Homelessness policy in California is built around the idea that no one living on the streets will be compelled to accept shelter, treatment or services, not even housing. However, homeless housing providers can be compelled to accept residents who are actively using hard drugs. And taxpayers can be compelled to pay for homeless housing and services whether anyone on the streets chooses to use them or not.
This is the system Gov. Gavin Newsom described in a recent news conference as “alternatives to state hospitals” that “keep as many people as we can out of CDCR [state prisons] and county jails.”
Compulsion is out of the question, unless you’re a housing provider, a taxpayer or a city government that seeks to prevent this road show from playing in your town. Expect the full force of government to come down on you if you won’t “do your part.”
Newsom has just issued another one of his periodic directives to local governments to remove homeless encampments. Last year it was an executive order. This year it’s a “model ordinance” that cities and counties can adapt to their local needs in order to “immediately address dangerous and unhealthy encampments and connect people experiencing homelessness with shelter and services.”
Newsom’s “model ordinance” says a city should require the residents of a homeless encampment to move at least 200 feet every three days, but enforcement may commence only after the city makes “every reasonable effort” to find shelter, housing or supportive services for the residents of the encampment. A notice to vacate the premises must be posted at least 2 days in advance. When the clean-up begins, “personal belongings,” as defined, must be collected and stored for a minimum of 60 days.
However, Newsom says cities are not obligated to store “toxic sharps,” “chemicals,” or items “soiled by infectious materials, including human waste and bodily fluids.” Cities are allowed to throw away anything that’s “moldy,” “combustible,” or infested by “rats, mice, fleas, lice, bed bugs.” Backpacks and closed containers can be discarded if “an individual licensed to identify and handle hazardous materials” determines that they contain any of the previous items, or if no licensed hazmat worker is present to make the determination. “If personal belongings are co-mingled or littered with needles, human waste, or other health risks,” the ordinance states, “the entire pile of belongings may be disposed of.” However, “the presence of clothing in a backpack or container shall not be the sole reason to discard the backpack or container.”
This process for relocating or removing encampments would seem to repeatedly put city and county workers at physical risk, drain local budgets with extra expenses and risk lawsuits over whether personal belongings were handled correctly. How much documentation is required to establish that a container was legally discarded?
Given the challenges of moving and cleaning up after a homeless encampment, cities might want to prevent encampments from being set up in the first place. In fact, the Bay Area city of Fremont passed an anti-camping ordinance in February that included a provision prohibiting anyone from “aiding and abetting” a homeless encampment. Under fierce criticism, Fremont removed that provision in March.
The governor said cities must “right size” their ordinances. He announced that he was releasing $3.3 billion of funds from Proposition 1, the March 2024 measure that authorized $6.38 billion in borrowing to build “places” for behavioral and mental health services.
The awards include tens of millions of dollars to county public health and mental health departments. Nonprofits also received grants for substance abuse treatment and mental health facilities.
But nobody on the streets is obligated to use them. The governor’s model policy is to wait for people to be ready to accept help, and meanwhile make them move 200 feet every three days.
State hospitals deserve another look. The governor could ask the federal government for a waiver from the rule that prohibits federal reimbursement for care in a mental health facility with more than 16 beds. Federal funds could help with real solutions for people suffering from gravely disabling mental illness.
Better decisions will lead to better outcomes.
Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on X @Susan_Shelley