An emotional, seven-hour City Council committee meeting on a controversial proposal to crack down on homeless camps ended in ambiguity Wednesday evening.
Councilmember Ken Houston wants Oakland to overhaul its approach to encampments. Under his proposal, Oakland would no longer be required to offer shelter to residents before clearing a homeless camp.
Houston also wants to remove a provision in the city’s current policy that says nobody can be arrested for camping or being homeless. And his plan would treat vehicles that people live in like any other automobiles, giving the city more leeway to tow them if they’re parked illegally or considered dangerous.
Houston got out of his seat to pitch these changes at the start of the meeting, standing solemnly in front of the dais as he played a silent video displaying unkempt encampments and piles of trash throughout Oakland.
“Offer services!” someone yelled from the audience.
“This is where I grew up, where my mother raised me, where I walked to school every day,” Houston recited about the video. “And it did not look like this, and we did not have to deal with this.”
Houston also introduced an individual he apparently met when the man was unhoused and then employed at a street-cleaning organization the councilmember ran for many years; and his brother, who was previously homeless for decades and flew to Oakland this week to support Houston. The councilmember shared that about 15 years ago he himself lived in an RV and then a boat during tough times.
“Someone has to take a bold stand,” Houston said. “We cannot continue to let individuals be in this position.”
Following the presentation, Patricia Brooks, Council President Kevin Jenkins’ chief of staff, presented the details of Houston’s plan. Houston called her the “mastermind” behind the proposal.
Brooks said that despite the elimination of the shelter requirement, finding an alternative place for homeless residents to go when a camp is shut down “will continue to be the goal.”
Dozens of community members packed into the council chambers and its overflow room, and logged into Zoom, to share over three hours of passionate and often raucous input with the councilmembers.
Some applauded Houston’s plan, saying the city’s current approach is clearly not working. Some homeowners and business owners described problems they’ve had with encampments blocking entrances to their property and with crime around or at the camps.
But most speakers excoriated the policy, echoing concerns that have also arisen behind the scenes at City Hall and other levels of government.
“I experienced homelessness where there was options and help,” said a woman named Shontoya Norbert. “When there were agencies that spent time with families. What you’re doing now is removing everything we have and everything we own. It’s ridiculously expensive out there. So now you’re going to take our only vehicles, that were probably given to us…to live in, to have somewhere warm.”
Millions at risk under Houston’s policy, county says
Before yesterday’s council meeting, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors sent a letter to Mayor Barbara Lee and Jenkins warning that $45.3 million from the state is at risk if the council adopts Houston’s policy as written.
Alameda County and Oakland together are seeking a homelessness grant from the state. The application required both to send their homelessness crisis policies to ensure compliance with state guidance. State officials with the California Interagency Council on Homelessness wrote back that Houston’s proposal “would not qualify as being in full alignment with these requirements.” The main issue, county staff have said, is the state requires there to be somewhere else for the residents to move if the city closes a camp.
“This is not a risk we can take,” said Board President David Haubert in the letter, offering to work with Oakland to bring Houston’s proposal into compliance.
Councilmembers on Wednesday asked Sasha Hauswald, the leader of the city’s new homelessness office, if she agreed that Oakland would be risking millions if it adopted Houston’s proposal.
She acknowledged that Oakland hasn’t checked with the state department that makes a final decision on the $45.3 million grant, Housing and Community Development, but reiterated that the body in charge of making recommendations, the interagency council, said the proposal wouldn’t fly.
Councilmembers also grilled high-ranking staff from the city’s police and transportation departments on what Houston’s policy would or wouldn’t change.
The draft removes ambiguity around what is considered an encampment versus a towable vehicle, said Deputy Police Chief Anthony Tedesco and homelessness official Amauri Collins.
“That alone is a major step towards clarity,” Tedesco said. Now, Oakland could simply use the California Vehicle Code to tag and tow cars, instead of the more restrictive encampment policy.
But Darlene Flynn, Oakland race and equity director, questioned whether that enforcement “on its own” — without an offer of shelter or outreach — would make a difference in addressing the homelessness crisis.
“People have to have some place to go — it’s physics,” she said. “Whether you believe it’s a human right or not, cellular matter does not disappear” when encampments are cleared.
‘Significant amendments’ and ‘robust debate,’ needed, councilmembers say
On the Public Safety Committee that considered the policy Wednesday, councilmembers Rowena Brown and Carroll Fife showed the most skepticism.
“The policy, as written, unfortunately does not take care of people,” Brown said. “Oakland cannot afford half-measures.”
Fife expressed doubt that much would change under the policy without more resources added for either city staff or homeless residents. She said her West Oakland constituents, housed and unhoused, complain constantly to police about encampment-related issues that OPD already has the authority to address but doesn’t.
“I don’t see that we need another policy to say we need to follow the law,” Fife said. The policy would give residents “false hope.”
She also raised concern about the letter from county leadership.
“The county Board of Supervisors, who we’re just now beginning to have a decent relationship with, wants us to look into this further,” she said.
Councilmember Charlene Wang also peppered city staff with questions. Council President Jenkins, who doesn’t sit on the Public Safety Committee, joined the meeting partway through. Although his chief of staff co-wrote the proposal, Jenkins said he wasn’t involved.
He said he liked portions of the proposal and disliked others.
Jenkins indicated support for stronger enforcement around RVs, saying he believed Oakland had a “moral” obligation to support its own residents, but not people who might come into the city in these vehicles because of lax policy here.
Flynn, the race and equity director, said Oakland doesn’t have enough data on the RV-dwelling population to know whether people are coming from outside the city to live here in vehicles. She said previous studies have found that a majority of people homeless in Oakland are from here, though the RV population might be different. Last year’s point in time county found that 80% of homeless people in Oakland had housing in Alameda County prior to becoming homeless.
Eventually, every councilmember in attendance, except Houston, either said they planned to propose amendments or agreed the draft needed them.
Houston pushed back, calling for the committee to send the proposal onto the full City Council immediately.
“I’m not gonna change my opinion,” he said.
“I don’t think, at this time, it’s ready for the full council,” Brown told him.
“I do,” Houston replied.
But after one of many sidebars with his staff, Houston returned to the dais and changed course. He seconded a motion by Brown to schedule the item for another special committee meeting at an unspecified date.
That will give time, councilmembers said, for the city attorney to review a slew of amendments they plan to propose.
