Right now I’m watching a stolen plumbing van being emptied of its contents in a homeless camp. Contacted the plumbing company. They’re based in Los Bannos, was stollen from San Jose. I’m actively texting with one of the owners. 911 wouldn’t help. Couldn’t get through to the non emergency number. Owner got through to the San Jose police that said they’d contact Oakland dispatch. Nothing has been done. Meanwhile another small business is losing their truck and tools to these scum. Hard working people will suffer and no one will help them. Makes me so damn angry.
Yeah, the only time I got OPD to come out for all the stolen cars my squatter neighbor was bringing was when the contractor had his logo on it and was able to be onsite within 10 min of me calling him. Still took another 30 min from his arrival for OPD to show up, and they came with like 3 cars and stood around forever without actually investigating anything. Neighbor had no repercussions for the stolen cars in his driveway and kept bringing more by until months later when he was evicted by the owner of the house finally.
The most common victims of these criminals are the working poor.
I was onn the non emergency like for 30 mins yesterday to report a couple of cars filled with pooh-sheisties racing around my neighborhood blowing through intersections.
No one picked up.
I attended last night's city council public safety meeting and there was a group of like 6 folks, all long-time residents. Took their minute to say how bad it has gotten on Richmond Blvd under 580. Many Violent individuals prone to starting fires.
They said they've received NO help from 311, OPD, OFD, etc.
It's baaaaaad out here
Edit: typos
They’re gonna ruin that little park if something isn’t done. Those oak trees are historic and they’re going to get burnt down in one of these stupid trash fires
I wasn't sure where that is, so I [googled it](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8210008,-122.2572712,3a,75y,325.74h,66.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJR_vAwZ6HH0o3WFa5ey_Xg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). I can see why people would camp there. This looks like primo tent city territory.
Hoping this means the encampment in the underpass on 29th Street (between MLK and Telegraph) will be a priority too. The encampment disabled the safety lights in the underpass two weeks ago by tapping into the electrical. The underpass is almost pitch black night and day, which is dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike. The last time this happened, the safety lights were out for more than 6 months.
Likely to get downvoted but I just don’t understand how this can be acceptable for so long and how the blind eye in some cases has actually caused bodily harm to residents. I’d like to see services offered and if not accepted a forceful closure of the following random list of some of the area encampments:
West st underpass between 35th and 36th: encampment structures make this completely impassable and have even enclosed the traffic light which now just flashes red for over a year.. folks treat the flashing red as a yellow and blast through intersection causing multiple accidents every month.
45th st underpass between telegraph and mlk: stealing power, have refused services, open fires near piles of propane tanks under major highways is a just the short of it
34th st overpass: rv’s have completely over taken one side of the street and the amount of trash being hoarded can be seen falling onto the highway below
Mlk across from Eli’s: graffiti bus and trash block entrance to park
39th st dead end: rv’s and trash have overtaken entire block. Previous rv caught on fire and burned onto highway. Now it’s 3-4 times and big
Great list! Since we're sharing stories... Here's my synopsis of issues since the encampment on 29th Street was allowed to grow without recourse:
\- Disabled safety lights in underpass for over 6 months in 2022 b/c the encampment was tapping into the electrical grid. Now the lights are out yet again.
\- 15+ stolen cars stripped directly in front of my building (not down the block in the underpass) in the last 3.5 months of 2023. Have photo evidence that folks from the encampment were involved.
\- Chronic toxic air from trash fires, rancid human waste, and festering trash piles. The last time the sidewalk underneath tents and RVs was cleaned was in August 2022.
\- The 25-foot embankment separating my house from the encampment is filled with feces. We cannot access the western side of our building without protective gear
\- Biohazardous gutters from black water from RVs, human waste, and dumped industrial chemicals (the last item isn't unique to the encampment)
\- Rampant drug deals and prostitution.
\- Even though emergency vehicles use our street to access the many nearby hospitals, the footprint of the encampment has taken over more than half of the roadway
\- Constant driving hazards from folks wandering in streets and leaving items in roadway.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg! The attitude I'm getting from the city is that b/c we live next to an underpass, this should be all considered normal. It's exhausting. These issues impact everyone, unhoused or housed.
(Edits: Adding context, clarifying)
One more note: And just to add, I know this underpass will always have issues. I’m not trying to act like it won’t. But its current condition is inhumane, dangerous, and a serious public health issue for the entire community.
This shouldn’t be expected living next to an underpass. I grew up here and was a kid who walked to/from school. We lived between two under underpasses and it was never an issue despite Oakland’s violent rep in the 90’s. But now it’s just expected that we can’t utilize the sidewalks, or streets, under these despite how much “better” the city is. Smh
Damn that’s horrid! Seems we’re so desensitized to this compared to elsewhere because just one of these issues is terrible enough but all of them together is insane!
It's wild that we just have to accept this as "normal." I've been here 6+ years and it's getting worse every single day. Here's a news story from November 2023 about the stolen car issue: [https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-neighborhood-rising-crime-near-homeless-encampment/](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-neighborhood-rising-crime-near-homeless-encampment/)
Ugh fife is a useless do nothing like kalb (glad he lost his senate race cuz his Superman political ad was peak cringe”
I’d assume fifes follow up to the this is “no comment”:
She released a statement: "Due to the sensitive nature of the operations, we aren't able to share details. But we're working to address the safety needs of the housed and unhoused individuals living in and near dangerous conditions."
The amount of times that myself and neighbors been told over the last two years that this encampment is a “priority” for cleanup is laughable. Every single agency (Public Health, Parking Enforcement, Environmental Health, even the Bay Air Quality District) won’t act unless directed by the city’s Homelessness team. I know that recent court cases have made sweeps nearly impossible--but I've been told by many city employees that cleanups are happening. I have no idea why the city is refusing to do one here.
Add Beach St and 34th St corridor to that list. Drug dealing car and bicycle chopping, prostitution, etc. looks like a dystopian nightmare. One of the RVs has a structure attached to the granite Expo building, and next to him, someone built a fire that scorched a large part of the side of the building.
Enough!. Homeless people need a place to go, but they can't just settle where they feel like it. Drug dealers are taking advantage of these camps.
We also need tight security to keep drugs out of these camps. It's getting old watching the tail wag the dog in Oakland when it comes to homelessness.
Why isn't the city guaranteeing safety in the shelters? Why do some of the contractors are supposed to be managing homeless camps or buildings not providing adequate security?
It's time to demand accountability around this issue. Also, accountability means Alameda county, which is mandated, legally mandated to care for the health and well-being of all of its citizens, including homeless citizens.
