: Critics Question Efficacy Without Housing Solutions
California Governor Gavin Newsom has escalated the state's approach to addressing its homelessness crisis with a controversial new directive urging cities and counties to adopt a model ordinance that would effectively ban homeless encampments on public property throughout the state. The move, announced Monday, marks a significant shift in California's homelessness strategy from primarily supportive measures to a more enforcement-focused approach. The New York Times1
Key Elements of California's Encampment Ban
The model ordinance, which Newsom wants municipalities to adopt, contains several provisions aimed at clearing public spaces of homeless encampments. It would explicitly outlaw "semi-permanent structures" on public property and prohibit camping for more than three consecutive days within 200 feet of a single location. Additionally, it would ban sitting, sleeping, or lying on public streets, sidewalks, and bike paths in ways that impede passage. The New York Times1
"It is time to take back the streets. It's time to take back the sidewalks. It's time to take these encampments and provide alternatives," Newsom declared. "It simply cannot continue." Los Angeles Times2
The plan requires local officials to make "every reasonable effort" to offer shelter or housing and provide at least 48 hours' notice before clearing an encampment. It also mandates proper storage of personal belongings for at least two months. However, the ordinance leaves the specifics of enforcement, including potential criminal penalties, to local discretion. The New York Times1
Mental Health Funding Package Accompanies Ban
In conjunction with the encampment ban, Newsom announced a substantial $3.3 billion investment in expanding behavioral health services across California. This funding, made possible through Proposition 1, which voters approved in March, will create over 5,000 residential treatment beds and more than 21,800 outpatient treatment slots for behavioral health care services. gov.ca.gov3
"These launch-ready projects will build and expand residential beds and treatment slots for those who need help," the governor's office stated. "Whether it's crisis stabilization, inpatient services, or long-term treatment, we're ensuring that individuals can access the right care at the right time."
Additionally, the Department of Housing and Community Development will oversee up to $2 billion in Proposition 1 funds to build permanent supportive housing for veterans and others who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. These investments aim to address California's estimated 7,000-plus behavioral health bed shortfall. gov.ca.gov3
San Diego's Existing Framework
While Newsom's ordinance represents a new direction for many California communities, San Diego County and its 18 cities already have similar prohibitions in place. The city of San Diego adopted its Unsafe Camping Ordinance in 2023, which ties enforcement to the availability of short-term shelter beds. San Diego Union-Tribune4
However, the effectiveness of these measures has been limited by the region's persistent shelter shortage and the fact that the number of people losing their homes each month continues to exceed the number who find housing. Even with upcoming additions like the H Barracks, a massive safe parking lot near the airport, available spaces are expected to fill quickly. San Diego Union-Tribune4
Criticism and Support for the New Approach
The governor's initiative has drawn both praise and criticism from various stakeholders. Advocates for homeless people have denounced the plan, with Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center stating, "Sadly, Newsom and Trump are using the same failed playbook." The New York Times1
Dr. Margot Kushel, a professor of medicine at UCSF and director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, expressed mixed feelings about the approach: "I do think the encampments are a disaster, I want them gone too," she said, but added, "I actually worry that making people move every day, threatening them with arrest, all of those things make the problem worse and not better." Los Angeles Times2
Local officials have also expressed skepticism. Jeff Griffiths, an Inyo County official, questioned the state's funding claims, saying, "More than half of it went to housing, not homelessness." The New York Times1
Yet public sentiment indicates some support for tougher measures. A recent poll found that nearly 40 percent of California's Democrat-dominated electorate expressed support for arresting homeless campers who refuse shelter, although nearly half of policy leaders and elected officials opposed using law enforcement to address the crisis. The New York Times1
Expert Analysis on Effectiveness
Homelessness experts point to the disconnect between enforcement measures and housing availability. "Without adequate shelter or permanent housing alternatives, clearances of encampments primarily serve as political optics and may worsen the situation by disrupting relationships and trust with the homeless community," said Dr. Jennifer Wolch, professor of urban planning at UC Berkeley.
This sentiment is echoed by Tom Stenson, deputy legal director for Disability Rights Oregon, who noted the particular hardship that anti-camping laws impose on people with physical or mental impairments. Los Angeles Times2
Housing advocates emphasize that California's homelessness crisis is primarily driven by a severe housing shortage, not just factors like mental illness or substance abuse. The state is home to approximately half of the nation's unsheltered homeless population, with a record 187,000 people reported homeless last year. About two-thirds of these individuals were living unsheltered in tents, cars, or outdoors. The New York Times1
Legal Context and Future Implications
The governor's push comes after a significant legal shift. Previously, federal courts had ruled that punishing people for sleeping on public property was "cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional. However, the legal landscape changed last year after a Supreme Court decision empowered governments to penalize people for sleeping in parks, on sidewalks, and in other public areas. The New York Times1
The long-term implications of this policy shift remain to be seen. While the ban may lead to clearer public spaces in the short term, without addressing the underlying housing shortage and providing adequate support services, critics argue that it may simply disperse rather than solve the homelessness crisis.
As California implements these measures against the backdrop of its ongoing housing crisis, the effectiveness of this dual approach—combining enforcement with expanded mental health services—will be closely watched by policymakers and advocates nationwide.
Will this pivotal shift in California's homelessness strategy succeed where previous approaches have struggled, or will it further marginalize a vulnerable population without addressing the root causes of the crisis?
