What to know about California Gov. Gavin Newsom's move to ban encampments
Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, made homelessness a priority of his administration when he took office in 2019. It had previously been an issue primarily for mayors and other local officials, but Newsom pumped money into converting old motels into housing and launched other initiatives to tackle the issue.
Still, he has repeatedly called out cities and counties to do their part, and on Monday, he unveiled draft language that can be adopted by local governments to remove encampments. Here is what to know:
What does the model ordinance say?
Newsom's model ordinance includes prohibitions on 'persistent camping' in one location and encampments blocking sidewalks and other public spaces. It asks cities and counties to provide notice and make every reasonable effort to identify and offer shelter before clearing an encampment.
What do local governments say?
Organizations representing California's cities and counties balked at the suggestion that they are to blame for street conditions. They say they need dedicated, sustained funding over multiple years for permanent projects instead of sporadic, one-time funding.
Carolyn Coleman, executive director and CEO of the League of California Cities, said that eight in 10 cities have policies to address encampments but they need money to address the root causes of homelessness, such as more housing.
The California State Association of Counties said the state has not provided as much money to address homelessness as it says it has and that half of the money has gone to housing developers.
What do homeless advocates say?
Studies have shown that encampment bans and other punitive measures make it even harder for people to find stable housing and work, said Alex Visotzky with the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
People may lose critical documents or lose contact with a trusted case manager, forcing them to start all over again.
In Los Angeles, Jay Joshua watches over a small encampment in which he also lives. He says encampments can be a safe space for those living there.
What are California cities doing about encampments?
Major cities with Democratic mayors have already started cracking down on encampments, saying they present a public health and safety hazard.
In San Francisco, new mayor Daniel Lurie vowed to clean up city sidewalks. In San Jose, Mayor Matt Mahan has proposed arrests if a person refuses shelter three times.
Do cities and counties have to adopt it?
Newsom can't make cities and counties adopt an encampment ban.
But the proposed encampment legislation was paired with an announcement of $3.3 billion in grant money for facilities to treat mental health and substance abuse disorders, suggesting that he could condition state funding on compliance.
In 2022, he paused $1 billion in state money for local government, saying that their plans to reduce homelessness fell short of the acceptable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
37 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Seth David Radwell: The emerging schism within the Democratic Party
Much has been written of late about the fate of the Democratic Party after its poor performance last November and with its damaged brand and lack of a coherent strategy. Over the last several years, the party's primary unifying focus has been assailing President Donald Trump and MAGA, while lacking an articulate compelling message or prescriptive platform. Not only has this left the party adrift, but also, Trump has been all too eager to fill the resulting vacuum, imprinting his 'evil' characterization of the party. While myriad efforts within and adjacent to the party are scrambling to advance a winning strategy for 2026, we can already detect competing agendas. The left flank of the party has a resolute hold on the identity issues it keeps front and center, despite persuasive evidence that this strategy alienates working-class voters. In contrast, the center of the party has been coalescing around what some call the 'abundance agenda' — following the launch of the bestselling book 'Abundance' by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. The agenda centers on an insightful reckoning: How can the Democratic Party represent itself as the problem-solving party of the working class when its track record exhibits innumerable failures in major cities? Accordingly, the abundance strategy focuses on enabling government to undertake the 'big things' it accomplished yesteryear by liberating it from a maze of bureaucratic obstacles. Perhaps the most credible advocate of this revitalized spirit is Josh Shapiro, the charismatic governor of Pennsylvania. His 'get stuff done' approach has resulted in some tangible wins such as the rapid reopening of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia and the expansion of school breakfast programs. In fact, many Democratic leaders in the center recognize that their rapprochement with the progressive wing in recent cycles has resulted in the party estranging its working-class base. But, the Democratic Party has a more fundamental conundrum based on a contradiction that lies at the heart of progressivism itself. As described in detail in Marc Dunkelman's recent book 'Why Nothing Works,' the reason why our government today cannot build the big things it did in past eras (e.g., the interstate highway system and the Social Security system) is because of this very conflict: On one hand, many progressives deliver a clarion call for government to undertake large-scale solutions to the most pressing current policy problems, such as building green energy infrastructure and affordable housing. But at the same time, these same advocates demand controls that often stymie government from getting anything done. Ever since the Vietnam War, a distrust of the establishment has taken root and grown deep, manifested in a fear of yielding broad powers without adequate controls and limitations. Nonetheless, these two instincts underlying progressivism are at cross purposes: It is hard to have it both ways. How can government solve big problems if it is intentionally designed with diffuse power, easily and frequently obstructed or contested? What is remarkable is that these two opposing impulses frequently operate simultaneously. Millions of young people today call for administrative solutions to the climate crisis, while demanding bodily autonomy free from government intervention. As I describe in my book 'American Schism,' the pendulum has vacillated throughout our entire history between eras characterized by these opposing impulses. At times, centrally designed Hamiltonian solutions (designed by elites) dominated, such as after our founding, in the New Deal and post-World War II periods, and again through Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society programs. In other epochs, such as when the Federalist party lost influence in the early 19th century, when Reconstruction failed and during the dawning of the Gilded Age, the Jeffersonian demand for curtailed central power reigned supreme. Since the Ronald Reagan era, the wariness of big government has taken hold on the right. But often overlooked is that progressive reformers in recent decades, fearful of the sins of power-hungry leaders such as New York's Robert Moses, have demanded controls on government, which often lead to unwieldy processes and boxed-in government action. Many of these checkpoints, such as mandated constituent input in the policy development process, are warranted. But as a result, government today at all levels feels more like a vetocracy in which citizens or corporate-sponsored interest groups stifle progress at every turn, often via the slow legal system. Even when a major project does get completed, the number of involved commissions and the lawsuits brought by opposing constituents result in skyrocketing costs and years of delay. Perhaps, most ironically, the consequent gridlock has over time eroded faith in public institutions and created the opening for MAGA-style populism. It is this dynamic that is already clashing within the Democratic Party; the centrists' call to tackle big problems may find itself at loggerheads with the fear of elite-designed solutions within the progressive wing. Moreover, such clashes could impede a cohesive and compelling party revival. Dunkleman argues for an adjustment in the belief that we have leaned too far in hamstringing government. However, our history demonstrates that attempts at moderate 'adjustments' usually overcorrect and result in pendulum swings. How any possible Democratic revival manages this underlying contradiction in its road map may determine whether the party can once again attract the populist voters it used to carry. Seth David Radwell is the author of 'American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation' and winner of an International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a political analyst and speaker in the business community and on college campuses in the U.S. and abroad.
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats contemplate walkout in Texas
Democratic legislators in Texas could flee the state to prevent the GOP from approving new maps that could expand Republicans' congressional majority. Texas and national Democrats have vowed to fight back while blasting the GOP plans, which could give Republicans five more seats, as discriminatory. Visiting with Democratic state lawmakers in Austin, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed Thursday that 'all options' should be on the table to stop the GOP plan. But because Democrats are a minority in the state Legislature, they have few options to stop the GOP and face an uphill battle legally and politically. One very real option would be to seek to deny the quorum necessary to keep the Texas state House and Senate functioning, something Democrats might have the numbers to accomplish. 'Democrats don't have many arrows left in their quiver. There simply aren't a lot of things they can do to be able to challenge these maps in the near term,' said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. A quorum break could be the 'nuclear option,' Rottinghaus said, 'because most members don't want to do it that way. They want to stay and fight.' 'But the problem is that they simply don't have a lot of tools legislatively, or in terms of their total numbers to stop or slow things here in Austin.' The map proposal, filed this past week during a special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), comes after President Trump pressed Texas Republicans to draw new maps to protect the party's narrow 219-212 House majority. A public hearing before the state House's Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting was held Friday. Republican state Rep. Cody Vasut, chair of the redistricting panel, said he expects committee action in the coming days, followed by a full state House debate early next week. Specifics of the proposed lines could change as the plan works its way through the state chambers. But it's unlikely that Democrats have enough leverage in the state Legislature — where Republicans are 88-62 in the House and 19-11 in the Senate — to significantly change things in their favor. Faced with similar dynamics in 2003 and 2021, Democrats walked out to stall the Legislature on redistricting efforts and voting restrictions. 'Breaking quorum is a big task, and there's a lot of problems that come with it,' said Lana Hansen, executive director of Texas Blue Action, an Austin-based Democratic advocacy group. 'And I think this situation is particularly volatile because … this [redistricting] is a call from the president of the United States.' Fleeing would likely draw more attention to the brewing redistricting battle, but Abbott could continue to call sessions and the Democrats' absence would stall other business. A quorum break would also be expensive, due to new rules that impose fines for each day a lawmaker has fled, as well as the threat of arrest. Democrats are reportedly fundraising to help pay up if that happens, according to The Texas Tribune. 'In the past, it worked to sort of pause the conversation and start over,' Hansen said of the previous quorum breaks, but she noted that Republicans still got their way. 'At the end of it, it wasn't as successful as we had hoped.' Asked about a potential walkout, U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) told reporters Thursday that 'there are a lot of ways to fight.' Jeffries, asked whether he's urging Texas Democrats to break quorum, said ' all options should be on the table ' but deferred to Texas Democrats. If Democrats can't block the GOP efforts within the Legislature, they'll likely pursue legal action as leaders in and out of the state decry the proposal as discriminatory. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), one of the lawmakers whose district would be impacted, called the moves 'part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep Black and brown [Texans] from having a voice.' Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) called it 'a power grab to silence voters and suppress votes.' Democrats' chances of success with potential legal challenges likely relies on the fate of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), said Mark McKenzie, an Texas Tech associate professor of political science who has practiced law in the state. A major Louisiana redistricting battle is set to be reheard by the Supreme Court next term, and Republicans are increasingly bullish on chipping away at the VRA. 'I think the Democrats, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't eviscerate the Voting Rights Act … would have a good case, in terms of African American majority districts in Texas and how they'll be impacted,' McKenzie said, noting that they might be harder pressed to argue the same of Latino voters, who have increasingly leaned toward the GOP in Texas. 'Legally speaking, the Democrats are not in a great position,' McKenzie added. The party appears to be gearing up for a political battle either way. 'The current map violates the law, and this congressional map will double and triple down on the extreme racial gerrymandering that is silencing the voices of millions of Texans,' Jeffries said Thursday in Austin. 'We will fight them politically. We will fight them governmentally. We will fight them in court. We will fight them in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Texas and beyond.' House Majority PAC, a House Democratic super PAC, announced a new Lone Star Fund this week. It is hoping to raise millions for 2026 challengers if the lines are redrawn. 'If the GOP and the Trump administration think that Texas is the first state that they should look at doing this in, the place that he's most concerned with losing ground in, then we are in play, and my hope is that national investment will come this way,' Hansen said. 'There's still an opportunity for Democrats in Texas. We just might not be able to help flip to the congressional majority that we would like.' And Democrats may have avenues for offsetting GOP gains in Texas with redistricting efforts in other states. 'There's a phrase in Texas: 'what happens here sometimes changes the world.' Well, this is the case where what's happening here is setting off a cascade effect across the country,' said Jon Taylor, the University of Texas at San Antonio's department chair of political science. The developments in Texas have sparked congressional map conversations in several other states, including in California — where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has said the Golden State might make its own midcycle changes if Texas moves forward. There's also a chance that Lone Star State redistricting backfires on Republicans. For one, the party may appear more focused on redistricting than on deadly Independence Day floods, another special session agenda item. It may also be hard to predict midterm voting patterns. 'Just because Trump won in 2024 in certain parts and certain areas that are currently held by Democrats doesn't mean that's going to translate to success in a midterm election of '26, particularly a midterm election that, nationally, is expected to be potentially a wave election for Democrats,' Taylor said. 'So you could end up with a situation where you've drawn districts that are supposedly for, you know, friendly for Republicans, and all of a sudden, in a year where the economy is going south, Trump's opinion poll numbers continue to decline, you end up with Democrats winning in districts that were designed for Republicans.'
San Francisco Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Britain hopes a crackdown on people-smugglers' social media ads will help curb Channel crossings
LONDON (AP) — Britain says people who advertise fake passports or people-smuggling services on social medial could face up to five years in prison, in the government's latest effort to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government said Sunday that anyone convicted of creating online materials intended to break U.K. immigration law will face prison time and a large fine. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the aim was to stop the 'brazen tactics on social media' used by smuggling gangs. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the U.K. and a life in this country — whether on or offline — simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' she said. Assisting illegal immigration to the U.K. is already a crime, but officials believe a new offense — part of a border security bill currently going through Parliament — will give police and prosecutors more powers to disrupt gangs that send migrants on perilous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Since taking office a year ago, Starmer's center-left Labour Party government has adopted powers to seize the assets of people-smugglers, beefed up U.K. border surveillance and increased law-enforcement cooperation with France and other countries to disrupt the journeys. Despite that, more than 25,000 people have reached Britain by boat so far this year, an increase of 50% on the same period in 2024. Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, leaky inflatable boats on the French coast. Opposition parties say the government's plans aren't working — though the government argues the problems built up during 14 years when the Conservative Party was in power, The Conservatives say Starmer should not have scrapped the previous government's contentious and expensive plan to send migrants arriving by boat on a one-way trip to Rwanda. 'This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing,' Conservative immigration spokesman Chris Philp said. The government says it will take time to clear a backlog of applications that has left thousands of migrants stuck in temporary accommodation — often hotels — without the right to work.
