It rained yesterday in my Adams Point neighborhood—not a lot, just enough to wet the ground—a nice, sweetly steady drizzle. It was Mother Nature’s way of reminding us that Summer is gone, Fall is upon us, and the rainy season is coming.
This would be, under normal circumstances, the perfect opportunity for the City of Oakland, led by the City Council and Mayor, to declare that not a single homeless person will be living in an unprotected tent this winter. In the name of compassion for our unhoused sisters and brothers, our elected leaders could state, in unambiguous terms, that they will not allow thousands of unhoused people to be wet and cold for another season.
Such a move, I think, would be widely celebrated by everyone. But it won’t happen, and for a good reason: for all their talk, this current City Council isn’t really interested in sheltering homeless people. Oh, they say they are. They make a great deal of political hay (and raise a great deal of campaign cash) by such declarations.
But when push comes to shove, what do they do?
Oakland could make national news, and be a model for cities all across America, were Nikki Fortunato Bas to say, at a news conference, that Oakland will remove all encampments—from single tents to huge conglomerations like the Wood Street Encampment—so that their inhabitants need not suffer the privations of winter in the Bay Area. In response to questions from journalists about where all these homeless people will be moved to, Bas could inform them that many will be sheltered in existing structures, purchased with Federal and state funding. Others will be placed into Tiny Homes, while the majority will be provided accommodations at the old Army Base, where services of every kind will be offered. By Dec. 1, Bas could state, not a single tent will remain in a park, under an overpass, on a sidewalk, in a brownfield, in a shuttered store front, or anywhere else. Tents will exist only in city-sanctioned areas, exactly as mandated by the Encampment Management Policy.
Sadly, Oakland won’t make national news that way (although it will in others). And Bas won’t make that announcement. She easily could. For that matter, the City Council, in coordination with the Mayor’s office and the City Attorney, could announce their declaration to challenge, or test, Martin v. Boise, the ruling that cities always hide behind to justify their non-actions in ending encampments. The fact is, Martin v. Boise is not settled law. It was, rather, a highly-contentious, irresolute temporary lower court ruling that divided its own court, and is ripe for appeal and testing. Oakland could, if it had the courage, see just how serious the Courts really are, even at the highest levels, about homeless “rights.” Frankly, it’s difficult to envision the Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court actually prohibiting cities from enforcing zoning and other ordinances.
But that won’t happen, and there’s a very good reason: Oakland’s Homeless-Anti-Cop-Progressive Complex won’t allow any forward progress on solving the problem of encampments. They’ve staked their reputations and fundraising on maintaining the status quo. The moment the encampment problem begins to fade away, so will the credibility and power of the “homeless advocates” on the City Council, who will then have no issue about which to make incendiary speeches and raise money. Therefore, the encampment problem will remain.
The next time you hear someone from the City Council say how compassionate they feel about unhoused Oaklanders, ask why they’re about to compel 4,500 people to get rained on, in 40-degree cold, for the next six months, when they could fix this thing if they really wanted to.
Steve Heimoff