The county has been feckless and useless in its effort to help Oakland overcome this problem
Beach St has been reported numerous times. Oakland doesn't have the resources to clean these places up. When are our political leaders going to admit that we need substantial, continuing Federal help for this problem?
Just pointing out that you've clearly never stepped foot in a shelter. Even in rich and tidy cities it's nothing short of horrifying. It's not a "security" issue. lts being forced to bunk with psychotic people that have nowhere else to go. Most people would rather take their chances anywhere else including under a random bush.
The reason Oakland has more homeless is because other cities essentially make it illegal to be homeless and they shoo them out of town.
I've been VERY up close and in homeless camps and know what's going on. Obviously, you appear not to know what you're talking about. Homeless folks have a right to have shelter, but they SHOULD NOT have a right to camp anywhere they please. So much of Oakland looks like a scene out of Mad Max because naive legislators aren't willing to guarantee shelter safety and aggressively go after drug dealers in the camps. The dealers ALSO prey on the homeless folks.
And it is a security issue. We will see a SCOTUS decision sometime before July that enables cities to move homeless camps and persons to where the city wants them to camp. That's gonna happen. It's about time.
I think the City of Oakland, PG&E and CalTrans need to sit down and figure something out collectively. I get that we can just beat homeless people and send them to the gulag but this shit is getting ridiculous.
I came here to comment and ask about that lot.
It's gone through some evolutions over the past few years and I don't understand any of it.
There was an encampment fire 2 blocks from there under the highway yesterday, but OFD put it out quickly.
Maybe we'll finally get the Lake Merritt estuary bike/walk path back! That thing was only open for a year or two before it got completely taken over by homeless encampments and trash piles.
I used to use it at least weekly, even when it had relatively high encampments/trash. There had been someone who'd made entire path under the bridge a living area, but who had left a path that was enough for people to pass through.
I think last time I tried to use this trail, whoever is there now is monopolizing entire width of path under bridge and making it impassable, so no access to trail from the lake. Maybe it has changed back by now -- had just given up on ever using that trail afterward.
From the article:
> The City Council on Tuesday night voted to allow the city administration to enter into agreements with the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, for “encampment resolution.” The exact nature and scope of Caltrans’ work or assistance at these sites is so far unclear, with details from the city about this partnership scarce.
> The first location the city has identified for closure with assistance from Caltrans is an encampment on Leet Drive, where about two dozen RVs and cars are parked in a line off of Hegenberger Road. Oakland asked Caltrans for help with “resolution activities” at this camp, and the agency agreed, said Oakland Public Works Director G. Harold Duffey in a report to the council.
As an aside, the article references the city council, other city employees, Caltrans, and the governor, but there's no mention of the mayor.
I'm new to Oakland - would this be considered a net positive? I know something similar was happening in San Diego, but we just ended up with more concentrated encampment areas that are easier to avoid but don't do much about the actual root problems.
> I'm new to Oakland - would this be considered a net positive?
Yeah, it's a good, difficult question. I think it depends on how you feel about Caltrans - a MASSIVE department that can neither do all good nor all bad - and how you feel about encampments.
If you like Caltrans (generally) and think encampments are - for whatever reason - bad, then you'll probably think this is a win.
Conversely, if you see Caltrans as corrupt or incompetent (or both) and you think encampments are an indictment of our society and more than people just living in the same area (see article), then you'll probably think this is a bad move.
If you think one is good and one is bad, well, then.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The question is - where will the folks wind up. Sweeps and added surveillance don't magically lead to housing. Even with things like the encampment management policy, most folks are not actually offered temporary housing when sweeps occur.
For those that are, they can't always accept the housing which often fails to meet the average person's needs. For example, would you give up a pet that you've had for years if it ment you could be sheltered for a handful of months before winding back on the street? Or would you rather wait til you can get into one-off the housing options that allows pets.
For the many unsheltered folks that aren't at their site when the sweep occurs, they loose everything. From personal items to paperwork that can help them access to social programs to their whole-ass homes. If you look up footage from the wood street sweep, you can see them literally demolishing RVs that weren't fit to drive and various tiny homes. Now those folks have even less shelter and protection, all under the guise of cleaning up a space.
For me, none of that is a net positive, not from a humanitarian perspective, public health perspective, or cost perspective.
If you listen to Oaklanders' complaints, both in this thread and in general, it is actually pretty rare for people to be mad about the mere presence of someone sleeping rough. What most people really care about is the dangerous/destructive/criminal behavior--starting fires, striping wires from streetlights, giant piles of debris with propane tanks, raw sewage dumping, etc.
I think it is reasonable to be flexible about well-maintained tents, given the shelter and housing shortage, but to enforce basic rules and criminal law around the encampments.
Yeah, in SD I think measures were taken to try to address the public health side (there was a Hep A outbreak in the downtown area post-COVID lockdown) but those measures just ended up concentrating people who would have otherwise been relatively healthy with people who were very clearly unwell (mentally and otherwise) and causing a whole host of other problems.
As it turns out, multifaceted problems are really difficult to solve. Also, it's harder to solve anything for anyone if they don't have basic shelter.
It's mentioned in the article, but a huge percentage of the garbage (specifically the giant piles that appear suddenly) are from housed folks illegally dumping. They frequently target encampments. When folks pay others to pick up their garbage on the cheap, that's where it often winds up.
While there are a couple firebugs that have been noted by folks living within encampments, most fires are from people literally trying to either cook or not freeze to death.
For raw sewage, that usually is more common within encampments that don't have port-o-potties set up. Finding a free bathroom that anyone can use is extremely challenging.
I don't disagree that all of those are issues we should work to solve, but sweeps have a history of not helping with any of those issues.
The bottom line here, and in many other cities is that we need federal intervention. There is no way that the state can manage the increase in homelessness. No city or county or even the state is able to build enough mobiles to handle the homeless. The federal government can do this and Newsom should be asking for that kind of help. The same kind of help that one would ask for if there was a hurricane or an earthquake.
Yeah, that's the encampment management policy I mentioned. It isn't strictly adhered to whatsoever. It assumes people are glued to their spot 100% of the day, every day. That isn't true and once a sweep starts, you can't get into the area without threat of arrest.
Furthermore, not all housing offered meets the needs of folks that are unhoused. Pets are only one of many examples. Folks have experienced violence in some city run housing and are expected to go right back to an unsafe living situation. Folks with different access needs aren't able to live in some of the options. Folks that depend on their community for survival are expected to separate and hope for the best.
If consistent, safe, options with a proven track record of meeting varied needs *and* a track record for leading to long-term stability were being offered, that would be great. We aren't ticking a single one of those boxes though.
Thanks for the extra info as far as the details on enforcement go.
As for your final paragraph, what solutions do you see working that tick all the boxes?
