Fremont, our sister city to the south and the fourth largest in the Bay Area, has done something that Oakland steadfastly refuses to do: crack down on illegal and dangerous homeless encampments. Their City Council, unlike our feckless one, just passed the strictest encampment policy in the Bay Area, mandating “the removal of personal property left on any public space—including buildings, parks, streets, open areas and waterways. It also allows authorities to enforce the abatement of belongings left unattended on public property for 24 hours or more.”
Imagine if the Oakland City Council had the sense of responsibility that Fremont has. Overnight, all those nasty tent camps would disappear from our public parks and streets, as well as the piles of junk and rotting garbage that the homeless claim is their “property.” Not only that, “Failure to comply with the above requirements may result in removal or abatement of items and debris, impoundment of vehicle(s), citations, or monetary fines. Criminal activities can result in arrest,” according to the Encampment Condition Guidelines, which are now the law of the city.
Make no mistake, this is one tough policy. Among the actions it makes illegal and subject to “immediate enforcement” are things that our City Council has tolerated if not encouraged for years, including
- Parking any vehicle (including RVs) along streets or within parking lots in violation of posted restrictions
- Unsanctioned electrical or water taps
- Lodging or camping on public property, including City parks
- Non-operable or immobile vehicles and structures on City streets
- Other behaviors, including aggressive animals and individuals
- Engaging in activities that pose a health or safety risk, such as unsanitary conditions or unsafe cooking practices in public spaces
Fremont’s Mayor, who supports the new policy, said (I paraphrase), “Yes, homeless people have rights, but those rights do not supersede the rights of citizens who want clean, safe neighborhoods and public spaces.”
We don’t allow poor people to steal food or clothing from shops simply because they want it but can’t afford to pay for it. (Actually, we do, because when a City forbids its police from arresting shoplifters, as Oakland has, it is de facto legalizing theft.) It’s the same thing with setting up tents: just because a person is without shelter doesn’t give him permission to violate multiple ordinances and laws. When society starts making arbitrary exceptions to its rules, we might as well stop having rules, which obviously would mean the end of society itself.
Needless to say, the pro-encampment crowd in Fremont is outraged. They cite the same tired old reasons: one resident told the City Council the new ordinances would “criminalize homelessness.” (Well, society criminalizes all sorts of things it deems harmful. We’d have no society at all if we didn’t criminalize certain behaviors.) A City Council member who voted against the ordinance argued it would “strain an already overburdened police force.” (Yes, it will put additional pressure on the FPD, but the answer to that is to hire more cops.) And Fremont’s Vice Mayor, who also voted against the ordinance, said “investing in shelter beds for the homeless would be a more effective solution.” (We’ve been having this same pointless conversation for years. The problem is twofold: cities shouldn’t have to take money away from legitimate needs, such as fire and police, in order to give homeless people a place to live, and secondly, we know from every news report that the majority of homeless people refuse city-provided shelter, preferring instead to remain outdoors where they can buy and sell their drugs.)
Even before the new anti-encampment ordinance was passed this month, Fremont had already started clearing camps in a way Oakland never has. In November, 2024 alone, the city cleared out 24 separate encampments, making those neighborhoods accessible once again to regular citizens, including children and the elderly. Oakland clearly could do exactly what Fremont has done, now that the Supreme Court ruled in the Grants Pass case. It takes will power and determination to do anything about encampments these days, when governments and city bureaucracies are so intent on resisting change, but Fremont has proven that it can be done. If the bleeding heart progressives who staff our city’s departments, and who have been there for years, don’t like it, they can always protest by quitting their jobs. We’ll be glad to replace them with employees who respect the law and the rights of voters, rather than siding all the time with misfits and ne’er-do-wells.
Steve Heimoff