Clearing homeless encampments presents a complex challenge for cities across California, with no uniform strategy in place.
Governor Gavin Newsom has advocated for more cohesive policies, yet responses from nearly three dozen cities and counties reveal a variety of approaches, highlighting the fragmented nature of encampment management statewide.
San Diego stands out with a detailed 10-page policy outlining stringent procedures for encampment removals.
This policy specifies conditions under which clearances can occur, including timing restrictions—such as only during daylight hours and avoiding days with a 50% chance of rain.
It also mandates at least 24 hours’ notice to encampment residents and prescribes methods for handling personal belongings that may be confiscated.
In contrast, some smaller municipalities like Mendocino County lack comprehensive guidelines.
Their sheriff’s manual touches on interactions with homeless individuals but offers limited guidance; it merely encourages deputies to refer homeless individuals to shelters or counseling instead of resorting to arrests for minor offenses.
Moreover, Mendocino County does not maintain records of encampment removals, which complicates understanding and addressing local homelessness issues.
Removing encampments can destabilize the lives of those affected, often exacerbating pre-existing trauma linked to homelessness.
Cities argue that they must clear camps that pose risks to safety, sanitation, or traffic.
Alex Visotzky, a senior policy fellow with the National Alliance to End Homelessness, emphasizes the importance of having clear policies in place to mitigate confusion during encampment removals.
“People need to know when they’re expected to leave and what will happen to their belongings,” Visotzky explains.
Absence of a formal structure can lead to chaos, making a challenging situation even more burdensome for individuals experiencing homelessness.
The dynamics around encampment removals have shifted following a recent Supreme Court ruling granting local governments greater discretion in enacting bans.
In response, numerous cities across California have introduced new laws targeting encampments, some of which include guidelines for advance notices and management of confiscated belongings.
Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties are currently drafting policies for encampment management, responding to Governor Newsom’s push for clearer regulations.
In May, Newsom suggested measures such as limiting camping to no more than three days in one location and requiring 48-hour notice before clearings, alongside mandates for safeguarding personal items.
Presently, cities and counties applying for state homelessness funding must submit their encampment management policies.
If lacking such a policy, they are required to commit to state guidance on handling encampments.
The governor’s office and California’s legislature have indicated that future funding rounds won’t be available unless cities adopt clear encampment policies.
Although Governor Newsom cannot legally enforce specific plans on local jurisdictions, his administration has provided model ordinances and urged local leaders to act proactively, backed by substantial state financial resources.
Santa Cruz County’s new proposed policy, aimed at guiding encampment removals in unincorporated regions, addresses the complexities involved in the decision-making process.
Currently, the sheriff’s office typically decides which encampments to clear, often without complete information regarding available shelter beds or environmental concerns, such as pollution risks to nearby waterways.
The upcoming policy aims to centralize this decision-making under the county executive office, while also detailing requirements for storing confiscated property for at least 90 days.
Tom Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County Housing for Health, acknowledges that navigating the policy landscape is challenging.
The new framework is designed to provide clarity and direct guidance, thereby reducing uncertainty among city staff.
Despite varying degrees of urgency in policy creation, many cities hesitate to draft strict regulations they might struggle to enforce later.
For instance, guaranteeing the availability of shelter beds becomes problematic, leading to policies that often remain vague rather than strict.
Additionally, the new legal landscape permits local governments to prohibit camping even in the absence of adequate shelter.
While some encampment policies stipulate efforts to provide shelter prior to clearing, few enforce such requirements as mandatory.
Enforceability often increases through legal settlements; cities may draft policies in response to lawsuits filed by homeless community advocates.
For example, San Diego and San Bernardino emerged from litigation with newly established rules governing encampment removals, binding the cities to practices that better protect the interests of individuals experiencing homelessness.
However, this legal route can introduce lengthy and complicated court proceedings.
Chico’s city council has been embroiled in litigation for over a year after settling a case brought forth by eight homeless residents in 2021.
As a result of the settlement, Chico is now bound to follow stringent procedures before clearing encampments, ensuring sufficient shelter options are available for all displaced individuals.
This process mandates numerous notifications, including two weeks’ notice to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and additional warnings to camp residents ahead of clearings.
While advocates for the homeless have lauded these protections, the city claims these extensive stipulations hinder its ability to manage public safety effectively, especially in areas prone to wildfires.
City Manager Mark Sorensen argues that the lengthy procedure constricts the city’s ability to act proactively to mitigate health and safety risks aligned with encampment clearances.
Amid its attempts to vacate this settlement, Chico faces additional scrutiny due to a recent Supreme Court decision affirming local governments’ powers to enforce anti-camping laws regardless of shelter availability.
San Bernardino’s approach following a settlement prohibits the destruction of personal property and outlines procedures for differentiating between personal items and trash during encampment removals.
In comparison, Stockton maintained a more generalized policy, urging officers to exercise “reasonable care” with homeless individuals’ belongings and to take measures to secure items that residents cannot pack themselves as clearings commence.
Resource limitations play a critical role in influencing cities’ decisions regarding encampments, prompting many to adopt prioritization frameworks that assist in determining which camps require attention first.
Fresno, for instance, employs a system assessing encampments based on risk factors, awarding point values for previous fire department interventions or instances of violent crimes in camp locations.
The decidedly inconsistent policies across California complicate coordinated efforts to alleviate homelessness, Ratner contends.
Even as Governor Newsom’s initiatives strive for greater coherence, requiring local adoption of encampment protocols to access state funding may not address the needs of smaller municipalities without direct state support for homelessness initiatives.
Challenging the status quo creates barriers to unity among jurisdictions, further complicating overall efforts to provide effective solutions to homelessness.
image source from：laist