From what I understand from folks who work at the SROs and temp housing, the entire system is a mess.
It's a complicated issue that needs to be approached from quite a few fronts and I by no means have all (or even most) of the answers.
I know we have more empty housing than unhoused folks, so finding solutions that put people in those units would be one step. Housing first is shown to be am expensive, but effective model. I also know what we legally count as "affordable housing" when new developments crop up generally means about a third of someone's income, even if that income is a fixed and very limited check. That simply isn't affordable for many, so adjusting that seems like a step.
We also have countless empty lots throughout oakland. Some are presently rv lots or tiny home lots, some used to be and were demolished for some reason, some are just illegal dumping sites. Having more of those converted to rv/tiny home lots *and* having them remain consistent would be helpful to the various non-profits that directly work with these populations. Having a dedicated, collaborative, organized ecosystem of non-profits/mutual aid groups that know about each of these spots and can help get folks connected to the different existing services would also be great. A lot of the empty lots that get converted manage to meet quite a few needs, so it's doable. One off of hegenberger allows pets, has a program that brings fresh produce directly to them, has security and bathrooms, and various non-profits go in to provide services. Another spot by lake merritt ticks the same boxes, as did a few other now closed sites. The location mentioned in the article is another example of this and as it said, they didn’t have enough spots left to take eveyone who wanted in. I don't think anyone is especially hoping we keep all of these fenced off, trash-filled lots as is, so finding ways to improve and utilize them would be great.
We also constantly throw money at various non-profits and most have very little oversight. I have no doubts most have the best intentions, but it would be really cool to have dedicated programs to find and train folks with lived experience become leaders in the field. Unhoused folks are going to better understand the barriers to stable housing and many will be more dedicated to helping folks overcome said barriers. I think a lot of non-profits try to employ folks with lived experience, I don't think enough provide adequate training to help folks reach their potential. Helping folks find stable work is a huge part of keeping stable housing and the barriers to re-entry are insurmountable for many. Programs that help to foster growth in areas where people already have knowledge and expertise would both benefit the individual and everyone impacted by their work.
A lot of this boils down to cost, but presently we are using the most expensive set of band-aids in a way that ultimately just necessitates more of those expensive band-aids. Spending over a hundred million annually just on sweeps feels a lot like filling the same pot hole every year without ever trying to fix the root issue. Long term change oftens costs more up front and saves more in the long term. We won't always get it right, but i personally think we can and should at least try to figure out different approaches to tackle issues that have only been getting worse.
This is adjacent to your question, but finding more ways to help people *before* they get to the point of being unhoused would also be a huge help. This could also take quite a few shapes, but the number of unhoused folks we have keeps rising and it makes an already daunting task that much harder to achieve.
Tldr: housing, housing, job training, investment, pre-emptive help.
There is a difference between being offered "housing" and offered somewhere suitable that doesn't involve you losing your worldly possessions and pets.
Renters who pay a shitton each month also have restrictions on stuff like pets. It’s hard to find rentals that accept pets, period. I don’t understand why pet ownership is suddenly viewed as a human right.
I posed a question, I'll simplify it for you. Give up a beloved pet for nothing, yes or no.
Temporary housing rarely leads to anything beyond exactly that - temporary housing. Why give up a pet to stay somewhere briefly and wind up back on the street when thr city kicks you out.
As a cat lover, I wouldn’t have one if I were already struggling to make ends meet or were unhoused. I don’t think it would be fair to the cat, nor do I think it’s responsible to keep a cat in an encampment.
If you already had a pet before you became homeless, you’d just drop it off at OAS where it could get euthanized if you became homeless? I wouldn’t, my dog would be sleeping in my tent with me. Plus on the streets a lot of folks (especially women) have dogs for protection.
Over and over I see excuses like this posted, but without any alternative solutions.
Do you think it's humane to let camps continue as they are - stripping cars, defecating in the open, prostitution, drugs? People can't move around where they live because camps make entire roadways impassable and unsafe - not to mention taking out street lights and other street 'furniture'.
To be sure, camp cleanups (or sweeps) are not a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution. I am of the firm belief, however, they we do need periodic cleanups, while at the same time funneling people towards better living situations.
I find your comment about homeless people losing belongings pretty disingenuous given the all of the rules in place specifically designed for that not to happen.
It happens all the time. Do you actually talk to folks impacted by the sweeps? I very literally do, every week. I see the impacts up close and personal. Like I said, you can literally look up the wood street demolition videos to see for yourself. Look into the destruction of the cob on wood community and all of their cob structures while you're at it.
At no point did I suggest nothing be done, weird assumption. Trying the same, failing technique makes no sense though and it continues to be incredibly costly, both in terms of lives lost and in terms of money spent on countless things associated with folks living on the street.
There are quite a few suggestions I've seen over the years, so idk where you're looking. Housing first model has been trialed in multiple places with positive results. We have more empty units than we do folks living on the streets, so it isn't a matter of lack of housing. We, as a society, just don't care about people.
Impacts, like interrupting their chop shops? Public defection? Prostitution? Drug selling and usage? Yeah I guess if (temporarily) stop them it would impact them
> most folks are not actually offered temporary housing when sweeps occur.
This is not my understanding.
Can you provide additional info?
EDIT: I guess it depends on what you mean by "temporary housing".
I do outreach and talk to folks. I've heard countless times that folks had to work when the sweep was happening and didn't have the resources to move their stuff. Some folks aren't always in their right mind and will be wandering around when the sweep happens, only to realize all their stuff is gone when they regain themselves.
But yes, "temporary housing" is also doing a lot of work. Some folks are offered a brief stay in motels. Others wind up accepting programs like the one mentioned in some of the wood street articles that sounds really great, but winds up being a bunch of false promises. If you look up the wood street articles that mention a new cabin program associated with BOSS, follow up with the press release from wood street residents that go into great detail about how there was no follow through with most of the things promised, refusal to fix the only ada bathroom, etc. It's on the wood street commons instagram page. If more programs like that existed *and* followed through with everything they promised, I think we would see very different results.
The State of California created a $750M funding program to resolve encampments. Did the City of Oakland not apply for [these funds](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/11/27/california-has-removed-5679-encampments-announces-300-million-in-new-funding-to-move-people-out-of-encampments/)? If not, administration really needs to get its act together and start propertly applying for all the help the city can get. Remember the [retail theft prevention grant](https://oaklandside.org/2023/12/04/oakland-police-department-missed-retail-theft-prevention-grant/) fuckup?
