SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
After the Supreme Court’s June 28 Grants Pass decision, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are looking to curry favor with voters by ramping up harmful, ineffective encampment sweeps.
With elections less than 100 days away and voter ire about homelessness at a fever pitch, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have unleashed “very aggressive” sweeps of homeless settlements across San Francisco—despite widespread evidence that the so-called “encampment resolutions” cause extensive harm and do not lead to shelter or housing for homeless people.
At 11:00 am on Monday July 29, a Haight District resident witnessed Department of Public Works trucks on Hayes Street “piled high with belongings,” preparing to roust a homeless settlement. The witness, who requested anonymity, said they “tried to warn another camper one block away but no one was ‘home’ in the tent,” which DPW teams soon removed and discarded in trash trucks.
“This event will surely break him,” the resident told us via Facebook messages. “He has been among us for one month trying to keep it together.” Just two weeks earlier, “he left his tent overnight to visit a friend. The friend overdosed and died… After all he’d been through, he was trying to keep the sidewalk clean and tidy.”
The resident explained, “Neighbors on my block of Hayes and Clayton have been trying to help stabilize these folks get to a better place. It speaks volumes that they are camped literally in front of our homes and multi-unit buildings and that most of us are NOT calling the cops or 311 but rolling up our sleeves…Today’s raid was cruel and pointless and a group of about 35 human beings just “followed orders.”
“Pushing people block to block and neighborhood to neighborhood does not solve homelessness.”
In another “encampment resolution” this week, advocates witnessed a homeless woman being removed from a spot on Division Street under a freeway overpass. She had moved her carts with belongings and bedding outside the announced sweep zone, but DPW “followed her outside the sweep zone” and began seizing her belongings, according to Lukas Illa, human rights organizer with the Coalition on Homelessness, who witnessed the encounter.
“DPW workers seized her cart and mattresses,” Illa told us. “She was crying, saying, ‘This is the only thing protecting me from the concrete, please…’ But they removed her mattress and took it away.”
Illa added: “I’ve watched a woman jump into a [trash] crusher to get her purse, and their phone fell out. People have 30 minutes to pack up their entire lives. If they can’t pack it up, they have to watch things like personal memorabilia, family photo albums, medications, get crushed and destroyed.”
The ramped-up sweeps, ordered by Newsom and Breed after the Supreme Court’s June 28 Grants Pass decision, brought condemnation from national homeless advocacy groups. The National Health Care for the Homeless Council said it is “appalled” by Newsom’s executive order, which “authorizes statewide encampment sweeps of unhoused people while making no requirements for connecting people to permanent housing. Thousands of low-income Californians are now subject to even greater rates of harassment, arrests, and fines—simply because they have nowhere else to go.”
The human effects of the sweeps are extensive and well-documented, the council has found.
A 2023 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, “Involuntary displacement of people experiencing homelessness may substantially increase drug-related morbidity and mortality” by removing people from both their communities and outreach workers. Using simulated models of 23 U.S. cities and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers estimated “between 974 and 2,175 additional overdose deaths per 10,000 people experiencing homelessness” over a 10-year period.
Another study in 2023 found that sweeps “always resulted in the loss of the personal property,” and “occurred across seasons, hazardous weather, and without offers of alternative shelter.” In interviews and surveys, sweeps were noted to be physically, psychologically, and socially destructive,” leaving homeless people “feeling anger, loss, and hopelessness,” and further marginalization. Coalition Director Jennifer Friedenbach told us via email, “Sweeps are killing people and sweeps exacerbate homelessness. We need effective solutions such as filling the almost 800 vacant permanent housing units and rental assistance to keep San Franciscans in their homes.”
The reality, according to Friedenbach: “Previous evictions of people living in encampments have failed to reduce the number of people forced to sleep outside in our state nor in our city. Displacing, destabilizing, and dispossessing people without real offers of permanent housing makes homelessness worse.”
Despite the concerns, the city’s Healthy Streets Operation Center, which coordinates San Francisco’s homelessness initiatives, “plans to clear almost 100 tents and structures” this week, Mission Localreported.
According to SFPD Public Information Officer Robert Rueca, the sweeps have resulted in nine arrests since July 29, including some on warrants and for “illegal lodging.” So far, “No one has been booked into county jail just for illegal lodging,” Rueca told us via email. “A subject with the sole charge of illegal lodging is cited and released from the scene, which is still technically an arrest.” In the four months since April of this year, SFPD encampment sweeps have led to 162 arrests, according to Rueca.
The San Francisco Chronicledocumented one such arrest, when police detained and cited 48-year-old Ramon Castillo and “discarded most of his belongings.”
A photo is shown from a November 14, 2022 action at city hall by Stolen Belonging and the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness. (Photo: Steve Rhodes)
It’s unclear exactly how much city funding and staff are being devoted to the sweeps. According to Department of Public Works spokesperson Rachel Gordon, “On a typical day we have 14 to 16 people focused on encampment cleaning operations.” In a text, Gordon added, “Our crews work very hard every day to clean the City’s streets and public spaces… As a department, we are part of the city’s ongoing multi-faceted encampment-response operation that includes offers of shelter and services.”
