This Bay Area City Just Passed the Most Extreme Encampment Ban in California

Fremont city leaders on Tuesday night passed what could be the state’s most extreme anti-camping law over widespread condemnation from legal advocates and homeless services providers.

The ordinance bans camping on not only public property but also private land, including on residential property, for more than three consecutive nights. In what appears to be the first ban of its kind, it also prohibits anyone from “permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing” camping on those lands — a provision so broad advocates warn it could have a chilling effect on outreach, food distribution and other efforts to provide much-needed help to unhoused people.

A violation is punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1,000.

After four and a half hours of discussion and impassioned public comment, the City Council voted 6–1 in favor of the plan, with only Vice Mayor Desrie Campbell opposed.

“We must balance accountability with compassion,” Mayor Raj Salwan said. “We can’t just say, ‘Let’s just leave things as they are,’ because whatever we’re doing is not enough.”

Cities across California have cracked down on encampments since the Supreme Court gave local officials more power to do so last summer, though none to the extent of Fremont.

Eric Tars, policy director for the National Homelessness Law Center, called the city’s ordinance “both unprecedented and deeply cruel.”

NHLC was among 20 organizations that signed on to a Feb. 7 letter to the council warning that the law could lead to “devastating humanitarian consequences” and arguing that the language was so broad as to be “patently unreasonable,” exposing the city to legal liability.

Council members were prepared to amend the ordinance on Tuesday by asking the city attorney to add language clarifying that providing food or clothing to people living on the streets wouldn’t be punishable under the ordinance while helping someone to build a shelter outdoors would.

But they opted against that because it would have meant delaying a vote until March.

Local services providers have raised concerns that they would run afoul of the law by performing core job functions, like handing out water and blankets.

“If my staff gives someone a blanket so they don’t freeze at night or a bottle of water, that would be considered aiding, right?” Vivian Wan, CEO of Abode Services, told KQED. Abode runs a shelter and other housing programs in Fremont.

Sabyl Landrum, an attorney for the East Bay Community Law Center’s homelessness unit, said the ordinance was so broad that residents could potentially be cited for letting a family member stay in an RV in their driveway or pitch a tent in their backyard if they did so for more than three days in a row.

Mayor Salwan dismissed those concerns. In an interview, he said the language in the ordinance had been “weaponized” and insisted the council was taking a “common sense” approach intended to give officials a tool to deal with the camps that have received the most complaints about health and safety hazards.

“The goal is not to penalize people for giving water or food or a tent or some support services,” he said. “Absolutely not.”

The council heard public comment on Tuesday from over 70 community members, who were deeply divided on the proposal.

Those in favor appealed to the council to address trash, noise, loose dogs and campfire smoke in their neighborhoods. They complained about urine-soaked parking lots, people showering in their yards or stealing from them, and worried aloud about encampment fires spreading to their homes.

David Gutierrez, a small-business owner, said customers have to navigate an encampment to reach his door and voice concerns about their safety, “or they’ve just decided not to patronize our business at all,” he said.

Opponents argued the law was inhumane and counterproductive, misusing money while driving people deeper into homelessness.

“There are better ways these funds can be used, such as social services like Housing First initiatives and affordable housing, which are the only true long-term options if you don’t want people to camp,” said resident Sierra Fields, “and these are true public safety options.”

Salwan and other council members acknowledged that the ordinance is not a solution and said they would continue to invest in emergency shelter and affordable housing.

Fremont’s budget for the 2024–25 fiscal year included $8 million on homelessness services and enforcement, according to city staff. The city has cut homelessness by more than 20% since 2022, but there were still over 600 people living unsheltered at last count — and the city has just 129 year-round shelter beds.

The new law is set to go into effect in 30 days. Fremont Police Chief Sean Washington told the council his officers would only rely on it in “extreme situations,” where there are health or safety hazards and “we are unable to get voluntary compliance,” he said.

Legal advocates emphasized that regardless of agency policies and lawmakers’ intentions, as written, the law’s broad language allows it to be applied broadly.

Among those concerned is state Assemblymember Alex Lee, who represents Fremont and said he was “frankly embarrassed” by the city’s move.

He said he was looking into legislative action to reign in proliferating laws policing homelessness.

“I’m going to continue helping, aiding and abetting unhoused neighbors,” he said. “I’m never going to stop doing that.”