Struggle in the Court and the Council
Last year Berkeley government leaders aspiring to higher office claimed victory over homelessness. These claims, based on a point-in-time count, were dubious at the time. Many hundreds of Berkeleyans remain on the streets in dire circumstances, lacking basic services and at heightened risk of police sweeps.
Now in 2025, the unhoused face new challenges, yet, perhaps, some new opportunities as well.
The Trump administration will fire workers in HUD programs that fund housing and other supports for homeless people across the country—including a cut of 84% of staff at the key agency, the Office of Community Planning and Development, according to NPR. The U.S. Justice Department has reached into Berkeley to defund BOSS (Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency) of $641,050 in mental health grants. Trump also proposed to massively cut Section 8 housing vouchers, which house 80,000 low-income families around the Bay.
This is bad news for the unhoused and low-income people—though Trump’s harsh stance on the unhoused should not be a surprise. Two years ago, he campaigned on a promise to outlaw “urban camping” and to create “tent cities” to concentrate homeless people, far from their communities of support.
Then, there’s the Trump-dominated Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v Johnson, which Berkeley Speaks reviewed in our last issue (see “Where Do We Go?”). Berkeley quickly resolved to take advantage of the ruling to evict unhoused communities on almost any pretext, without having to offer shelter, much less permanent housing.
The Union Makes Us Strong
Then, unhoused folks and their advocates went on the offensive. A new organization of the unhoused, the Berkeley Homeless Union (BHU), sued the City of Berkeley on behalf of residents in the 8th and Harrison Streets area. Their claim, which is before Federal District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., is that the City is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The BHU was launched, in their words, “to be the voice of the homeless, to fight for the human and civil rights of the disenfranchised and neglected segments of society and to eradicate the conditions which cause homelessness. We are not a service agency or charity, instead we are a mutual aid community seeking to empower the homeless.”
The Union has recruited dozens of members around the city, and recruited community supporters to help the unhoused clean and beautify their environment.
Their lawsuit, Berkeley Homeless Union v City of Berkeley, has already resulted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), the first step toward the Union’s goals in resisting the city council’s stated intention of closing down 8th and Harrison. Now the Union has asked for the threatened Ohlone Park to be added to the suit.
The next step is a court hearing on Friday, May 23 in federal court in San Francisco. Attorneys are asking the judge to order the City government to make reasonable accommodations for the homeless plaintiffs. An account by Bay City News Service stated that “Obtaining a TRO…is never easy. The moving party must show…that its claims are likely to be meritorious and that it would be irreparably injured if relief is not given.” Judge Gilliam wrote in his decision granting the TRO that the plaintiffs had raised significant questions about the City’s compliance with the ADA. However, there is no certainty that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
UPDATE May 23, 2025: At today’s court hearing, the two individual plaintiffs came to agreement with the City and will withdraw from the case. Judge Chen directed BHU attorneys to file for a restraining order if they want to block a sweep of 8th and Harrison, and now Ohlone Park. Updates will be forthcoming.
Will Berkeley Grow a Heart?
In a separate move that is quite unusual, the city council voted May 20 to explore the possibility of “alternative housing options” for people experiencing homelessness in Berkeley. Shoshana O’Keefe, with support from Mayor Ishii and council members Lunaparra and Blackaby, introduced a resolution to ask the City Manager to identify locations for the creation of a safe, alternative housing site. In a strong supporting letter issued on April 17, Mayor Ishii stated that:
“This is not designed to be a long-term solution, but the stress of constantly moving for those who are unhoused and the pressure that housed neighbors and businesses are feeling is unsustainable. We need to look at short and long-term solutions.”
To be clear, the council referral is not a decision that the City will allow or “sanction” encampments in public spaces. It is just an authorization to the City Manager to:
“Identify a list of potential locations of City properties (such as parking lots, buildings, and other sites) and private properties (to be leased or acquired) – for the purpose of establishing alternative housing options.”
The mayor’s letter further clarified three important points:
- This item does NOT designate, target, or suggest a specific neighborhood or area to search. The intent is to explore sites across the city.
- This item will NOT be looking at parks as an alternate site.
- If potential sites are found, staff would need to return to City Council to present the opportunities and gain further direction to assess the feasibility and costs of moving forward.
“Where Do We Go…” from here?
So, are we close to a moment when the unhoused can get an answer to the question of “where do we go?” This would allow them to exit from what some call the “Poor Tour,” where street dwellers are driven out of one space to rest briefly at another, only to repeat the cycle.
It seems the struggle is begun, but not nearly ended. When the proposal was considered on April 1 for placement on a council agenda, the Agenda and Rules Committee outvoted the mayor two to one and referred it to another council committee.
The proposal was then amended with a long set of qualifiers that included five additional tasks for the City Manager, including a full analysis of how alternative housing would be established and paid for, and where outside of Berkeley the homeless could be sent, as well as four complex “principles.” Some of these amendments may be helpful in putting the search for alternative housing options onto a sustainable footing, but they may also amount to shackles to slow down progress on ending the Poor Tour.
One More Wrinkle from Governor Newsom
Whether due to fear of Trump and his virulent anti-poor base, or to his hopes of winning the next presidential election, the governor has continued his move to the right.
On May 12, CalMatters reported that Gov. Newsom asked all California cities to adopt a draft local ordinance to effectively ban homeless encampments across the state. While he cannot force his policy on cities, he can promise to fund cities that comply and withhold money from those who do not adopt some version of his template.
The key part of the draft ordinance, for Berkeley, is the provision that would make it illegal:
(b) To camp on public property, including but not limited to using, placing or maintaining a tent, sleeping bag, blanket, or other materials for the purpose of sleeping, lying, or sheltering one or more persons for more than three consecutive days or nights in the same location. For purposes [of] this section, the same location shall mean within 200 feet of the location in which the person camped on the previous day or night. [Emphasis added]
A few things are made clear by this paragraph. It would outlaw resting, not just by an encampment of multiple people, but even one person. They would have to move every three days. And they would have to move at least a block away.
Delving deeper into the governor’s draft ordinance, it rests on very contradictory language. The stated principles of the ordinance are that no person should be punished for having no place to sleep, that homeless people and their belongings should be treated with respect, and that large encampments expose their residents to increased risk. However, the ordinance uses the word “enforcement” 15 times. “Enforcement” means the police have the power to arrest or cite, so the law is in effect criminalizing people for their homeless status.
Also, Dr. Margot Kushel, director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative told CalMatters, it was unclear how the draft ordinance would help resolve what the article called the core problem: a lack of housing and shelter. Instead, Dr. Kushel said,
“We know that disrupting people, making them move every two or three days, disrupting them from the outreach workers who are desperately trying to engage with them and build their trust — it just makes things worse.”
People with lived experience with homelessness make it clear, in fact, that living in community, what they call “comeUnity,” is vital for people on the street. An article in 48Hills magazine called “Sanctuaries not sweeps” reflects voices of multiple unhoused people and advocates in Oakland:
“When we are in comeUnity we take care of each other and watch each others’ backs. When we lose our comeUnities we lose our safety—which is why it is always so strange to me that “public safety” is the reason the city cites for these sweeps and why it so clearly articulates that houseless peoples are not considered part of the public. In fact, we are not considered human at all.”
Will Newsom’s Homeless Ordinance Trump Berkeley’s Search for Alternative Housing Options?
It is too soon to answer this question. The governor’s announcement puts pressure on the City to put tougher laws in place. But Berkeley already has a strong sidewalk ordinance strictly constraining behavior by poor people, and it is moving quickly to shut down encampments all over town.
It is conceivable that an even stronger law against encampments could co-exist with the Berkeley proposal for “alternative” sites, primarily indoors, in private spaces, or just away from the public commons.
This direction will be a stretch goal, given the lack of public funds, the pressure from the White House and the state house, and the desire from some in the community to simply “get rid of these people.” It would also have to be done with respect for the value of the unhoused as human beings, for their ability to make choices about their own lives, and for the civil liberties of people who opt not to enter a shared setting.
The next few months will need everyone to watch closely over this developing process, and make sure that everyone’s needs are taken into account in the planning process.
