ReportWire

Tag: homeless encampment

  • 99 stolen special election ballots found in Sacramento County homeless encampment, officials say

    Dozens of stolen, unvoted ballots for the special election on Proposition 50 were found in a Sacramento County homeless encampment on Wednesday, according to the sheriff’s office. Sgt. Amar Gandhi, a spokesperson for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, said deputies were in the area of Elder Creek and Mayhew roads to clean up a camp in the area when they found 99 ballots and other election-related materials among a large amount of other mail.”Obviously saw the urgency, grabbed all those items first, got the ballots and stuff returned to the voter registration,” Gandhi said.He said deputies secured the ballots and election mail and returned them to the Sacramento County Department of Voter Registration and Elections. He confirmed to KCRA 3 that the ballots were voided.”They won’t count for anything,” Gandhi said.The county’s Department of Voter Registration and Elections stated that new ballots will be sent to affected voters on Thursday.The sheriff’s office said the camp was vacant when deputies arrived, and no arrests have been made in connection with the stolen ballots. Investigators are now working to identify those responsible for the theft.”It’s a big deal and it’s an undertaking. So, this is something that will work in conjunction with the post office as well,” Gandhi said. “It’s going to take a lot of backtracking.”Any California voter who has not received their ballot is urged to contact their county elections office to have their ballot reissued.Gandhi said the goal is to protect the integrity of every vote.”Whether it’s mail-in or some other method, make sure you’re taking the steps to track it and making sure your vote counts,” he said.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Calif. —

    Dozens of stolen, unvoted ballots for the special election on Proposition 50 were found in a Sacramento County homeless encampment on Wednesday, according to the sheriff’s office.

    Sgt. Amar Gandhi, a spokesperson for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, said deputies were in the area of Elder Creek and Mayhew roads to clean up a camp in the area when they found 99 ballots and other election-related materials among a large amount of other mail.

    “Obviously saw the urgency, grabbed all those items first, got the ballots and stuff returned to the voter registration,” Gandhi said.

    He said deputies secured the ballots and election mail and returned them to the Sacramento County Department of Voter Registration and Elections.

    He confirmed to KCRA 3 that the ballots were voided.

    “They won’t count for anything,” Gandhi said.

    The county’s Department of Voter Registration and Elections stated that new ballots will be sent to affected voters on Thursday.

    The sheriff’s office said the camp was vacant when deputies arrived, and no arrests have been made in connection with the stolen ballots. Investigators are now working to identify those responsible for the theft.

    “It’s a big deal and it’s an undertaking. So, this is something that will work in conjunction with the post office as well,” Gandhi said. “It’s going to take a lot of backtracking.”

    Any California voter who has not received their ballot is urged to contact their county elections office to have their ballot reissued.

    Gandhi said the goal is to protect the integrity of every vote.

    “Whether it’s mail-in or some other method, make sure you’re taking the steps to track it and making sure your vote counts,” he said.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • As San Francisco cracks down on homeless encampments, a question rises: Where will people go?

    As San Francisco cracks down on homeless encampments, a question rises: Where will people go?

    SAN FRANCISCO — 

    A week into what Mayor London Breed has called a “very aggressive” effort to clear homeless encampments across San Francisco, a key question looms: Where will the people living in those tents go?

    Outreach workers, backed by law enforcement officers, have fanned out in recent days in targeted efforts to clear some of San Francisco’s most visible encampments, confiscating personal belongings and telling the owners it’s time to pack up and go.

    They’ve cleared unsanctioned tent cities under freeways and a stretch of sidewalk in the drug-plagued Tenderloin with the aim of forcing people off the streets. On Monday, city workers visited a longtime encampment lining the sidewalks outside San Francisco’s only DMV office that had been cleared more than a dozen times this year only to resurrect days later.

    By Monday night, the sidewalks were clean.

    Breed’s efforts are buoyed by a pivotal June 28 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that authorized local communities to more forcefully restrict homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public property.

    In response, Breed said that San Francisco, a city that’s become a favorite right-wing punching bag for its sprawling homelessness crisis, would launch a more determined initiative to clear encampments. The time had come, she said, to address “this issue differently than we have before.”

    Despite a years-long effort to move people into shelter or housing, street encampments remain a visible problem in San Francisco.

