A Bay Area city voted Tuesday to criminalize “aiding” or “abetting” homeless camps, an apparent first-of-its-kind measure that could make it harder for unhoused people to receive food, medical care and other services.
The action by the city of Fremont, California, comes after a Supreme Court ruling in June that emboldened communities across the country to limit protections for people without homes. The court’s decision in Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson lets cities ban homeless residents from sleeping outside, even when a community lacks indoor shelter beds.
In its wake, more than 150 cities have adopted laws banning homeless camps through policies that outlaw camping or sleeping in public places, such as sidewalks or parks, or prohibit storing private property on public land, according to the National Homelessness Law Center. More than 40 of those cities are in California.
Across the bay from San Francisco, the Fremont city council went a step further, voting 6-1 Tuesday to adopt a policy that not only bans homeless camps, but also makes it a misdemeanour for any person to aid or abet one. The provision, which takes effect in 30 days, does not define what constitutes “aiding” or “abetting” an encampment – which homelessness experts say leaves a concerning gap.
Violators of the policy, first reported by the news outlet CalMatters, may be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to six months.
“What we’re seeing is a really rapid expansion by cities, counties and states to resort to a variety of draconian measures in the wake of Grants Pass,” said Ron Hochbaum, associate clinical professor of law at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law. “This is the first ordinance that I’m aware of that uses this overly broad aiding and abetting language … that would criminalize this wide-reaching array of conduct.”
Proponents of Fremont’s policy, including Mayor Raj Salwan, say it’s meant to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all residents. He wrote in an email that the ordinance balances “compassion for the unhoused with common sense protections for all our residents.”
In particular, Salwan said, the law will “hold people accountable who attempt to build un-permitted structures (tree houses, wooden structures, etc.) in our parks and waterways.” He said it would not “prevent social workers from assisting our neighbours with water, food or services to get them help.”
But legal and homelessness experts say the statute – and its vague language – could prevent charity workers, service providers and well-meaning neighbours from supporting the city’s homeless communities, while inspiring other cities to pursue similar policies.
Hochbaum said that as the law is written, distributing camping equipment, food and water could be a violation, as could providing legal advice to homeless people living in encampments.
“It’s really hard to say what it means or how it would be interpreted because it’s not defined,” Hochbaum said, but some implications are clear: “The first and most obvious thing is that this is kind of designed to criminalize charity. The second is that it’s designed to have a chilling effect on advocates for people experiencing homelessness.”
It also amounts to “further investment in punitive approaches to responding to homelessness,” rather than addressing the root causes or helping people find shelter, he said.
The Fremont city attorney’s office said it’s common for cities to ban the aiding and abetting of lawbreaking. “This language was not developed specifically for camping ordinance violations nor would it apply uniquely to such violations,” the office said in a document posted on the city’s website.
But seven legal and homelessness experts told The Washington Post that the aiding and abetting language, nestled into a ban on homeless encampments, is unusually broad and marks a new frontier in homelessness crackdowns.
At least one organization indicated that it may challenge the law.
“We believe that this measure is unconstitutional on its face, and we are now actively in discussions with other organizations and attorneys to see if we can make a concerted challenge to this ordinance,” said Anthony Prince, general counsel for the California Homeless Union.
Much of the country is struggling to deal with a growing number of unhoused people. The problem is especially pronounced across the West, including throughout the Bay Area, where soaring housing costs have driven more and more vulnerable people into homelessness.
As localities scramble to address the crisis, some have passed laws restricting charity. Many cities have limited panhandling or made it illegal to hand out food – efforts that proponents say curb crime and preserve residents’ safety.
Fremont’s new policy lacks specificity, experts said, making it both notable and dangerous.
“We’ve seen similar efforts in other cities, but what we haven’t seen is this language that basically equates outreach workers with being the driver of a getaway car in a bank robbery,” said Alex Visotzky, senior California policy fellow with the National Alliance to End Homelessness. “This ‘aiding and abetting’ kind of language feels new and certainly more charged.”
Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said advocates for unhoused people will be watching closely how Fremont’s law unfolds.
“Cities very often mimic the behaviour of other cities,” Whitehead said. “And I think this would have that kind of snowballing effect.”