What’s the difference between a zebra and a legal question? Both may appear as black and white, but the law is frequently subject to interpretation, leading to a variety of legal issues. On February 12, 2025, the Fremont City Council adopted a new ordinance in a 4-2 vote, creating controversy across the Bay Area. The ordinance attempts to regulate camping by homeless individuals on public property, which has become a concern due to increasing homeless populations in many Bay Area cities. Newspapers and broadcast companies, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, NBC Bay Area, and CNN, have covered the incident, primarily investigating controversy around a specific clause within the ordinance stating that any individual “causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing” violations would be subject to a $1,000 fine and up to 6 months imprisonment.
City Attorney Rafael Alvarado emphasized that the ordinance would not prevent organizations from providing essentials to homeless individuals, and yet his words contrasted those that were written in the official document; the letter of the law differs too drastically from the spirit of the law. In order to remedy potential legal liabilities, a revision of the ordinance must be enacted; it would be unjust to criminalize community outreach and support services dedicated to addressing homelessness. Of course, the City of Fremont did not intend for the powers enacted in the ordinance to be abused, but without clarification, the flexibility of the clause may allow the homeless to be punished for simply living within city borders.
Despite the controversy around the city council’s decision, the Fremont Camping Ordinance does provide certain benefits to the community. Businesses in Fremont are significantly affected by the presence of homeless individuals on their private property. Visible homeless encampments can discourage customers, who sometimes describe themselves feeling unsafe in their communities. However, while opposing perspectives should be taken into account, the “solution” appears to be an unfair remedy to a complex issue. Undoubtedly, homelessness is a concern in Fremont, but this is not an excuse to punish and scapegoat underserved individuals subjected to harsh living conditions. The ordinance must be revised for clarity in order to protect residents of Fremont, homeless or not, from facing undeserved legal action. Furthermore, harsh ordinances often backfire by failing to address the root of the issue.
Now, the City of Fremont faces a federal civil rights lawsuit. Plaintiffs include organizations, such as the California Homeless Union/Statewide Organizing Council (CHU/SOC) and Fremont Homeless Union, and members of the Fremont homeless community, including Corrine Griffith, a disabled woman suffering from multiple personality disorder and epilepsy. Griffith was forced into homelessness when her housing manager embezzled her rent, and is searching for housing in homeless shelters. Currently, she lives among other members of the homeless community for protection from violent crime in the Bay Area. The stories of Griffith and other individual plaintiffs illustrate the difficult living conditions of the homeless community, emphasizing the importance of clarity in lawmaking to protect those already in need of additional resources. Fortunately, the ordinance, now expected to be enforced by March 13, was revised as desired on March 4, when the Fremont City Council eliminated two controversial clauses that could potentially devastate homeless communities in a 6-1 vote. The city still has much work to do in supporting Fremont’s homeless population, but with recent events to serve as a reminder of the importance of clarity in lawmaking, future grievances may be prevented.
