Commentary: Where Are People Supposed to Go?  California’s Escalating Homeless Encampment Sweeps

Licensed under the Unsplash+ License

In the wake of the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision, California cities are ramping up homeless encampment sweeps, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows municipalities to enforce anti-camping ordinances even if they do not have sufficient shelter beds.

The ruling has paved the way for an aggressive approach to homelessness—one that prioritizes enforcement over solutions.

Yet, as city after city clears encampments from public spaces, the fundamental question remains unanswered: Where are unhoused people supposed to go?

Encampment sweeps have long been a contentious issue in California, but since Grants Pass v. Johnson, cities have accelerated their efforts to clear public spaces. This past year, Governor Gavin Newsom directed the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to crack down on encampments near state highways, a move that aligns with increased local enforcement in cities like San Francisco, Fresno, San Diego, and Los Angeles.

The logic behind these efforts is straightforward: encampments are seen as public health and safety hazards. However, the individuals targeted by these sweeps often have nowhere else to go. As one unhoused person, Jay Adams, told CalMatters, “They tell us we can’t stay here, but they won’t tell us where we can go. It’s like we’re just supposed to disappear.”

San Francisco adopted a dual strategy: increasing shelter capacity while simultaneously cracking down on encampments. In the past year, the city added more shelter beds, and with the Supreme Court’s ruling providing legal cover, it has taken a harder line against street homelessness.

“We’ve been able to significantly reduce the number of large encampments in the city,” San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing Director, Sam Dodge, told CalMatters. “But the challenge remains: We still don’t have enough housing, and some people simply don’t want to go into shelters.”

This gets to the heart of the issue: while San Francisco has made progress in expanding shelter space, many unhoused individuals avoid traditional shelters due to safety concerns, rigid curfews, and restrictions on pets or possessions.

In Fresno, city officials have repeatedly cleared encampments, only to see them reappear in different locations. As CalMatters reports, police and city workers dismantled a long-standing encampment near downtown, leaving many to wander the streets in search of another spot.

“We get kicked out of one place, we move, and then we get kicked out again,” said Maria Lopez, a 54-year-old woman who has lived on the streets for three years. “They throw away our tents, our IDs, everything we own. It’s like we’re not even human.”

Despite efforts by city officials to offer shelter placements, there simply aren’t enough beds. Fresno County has an estimated 4,500 unhoused residents, but only a fraction of them have access to emergency shelter or permanent supportive housing.

San Diego has aggressively enforced anti-camping laws, particularly in its downtown area. Police have ramped up ticketing and arrests, a move that city officials argue is necessary to maintain public order. But, as CalMatters highlights, these enforcement measures often result in criminal records that make it even harder for unhoused individuals to secure housing and employment.

“Being homeless is already hard enough,” said Travis Mills, who has lived on San Diego’s streets for five years. “But when they start giving us tickets and arresting us, it just makes it impossible to get back on our feet.”

San Diego officials defend their approach, pointing to reductions in visible homelessness. “We have to balance compassion with accountability,” said Mayor Todd Gloria. “Encampments present serious health and safety risks, and we can’t allow them to remain unchecked.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson removed one of the last legal barriers preventing cities from criminalizing homelessness. Previously, the Martin v. Boise decision had established that cities could not punish people for sleeping in public if there were no shelter options available. Now, with that precedent effectively overturned, cities across California have been given a green light to enforce anti-camping ordinances with impunity.

Civil rights advocates fear the consequences. “This ruling will lead to more criminalization of poverty,” said Eve Garrow, a homelessness policy analyst with the ACLU. “Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness—like the lack of affordable housing, job insecurity, and mental health services—cities are resorting to punitive measures that do nothing to solve the crisis.”

The irony of these encampment sweeps is that they come at a time when California’s housing crisis is worse than ever. The state’s median rent remains among the highest in the country, and the supply of affordable housing falls woefully short of demand.

In a particularly damning statistic, CalMatters reports that Alameda County spends between $600,000 to $800,000 annually to incarcerate a single unhoused youth, while per-pupil spending in school districts across the county is less than $20,000. The numbers expose a troubling reality: the state is willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money to police and incarcerate unhoused individuals, but it balks at making the necessary investments in permanent housing and supportive services.

“We’re spending money on the wrong things,” said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness. “Instead of funding housing, we’re funding sweeps, arrests, and court cases. It’s an endless cycle that only deepens the crisis.”

If California is serious about solving homelessness, punitive measures alone won’t cut it. Instead, cities must invest in long-term, evidence-based solutions:

• Affordable Housing Expansion: California needs to dramatically scale up affordable housing construction, particularly in areas where rents have skyrocketed.
• Housing First Policies: Programs that provide stable housing without preconditions have been proven to reduce chronic homelessness.
• Mental Health and Addiction Services: A significant percentage of unhoused individuals struggle with mental illness and substance use disorders. Expanding access to treatment is critical.
• Tenant Protections and Rent Control: Preventing more people from falling into homelessness should be a top priority.
• Alternatives to Mass Encampment Sweeps: Cities should prioritize outreach teams that connect people to services rather than simply displacing them.

The Grants Pass v. Johnson decision has given California cities a powerful legal tool to crack down on homelessness, but the fundamental question remains: Where are people supposed to go? Until cities can provide sufficient housing and supportive services, encampment sweeps will do nothing more than push the problem out of sight, only for it to reappear elsewhere.

Governor Newsom and local officials face a stark choice: continue down the path of criminalization or embrace a humane, effective approach that actually addresses homelessness at its core. If the state truly wants to end this crisis, it must stop treating homelessness as a nuisance to be managed and start treating it as a humanitarian emergency that requires real, lasting solutions.

As Maria Lopez, the Fresno woman forced to relocate after an encampment sweep, put it: “We’re not going away. You can kick us out, tear down our tents, take our things, but we’ll still be here. Because we have nowhere else to go.”

Categories:

Tags: