The Redwood City City Council passed a ban on homeless encampments in an attempt to strike the right balance between public safety and compassion, but some say it is still too punitive.
The ban, approved in a 6-1 vote Monday, allows a person living in an encampment to be charged with a misdemeanor if they have been given two warnings, decline shelter and that shelter is available.
“This isn’t going to solve homelessness and we’re not going to see the number of encampments drop overnight,” said Councilmember Chris Sturken, the only vote against the ban. “My concern is that we’re setting ourselves up for failure, overpromising and underdelivering.”
The ban was modeled after an ordinance passed by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, but differs in calling for a smaller penalty of $100 to two-warning violators. Violators can also be placed in jail for up to six months.
Under the ban, most encampments can be removed after two notices and 72 hours later. In cases where an encampment is within 200 feet of sensitive areas, which includes schools and the 240-unit Navigation Center temporary housing, the time is reduced to 48 hours.
‘It motivates people to evade contact’
Of the almost two dozen speakers who spoke, a majority said they opposed the ban because it criminalized being homeless.
“Our city vision is a community where all people of backgrounds and income levels can thrive, but how can we achieve that if we arrest people just for being unhoused?” said Clara Jaeckel, a member of Faith in Action Bay Area, a group of faith-based nonprofits that organize in communities around various issues. “Adding the threat of arrest does nothing to help. Instead, it motivates people to evade contact and refuse to speak with outreach workers.”
Councilmember Isabella Chu said this wasn’t a case where homelessness was being criminalized.
“For a certain segment of the population, housing is necessary, but not sufficient,” she said. The ordinance “requires that housing is available … there are multiple offers of housing given, and they’re given a lot of time. There’s a lot of room and discretion to be patient with the person to ensure they’re successful in becoming sheltered.”
Since being passed in January 2024, County Executive Officer Mike Callagy said no citations have been issued for violations related to the county ban.
“We hope to never issue a citation or incarcerate anyone,” Callagy said.
“There’s a lot of room and discretion to be patient with the person to ensure they’re successful in becoming sheltered.” Councilmember Isabella Chu
In the city for June, 141 people were considered unsheltered and authorities counted 29 encampments, according to Assistant City Manager Patrick Heisinger. Eighty-eight people are spread across those encampments.
More than $16 million in city and outside funds have been used to address homelessness since 2018, Heisinger said.
‘Don’t wait for another tragedy’
A group of residents on bayfront Bair Island backed the ban because of theft and fires they said were caused by individuals living at nearby encampments.
Tony Crapo, who spoke on behalf of Bair Island neighborhood residents, asked for the neighborhood to be designated as a sensitive area. Over the last three and a half years, 13 fires were caused by encampments, he said. Four of those happened in the last three months.
“The danger to our community is real, it’s growing and it’s unique to our part of the city. Please don’t wait for another tragedy on Bair Island to force your response,” said Crapo.
Opponents conceded before the vote that support among councilmembers was enough to pass the ban and proposed an increase in the frequency that reviews will be given to the city’s Housing and Human Concerns Committee that they said would improve accountability.
A separate committee dedicated to homelessness issues could later be created to review the implementation of the ban, according to discussions between city staff and councilmembers at the meeting.