    (Tayfun Coskun / Getty Images)

    An estimated 8,300 people are living homeless in San Francisco, about half of them sleeping in parks and on sidewalks in makeshift shelters. Despite a years-long effort to move people into temporary shelter or permanent housing, tent encampments remain a glaring problem, often accompanied by trash, theft and open drug use.

    For years, Breed and other city officials said their hands were tied by decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that deemed it cruel and unusual punishment to penalize someone for sleeping on the streets if no legal shelter was available. Now, bolstered by the Supreme Court ruling, city personnel can take a tougher stance if people refuse help.

    But San Francisco, along with many other West Coast cities looking to crack down on encampments, still hasn’t figured out where people are supposed to go once their tents are dismantled: The city’s shelters — with roughly 3,600 beds — are at 94% of capacity, according to the San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

    “Unfortunately, San Francisco does not have enough shelter or housing for every person experiencing homelessness, but we do have some beds available each day to support the work of the outreach teams, and we continue to grow our system,” Emily Cohen, the department’s spokesperson, wrote in an email.

    Jeff Cretan, the mayor’s spokesperson, said the city doesn’t necessarily expect a huge influx of new people in shelters. After years of attempts to move people inside, those still living on the streets tend to be the most resistant to accepting offers of shelter, often because they’re struggling with mental illness and substance-use disorders.

    In the first three days of this week’s encampment sweeps, only about 10% of the people offered shelter have accepted it, Cretan said.

    Instead, Breed — in the thick of a difficult reelection bid — is turning to strategies other than more shelter beds. She said the city may issue criminal penalties for people who repeatedly refuse shelter. But the prospect of local jails processing hundreds more homeless people also raises capacity issues.

    On Thursday, Breed put weight behind another approach. She issued an executive directive requiring outreach workers to offer homeless people who aren’t from San Francisco free transportation out of town — to cities where they have family, friends or other connections. Cretan said the city would cover the cost of bus, plane or train fares.

    The city has had a similar program in effect for years, but it lost traction during the pandemic. Under the new directive, workers are to press the relocation option before offering any other city services, including housing and shelter.

    According to the city’s 2024 annual point-in-time homeless survey, about 40% of people living on the streets said they were not from San Francisco.

    “This directive will ensure that relocation services will be the first response to our homelessness and substance-use crises, allowing individuals the choice to reunite with support networks before accessing other city services or facing the consequences of refusing care,” Breed wrote in the directive.

    San Francisco Mayor London Breed, left, speaks at a lectern with challenger Aaron Peskin at right

    San Francisco Mayor London Breed faces a difficult reelection bid, with homeless numbers a burning issue. Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, right, is among her challengers.

    (Eric Risberg / Associated Press)

    Breed’s hard-line approach has drawn sharp criticism from homeless advocates, who argue that clearing tents does not address the poverty and addiction that cause homelessness — and who say her efforts are politically motivated.

    “Policies to address homelessness must be humane, lawful and effective — not implemented just because someone’s job is on the line,” said Aaron Peskin, president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and one of Breed’s mayoral challengers.

    Peskin instead called for bolstering rent control and protections against eviction, and for the city to expand shelter and affordable housing options.

    Since Breed took office, the city has increased shelter capacity from about 2,500 beds to nearly 4,000, the mayor’s office said, and permanent supportive housing slots to about 14,000. Cohen, with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, cited those efforts as the reason the number of people living on city streets is at “the lowest level in at least 10 years.”

    Cretan said the relocation offers and threat of criminal penalties are just a starting point as the city figures out what strategies will work.

    “The mayor really wants to make clear [that] you have to accept shelter. But, clearly, it’s not going to be everyone says yes,” Cretan said. “It’s not like you snap your fingers and everything changes overnight.”

    Hannah Wiley

    Source link

  • Nearly 14K abandoned cars reportedly dumped in Oakland over 6 months, prompting tow bill controversy

    Nearly 14K abandoned cars reportedly dumped in Oakland over 6 months, prompting tow bill controversy

    OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) — A stolen car gets dumped on your property in Oakland, now you have to pay for it to be towed.

    City officials are overwhelmed with the number of stolen, abandoned vehicles dumped across the city. A report obtained exclusively by the I-Team shows just how bad the problem is.

