California has begun massive raids against encampments of unhoused people, under a July 25 executive order from Governor Gavin Newsom (D), “directing state agencies to urgently address homeless encampments while respecting the dignity and safety of Californians experiencing homelessness.”
Advocates are outraged that the planned clearance of thousands of encampments will further endanger unhoused people, with no appropriate shelter beds available in many cities. Amid the national homelessness crisis, nearly 30 percent of unhoused people in the United States live in California.
The announcement from Newsom’s office cited the June 28 Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass, OR v. Johnson, Gloria, et al., after which, it said, “local governments now have the tools and authority to address dangerous encampments and help provide those residing in encampments with the resources they need.”
The Supreme Court overturned two previous appellate court decisions in the 9th Circuit to rule that there is no Eighth Amendment “cruel and unusual punishment” protection from criminalization for people sleeping outside—even if a city has no shelter beds available.
Newsom’s order states that officials must take “necessary and deliberate steps to notify and support the people inhabiting the encampment prior to removal.” He touted his administration’s “record-level investments” to address homelessness, including money for local governments to provide services to people living unsheltered. He cited, as a model, the California Department of Transportation—which since 2021, has “resolved” over 11,000 encampments and cleared away debris from public areas—stating that transportation officials “provide advance notice,” work with service providers in contact with homeless people, and store people’s personal belongings for 60 days after clearances.
“Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to displace and dispossess unhoused people, even though the state does not have enough housing, is a cruel tactic that only masks the problem.”
But none of this will prevent the increased suffering clearances will cause, according to human rights advocates.
“Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to displace and dispossess unhoused people, even though the state does not have enough housing, is a cruel tactic that only masks the problem,” read a joint statement from multiple ACLU of California branches. “Politicians appear more concerned about optics and the visibility of houselessness than they are with providing services and tackling California’s affordable housing crisis.”
“Punishing people for being unhoused won’t address underlying issues driving houselessness and skyrocketing housing costs in California,” the statement continued. “In fact, it will make houselessness worse. Without stable and affordable housing, people are more likely to experience job instability, have health issues, and cycle through emergency public services, such as hospitals and shelters.”
The ACLU also condemned Newsom’s praise for California Transportation, “given the agency’s history of unlawfully seizing and destroying people’s belongings.” The department settled one lawsuit over such allegations for $1.3 million.
Donald Whitehead Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, underlined that message.
“The advocates I speak with in California have a very negative opinion of how that process is going with CalTrans,” he told Filter. “There’s a lot of angst and ill will towards them. For the governor to cite them as a model is disheartening and unforgiveable. Peoples’ belongings, their identifications, the very source of their ability to mitigate their homelessness, has been taken away. We’ve also heard of instances where there has been force [used].”
San Francisco, Mayor Breed said, must move “from a compassionate city to a city of accountability.”
Newsom’s order came shortly after an ominous message from Mayor London Breed (D) of San Francisco, a city that has seen high-profile political and legal battles over homelessness centered on its Tenderloin district.
At a public debate on July 18, Breed promised a “very aggressive and assertive” approach to clearing encampments, which may include criminal penalties. San Francisco, Breed said, must move “from a compassionate city to a city of accountability.”
In a separate statement, her office promised to release a full plan later in the summer, saying it is prioritizing bringing people indoors for their own safety, even against their will. “We will continue to lead with services but we cannot allow for people to refuse services and shelter when offered and available,” officials said.
The Harm Reduction Therapy Center (HRTC) of San Francisco also criticized the governor’s actions, saying it’s not true that anyone on the streets who wants shelter can get it. Many shelters exclude couples, families, pets, people with too many belongings and people with untreated mental illness, among other factors.
“Our clients are already experiencing forced movement, citation and arrest multiple times a week, pushed away from each other and access to HRTC clinicians,” Anna Berg, the center’s director of programs, said in a statement shared with Filter.
“Our team is observing increased drug use, health crises (including mental health emergencies), and increased violence on the street as communities are disrupted and resource competition increases,” she continued. “We see hopelessness, marginalization and profound demoralization amongst our unhoused community members increasing, while our team battles the ongoing moral injury of witnessing extremely vulnerable people brutalized by policy.”
“It’s a backwards approach to talk about removing people from their safety into places that don’t exist yet.”
Newsom’s executive order applauded recent initiatives like Proposition 1, approved by California voters in March, which he said creates $3.3 billion in grants for cities to expand behavioral health services, and $6.4 billion in bonds to expand behavioral health and substance use treatment and housing. Some advocates have condemned Prop. 1 for expanding forced or coerced treatment.
Whitehead is cautiously optimistic about some aspects of these programs. He said they could ultimately create more housing, for example, but that current policies get things “backwards” when the needed resources aren’t there.
“The solutions that have been presented, if enacted fully, they will have an impact in reducing homelessness,” he said. “However the cycle is backwards. If these new resources and care courts have the mental health services available, then it might be okay to resolve the encampments in a positive way. [But] it’s a backwards approach to talk about providing more resources and removing people from their safety into places that don’t exist yet.”
Photograph by Hu Nhu via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0
Show Comments