Even while promoting stepped-up sweeps, the Mayor’s Office insisted in a statement this week, “San Francisco is already doing what the governor is calling for. Our city encampment teams and street outreach staff have been going out every day to bring people indoors, and to clean and clear encampments. This is why we are seeing a five year low in the city’s tent count on our streets.”
Breed has simultaneously claimed that high percentages of homeless people refuse shelter and that “nearly 500 encampment operations” in 2023 helped more than 1,500 people into shelter. Advocates dispute these claims, pointing to city Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing data showing long daily waiting lists for shelter beds.
While HSOC claims there are 300 shelter beds available for homeless people displaced by the sweeps, Friedenbach told us that’s misleading. “Every day, beds in the system turn over and every day they are filled. But many are set aside for different groups,” and are not actually available for people removed from their encampments.
Illa noted that even when city HOT team or other outreach workers may offer shelter beds, they “do not have access to the city shelter beds list, they do not even know what’s available. They’re offering things that do not exist.” Even for those who do refuse a shelter offer, “There are a million reasons why people don’t want to separate from their dog or their partner or give up their belongings for one or two nights in a shelter.”
According to Friedenbach, “We have hundreds of public housing units sitting vacant, yet our local officials are choosing to confiscate people’s property, their survival gear, their medications, their last items they are holding onto after losing everything; instead, why not offer them a place to live?”
Prior to the ramped-up sweeps, Mayor Breed cut funding and staffing for The City’s Homeless Outreach Team services, The SF Standardreported. While some funds were moved to the nonprofit Urban Alchemy’s “HEART” project, advocates insist city HOT Team workers “are more qualified… to move people into shelter and housing.” The Standard wrote: “Additionally, the advocates allege that HEART’s data paint a questionable picture about its effectiveness.”
Two mayoral candidates blasted the sweeps.
Board of supervisors president Aaron Peskin stated, “Policies to address homelessness must be humane, lawful and effective—not implemented just because someone’s job is on the line.” Peskin’s statement added, “In an effort to get reelected, Mayor Breed and former Mayor Mark Farrell are advocating for failed policies from the past that simply sweep our homeless problem from one neighborhood to another, without any long-term solutions.” Peskin advocated policies “to fight evictions, increase the amount of rent-controlled options, construct at least 2,000 shelter beds, and create affordable housing. We also need to establish supportive housing units that are equipped to handle mental and behavioral health issues.”
Candidate Daniel Lurie also criticized Mayor Breed for the sweeps, posting on X: “Mayor Breed has had six years to build the beds and clear encampments. Instead, she spent it making excuses and finally, in an election year, this is what she came up with? A rushed sweep with no real solution to actually keep people off the streets. Our city needs leadership that chases results, not headlines. Pushing the encampments from one block to another didn’t work when Mark Farrell tried it as temporary mayor, and it’s not working now. We must build the shelter beds, create paths to services, and expand Homeward Bound.”
Supervisor Dean Preston also strongly criticized the sweeps for undermining solutions to homelessness: “None of us are okay with a system where people are sleeping on our streets or in their cars. The Grants Pass decision, and now the governor and Mayor’s reaction to it, will make the situation worse. Pushing people block to block and neighborhood to neighborhood does not solve homelessness. In fact it makes it worse for everyone. Housing people with the support they need solves homelessness.”
If they can’t sleep inside because they’re homeless, and now the Supreme Court forbids them to sleep outside, then where in the world can they sleep?
The homeless problem in America is not funny. It’s serious and apparently growing. It helps little to call people “unhoused” instead of homeless. Under either name, they’re still on the street and need shelter.
But I got a belly laugh recently when it was announced that the reactionary U.S. Supreme Court has solemnly ruled that homeless people could not sleep outside. That struck me as funny. If they can’t sleep inside because they’re homeless, and now the Supreme Court forbids them to sleep outside, then where in the world can they sleep? People have to be somewhere, either inside or outside.
Then I realized it’s not a laughing matter after all. Because of the Supreme Court’s decision, officials in California, Oregon, and several Western states are now moving quickly to force people off the streets and into city shelters. If they don’t have a place to sleep, they have decreed, they must be rounded up like sheep and put into official sheepfolds.
Can Americans summon the compassion for their fellow citizens—for the estimated 650,000 men, women, and children in the U.S. who are currently homeless—to seek a lasting solution to this situation?
That makes a certain amount of sense, and seems to be compassionate, but it isn’t. First, there aren’t enough shelters. Then the cost to city and state budgets is sure to be high. Under this ruling, people become pawns of the civic authorities. When they resist they’re inevitably treated roughly by police, who don’t like herding people instead of fighting crime.
