Neighbors have gathered more than 1,600 signatures in support of the ban.
Fremont’s plan to ban homeless camps anywhere in the city has the potential to be the most forceful response yet in the Bay Area to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer granting officials broad authority to police homelessness — and could have ripple effects across the region.
If approved Tuesday, advocates for homeless people say the proposal by the Bay Area’s fourth-largest city could trigger similar moves from nearby jurisdictions seeking to rein in homeless camps. Fremont residents, frustrated with sprawling encampments that cause fire hazards and pollute waterways, have gathered more than 1,600 online signatures in support of the ban.
“I haven’t seen anything, certainly in the Bay Area, as strict,” said Vivian Wan, chief executive of Abode Services, a homeless services provider operating in Fremont and across six counties in the region. “It’s definitely the harshest.”
The ban would prohibit encampments on “any public property, including any street, sidewalk, park, open space, waterway” or private property not designated for camping. It would also allow officials to criminally charge anyone “aiding” or “abetting” a homeless camp, a provision service providers fear could put a target on their backs.
The penalty for violating the ordinance: a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail.
Fremont officials have maintained the goal is not to push all homeless people out of the city but instead to give officials the “power to change behavior” of those living in encampments. They say they have no intention of arresting homeless people or service providers.
“Compliance will be gained through request,” said city spokesperson Geneva Bosques.
According to the latest counts last year, Fremont has an estimated 802 homeless residents, about 600 of whom live on the street. The city’s shelter has space for 45 people.
If the ban goes through, Fremont would become the latest California city to adopt tougher encampment rules following the Supreme Court’s ruling in June. That decision, Grant’s Pass v. Johnson, overturned a lower court ruling that had prevented local governments in the Western U.S. from punishing people for living on the street if they had nowhere else to go.
In the Bay Area, San Jose and Oakland have since ramped up sweeps. San Francisco has begun citing more homeless people for public camping. Berkeley now allows city workers to clear some encampments even when shelter beds aren’t available. Antioch recently passed a full camping ban. And San Mateo County has made it illegal for unhoused people in unincorporated areas to refuse shelter.
Elsewhere in California, cities including Fresno and Stockton have drawn attention for passing strict camping restrictions. Before Grants Pass, some Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward, Milpitas, Livermore and Sausalito, already had no-camping laws on the books, though enforcement after the ruling has varied.
Advocates say that if Fremont approves its camping ban, even more cities could be tempted to follow suit in hopes of discouraging displaced homeless people from moving to their jurisdictions — setting off a “race to the bottom” they say would achieve little besides pushing encampments from one neighborhood to another.
“If I get kicked out, I’m going to stay in front of City Hall. I have nowhere else to go,” said José Arroyo, 62, who has lived in an encampment along the railroad tracks beneath Washington Boulevard and Osgood Road for the last two years. “Where will you put us?”
In neighboring Union City, officials said they are aware of Fremont’s proposal and are “closely monitoring” other cities’ response to encampments. Officials in Hayward and Milpitas, which already restrict camping, said they had no immediate plans to increase encampment enforcement.
Even as San Jose moves to clear more encampments, Mayor Matt Mahan worries that more cities could enforce broad camping restrictions in an effort to push their homeless residents into the region’s urban centers.
“I would ban camping in a heartbeat if I thought it would solve the crisis — but it won’t,” he said in a statement, calling on cities to instead add more shelter beds.
Opponents of Fremont’s ban also worry the aiding-and-abetting provision in the ordinance would dissuade nonprofits and community groups from helping encampment residents while deterring homeless people from accepting needed services.
Tristia Bauman, an attorney with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, said that while not entirely unprecedented, the provision could violate First Amendment protections, including “political or religious expression about how resources should be shared.”
Wan with Abode Services put it more bluntly: “It makes it criminal to be a good neighbor — to offer someone a sandwich, a blanket, a bottle of water.”
Fremont has responded to such criticisms by noting that other cities with camping bans also have general language in their municipal codes prohibiting the aiding and abetting of any criminal violation. Officials explained the specific inclusion in the proposed ordinance was only “in the interest of transparency.”
David Bonaccorsi, a former Fremont councilman and housing advocate, argues a camping ban would be both cruel and costly, pointing to a 2018 city study on an encampment near Quarry Lakes Regional Park that showed Fremont spent at least $86,000 clearing out over two dozen homeless campers. After the city cleared the camp, the number of people living there soon doubled, according to the report.
Yet some Fremont residents say the ban is a necessary step in addressing the crisis.
“Frankly, I agree. I think the residents feel unsafe,” said Yu Du, whose home is near the Washington and Osgood encampment with his three daughters, aged 14, 18 and 24.
Councilwoman Kathy Kimberlin, who opposed the ban in its first reading in December, wants to see Bay Area cities collaborate to address homelessness.
“Otherwise,” she said,” “we’re just going to be pushing people around and moving needlessly.”