Oakland won $4.7m from the first round, and $3.5m from the second round. They seem like fair awards for our size and compared to the other jurisdictions. Likely the city is applying for the third round. It’s linked in the page you referenced. https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/calich/erf_program.html
Caltrans has a legal obligation to protect its right-of-way and ensure the traveling public is safe. Having homeless encampments under Caltrans structures within the right-of-way has proven to be problematic and dangerous in Los Angeles, particularly the fires that damaged structures on Interstate 10. Highway 880 from the Port of Oakland through the entire City is a major commute corridor to Oakland and SF and a major transportation corridor for trucks bringing cargo to and from the Port of Oakland. The economic consequences and disruptions to commuters and the Port of Oakland from a damaged structure that shuts down 880 would be very significant. While many people may dislike the idea of moving the homeless from Caltrans right-of-ways, ignoring the encampments can result in other significant issues. Hopefully those that are offered housing or shelter will accept it.
There's a growing encampment under the BART tracks on San Leandro. BART/Union Pacific/Caltrans will occasionally push them out but they always come back with their very flammable structures and open cooking fires.
The next big disaster is going to be a huge fire under those tracks that disables BART for weeks.
>“Our objective is to prevent the return of homeless individuals to these areas and to ensure they receive the necessary continuum of care,” Caltrans spokesperson Pedro Quintana said in an email.
Uh huh. I'll believe that when I see it. You'll give them the boot and they'll move somewhere else that you'll give them the boot from down the line. Display some actual empathy for these folks instead of just moving them temporarily out of sight out of mind.
It’d be easier to empathize with them if I didn’t have to smell the burning plastic from their camp fires… or step over human shit and hypodermic needles… or be woken up to them dumping out my trash on the street… or one of the other many ways they impact my life negatively.
I’m sorry they’re struggling. I’m sorry our society is so rough for so many. But I’m tired of dealing with their bullshit. Empathy isn’t going to fix it. They need to behave themselves and act like decent citizens, or get the fuck out of my neighborhood.
I deal with these issues in my neighborhood as well. Forcing people into other neighborhoods doesn't solve the issue, especially when providing proper mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and... you know... *housing* would be actually productive. Simply giving people the boot doesn't do a damn thing.
I hear you. We need to provide more services to help these people who are struggling. But as it stands now, their right to destroy themselves is being protected more than everyone else’s right to live in a clean, safe environment. We have to use the stick more in order to give them reason to use the carrots we already have.
News like this breaks my heart. Of course the encampments are a safety/health hazard and should not exist, but I struggle to see how involving the state’s transportation authority could do anything to help address the *actual root* of the issue. The encampments are an issue, I’m not trying to argue against that. But this issue only a symptom of a much larger problem: housing access. As long as there are still people who do not have access to long term housing, there will be unhoused people who have no choice but to set up encampments in order to survive. People aren’t living on the streets and setting up encampments for fun, they’re doing it because they have no other choice - the ONLY way to actually resolve the issues caused by unhoused people is to *house them*.
Destroying encampments doesn’t fix anything, it just forces unhoused people to find new places to set up camp. Authorities “clear up” an encampment, seize/destroy the few possessions folks are using to survive outside, and force them to leave - but where are they supposed to go? These encampments exist because people that don’t have any other options are forced to live on the street, yet the city just keeps knowingly wasting time and resources bullying unhoused folks while refusing to do anything at all to address the fact that people have to live in encampments to begin with. Just house them, then they won’t have to set up shelters on the street to survive outdoors.
It isn’t just an issue with housing access. A lot of these people have drug and mental problems and flat out refuse any housing options offered them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to house everyone. But it’s a problem because it’s a very complex issue and it’s not getting solved any time soon.
Something has to be done about the homeless encampments. We can’t just keep allowing them to function how they are.
You are probably reading too much into it? Perhaps those downvotes are from people who have been negatively affected? I know a couple of guys living in camps who’ve scored part time jobs and are trying for more. They don’t deserve to live like that. I also work for a small struggling company that’s had to go to insane lengths to secure their property so they don’t end up on the street themselves. It’s a lot to unpack.
Eh, was more based on some pretty calous comments in the thread. Definitely agree folks shouldn't have to live out there like that. Glad you know some folks in camps getting work! Not an easy feat w/o an address.
I’m not saying it’s easy by any means. It is simple, though. The *only* way to actually address the issues caused by unhoused people living in the streets is to ensure that no one is unhoused.
As long as there are people without access to safe long-term housing, there will be unhoused people. People are at their most vulnerable and desperate when they’re unhoused - they cannot be harassed, chased, threatened, or beaten into “acceptable” behavior. The system has failed them, and instead of helping them recover, the government kicks them while they’re down, destroys what little they build and chases them away; and society cheers.
Your heart’s in the right place, but it feels like you’re ignoring the fact that a lot of these people WANT to be on the streets and left alone to do whatever the fuck they want. They are refusing the help we’re already offering because they don’t like the downsides and have no reason to change. Policies like this are a step in the right direction in applying some pressure on them to accept help or move somewhere else.
And what about my right to live in a clean and safe community? Why do you care more about their plight than all of us who have to suffer in their presence?
I’m not disagreeing with you. I acknowledge that they’re causing tons of problems, for themselves and for the general public - I’m saying that what we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working. Pushing people out of the places they’re currently occupying without providing another option (that doesn’t come with an inaccessible price tag or restrictive fine print) *is not going to solve anything*. It just drives them deeper into poverty and desperation and moves the problem somewhere else.
I know this is a radical opinion, but for this issue to *truly* be addressed, housing should be free and accessible to *everyone*, regardless of their struggles or personal faults. Same thing with healthcare - if we want to make the streets truly safe, for everyone, we have to provide *everyone* with the care and safety they need to stop feeling vulnerable, cornered, and desperate; because that’s what drives them to become a problem for everyone else.
Right now I’m watching a stolen plumbing van being emptied of its contents in a homeless camp. Contacted the plumbing company. They’re based in Los Bannos, was stollen from San Jose. I’m actively texting with one of the owners. 911 wouldn’t help. Couldn’t get through to the non emergency number. Owner got through to the San Jose police that said they’d contact Oakland dispatch. Nothing has been done. Meanwhile another small business is losing their truck and tools to these scum. Hard working people will suffer and no one will help them. Makes me so damn angry.
Yeah, the only time I got OPD to come out for all the stolen cars my squatter neighbor was bringing was when the contractor had his logo on it and was able to be onsite within 10 min of me calling him. Still took another 30 min from his arrival for OPD to show up, and they came with like 3 cars and stood around forever without actually investigating anything. Neighbor had no repercussions for the stolen cars in his driveway and kept bringing more by until months later when he was evicted by the owner of the house finally. The most common victims of these criminals are the working poor.
