The ban on the Fremont homeless camp camp will be the most in the bay area. Will other cities follow? – The Mercury News

Fremont’s plan to ban the homeless camps everywhere in the city has the potential to be the strongest response so far in the bay area of ​​a remarkable decision by the US Supreme Court this summer, giving employees wide powers of police homelessness – and there could be pulsating effects throughout the region.

If approved on Tuesday, the defenders of the homeless people say that the proposal of the fourth largest city of the bay area can cause similar moves from the nearby jurisdictions that seek to take advantage of the homeless camps. Fremont residents, disappointed with scattered bearings that cause fire hazards and polluting waterways, have collected more than 1600 online signatures to support the ban.

“I have not seen anything in the bay area as a strict,” says Vivian Wan, CEO of Rebode Services, a supplier of homeless services service operating in Fremont and in six counties in the region. “This is definitely the most ravine.”

The ban will ban the camps of “any public property, including any street, sidewalk, park, open space, water road” or private property not designated for camping. It would also allow employees to blame anyone who “helps” or “nourish” a homeless camp, provider provisions of provision service are afraid that they can set a goal on their backs.

The penalty for violating the ordinance: a fine of up to $ 1,000 and up to six months in prison.

Fremont’s employees support the goal is not to push all homeless people out of town, but instead give employees the “power to change behavior” of those living in camps. They say they do not intend to arrest homeless people or service providers.

“Compliance will be won by request,” said city spokesman Geneva Bosquez.

According to the last issues last year, Fremont has about 802 homeless inhabitants, about 600 of whom live on the street. The shelter of the city has room for 45 people.

If the ban passes, Fremont will become the last city in California, which accepts more throes of camp rules after the Supreme Court’s decision in June. This decision, Grant’s omission against Johnson, overturned a decision of the null court, which prevented local authorities in the Western United States from punishing people from living on the street if they had nowhere to go.

In the area of ​​San Jose Bay and Oakland, they have been recruiting Menia ever since. San Francisco began to quote more homeless people for public camping. Berkeley now allows city workers to clear some bearings, even when shelter beds are not available. Antioch has recently passed a complete ban on camping. And San Mateo County has illegally made people who are not in unaccorpored areas to refuse asylum.

Elsewhere in California, cities, including Freen and a hundred, have attracted attention to the passage of strict camping restrictions. Before passing grants, some cities in the Bay area, including San Francisco, Akland, Hayward, Milpitz, Livermore and Sausalito, have already had laws on bookless, although the implementation after the decision varies.

Defenders say that if Fremont approves his camping ban, more cities could be tempted to follow the example in the hope of discouraging displaced stray people to move to their jurisdictions – to head to the “race to the bottom” they say that they will achieve a little except for the push of the bearings from one neighborhood to another.

“If I am expelled, I will stay in front of the mayoralty. There is nowhere else to go, “said Jose Ari, 62, who lived in a railway camp under Washington Boulevard and Osgood Road for the last two years. “Where will you put us?”

In the neighboring union, City staff said they were aware of Fremont’s proposal and “closely monitor” the response of other camps. Officials at Hayward and Milpitz, who already limit camping, said they did not have immediate plans to increase the application of camps.

Even when San Jose moves to clear more camps, Mayor Mat Mahan is worried that more cities can impose broad restrictions on camping in an attempt to push their homeless residents in the city centers in the region.

“I would ban a heart rate camping if I decided that this would solve the crisis – but there is no,” he said in a statement, calling for cities instead of adding more shelter beds.

Opponents of the Fremont ban also worry that the provision of support and harvesting in the Ordinance will discourage non -profit organizations and groups of communities of support for camp residents while deterrents to accept the necessary services.

Tristics Bauman, a lawyer at the Silicon Valley Foundation, said that although not completely unprecedented, the provision could violate the protection of the first amendments, including “political or religious expression on how resources should be shared”.

Wan with Abode Services puts him more group: “This makes it criminal to be a good neighbor – to offer someone a sandwich, a blanket, a bottle of water.”

Fremont responded to such criticism, noting that other camping cities also have a common language in their municipal codes, prohibiting the support and maintenance of any criminal offense. The officials explained that the specific inclusion in the proposed ordinance was only “in the interest of transparency”.