Residents press council to shift spending from enforcement to prevention, call for more transparency and eviction‑protection funding

Public comment during the City of Fresno’s FY2026–27 budget hearings centered on community concerns about policing, homelessness and tenant protections.

A cluster of speakers voiced frustration with what they described as opaque decision‑making and heavy reliance on enforcement rather than prevention. Alysia R. told councilmembers the hearings are “not accessible to the public” and pressed for clearer, earlier community engagement and third‑party validation of police data. Bob McCcluskey criticized the city’s no‑camping enforcement and questioned the legal and staff costs of the strategy, saying arrests and citations have not reduced homelessness.

Multiple speakers asked that the city increase and protect funding for the eviction protection (EP) program. Shara (Char) Thompson of Tenants Together, representing tenant advocates, said the city’s EP program has gaps in outreach and intake and urged expanded legal support and affirmative litigation options. Advocacy groups and neighborhood leaders asked for updated guidelines, better language access and stronger oversight of contracted attorneys to ensure representation through case disposition.

Several public speakers urged investment in proven community programs rather than adding patrols. Ariana cited research showing Advanced Peace’s evidence of reduced gun violence and said cuts have turned the program reactive; callers asked council to restore preventative funding. Enrique Little and others described disturbing interactions between houseless residents and outreach/enforcement teams and urged the council to prioritize social services and oversight of outreach practices.

Why this matters: Public comments signaled organized pressure on the council to reallocate or increase funds for eviction prevention and community‑based violence prevention, and to insist on accountability for enforcement tactics. Councilmembers repeatedly referenced these concerns when pressing department staff for budget details and were active in proposing motions and allocations later in the session.

What’s next: Councilmembers proposed multiple budget motions during the hearing (see motions packet) that include increases to eviction protection and nonprofit grants. Staff and the city attorney said they will provide RFIs on EP caseloads, program capacity, and the cost of executing smoke‑shop enforcement so the council can decide appropriations when it reconvenes to vote.