    You see them everywhere – residential streets, business districts, even on the train tracks. Residents tell us they’re blocking access to their homes, businesses, and even entrances to local schools.

    INTERACTIVE: Take a look at the ABC7 Neighborhood Safety Tracker

    According to a new report from Oakland’s Department of Transportation, 13,856 abandoned cars were reported in Oakland over a six-month period last year.

    There’s so many the city is leasing space just to have somewhere to put them.

    The I-Team went for a ride-along with Councilmember Noel Gallo and his staff to see the volume on the streets.

    “This lot here is where they take the abandoned cars, you see the guy towing them,” said Gallo. “They’re stacked on top of each other.”

    Within 15 minutes of our drive, Gallo’s staff assistant Preston Turner who tracks these reports daily, pointed out 25 abandoned cars within a couple mile radius. Within 30 minutes, that figure jumped to 50 abandoned cars.

    MORE: CHP makes 168 arrests, recovers 360 stolen cars in Oakland and East Bay

    The volume was eye-opening. According to Gallo, the problem has tripled on the streets so far this year. Why?

    “We don’t have the space to locate them,” he told ABC7.

    The city’s storage lots for abandoned cars are packed and expensive. Gallo says the city is paying close to $1 million annually for storage alone.

    On Tuesday, Oakland City Council unanimously voted to approve a measure that aims to tackle the issue. The proposal identifies available funding for the city to hire multiple tow companies and utilize Caltrans’ vacant lots for storage.

    Oak DOT’s Vehicle Enforcement Unit is also hiring an additional 15 parking control technicians that will be focused on responding to reports of abandoned and stolen vehicles. The I-Team was told the technicians are still in training and are expected to be on the streets within a couple of months.

    EXCLUSIVE: Video shows 2-year-old wandering the street after Oakland carjacking suspect leaves him

    ABC7 News obtained exclusive video where the Oakland carjacking suspect can be seen abandoning the 2-year-old on the street in San Leandro.

    But residents say they’re still fed up.

    “Some park in front of the gate,” said business owner Bruce Vong. “I can’t even leave – and if you intervene they’ll shoot you.”

    Councilman Gallo and Turner responded to complaints of stolen vehicles blocking access to a nearby grade school. They say parents or teachers had nowhere to park.

    “It’s just not fair,” said Turner. “We report them, they clean it up, and they’re back like ants.”

    Reporting abandoned and stolen cars has also become an issue.

    “The whole block reports it,” said Bernadette Burton, an Oakland resident. “But they say there’s nothing they can do.”

    VIDEO: ‘It’s a war zone’: Oakland business owner chases down man stealing his tow truck

    Business owners in Oakland describe going to work like it’s a “war zone” – battling consistent waves of violent crime.

    “They just say no,” ABC7’s Stephanie Sierra asked.

    “Yes,” said Burton while nodding.

    OPD will no longer respond to reports of abandoned vehicles or stolen cars unless it’s parked in front of your driveway and you can’t get into your house. Otherwise, the Oakland Department of Transportation is the agency authorized to respond. Residents are asked to report these situations to 311.

    But it often takes awhile – residents have to wait for the car to be reported, cited, and then in some cases get stuck with the tow bill.

    “It happened to the assistant in my office,” said Gallo, adding she had to pay close to $500. “Why, if you steal my car, do I have to pay?”

    A valid question that city officials are currently discussing.

    Service requests across Oakland

    A new report found abandoned vehicles are towering over other service requests made across Oakland from June through November last year.

    Graph not displaying correctly? Click here to open in a new window.

    A breakdown from your Council District

    Here is a breakdown of the requests council districts are getting for abandoned automobiles, homeless encampments, and sideshows.

    Graph not displaying correctly? Click here to open in a new window.

    ABC7’s Lindsey Feingold contributed to this report.

    Take a look at more stories by the ABC7 News I-Team.

    If you’re on the ABC7 News app, click here to watch live

    Copyright © 2024 KGO-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    Stephanie Sierra

    Source link

  • Some homeless people refuse shelter beds. In one Bay Area county, that could soon be a crime

    Some homeless people refuse shelter beds. In one Bay Area county, that could soon be a crime

    San Mateo County officials are hoping to add an unusual tactic to their multi-pronged approach to tackling the homelessness crisis: making it a crime to refuse to accept available, temporary housing.

