 1. Many of these existing service locations continue to have a negative effect on the surrounding residents and businesses. Unfortunately, this is the only experience that residents have or see related to these types of services, which makes it tough to get additional buy-in. We should learn from the experiences of District 1 locations when determining new sites. Future sites of shelters and transitional housing must be in locations that make sense and minimize negative impact on the neighborhoods. Rules of engagement, enhanced security, drug-free zones and enforcement of standard rules should be considered for any new location. I am confident District 1 will continue to support the solutions.
Feghali: I recognize that community concerns are real — but so is the need for humane, effective solutions. I’d prioritize early, transparent engagement with neighborhoods, sharing evidence and best practices that debunk myths and build trust. Combining this with thoughtful site selection and design — perhaps using smaller-scale, noncongregate housing — can ease fears. Yes, I’d support additional transitional housing or shelter facilities in District 1, provided they incorporate resident input, rigorous oversight, and clear pathways to housing.
Barrett: Yes, every district in Santa Fe should offer transitional housing and options like micro communities. Of course, location matters, but homelessness is a citywide challenge that we should approach like a family.
Bustamante: Again, education and involvement are the keys. The packed house presentation about micro communities given by the city earlier this year was a good example of how the city can start to gain approval from residents. A clear and informational presentation was given, followed by small working groups. This sort of involvement absolutely needs to happen before a site location can be seriously considered.
The current Pallet shelter program site is in District 2 and has been a success by all measurable efforts. While I fully support further services in our district, we need to recognize that this is a problem affecting the whole city, not just this side of town. Just as with affordable housing, the only way we can effectively address this problem is for every district to share in the responsibility.
Martinez: Yes, I support transitional housing and shelter facilities in my district because every part of Santa Fe should help carry the load. District 2 already hosts Consuelo’s Place, a shelter with wraparound services and a strong record of helping people move into permanent housing. Some residents there face substance use challenges, but the model shows that when services are done right, they work, and they don’t bring the problems people fear.
Pushback is real, but it’s often rooted in mistrust. People near Pete’s Place and other sites have raised concerns about crime and safety. When shelters were proposed near Chavez Center or Airport Road, residents packed council meetings to oppose them. Much of that came from lack of transparency.
To fix this, I propose community-led committees in each district to help identify sites and set fair criteria. When people help shape the solution, they’re more likely to support it. We need to plan with people, not around them.
Garcia: Santa Fe needs more capacity, but it must be done responsibly. Micro communities and transitional housing work if they’re structured, use accountability and performance metrics, and move people toward independence. No one district should shoulder the problem alone, and every part of the city must share in the responsibility. With strict oversight and strong management, these sites can improve safety while helping people get back on their feet.
Chavez: Santa Fe currently has around 400 unhoused residents but fewer than 200 shelter beds — a gap that demands urgent action. While neighborhood concerns about safety and property values are understandable, research consistently shows that supportive housing can reduce crime rates by up to 15% and does not negatively impact property values.
As an elected official, I would take a proactive and transparent approach:
- Host community forums to listen and respond to concerns.
- Share data and evidence to build trust.
- Establish neighborhood advisory groups to ensure accountability and collaboration.
Yes, I would support additional transitional housing and shelter facilities in my district. Safe, stable housing benefits everyone — by improving public health, reducing emergency system strain and fostering stronger, more compassionate communities.
Question: The city’s penalties for violating the no-camping ordinance currently include jail time. Do you believe this is appropriate?
Montoya: Homelessness should never be criminalized. Ranger/Law enforcement should continue to enforce current laws to keep everyone out of parks after they close. We need to clean up our parks and many are dangerous places. The true solution is a congregate shelter that is tied into public transit. We can also attack our first responder housing issues by locating manufactured housing at each park at very low cost to law enforcement, fire and EMS. A similar model has been used for years at our rest stops and parks across the state. Finally, I don’t think incarceration for simply camping really fits the crime.
Rivera: It is hard to defend the inhumane conditions of living on the street. I support getting folks off the street, period. For their safety and the public safety of the city. For drug addiction, I support offering mandatory drug treatment as an alternative to jail time. In my mind, if you hold people accountable, but do not give them an opportunity to change their life, that is punitive.
Feghali: Criminalizing homelessness does not solve homelessness. Jail time penalizes people for survival behaviors and diverts resources away from needed services. Instead, we should invest in compassionate alternatives — safe places to stay, access to housing help and supportive services — to reduce unsheltered living and recidivism. Enforcement should be paired with opportunity, not punishment.
Barrett: I don’t believe criminalizing homelessness is the answer. I think it’s a public health issue. Instead of penalizing people for their circumstances, we need to focus on compassion and support. I would advocate for expanding resources for the Alternative Response Unit (ARU). These trained teams, which include mental health professionals and social workers, are better equipped to respond to encampments in a way that is respectful and effective.
The goal should be to address safety and health concerns while ensuring people aren’t simply displaced without help. ARU can coordinate with shelters, housing programs and health care providers to connect community members experiencing homelessness with the services they need to move toward stability. This approach would also free up time for our police to focus on other serious public safety issues.
Bustamante: Being homeless is not a crime. There are many factors that go into a person becoming unhoused, but scarcity and affordability rank among the highest. We need to start addressing the affordable housing issues in Santa Fe. When families suddenly find themselves out on the street because they had to choose between eating or paying the rent, where are they supposed to go if they don’t have a support structure here to help them out?
Pallet homes and the like are a great solution, but sites can take months or years to get approved. Let’s start rebuilding our trust with our local nonprofits by working with them to provide sanctioned campgrounds and safe outdoor spaces instead of criminalizing homelessness. Giving people a space to call their own is not only humane, but helps reduce the trash and fire risk that residents are commonly concerned about.
Martinez: I don’t believe jail time is an appropriate response to violating the no-camping ordinance. It doesn’t solve homelessness, it deepens it. Santa Fe already offers alternatives like outreach, shelter referrals and diversion programs. The city’s Alternative Response Unit sends paramedics and case managers to engage unhoused residents with care, not punishment. Expanding this unit could be a smart investment, strengthening public health, reducing strain on emergency services and building trust.
Still, enforcement alone even with options won’t create long-term solutions. We need to pair it with real housing pathways, behavioral health support, and community-led planning. Residents and businesses deserve clean, safe public spaces but unhoused people deserve dignity and stability, too.
This issue is complex, and there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. But criminalizing poverty isn’t the way forward. We need to keep listening, adjusting and investing in solutions that reflect Santa Fe’s values of compassion, equity and shared responsibility.
Garcia: Jail time can be an important deterrent for violating the no-camping ordinance. Without consequences, the law has no teeth. It should, however, not be the only option. Alternatives like community service, cleanup work in our open spaces and parks, or treatment programs can hold people accountable while also offering a path toward stability. This can balance deterrence with responsibility and fairness.
Chavez: Criminalizing homelessness through jail time for camping is costly, ineffective and inhumane, especially given the lack of adequate behavioral health and wraparound services in our city and state. Nationally, jail stays cost taxpayers around $141 per day, compared to just $35 per day for supportive housing — a clear case for smarter, more compassionate investment.
Instead of punishment, Santa Fe should focus on outreach teams, emergency shelter beds and mental health resources. A housing-first, service-oriented approach is more effective at reducing encampments, improving public safety and upholding human dignity.
We must ask ourselves: What happens after someone is jailed for camping? The underlying issues remain unresolved. To truly address homelessness, we need to tackle its root causes — poverty, trauma, lack of affordable housing and gaps in behavioral health care. Only then can we build a sustainable, just solution.