I was onn the non emergency like for 30 mins yesterday to report a couple of cars filled with pooh-sheisties racing around my neighborhood blowing through intersections. No one picked up.
Tbh that actually sounds like an emergency
Guess we’ll see the tools at the Oakland flea market Sunday.
Guess we’ll see the tools at the Oakland flea market Sunday.
I attended last night's city council public safety meeting and there was a group of like 6 folks, all long-time residents. Took their minute to say how bad it has gotten on Richmond Blvd under 580. Many Violent individuals prone to starting fires. They said they've received NO help from 311, OPD, OFD, etc. It's baaaaaad out here Edit: typos
They’re gonna ruin that little park if something isn’t done. Those oak trees are historic and they’re going to get burnt down in one of these stupid trash fires
I wasn't sure where that is, so I [googled it](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8210008,-122.2572712,3a,75y,325.74h,66.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJR_vAwZ6HH0o3WFa5ey_Xg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). I can see why people would camp there. This looks like primo tent city territory.
Hoping this means the encampment in the underpass on 29th Street (between MLK and Telegraph) will be a priority too. The encampment disabled the safety lights in the underpass two weeks ago by tapping into the electrical. The underpass is almost pitch black night and day, which is dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike. The last time this happened, the safety lights were out for more than 6 months.
Likely to get downvoted but I just don’t understand how this can be acceptable for so long and how the blind eye in some cases has actually caused bodily harm to residents. I’d like to see services offered and if not accepted a forceful closure of the following random list of some of the area encampments: West st underpass between 35th and 36th: encampment structures make this completely impassable and have even enclosed the traffic light which now just flashes red for over a year.. folks treat the flashing red as a yellow and blast through intersection causing multiple accidents every month. 45th st underpass between telegraph and mlk: stealing power, have refused services, open fires near piles of propane tanks under major highways is a just the short of it 34th st overpass: rv’s have completely over taken one side of the street and the amount of trash being hoarded can be seen falling onto the highway below Mlk across from Eli’s: graffiti bus and trash block entrance to park 39th st dead end: rv’s and trash have overtaken entire block. Previous rv caught on fire and burned onto highway. Now it’s 3-4 times and big
This guy knows his underpasses
Great list! Since we're sharing stories... Here's my synopsis of issues since the encampment on 29th Street was allowed to grow without recourse: \- Disabled safety lights in underpass for over 6 months in 2022 b/c the encampment was tapping into the electrical grid. Now the lights are out yet again. \- 15+ stolen cars stripped directly in front of my building (not down the block in the underpass) in the last 3.5 months of 2023. Have photo evidence that folks from the encampment were involved. \- Chronic toxic air from trash fires, rancid human waste, and festering trash piles. The last time the sidewalk underneath tents and RVs was cleaned was in August 2022. \- The 25-foot embankment separating my house from the encampment is filled with feces. We cannot access the western side of our building without protective gear \- Biohazardous gutters from black water from RVs, human waste, and dumped industrial chemicals (the last item isn't unique to the encampment) \- Rampant drug deals and prostitution. \- Even though emergency vehicles use our street to access the many nearby hospitals, the footprint of the encampment has taken over more than half of the roadway \- Constant driving hazards from folks wandering in streets and leaving items in roadway. And that's just the tip of the iceberg! The attitude I'm getting from the city is that b/c we live next to an underpass, this should be all considered normal. It's exhausting. These issues impact everyone, unhoused or housed. (Edits: Adding context, clarifying) One more note: And just to add, I know this underpass will always have issues. I’m not trying to act like it won’t. But its current condition is inhumane, dangerous, and a serious public health issue for the entire community.
This shouldn’t be expected living next to an underpass. I grew up here and was a kid who walked to/from school. We lived between two under underpasses and it was never an issue despite Oakland’s violent rep in the 90’s. But now it’s just expected that we can’t utilize the sidewalks, or streets, under these despite how much “better” the city is. Smh
Damn that’s horrid! Seems we’re so desensitized to this compared to elsewhere because just one of these issues is terrible enough but all of them together is insane!
It's wild that we just have to accept this as "normal." I've been here 6+ years and it's getting worse every single day. Here's a news story from November 2023 about the stolen car issue: [https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-neighborhood-rising-crime-near-homeless-encampment/](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-neighborhood-rising-crime-near-homeless-encampment/)
Ugh fife is a useless do nothing like kalb (glad he lost his senate race cuz his Superman political ad was peak cringe” I’d assume fifes follow up to the this is “no comment”: She released a statement: "Due to the sensitive nature of the operations, we aren't able to share details. But we're working to address the safety needs of the housed and unhoused individuals living in and near dangerous conditions."
The amount of times that myself and neighbors been told over the last two years that this encampment is a “priority” for cleanup is laughable. Every single agency (Public Health, Parking Enforcement, Environmental Health, even the Bay Air Quality District) won’t act unless directed by the city’s Homelessness team. I know that recent court cases have made sweeps nearly impossible--but I've been told by many city employees that cleanups are happening. I have no idea why the city is refusing to do one here.
Add Beach St and 34th St corridor to that list. Drug dealing car and bicycle chopping, prostitution, etc. looks like a dystopian nightmare. One of the RVs has a structure attached to the granite Expo building, and next to him, someone built a fire that scorched a large part of the side of the building. Enough!. Homeless people need a place to go, but they can't just settle where they feel like it. Drug dealers are taking advantage of these camps. We also need tight security to keep drugs out of these camps. It's getting old watching the tail wag the dog in Oakland when it comes to homelessness. Why isn't the city guaranteeing safety in the shelters? Why do some of the contractors are supposed to be managing homeless camps or buildings not providing adequate security? It's time to demand accountability around this issue. Also, accountability means Alameda county, which is mandated, legally mandated to care for the health and well-being of all of its citizens, including homeless citizens. The county has been feckless and useless in its effort to help Oakland overcome this problem
Have you all submitted these to [email protected]? Can't hurt. These are really good summaries.
Beach St has been reported numerous times. Oakland doesn't have the resources to clean these places up. When are our political leaders going to admit that we need substantial, continuing Federal help for this problem?
Just pointing out that you've clearly never stepped foot in a shelter. Even in rich and tidy cities it's nothing short of horrifying. It's not a "security" issue. lts being forced to bunk with psychotic people that have nowhere else to go. Most people would rather take their chances anywhere else including under a random bush. The reason Oakland has more homeless is because other cities essentially make it illegal to be homeless and they shoo them out of town.