Now California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a possible vice presidential candidate, has announced that the California state police must become involved in rounding up the homeless. What a brilliant move—a bit like the slogan, “Whippings will continue until morale improves.”
But there’s a more sober—even ominous—dimension to this issue. We are all protected by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution in our Bill of Rights, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Under the legal implications of this decision, that right has now been taken away from all the rest of us.
The MAGA-tilted U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case filed by the town of Grants Pass, Oregon, was that homeless people—(who can’t sleep inside because they have no home) have no right to sleep outside either. The court said that forcing them into state or city-run shelters is not cruel and inhumane. What does that mean for them—or for us, if we find ourselves in that perilous condition? We just can’t sleep anywhere we choose. One of our rights has been taken away.
I have a friend who rebuked me for giving money to beggars and the “unhoused” homeless. He said, “There are plenty of government programs and service agencies dedicated to helping those people.” I inquired further and found that there is no “one size fits all” solution when it comes to the indigent. People on the street face multiple problems in getting appropriate aid. Each person has his or her own story to tell. “One size fits all” is not an appropriate answer.
What’s needed is more money to address the problems these people are facing. That includes counseling, better healthcare, adequate social security payments, improved socialization activities, opportunities for useful employment, and above all neighborly treatment. Each person is a child, brother, sister, spouse, parent, or grandparent—“somebody’s darling”—after all. For our own sake as well as theirs, let’s not allow public policy to strip them of their remaining shreds of human dignity.
Can Americans summon the compassion for their fellow citizens—for the estimated 650,000 men, women, and children in the U.S. who are currently homeless—to seek a lasting solution to this situation? Doing so is timely—and requisite for our own humanity.
Despite the court’s abhorrent decision, cities and states aren’t required to prosecute the unhoused. Instead, they should double down on proven and humane solutions.
It’s hard enough not having a safe place to live. Now it’s easier for cities to arrest you for it.
“I am afraid at all times,” testified Debra Blake, who’d been forced to live outside in Grants Pass, Oregon, for eight years after losing her job and housing. Her disability disqualified her from staying in the town’s only shelter. “I could be arrested, ticketed, and prosecuted for sleeping outside or for covering myself with a blanket to stay warm,” she said.
In 2018, after being banished from every park in town and accruing thousands in fines, she sued the city as part of a class action suit for violating homeless residents’ constitutional rights. The Oregon District Court agreed in 2020 that the city’s actions constituted “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Sadly, Blake died before seeing the results.
Today, a person who works full-time and earns a minimum wage cannot afford a safe place to live almost anywhere in the country.
But Grants Pass appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The billionaire-backed justices ruled this summer that unhoused people aren’t included in the Constitution’s protections against “cruel and unusual punishment,” overturning a federal appeals court.
But punishing people for our country’s failure to ensure adequate housing for all is inherently “cruel and unusual.” Widespread homelessness directly violates the human right to housing under international law, which must be recognized in the United States.
The court’s ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.” Fines and arrests on a person’s record, in turn, make it more difficult to get out of poverty and into stable housing.
The decision comes as housing is increasingly unaffordable in our increasingly unequal nation. Today, a person who works full-time and earns a minimum wage cannot afford a safe place to live almost anywhere in the country.
With half of all renter households now spending more than 30% of their income on housing, millions are one emergency away from homelessness. According to federal data, last year over 650,000 Americans experienced homelessness on a given night—a 12% increase from 2022. Nearly half sleep outside.
Research confirms what should be obvious: Unaffordable housing and homelessness are intertwined. A lack of adequate health care and social safety net supports further compound the problem.
Hedge funds and private equity firms have also driven up housing costs since gaining control over a greater share of the market. Blackstone alone owns and manages over 300,000 units, making it the nation’s largest landlord. This financialization of housing treats a basic necessity and fundamental human right as just another commodity.
Cities and states face complex challenges in responding to homelessness. But experts have long documented that the real solution is affordable housing and supportive services, not punishment. Housing those in need ultimately costs less than imprisoning them, both financially and morally.
Despite the court’s abhorrent decision, cities and states aren’t required to prosecute the unhoused. Instead, they should double down on proven and humane solutions like Housing First, which provides permanent housing without preconditions, coupled with supportive services.
Guaranteed income programs offer another promising and cost-effective solution. Denver’s innovative, no-strings-attached cash assistance to 807 unhoused participants helped increase their access to housing within one year, while decreasing nights spent unsheltered and reducing reliance on emergency services.
Congress must also do more to invest in all those who call America home.
Currently, only one in four eligible households receive federal rental assistance. Housing rights organizations like the National Homelessness Law Center recommend that Congress invest at least $356 billion on measures like universal rental assistance, expanding the national Housing Trust Fund, and eviction and homelessness prevention.
It will take a broad-based movement to achieve these goals and counter the court’s latest cruelty against everyone who struggles to get by in America. But the impacts of housing are just as wide-ranging and consequential—from our health to education, security, economic mobility, and even our dignity.