In California, cities are increasingly prohibiting homeless encampments, but Fremont, located in the East Bay, is pushing the envelope further with a proposed ordinance set for vote. This new regulation would criminalize camping not only on streets and sidewalks but also in parks and on any public property. Uniquely, it would penalize individuals “causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing” such encampments with potential consequences like a $1,000 fine and six months of incarceration.
This significant measure comes in response to a Supreme Court ruling last summer that allowed cities to prohibit camping on public property even when shelters are unavailable. Activists are sounding alarms over the potential implications, particularly for outreach workers who provide essential services to homeless populations. Fremont’s Mayor, Raj Salwan, has commented that police will not focus on outreach efforts distributing food and clothing, but the ordinance lacks clear definitions for what constitutes “aiding” or “abetting.”
The broad language surrounding the ordinance has raised concerns for Vivian Wan, CEO of Abode Services, the prominent homeless services nonprofit in the area. Abode’s outreach workers regularly assist residents of encampments by connecting them with housing resources, food assistance, and other forms of support. Wan expressed her fears that the new legal framework could create unnecessary stress and legal risks for those trying to help.
The ordinance, which has already passed an initial city council vote with a 4-2 margin and is slated for a final decision on February 11, reflects a statewide trend of increasingly strict measures against homeless encampments. Since the Supreme Court decision last year, numerous California cities have instituted similar restrictions, leading to heightened scrutiny of homeless populations.
During a recent city council meeting, public opinion was sharply divided. While many voiced opposition, arguing it is unjust to criminalize homelessness, a few residents expressed support, citing concerns over safety and the expectations of taxpayers wanting to access public spaces without encountering encampments.
Councilmember Raymond Liu shared his sentiments, indicating that citizen fears over safety near encampments have been a recurring theme in discussions with constituents. He pointed out that some residents no longer feel comfortable using public parks or libraries due to the proximity of these encampments.
As certain California municipalities ramp up enforcement measures, the situation has seen troubling incidents, such as the arrest of a local journalist in Oakland while covering the removal of a homeless encampment. In a further move toward criminalization, Oakland had previously enacted a law making it a misdemeanor to not vacate designated cleanup zones.
Civil liberties advocates, including federal officials, have criticized some of these measures as excessive overreach. In Los Angeles, a law prohibiting the storage of personal property in public areas has met scrutiny, particularly for its implications on the unhoused. Cases have arisen where journalists documenting city actions against homelessness have faced threatening legal consequences for simply doing their jobs.
The future of Fremont’s proposed ordinance, especially concerning the aiding and abetting clause, remains uncertain regarding its implementation and judicial backing. Legal experts contend that outcomes will hinge heavily on how local law enforcement interprets and applies the rule. Mayor Salwan clarified that the ordinance would target those constructing unsafe structures for the unhoused as opposed to individuals simply distributing tents.
However, the ambiguity surrounding aiding and abetting raises pressing questions for activists and outreach workers, with concerns that the city will leverage the vague wording to apprehend those readily assisting the unhoused. Legal definitions surrounding aiding and abetting are expansive, which leaves many anxious about the potential for arbitrary enforcement.
While city officials, including Salwan, are open to refining the ordinance’s language to alleviate concerns, some remain skeptical about whether adjustments can adequately protect those helping the homeless. Wan is particularly worried that law enforcement might attempt to manipulate outreach efforts by coercing workers to reveal the locations of encampments—an outcome that, if realized, could erode trust between service providers and their clients.
For individuals such as Sister Elaine Sanchez of the local religious community, the proposed ordinance will not deter their commitment to assisting those in need. She expressed a willingness to face consequences for her humanitarian efforts, emphasizing a moral obligation to help.
As the date for the final vote approaches, the implications of Fremont’s proposed ordinance, especially regarding the aiding and abetting clause, loom large over the city’s homeless support framework, prompting extensive discussions statewide regarding the treatment and rights of unhoused individuals.