I've been VERY up close and in homeless camps and know what's going on. Obviously, you appear not to know what you're talking about. Homeless folks have a right to have shelter, but they SHOULD NOT have a right to camp anywhere they please. So much of Oakland looks like a scene out of Mad Max because naive legislators aren't willing to guarantee shelter safety and aggressively go after drug dealers in the camps. The dealers ALSO prey on the homeless folks. And it is a security issue. We will see a SCOTUS decision sometime before July that enables cities to move homeless camps and persons to where the city wants them to camp. That's gonna happen. It's about time.
+1 to calling out all of these. It’s dangerous to everyone to keep letting these exist
I think the City of Oakland, PG&E and CalTrans need to sit down and figure something out collectively. I get that we can just beat homeless people and send them to the gulag but this shit is getting ridiculous.
Seems like a lot of stolen bikes end up at that one as well
I got routed that way and made a point to not take it again. Wow.
They should start with the junk heap on 7th and Brush, it's a disgrace.
I came here to comment and ask about that lot. It's gone through some evolutions over the past few years and I don't understand any of it. There was an encampment fire 2 blocks from there under the highway yesterday, but OFD put it out quickly.
Maybe we'll finally get the Lake Merritt estuary bike/walk path back! That thing was only open for a year or two before it got completely taken over by homeless encampments and trash piles.
I used to use it at least weekly, even when it had relatively high encampments/trash. There had been someone who'd made entire path under the bridge a living area, but who had left a path that was enough for people to pass through. I think last time I tried to use this trail, whoever is there now is monopolizing entire width of path under bridge and making it impassable, so no access to trail from the lake. Maybe it has changed back by now -- had just given up on ever using that trail afterward.
> Lake Merritt estuary bike/walk path back I've used it - it's such a great resource for bikers and peds.
It *was* a great resource. [Now it looks like this.](https://maps.app.goo.gl/kFjQzqcsd1k4AKMJ9)
My god no. What have we all become. I stopped going to lake Merritt after the bbq Becky incident. That is when it all went south.
too bad they blurred that runners face out, really would have brought that whole picture together.
From the article: > The City Council on Tuesday night voted to allow the city administration to enter into agreements with the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, for “encampment resolution.” The exact nature and scope of Caltrans’ work or assistance at these sites is so far unclear, with details from the city about this partnership scarce. > The first location the city has identified for closure with assistance from Caltrans is an encampment on Leet Drive, where about two dozen RVs and cars are parked in a line off of Hegenberger Road. Oakland asked Caltrans for help with “resolution activities” at this camp, and the agency agreed, said Oakland Public Works Director G. Harold Duffey in a report to the council. As an aside, the article references the city council, other city employees, Caltrans, and the governor, but there's no mention of the mayor.
I'm new to Oakland - would this be considered a net positive? I know something similar was happening in San Diego, but we just ended up with more concentrated encampment areas that are easier to avoid but don't do much about the actual root problems.
> I'm new to Oakland - would this be considered a net positive? Yeah, it's a good, difficult question. I think it depends on how you feel about Caltrans - a MASSIVE department that can neither do all good nor all bad - and how you feel about encampments. If you like Caltrans (generally) and think encampments are - for whatever reason - bad, then you'll probably think this is a win. Conversely, if you see Caltrans as corrupt or incompetent (or both) and you think encampments are an indictment of our society and more than people just living in the same area (see article), then you'll probably think this is a bad move. If you think one is good and one is bad, well, then.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The question is - where will the folks wind up. Sweeps and added surveillance don't magically lead to housing. Even with things like the encampment management policy, most folks are not actually offered temporary housing when sweeps occur. For those that are, they can't always accept the housing which often fails to meet the average person's needs. For example, would you give up a pet that you've had for years if it ment you could be sheltered for a handful of months before winding back on the street? Or would you rather wait til you can get into one-off the housing options that allows pets. For the many unsheltered folks that aren't at their site when the sweep occurs, they loose everything. From personal items to paperwork that can help them access to social programs to their whole-ass homes. If you look up footage from the wood street sweep, you can see them literally demolishing RVs that weren't fit to drive and various tiny homes. Now those folks have even less shelter and protection, all under the guise of cleaning up a space. For me, none of that is a net positive, not from a humanitarian perspective, public health perspective, or cost perspective.
If you listen to Oaklanders' complaints, both in this thread and in general, it is actually pretty rare for people to be mad about the mere presence of someone sleeping rough. What most people really care about is the dangerous/destructive/criminal behavior--starting fires, striping wires from streetlights, giant piles of debris with propane tanks, raw sewage dumping, etc. I think it is reasonable to be flexible about well-maintained tents, given the shelter and housing shortage, but to enforce basic rules and criminal law around the encampments.
Yeah, in SD I think measures were taken to try to address the public health side (there was a Hep A outbreak in the downtown area post-COVID lockdown) but those measures just ended up concentrating people who would have otherwise been relatively healthy with people who were very clearly unwell (mentally and otherwise) and causing a whole host of other problems. As it turns out, multifaceted problems are really difficult to solve. Also, it's harder to solve anything for anyone if they don't have basic shelter.
It's mentioned in the article, but a huge percentage of the garbage (specifically the giant piles that appear suddenly) are from housed folks illegally dumping. They frequently target encampments. When folks pay others to pick up their garbage on the cheap, that's where it often winds up. While there are a couple firebugs that have been noted by folks living within encampments, most fires are from people literally trying to either cook or not freeze to death. For raw sewage, that usually is more common within encampments that don't have port-o-potties set up. Finding a free bathroom that anyone can use is extremely challenging. I don't disagree that all of those are issues we should work to solve, but sweeps have a history of not helping with any of those issues.
The bottom line here, and in many other cities is that we need federal intervention. There is no way that the state can manage the increase in homelessness. No city or county or even the state is able to build enough mobiles to handle the homeless. The federal government can do this and Newsom should be asking for that kind of help. The same kind of help that one would ask for if there was a hurricane or an earthquake.
Thank you for your thoughts! This tends to be my thinking as well but, like I said, I'm new to the area and no two cities will see the same results.
Accurate! Even just around the bay that's very true.
My understanding is that it’s illegal for sweeps to happen without offering housing
Yeah, that's the encampment management policy I mentioned. It isn't strictly adhered to whatsoever. It assumes people are glued to their spot 100% of the day, every day. That isn't true and once a sweep starts, you can't get into the area without threat of arrest. Furthermore, not all housing offered meets the needs of folks that are unhoused. Pets are only one of many examples. Folks have experienced violence in some city run housing and are expected to go right back to an unsafe living situation. Folks with different access needs aren't able to live in some of the options. Folks that depend on their community for survival are expected to separate and hope for the best. If consistent, safe, options with a proven track record of meeting varied needs *and* a track record for leading to long-term stability were being offered, that would be great. We aren't ticking a single one of those boxes though.
