Addressing homelessness in California poses one of the most challenging dilemmas for cities, particularly when it comes to clearing encampments.
As cities vary in their handling of encampment management, the responses to a CalMatters inquiry revealed a significant lack of cohesive strategy throughout the state, despite ongoing calls for unified policies from Governor Gavin Newsom.
For instance, San Diego has established a detailed 10-page encampment management policy comprehensively outlining various procedures, including timing for removals, advance notifications to residents, and handling personal belongings.
Conversely, smaller municipalities like Mendocino County have no formal policy governing encampment management and merely include brief guidelines in their sheriff’s department manual.
While deputies are encouraged to redirect individuals toward shelters or counseling, there is no tracking of encampment removals in Mendocino County, indicating a significant gap in structured management.
Clearing encampments can have profound effects on individuals residing in them, many of whom have already faced considerable trauma from life on the streets.
Cities argue they must clear encampments deemed dangerous or unsanitary, as well as those that obstruct traffic or pose fire risks.
Establishing a clear policy for encampment management can ease the process for residents, according to Alex Visotzky, senior California policy fellow for the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Visotzky emphasized the importance of transparency for individuals living in encampments.
They need to have advance knowledge about the timeline for clearing and what resources are available to them.
Without a systematic framework in place, the process can devolve into further chaos, exacerbating the struggles of those impacted.
In recent times, the stakes regarding how encampments are cleared have heightened, especially following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has enabled cities to increase enforcement measures.
Various cities across California have instituted new regulations that can ban encampments altogether, with many of these new laws stipulating advanced notice before any clearing takes place, along with requirements for storing confiscated possessions.
Counties like Santa Cruz and Monterey are in the nascent stages of developing their encampment policies, driven by an effort initiated by Governor Newsom’s administration.
This undertaking is part of a broader initiative championed by Newsom, who has urged cities to limit individuals from camping in one location for more than three days.
He also supports measures to ensure individuals receive a 48-hour notice before any clearance operations are executed.
As part of the latest state funding applications aimed at improving homelessness responses, jurisdictions must provide links to their encampment policies.
In the absence of an established policy, they are expected to commit to adhering to state guidelines governing encampment clearances.
Both the governor’s office and the state legislature conveyed that future rounds of funding, slated for the 2026-27 budget year, will necessitate the adoption of encampment policies by cities and counties to qualify for support.
While the governor lacks the authority to impose specific plans or ordinances on local entities, his office has produced a model ordinance and urged local governments to implement their regulations promptly, backed by substantial state funding opportunities.
Santa Cruz County is currently finalizing a new encampment removal policy specifically for unincorporated regions, and this policy is set for review by the board of supervisors next month.
Earlier this year, Monterey County also took steps toward establishing a formal policy aimed at managing encampments more effectively.
The prevailing approach to clearing encampments within Santa Cruz County has often been described as “chaotic.”
Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County Housing for Health, noted that confusion frequently arises regarding which agencies are responsible for making the critical decisions associated with encampment clearings.
Traditionally, the sheriff’s office has held this responsibility; however, many factors that influence these decisions are typically unknown to them, such as the available shelter beds or environmental impacts.
The proposed new policy seeks to clarify decision-making authority by placing it under the county’s executive office, as well as providing explicit guidance on how long personal property should be stored post-clearance and details on how to conduct outreach to camp residents.
Ratner expressed that while the process is inherently challenging, the introduction of clear guidelines will help eliminate ambiguity in decision-making.
Nevertheless, local governments, including Santa Cruz, often express hesitance to draft rigid rules that prove challenging to enforce later, especially when shelter availability is uncertain.
As a result, many encampment management guidelines tend to lean towards vague recommendations rather than enforceable mandates.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s previous ruling has underscored that local governments can ban encampments, even in scenarios where no shelter is available.
However, although several local policies suggest that efforts should be made to provide shelters before dismantling encampments, few establish concrete requirements to ensure this commitment.
Legal precedent further complicates the policy landscape, as encampment policies tend to become more binding when established through court settlements ensuing after lawsuits brought forth by homeless individuals.
This has been observed in cities like San Diego and San Bernardino, which have undergone necessary legal modifications to their clearing processes.
Chico is currently entangled in a year-long legal battle to escape the obligations of a settlement created after a group of homeless individuals claimed their anti-camping laws were unconstitutional.
As part of the settlement, the city must ensure an adequate number of shelter beds are accessible for those displaced during encampment clearings, alongside providing several notifications to both the camp residents and the plaintiffs’ legal representatives.
While these regulations offer essential protections for unhoused individuals, the city of Chico argues that adhering to this drawn-out procedure hinders its ability to manage encampments, particularly in wildfire-prone areas.
Mark Sorensen, the city manager, suggested that Chico’s capacity to enforce municipal regulations ensuring public safety is being compromised due to the ongoing constraints of the settlement.
In response to the substantial legal obligations stemming from the settlement, the city has sought to undo these arrangements unsuccessfully in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling favorable to municipalities with no shelter beds available.
As this legal situation continues to unfold, both parties are expected back in court later this fall for further proceedings regarding the case.
The manner in which encampment removals are carried out is similarly influenced by the legal landscapes surrounding personal property rights.
San Bernardino settled a lawsuit last year concerning the management of unhoused individuals’ belongings, leading to new legal requirements for authorities, such as utilizing different colored bags for residents’ items and granting additional time for those with disabilities to gather their belongings.
Conversely, Stockton has cleared over 200 encampments in the previous year under a policy that only vaguely instructs officers to treat homeless individuals’ property with “reasonable care.”
In light of limited resources to address the multitude of encampments, some jurisdictions have begun drafting policies allowing them to prioritize which camps to address first.
For example, Fresno employs a thorough metric to assess encampments based on various risk indicators.
Camps that have previously required emergency responses from the fire department receive points, and those linked to violent incidents or political pressure from public officials are classified with even higher priority levels.
The disparities in policy approaches throughout California exacerbate efforts to address homelessness across the state, raising concerns about the efficacy and fairness of responses.
While Governor Newsom’s initiatives aim to forge an alignment among local jurisdictions, the approach of tying state funding to policy adoption is imperfect and does not encompass smaller cities lacking direct funding from the state, leading to a greater divide in practices.
Ratner rightly highlighted that without a consistently enforced statewide policy, the disjointed pattern of encampment management can lead to confusion and friction between jurisdictions as they navigate the complexities of addressing homelessness.
image source from：laist
