It’s misleading for homeless advocates to say that those are us who oppose encampments are hating on unhoused people. That’s not true. All we’re saying is that the current policy of Oakland allowing encampments everywhere—in parks, under overpasses, along BART lines, on Wood Street—is unacceptable and disorderly.
The concept of “order” has taken a beating in recent years, for understandable reasons (hello Richard Nixon!), but that doesn’t make it invalid. “Order” is the glue for our collective existence. “Order” is what makes possible the smooth running of our cities. “Order” is what prevents chaos from overwhelming us. And “order” is precisely what’s missing amidst this crisis of encampments.
We Coalition members have asked, from Day One, for these encampments to be managed. What do we mean by that? You need look no further than the City Council’s own definition, as expressed in their unanimously-passed Encampment Management Policy (EMP) from October, 2020. Back then, under enormous pressure from ordinary citizens, the Council approved the EMP, which stated where encampments could be located, and where they could not. The latter included “public parks.” By that time, of course, many of Oakland’s beloved parks had long been overridden with encampments. I remember the horrors of Mosswood Park and Snow Park; you probably could name others. Lakeside Park--the “crown jewel” of Oakland--had become a slum of tents and piles of garbage, a place where people were afraid to go after dark. So the Council passed the EMP and vowed that “camps that break [these] rules…would be given 72 hours to fix the problems” before “becoming subject to intervention.”
Fine language. But it never happened. January 1, 2021—the date the EMP was supposed to begin—came and went, while the City Council (which now included Carroll Fife) sat on its hands and did nothing.
This gets back to my opening remarks. We’re not “anti-homeless.” But this metastasis of encampments has destroyed the quality of life in many parts of Oakland, and, along with crime, is destroying our city’s reputation. I concede that the City is doing a good job (more or less) of providing alternatives to tents: tiny houses and safe RV sites are fine (if they’re appropriately located). Project Homekey also is a success. A few months ago, they rented the old Lake Merritt Lodge, two blocks from my home, and it’s well-run and orderly.
But these interventions are but drops in the bucket. They’re nowhere near adequate to house all of Oakland’s homeless people. The result is that encampments remain in our parks and elsewhere, in violation of the EMP. What I fear—what I think a lot of people fear—is that this situation will drag on for years and never be resolved.
I can’t understand why the city hasn’t identified large, unoccupied acreages of land where encampments can be placed. Several such areas come to mind. Oakland, through its Port, owns vast tracts along the estuary and Bay in West Oakland, as well as the abandoned Oakland Army Base. Some years ago, according to this report, Oakland owned 2,400 individual parcels totaling over 10,000 acres of land. The report called for Oakland “to pursue an inclusive public lands
policy that serves a variety of public needs…”. That never happened; much of the land sits idle.
There are other unused places that are under city control. The parking lot at the Oakland Coliseum, for example. We saw how quickly and efficiently that land could be converted to public use when the government set up its COVID vaccination site. Almost overnight, it blossomed into a functional destination where thousands of people could be accommodated. There are many other large-acreage areas under city control where encampments could be placed.
I’ve suggested before that, if Oakland dedicated a large-acreage site to encampments, it would be much easier to provide services than it is now, when hundreds of individual mini-encampments are scattered across the city. We could build an entirely new neighborhood at the old Oakland Army Base where tent residents could have centralized services.
This suggestion makes a lot of sense, so why hasn’t the City Council considered it? Of course, if the city tried to move encampments to the Port or Army Base, no doubt many homeless people, and their supporters, would howl. “Homeless people have the right to live where they want!” they would say. But that’s not true. Nobody has a right to live wherever she wants.
But cities—which are collectives of many individuals—do have the right to establish zoning and other ordinances. There’s nothing unconstitutional about Oakland restricting “hours of use” for public parks. Nor is it unconstitutional for Oakland to create anti-litter ordinances: the city’s Municipal Code (section 12.64.030) mandates that “persons” are not permitted “to place, deposit, dump or leave or cause to be placed, deposited, dumped or left, in, on or upon the grounds of any park” any form of “garbage, swill, cans, bottles, papers, refuse, trash or rubbish.” Well, take a walk around Lake Merritt. I have a hunch you’ll see plenty of “garbage, swill and rubbish” dumped there by homeless people.
In the end, this isn’t about being “anti-homeless,” it’s about respect for public order. It’s also about respect for homeless individuals themselves, who do not deserve to live in dilapidated, filthy conditions as a cold rainy season comes on. We have enormous compassion for our unhoused fellow citizens. We admire the fact that Oakland is doing so many good things to alleviate homelessness. All we ask is that, if homeless people wish to stay in their tents, they relocate to areas that can be properly managed and are appropriate for habitation.
Steve Heimoff