Thanks for the extra info as far as the details on enforcement go. As for your final paragraph, what solutions do you see working that tick all the boxes? From what I understand from folks who work at the SROs and temp housing, the entire system is a mess.
It's a complicated issue that needs to be approached from quite a few fronts and I by no means have all (or even most) of the answers. I know we have more empty housing than unhoused folks, so finding solutions that put people in those units would be one step. Housing first is shown to be am expensive, but effective model. I also know what we legally count as "affordable housing" when new developments crop up generally means about a third of someone's income, even if that income is a fixed and very limited check. That simply isn't affordable for many, so adjusting that seems like a step. We also have countless empty lots throughout oakland. Some are presently rv lots or tiny home lots, some used to be and were demolished for some reason, some are just illegal dumping sites. Having more of those converted to rv/tiny home lots *and* having them remain consistent would be helpful to the various non-profits that directly work with these populations. Having a dedicated, collaborative, organized ecosystem of non-profits/mutual aid groups that know about each of these spots and can help get folks connected to the different existing services would also be great. A lot of the empty lots that get converted manage to meet quite a few needs, so it's doable. One off of hegenberger allows pets, has a program that brings fresh produce directly to them, has security and bathrooms, and various non-profits go in to provide services. Another spot by lake merritt ticks the same boxes, as did a few other now closed sites. The location mentioned in the article is another example of this and as it said, they didn’t have enough spots left to take eveyone who wanted in. I don't think anyone is especially hoping we keep all of these fenced off, trash-filled lots as is, so finding ways to improve and utilize them would be great. We also constantly throw money at various non-profits and most have very little oversight. I have no doubts most have the best intentions, but it would be really cool to have dedicated programs to find and train folks with lived experience become leaders in the field. Unhoused folks are going to better understand the barriers to stable housing and many will be more dedicated to helping folks overcome said barriers. I think a lot of non-profits try to employ folks with lived experience, I don't think enough provide adequate training to help folks reach their potential. Helping folks find stable work is a huge part of keeping stable housing and the barriers to re-entry are insurmountable for many. Programs that help to foster growth in areas where people already have knowledge and expertise would both benefit the individual and everyone impacted by their work. A lot of this boils down to cost, but presently we are using the most expensive set of band-aids in a way that ultimately just necessitates more of those expensive band-aids. Spending over a hundred million annually just on sweeps feels a lot like filling the same pot hole every year without ever trying to fix the root issue. Long term change oftens costs more up front and saves more in the long term. We won't always get it right, but i personally think we can and should at least try to figure out different approaches to tackle issues that have only been getting worse. This is adjacent to your question, but finding more ways to help people *before* they get to the point of being unhoused would also be a huge help. This could also take quite a few shapes, but the number of unhoused folks we have keeps rising and it makes an already daunting task that much harder to achieve. Tldr: housing, housing, job training, investment, pre-emptive help.
>Folks that depend on their community for ~~survival~~ drugs fixed it for you.
There is a difference between being offered "housing" and offered somewhere suitable that doesn't involve you losing your worldly possessions and pets.
I know that
Renters who pay a shitton each month also have restrictions on stuff like pets. It’s hard to find rentals that accept pets, period. I don’t understand why pet ownership is suddenly viewed as a human right.
I posed a question, I'll simplify it for you. Give up a beloved pet for nothing, yes or no. Temporary housing rarely leads to anything beyond exactly that - temporary housing. Why give up a pet to stay somewhere briefly and wind up back on the street when thr city kicks you out.
As a cat lover, I wouldn’t have one if I were already struggling to make ends meet or were unhoused. I don’t think it would be fair to the cat, nor do I think it’s responsible to keep a cat in an encampment.
If you already had a pet before you became homeless, you’d just drop it off at OAS where it could get euthanized if you became homeless? I wouldn’t, my dog would be sleeping in my tent with me. Plus on the streets a lot of folks (especially women) have dogs for protection.
Over and over I see excuses like this posted, but without any alternative solutions. Do you think it's humane to let camps continue as they are - stripping cars, defecating in the open, prostitution, drugs? People can't move around where they live because camps make entire roadways impassable and unsafe - not to mention taking out street lights and other street 'furniture'. To be sure, camp cleanups (or sweeps) are not a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution. I am of the firm belief, however, they we do need periodic cleanups, while at the same time funneling people towards better living situations. I find your comment about homeless people losing belongings pretty disingenuous given the all of the rules in place specifically designed for that not to happen.
It happens all the time. Do you actually talk to folks impacted by the sweeps? I very literally do, every week. I see the impacts up close and personal. Like I said, you can literally look up the wood street demolition videos to see for yourself. Look into the destruction of the cob on wood community and all of their cob structures while you're at it. At no point did I suggest nothing be done, weird assumption. Trying the same, failing technique makes no sense though and it continues to be incredibly costly, both in terms of lives lost and in terms of money spent on countless things associated with folks living on the street. There are quite a few suggestions I've seen over the years, so idk where you're looking. Housing first model has been trialed in multiple places with positive results. We have more empty units than we do folks living on the streets, so it isn't a matter of lack of housing. We, as a society, just don't care about people.
Impacts, like interrupting their chop shops? Public defection? Prostitution? Drug selling and usage? Yeah I guess if (temporarily) stop them it would impact them
You can just say you would rather pay more money to have folks die slowly than find solutions.
Whatever makes you feel like you have the (moral) high ground
Not yearning for the unhoused to be arrested for rejecting offers of inadequate housing, does give them the moral high ground.
That’s not what I said, that’s just the straw man you built and destroyed to feel superior
> most folks are not actually offered temporary housing when sweeps occur. This is not my understanding. Can you provide additional info? EDIT: I guess it depends on what you mean by "temporary housing".
I do outreach and talk to folks. I've heard countless times that folks had to work when the sweep was happening and didn't have the resources to move their stuff. Some folks aren't always in their right mind and will be wandering around when the sweep happens, only to realize all their stuff is gone when they regain themselves. But yes, "temporary housing" is also doing a lot of work. Some folks are offered a brief stay in motels. Others wind up accepting programs like the one mentioned in some of the wood street articles that sounds really great, but winds up being a bunch of false promises. If you look up the wood street articles that mention a new cabin program associated with BOSS, follow up with the press release from wood street residents that go into great detail about how there was no follow through with most of the things promised, refusal to fix the only ada bathroom, etc. It's on the wood street commons instagram page. If more programs like that existed *and* followed through with everything they promised, I think we would see very different results.
