Homeless Camp Ordinance Moves Forward On The Peninsula

REDWOOD CITY, CA — The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to introduce an ordinance to curtail homeless encampments on public property in unincorporated areas of the county at its regular meeting Tuesday, over the objections of several public commenters who said the move would effectively criminalize homelessness.

The ordinance makes refusing to leave an encampment a misdemeanor after two warnings, but it cannot be enforced unless a shelter bed is available and has been declined, which is in line with the law which states that an unhoused person cannot be criminally charged for taking up public space if no shelter is made available to them.

• Related: Proposed Law Could Criminalize Homeless Encampments In SMC

Courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, have restricted blanket removal policies, citing constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable property seizures. But cities and counties have been given legal clearance to enact restrictions if there is shelter space available and it is offered before enforcement.

The ordinance, called the Hopeful Horizons: Empowering Lives Initiative, is designed to get unhoused people to accept offers of shelter. It was sponsored by Supervisors David Pine and Warren Slocum, who pointed to the fact that an average of 40 unsheltered people die in San Mateo County every year.

"That's just not unacceptable. We, as a society, shouldn't tolerate that," said Slocum.

But even some of the commenters who supported the goal of getting people into housing disagreed with the proposed ordinance.

William Freeman, an ACLU representative, spoke during the public comment period in opposition, as did unhoused county residents and advocates, some of whom criticized the conflation of homelessness and substance abuse or mental health issues with homelessness.

"There is nothing in the ordinance that requires the county to do what experts agree is necessary: have unarmed peer support specialists and trained civilian responders be the leading edge of responding to encampments," Freeman said. "Law enforcement presence only amplifies the trauma that unhoused people are already experiencing."

Some commenters supported the ordinance. Others were against it altogether, while others urged more protections to be written into the law.

County executive Mike Callagy said the point of the ordinance was not to put people in jail, but that enforcement of the ordinance could force people into different diversion programs.

"The court has a lot of leeway to divert these cases out of the criminal justice system to get folks help, and that is the main priority," Callagy said.

Supervisor Noelia Corzo suggested adding requirements around language accessibility to ensure people being contacted understand what they are being told what is happening to their property if it is seized.

Supervisor Ray Mueller requested adding more specific language to direct police officers or another county employee to make a mental health screening in between the issuance of a first and second warning or sometime before enforcement. He also suggested a report on the law's impacts in six months and again in one year.

Encampments, including those with a single resident, will generally be given 72 hours notice before being destroyed and property seized, but an allowance for declaring an encampment an immediate danger led to some questions about how that decision is made.

Property that is seized will be photographed and stored for 90 days, but questions remained about who would decide what to keep and what to throw away and how those decisions would be made.
There are about 30 shelter beds available in the county's unincorporated area, where there are about 44 unsheltered people living in eight encampments.

Counties around the state have been grappling with how to address encampments that grew larger during the pandemic and have remained prominent in the face of high housing prices in California and in the Bay Area.

The board will consider approval of the ordinance with the changes proposed by Corzo and Mueller at a later meeting before final adoption.

Story by Thomas Hughes, Bay City News.

Copyright © 2024 Bay City News, Inc. All rights reserved. Republication, rebroadcast or redistribution without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited. Bay City News is a 24/7 news service covering the greater Bay Area.