The City of Fremont Cracks Down on Homelessness

Images from Atharva Sonune.

In one of the nation’s most restrictive and sweeping measures regarding unhoused people, Fremont has banned “camping” on any public property, effectively criminalizing homelessness. The ordinance passed in February with a 6-1 vote prohibits storing personal property on any public property, while limiting camping on both public and private property. With often vague and open-ended wording, the ordinance also takes a step towards criminalizing providing assistance to the unhoused. 

Fremont’s ordinance comes on the heels of the recent Grants Pass v. Johnson Supreme Court ruling, which expanded local governments’ power to remove and cite unhoused individuals camping on public property. A highly contested case, the Supreme Court held that the enforcement of these laws does not meet the level of “cruel and unusual punishment” outlined in the Eighth Amendment. In Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, she highlights how “homelessness is a reality for too many Americans. On any given night, over half a million people across the country lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” This story is all too familiar in Fremont, where over 500 unhoused people are forced to live in encampments as a way to survive the night. 

The new ordinance has made headlines for its severe language curtailing the abilities of homeless people in Fremont to live without fear of arrest or citation. Various groups have called out the legislation, from housing providers like Abode Services to affordable housing advocates Fremont for Everyone. David Bonaccorsi, a former Fremont City Council member, Washington High School alumnus, and part of the Fremont for Everyone team, highlighted how “it makes [it] unlawful for anybody to store on public property what is called ‘camp paraphernalia.’ It’s like it’s a crime to be poor, to have cots or tarpaulins or sleeping bags or cooking facilities.” 

In addition, the ordinance lacks specificity, stating that camp facilities “include, but are not limited to, tents, huts, vehicles, vehicle camping outfits or temporary shelter.” This presents a situation where enforcement of the regulation is left to an officer’s discretion, and forces those who are temporarily living in tents or vehicles to seek housing elsewhere.

Drawing national attention, the ordinance has divided the community, with the California Homeless Union, alongside 13 other plaintiffs, suing the City of Fremont on the grounds that the regulation will cause irreparable harm and pose a major health risk. In the lawsuit, it is claimed that “criminalization of homelessness causes premature mortality, sleep deprivation, increased rates of violence against women, and other unforeseeable danger.”

The lawsuit goes as far as comparing the current situation with slavery: “two hundred years ago, by fleeing bondage, the runaway slaves ‘stole’ themselves from their owners, and became, by definition, criminals. Today it is the homeless resident of Fremont who has become the criminal.” 

The ordinance’s “aiding and abetting” clause, one of the first and strictest in the nation, criminalizes the assistance of homeless people and punishes aid efforts with up to $1000 in fines and six months in jail. Mr. Bonaccorsi highlighted that “the concern is if you’re a service provider that works for Abode services and you know of an encampment, you’re afraid that the police officer will arrest you if you don’t reveal the identity of where people are encamping. If you’re going out there providing support services in the form of a sleeping bag, tarpaulin, or something to protect them because you can’t move them to transitional housing or shelter, you’re aiding and abetting in activities that are not considered authorized under the ordinance.”

Anthony Prince, one of the lead attorneys in the lawsuit filed against the city and the General Counsel for the California Homeless Union, points out that “food, clothing, and shelter are basic necessities of human existence. Even the caveman sought and obtained shelter.” He brings attention to the necessity of the personal properties that the city is now able to take away, from items like ice boxes, necessary for keeping medication cold and food fresh, and backpacks, essential to storing personal items. Mr. Prince alleges that by enforcing this ordinance, items such as these can now be taken away, leaving unhoused people increasingly vulnerable. 

Sway Soturi, the owner of the small business Forest & Flour in the Mission area, agreed, saying, “I don’t think I’m aiding and abetting. It’s a humane thing to help another human being. For me, I’m just helping another human. I don’t think that’s wrong.”

Divya Mohanty, a senior at Washington, says, “I have felt unsafe walking through certain areas, especially where they have encampments, and if you walk too close with a bag of food they will yell out to you. But, I don’t agree with the criminalization of homeless people and especially the criminalization of those who try to help people.”

All sides acknowledge that there is a homelessness problem in Fremont. The Alameda County Point-in-Time report finds that in the most recent count there are 807 unhoused people in Fremont, of which only 195 have shelter. Furthermore, “shelter” includes  “emergency shelter,” with a majority of the unsheltered living in vehicles and RVs. The problem is pronounced on Central Avenue, where RVs parked along the side of the road make the street dangerous for bikers and students from Centerville Middle School and Washington High School. Bhavya Mehta, a senior at WHS, said, “As a woman walking in the nighttime, it feels more and more like I’m being watched and have a higher likelihood of being hurt.”

In an effort to clean up encampments like these across California, Governor Gavin Newsom passed an executive order last year directing state agencies “to move urgently to address dangerous encampments while supporting and assisting the individuals living in them.” Citing this executive order as one of the reasons for Fremont’s ordinance, Mayor Raj Salwan has said that the “governor is very clear that he wants cities to reduce encampments and he wants cities to provide solutions, and he’s also put on the line that he may not give funding to cities that are not actively reducing encampments.” 

The City of Fremont has repeatedly stated that they are not alone nor the first to enact such legislation, citing over a dozen other cities in California with similar measures in place to combat homelessness. Fremont is also not the only city to face lawsuits: the City of Berkeley is being sued by both the Berkeley Homeless Union to prevent the city’s encampment legislation and by a group of businesses who attest that encampments are impeding traffic and posing health and safety concerns. 

There’s been considerable fear brewing within the unhoused community. Doubts about the city’s promises to not punish aid organizations have left the homeless fearful of punishment and fines. Maurice, a 60-year-old unhoused man who lives in an encampment in the Irvington Area alongside 30 others, pointed out that the city “already lied about the Homeless Navigation Center. It was supposed to be one building with all these different day shelters, night shelters, and family cells. They [were] supposed to have computer labs and all this other stuff.” 

In this continuously evolving situation, the City Council voted 6-1 on March 4th to direct staff to amend the Camping Ordinance at an upcoming March 18th meeting, removing the “aiding and abetting” clause while maintaining the rest of the ordinance. The council’s reconsiderations of the ordinance include the addition of the ability for persons to donate “food, water, and other goods” to “another person.” However, this is not enough for opponents, as the City Attorney and plaintiffs in the lawsuit have acknowledged that there is another “aiding and abetting” section in the Fremont Municipal Code that will still apply to this ordinance. Mr. Prince believes that “there is only one way, in our view, to see to it that no one is at risk for aiding and abetting a crime, and that is to find that the enactment of [this] criminal law is unconstitutional.” 

Still, some members of the council believe that the existing punishments are not strict enough, with Councilmember Yang Shao asking Police Chief Sean Washington, “Is our citation paper soft enough so that they can use it as toilet paper?” emphasizing the ineffectiveness of existing citations and calling for more severe punishment. 

In response, opponents of the camping ban argue that using the police to manage encampments will only place an additional burden on Fremont’s already thinned-out police force. According to the Annual Fremont Police Department data, there were over 8500 crimes against property in 2023 alone and an additional 1247 crimes against persons. 

Fremont was once again named the “happiest city in America” of 2024 by WalletHub, but the debate over this legislation exposes cracks in Fremont’s sunny facade. Balancing business and public safety concerns with the civil liberties of residents is difficult, but Fremont will need to determine solutions that ensure a safe and welcoming community for all.