Pasadena needs a humane, effective way to ensure people are not left sleeping on the street year-round. Whether that requires another permanent shelter—and where it should be located—should be determined by the need we are actually trying to address. The challenge before us is not to choose between compassion and economic opportunity. It is to be thoughtful and creative enough to advance both.
I have long supported practical action on homelessness. I regularly participate in Pasadena’s annual homeless count, have supported Union Station Homeless Services and Friends In Deed, and actively campaigned alongside Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger for the original Measure H, approved by voters in 2017 to fund homeless services. My concern about the potential Rose Palace site does not come from opposition to shelter. It comes from wanting a response matched to the need, in the right place, with the right operating model.
That discussion should begin with a basic question: What specific unmet need are we trying to fill? Pasadena already supports year-round adult and family interim housing, recovery bridge and transitional housing, motel-based placements and bad-weather capacity. Before committing to another permanent facility, the city should publish each program’s capacity, utilization and population served, identify what is missing and explain what combination of services, placements or additional shelter capacity would close the gap.
The City’s 2025 count raises a second question. Half of surveyed unsheltered residents were last permanently housed in Pasadena and had lived here an average of 19 years before losing housing; the other half were last housed elsewhere. That does not diminish anyone’s need or humanity. It does require an intentional public decision: Are we filling a defined Pasadena need, or gradually assuming a broader regional role without consciously deciding to do so? If the role is regional, which neighboring jurisdictions and county agencies will share the planning and cost, and where does Pasadena’s responsibility begin and end?
The conditions around Fillmore Metro Station raise a third question. Pasadena has worked for years to address the increasingly difficult situation there, yet the pressure continues to grow. Police calls for service within 500 feet increased from 1,093 in 2023 to an annualized 1,774 in 2026, a 62 percent increase and the highest growth rate among Pasadena’s Metro stations during that period. Fillmore is now essentially tied with Memorial Park for the second-highest call volume, behind Del Mar. Not every call is related to homelessness, but the trend makes cumulative impact impossible to ignore.
Rose Palace, at 835 South Raymond Avenue, would place another major homeless-serving facility just a few blocks south of Union Station’s 44-unit Adult Center, one of Pasadena’s largest year-round congregate interim-housing facilities. That does not disqualify Rose Palace. It does require us to ask whether adding another major homeless-serving use in this area would improve conditions or add pressures that are already proving difficult to manage.
There is another side of the equation. At roughly the same time I was advocating for Measure H, I co-founded Innovate Pasadena to energize and grow our deep-tech, innovation and research community. For nearly 20 years, I have championed efforts to turn Pasadena’s research assets into companies, investment and jobs. Civic and business leaders have long sought a tipping point along South Raymond and South Fair Oaks. We now appear to be reaching it.
Huntington Health, ArtCenter’s South Campus, LAist/SCPR and Fillmore Station and nearby research institutions created the original foundation for the HeArt (Health & Arts) District. Keck Medicine of USC’s new 100,000-square-foot medical office building and Huntington Health’s new pavilion add significant momentum. There are two other significant projects in the works that could further accelerate this transformation. Pasadena’s South Fair Oaks Specific Plan envisions an active arts and medical district, while the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies healthcare, life sciences and deep technology as sources of future jobs.
This high-quality job creation opportunity cannot simply be moved elsewhere. Pasadena is largely built out, developable land is scarce and other cities compete aggressively for healthcare, research and technology employers (the 710 stub redevelopment opportunity has promise but is at least 10 – 20 years in the future). These jobs extend beyond physicians and scientists to nurses, technicians, medical assistants, laboratory workers, construction trades, technology specialists, administrators and service employees. Many of these workers turn to the A-line and public transit to get to work. Unlike a growing number of jobs, these jobs require on-site work (vs remote work) and would be difficult to replace with AI. Furthermore, with coordinated workforce programs, Pasadena students and residents could gain clearer pathways into careers close to home. This growth provides economic opportunity to residents and desperately need revenue to local businesses and city coffers.
So the right question is not whether unhoused people deserve shelter or whether economic development matters more. Both are citywide responsibilities. The central question is whether Rose Palace is the location most likely to produce successful shelter outcomes without unnecessarily compromising a rare employment district or worsening an existing concentration of impacts.
The City Council should first establish what year-round capacity and services are needed to keep people from sleeping on the street, and whether an additional permanent shelter is the right way to provide them. If a new facility is warranted, the city should direct a transparent comparison of at least three viable sites. Each should receive the same public scorecard: service effectiveness, behavioral-health access, capital and operating costs, readiness, transit, public safety, concentration, surrounding uses, adopted-plan compatibility and the long-term opportunity cost of public land. The operating model should be defined before the building is selected, including who will be served, how intake and discharge will work, what services will be onsite and how success will be measured.
If Rose Palace proves to be the right site for the identified need, the city should demonstrate why and explain how cumulative impacts will be managed. If another location can produce equal or better outcomes without compromising the HeArt District, Pasadena should choose it and move forward decisively.
We are overdue for a reliable, humane year-round response that keeps people from sleeping on the street, and we are close to realizing a decades-long vision for South Raymond and South Fair Oaks (the HeArt District). Allowing either priority simply to override the other could leave Pasadena with a net negative. Thoughtful leadership should challenge us to produce a double positive: an effective response to homelessness and a vibrant healthcare and innovation district that creates opportunity for generations to come.
Andy Wilson is a former Pasadena City Councilmember and Vice Mayor and currently serves as Vice President for Strategic Partnerships and Innovation at the University of Southern California. He participated in the advisory process for Pasadena’s Economic Development Strategic Plan. The views expressed here are his own.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