Fremont’s plan to ban homeless camps anywhere in the city has the potential to be the most forceful response yet in the Bay Area to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer granting officials broad authority to police homelessness — and could have ripple effects across the region.
If approved Tuesday, advocates for homeless people say the proposal by the Bay Area’s fourth-largest city could trigger similar moves from nearby jurisdictions seeking to rein in homeless camps. Fremont residents, frustrated with sprawling encampments that cause fire hazards and pollute waterways, have gathered more than 1,600 online signatures in support of the ban.
“I haven’t seen anything, certainly in the Bay Area, as strict,” said Vivian Wan, chief executive of Abode Services, a homeless services provider operating in Fremont and across six counties in the region. “It’s definitely the harshest.”
The ban would prohibit encampments on “any public property, including any street, sidewalk, park, open space, waterway” or private property not designated for camping. It would also allow officials to criminally charge anyone “aiding” or “abetting” a homeless camp, a provision service providers fear could put a target on their backs.
The penalty for violating the ordinance: a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail.
Fremont officials have maintained the goal is not to push all homeless people out of the city but instead to give officials the “power to change behavior” of those living in encampments. They say they have no intention of arresting homeless people or service providers.
“Compliance will be gained through request,” said city spokesperson Geneva Bosques.
According to the latest counts last year, Fremont has an estimated 802 homeless residents, about 600 of whom live on the street. The city’s shelter has space for 45 people.
If the ban goes through, Fremont would become the latest California city to adopt tougher encampment rules following the Supreme Court’s ruling in June. That decision, Grant’s Pass v. Johnson, overturned a lower court ruling that had prevented local governments in the Western U.S. from punishing people for living on the street if they had nowhere else to go.
In the Bay Area, San Jose and Oakland have since ramped up sweeps. San Francisco has begun citing more homeless people for public camping. Berkeley now allows city workers to clear some encampments even when shelter beds aren’t available. Antioch recently passed a full camping ban. And San Mateo County has made it illegal for unhoused people in unincorporated areas to refuse shelter.
Elsewhere in California, cities including Fresno and Stockton have drawn attention for passing strict camping restrictions. Before Grants Pass, some Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Hayward, Milpitas, Livermore and Sausalito, already had no-camping laws on the books, though enforcement after the ruling has varied.
Advocates say that if Fremont approves its camping ban, even more cities could be tempted to follow suit in hopes of discouraging displaced homeless people from moving to their jurisdictions — setting off a “race to the bottom” they say would achieve little besides pushing encampments from one neighborhood to another.
“If I get kicked out, I’m going to stay in front of City Hall. I have nowhere else to go,” said José Arroyo, 62, who has lived in an encampment along the railroad tracks beneath Washington Boulevard and Osgood Road for the last two years. “Where will you put us?”
In neighboring Union City, officials said they are aware of Fremont’s proposal and are “closely monitoring” other cities’ response to encampments. Officials in Hayward and Milpitas, which already restrict camping, said they had no immediate plans to increase encampment enforcement.
Even as San Jose moves to clear more encampments, Mayor Matt Mahan worries that more cities could enforce broad camping restrictions in an effort to push their homeless residents into the region’s urban centers.
“I would ban camping in a heartbeat if I thought it would solve the crisis — but it won’t,” he said in a statement, calling on cities to instead add more shelter beds.
Opponents of Fremont’s ban also worry the aiding-and-abetting provision in the ordinance would dissuade nonprofits and community groups from helping encampment residents while deterring homeless people from accepting needed services.
Tristia Bauman, an attorney with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, said that while not entirely unprecedented, the provision could violate First Amendment protections, including “political or religious expression about how resources should be shared.”
Wan with Abode Services put it more bluntly: “It makes it criminal to be a good neighbor — to offer someone a sandwich, a blanket, a bottle of water.”
Fremont has responded to such criticisms by noting that other cities with camping bans also have general language in their municipal codes prohibiting the aiding and abetting of any criminal violation. Officials explained the specific inclusion in the proposed ordinance was only “in the interest of transparency.”
David Bonaccorsi, a former Fremont councilman and housing advocate, argues a camping ban would be both cruel and costly, pointing to a 2018 city study on an encampment near Quarry Lakes Regional Park that showed Fremont spent at least $86,000 clearing out over two dozen homeless campers. After the city cleared the camp, the number of people living there soon doubled, according to the report.
Yet some Fremont residents say the ban is a necessary step in addressing the crisis.
“Frankly, I agree. I think the residents feel unsafe,” said Yu Du, whose home is near the Washington and Osgood encampment with his three daughters, aged 14, 18 and 24.
Councilwoman Kathy Kimberlin, who opposed the ban in its first reading in December, wants to see Bay Area cities collaborate to address homelessness.
“Otherwise,” she said,” “we’re just going to be pushing people around and moving needlessly.”
Discover more from World Byte News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