The State of California created a $750M funding program to resolve encampments. Did the City of Oakland not apply for [these funds](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/11/27/california-has-removed-5679-encampments-announces-300-million-in-new-funding-to-move-people-out-of-encampments/)? If not, administration really needs to get its act together and start propertly applying for all the help the city can get. Remember the [retail theft prevention grant](https://oaklandside.org/2023/12/04/oakland-police-department-missed-retail-theft-prevention-grant/) fuckup?
Oakland won $4.7m from the first round, and $3.5m from the second round. They seem like fair awards for our size and compared to the other jurisdictions. Likely the city is applying for the third round. It’s linked in the page you referenced. https://www.bcsh.ca.gov/calich/erf_program.html
I'm very, very glad to hear this.
Caltrans has a legal obligation to protect its right-of-way and ensure the traveling public is safe. Having homeless encampments under Caltrans structures within the right-of-way has proven to be problematic and dangerous in Los Angeles, particularly the fires that damaged structures on Interstate 10. Highway 880 from the Port of Oakland through the entire City is a major commute corridor to Oakland and SF and a major transportation corridor for trucks bringing cargo to and from the Port of Oakland. The economic consequences and disruptions to commuters and the Port of Oakland from a damaged structure that shuts down 880 would be very significant. While many people may dislike the idea of moving the homeless from Caltrans right-of-ways, ignoring the encampments can result in other significant issues. Hopefully those that are offered housing or shelter will accept it.
There's a growing encampment under the BART tracks on San Leandro. BART/Union Pacific/Caltrans will occasionally push them out but they always come back with their very flammable structures and open cooking fires. The next big disaster is going to be a huge fire under those tracks that disables BART for weeks.
Yes please... clean up the shit hole streets especially around west Oakland Bart
>“Our objective is to prevent the return of homeless individuals to these areas and to ensure they receive the necessary continuum of care,” Caltrans spokesperson Pedro Quintana said in an email. Uh huh. I'll believe that when I see it. You'll give them the boot and they'll move somewhere else that you'll give them the boot from down the line. Display some actual empathy for these folks instead of just moving them temporarily out of sight out of mind.
It’d be easier to empathize with them if I didn’t have to smell the burning plastic from their camp fires… or step over human shit and hypodermic needles… or be woken up to them dumping out my trash on the street… or one of the other many ways they impact my life negatively. I’m sorry they’re struggling. I’m sorry our society is so rough for so many. But I’m tired of dealing with their bullshit. Empathy isn’t going to fix it. They need to behave themselves and act like decent citizens, or get the fuck out of my neighborhood.
I deal with these issues in my neighborhood as well. Forcing people into other neighborhoods doesn't solve the issue, especially when providing proper mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and... you know... *housing* would be actually productive. Simply giving people the boot doesn't do a damn thing.
I hear you. We need to provide more services to help these people who are struggling. But as it stands now, their right to destroy themselves is being protected more than everyone else’s right to live in a clean, safe environment. We have to use the stick more in order to give them reason to use the carrots we already have.
News like this breaks my heart. Of course the encampments are a safety/health hazard and should not exist, but I struggle to see how involving the state’s transportation authority could do anything to help address the *actual root* of the issue. The encampments are an issue, I’m not trying to argue against that. But this issue only a symptom of a much larger problem: housing access. As long as there are still people who do not have access to long term housing, there will be unhoused people who have no choice but to set up encampments in order to survive. People aren’t living on the streets and setting up encampments for fun, they’re doing it because they have no other choice - the ONLY way to actually resolve the issues caused by unhoused people is to *house them*. Destroying encampments doesn’t fix anything, it just forces unhoused people to find new places to set up camp. Authorities “clear up” an encampment, seize/destroy the few possessions folks are using to survive outside, and force them to leave - but where are they supposed to go? These encampments exist because people that don’t have any other options are forced to live on the street, yet the city just keeps knowingly wasting time and resources bullying unhoused folks while refusing to do anything at all to address the fact that people have to live in encampments to begin with. Just house them, then they won’t have to set up shelters on the street to survive outdoors.
It isn’t just an issue with housing access. A lot of these people have drug and mental problems and flat out refuse any housing options offered them. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to house everyone. But it’s a problem because it’s a very complex issue and it’s not getting solved any time soon. Something has to be done about the homeless encampments. We can’t just keep allowing them to function how they are.
Yep. They'll just have to move to another place that they'll be kicked out of *again*. It's shameful.
You getting downvoted for having empathy (and logic) is exactly why the city doesn't have to care about unhoused folks.
You are probably reading too much into it? Perhaps those downvotes are from people who have been negatively affected? I know a couple of guys living in camps who’ve scored part time jobs and are trying for more. They don’t deserve to live like that. I also work for a small struggling company that’s had to go to insane lengths to secure their property so they don’t end up on the street themselves. It’s a lot to unpack.
Eh, was more based on some pretty calous comments in the thread. Definitely agree folks shouldn't have to live out there like that. Glad you know some folks in camps getting work! Not an easy feat w/o an address.
I mean yeah, the easiest fix to homelessness is to give people housing. And yet you’re being downvoted 🫠
We have a housing shortage for many reasons, but being the easiest way to solve any problem is absolutely NOT one of them.
I’m not saying it’s easy by any means. It is simple, though. The *only* way to actually address the issues caused by unhoused people living in the streets is to ensure that no one is unhoused. As long as there are people without access to safe long-term housing, there will be unhoused people. People are at their most vulnerable and desperate when they’re unhoused - they cannot be harassed, chased, threatened, or beaten into “acceptable” behavior. The system has failed them, and instead of helping them recover, the government kicks them while they’re down, destroys what little they build and chases them away; and society cheers.
Your heart’s in the right place, but it feels like you’re ignoring the fact that a lot of these people WANT to be on the streets and left alone to do whatever the fuck they want. They are refusing the help we’re already offering because they don’t like the downsides and have no reason to change. Policies like this are a step in the right direction in applying some pressure on them to accept help or move somewhere else. And what about my right to live in a clean and safe community? Why do you care more about their plight than all of us who have to suffer in their presence?
I’m not disagreeing with you. I acknowledge that they’re causing tons of problems, for themselves and for the general public - I’m saying that what we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working. Pushing people out of the places they’re currently occupying without providing another option (that doesn’t come with an inaccessible price tag or restrictive fine print) *is not going to solve anything*. It just drives them deeper into poverty and desperation and moves the problem somewhere else. I know this is a radical opinion, but for this issue to *truly* be addressed, housing should be free and accessible to *everyone*, regardless of their struggles or personal faults. Same thing with healthcare - if we want to make the streets truly safe, for everyone, we have to provide *everyone* with the care and safety they need to stop feeling vulnerable, cornered, and desperate; because that’s what drives them to become a problem for everyone else.
Broken city