On February 11th, the Fremont City Council adopted a new ordinance that would criminalize any camping on public property while also making it a misdemeanor to “aid and abet” any of the homeless. The ordinance was first introduced on December 17th last year, passing with a 4-2 vote. At a City Council meeting with more than 200 people in attendance, the city finally adopted it on a 6-1 vote. This meant that the ordinance would finally go into effect, making it a misdemeanor to camp on public property, as well as private property for extended periods of time.
Many citizens had expressed their displeasure at the growing homeless encampments, such as the one located at the intersection of Washington Blvd. and Osgood Rd. Damon Schor, the Executive Vice President at Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis, expressed that “This ordinance is a necessary step to ensure the safety and well-being of all Fremont residents.” For context, Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis, or CBRE, is the world’s largest commercial real estate services and investment firm headquartered in Dallas, with their nearest office in Palo Alto.
However, others voiced their concerns about this ordinance, wondering if this would only delay the problem rather than fix it. Sophia Pousson, a city member who spoke out at the meeting, said that “[t]urning sleeping outside into a criminal act will not prevent people from becoming, homeless [but instead] will compound the dangers of homelessness.”
But what does the bill actually mean for both the homeless people and residents right now? Currently, Fremont does not provide actual housing for the homeless outside of emergency shelters but does have programs to help people find affordable housing, as well as financial services. “I agree that there is more to be done and we are looking to collaborate with the county and state for support and additional funding,” stated Councilwoman Yanjing Zhang in an interview. While it is currently prohibited for people to camp on private property with the consent of the owner for more than 72 hours, Councilwoman Kathy Kimberlin’s request to make an amendment may change this.
When talking to Mercury News, Vivian Wan, CEO of Abode Services, stated that “It makes it criminal to be a good neighbor — to offer someone a sandwich, a blanket, a bottle of water.” However, city Councilman Raymond Liu clarified in March 4th’s meeting that “The city does not, and will not penalize anyone passing out water, food, and medical to people in need.”
Notably, San Jose was recently able to open its biggest temporary housing unit, after years in the making. The three-story complex is able to house up to 214 residents, supporting 612 people annually. However, this project comes with a hefty price tag, costing $60 million to construct and incurring a $6 million fee to run annually. San Jose is also a significantly larger city than Fremont, and based on surveys from Alameda County, Fremont has experienced a 69% increase in homelessness from 2019, going from 608 to 1,026.
Additionally, Yajing Zhang explained, “We are looking for various practical solutions, including prefabricated houses, within our city’s budget. As budget planning for the next fiscal year arrives, homelessness is one of our top priorities. Nevertheless, we must address it within our means, and collaboration with various agencies are key to solving this long term issue”.
During the meeting on March 4th, Fremont Police Chief Sean Washington said that according to the department, more than ninety percent of the time, the homeless complied with the police, giving them no trouble. However, the purpose of the ordinance is meant to give police more tools to deal with noncompliant homeless, as if the wording is changed from misdemeanor to infraction, the police are not able to make arrests, and give fines at a maximum.
On March 6th, a group of homeless people, the California Homeless Union, and religious organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the city. City council members declined to comment on the lawsuit, as it is still pending.
The final wording and implications of the ordinance are still up in the air, as more amendments are being made and nuances ironed out.