    In a unanimous vote this week, county supervisors moved forward with the proposal — despite significant opposition from civil rights groups and some homeless advocates — which would allow authorities to issue a misdemeanor violation to anyone living in a homeless encampment who refuses to move into available, temporary housing after a health evaluation and at least two warnings.

    “One of the toughest challenges we face is addressing and assisting those in encampments who tend to decline services or refuse services,” Supervisor Dave Pine said at Tuesday’s board meeting. “The hope is it will be a tool to help move individuals into shelter.”

    Opponents worry it will criminalize homelessness.

    But Pine, along with board President Warren Slocum, co-sponsor of the ordinance, said the measure is the latest in a host of comprehensive solutions — including a street medicine team and the conversion of hotels to temporary housing — aimed at reducing homelessness in San Mateo County.

    “Forty homeless people die in San Mateo county every year. … That’s just not acceptable,” Slocum said. This proposal “isn’t about criminalizing people, it’s about helping those who really may not be able to help themselves. … We really do have the capacity to house people and get people the help they need.”

    Officials said the county has up to 30 unused shelter beds available every night, though that falls short of the estimated 44 people living in homeless encampments across unincorporated San Mateo County. Many more encampments are located in the county’s 20 cities, including Daly City and Redwood City, but this ordinance would apply only in unincorporated areas.

    After San Mateo made investments to respond to the homelessness crisis in the last two years, the number of people on the streets significantly dipped, with more accessing shelter facilities, according to County Executive Officer Mike Callagy.

    “We’re down now to the hard-to-reach population, the population that doesn’t want to come in,” Callagy said.

    If the proposal reaches final approval next week, someone in an encampment who refuses an offer for an available bed will have 72 hours to change their mind, receiving two written warnings. After that, authorities could issue a misdemeanor citation, which Callagy said would be handled through diversion programs, like mental health court.

    But no one would be cited if county officials don’t have a bed available, Callagy said. He stressed that the goal is not to issue tickets or route people into the criminal justice system but to get services and housing to those in need.

    “We believe that once offered those options, most people will avail themselves to the services,” Callagy said. He hopes the citations are rarely issued but are used as a deterrent.

    “At the end of the day, it’s about saving lives,” said David Canepa, another county supervisor. “I don’t buy into the narrative that we should do nothing.”

    County officials touting the proposal said it was based on a Houston ordinance, adopted in 2017, that made homeless encampments on public property illegal and tried to funnel people into temporary housing. While the program has been highlighted for its success at removing encampments and helping people get off the streets, the Houston Chronicle found that tickets and arrests for violating the provision — given only after a warning and an offer of housing — continue to increase.

    While many West Coast municipalities face legal roadblocks to clearing encampments, San Mateo County attorneys said the ordinance adheres to legal precedent that protects the right to sleep outside when no alternative housing is available.

    In Los Angeles, city officials have been making efforts to address growing encampments by encouraging people to accept temporary shelter and enforcing laws that forbid blocking sidewalks or other specific places.

    In San Mateo County, the proposed ordinance has drawn critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, religious leaders and the San Mateo County Private Defender Program, which represents indigent defendants. Critics say they worry about the unintended consequences of such a law.

    “Policing is no way to get people into treatment,” said William Freeman, senior council of ACLU of Northern California, decrying the “seriously flawed ordinance.”

    While he praised the county for its recent work on homelessness, he said that “anti-camping ordinances invite over-policing and abuse.”

    Lauren P. McCombs, an Episcopal deacon and a leader for Faith in Action Bay Area, called the criminalization of homelessness “inhumane treatment of our unhoused neighbors.”

    “Our county needs to solve this crisis by ensuring safe and affordable housing options that are available to all residents, with strong incentives and not threats of incarceration,” McCombs said.

    County officials on Tuesday took into account some concerns from the public, amending the ordinance to include a health evaluation before warnings are issued and a review process scheduled to launch after a few months.

    Supervisor Noelia Corzo said her half-brother is homeless in San Mateo County, so she knows first-hand how complex the issue is. She said she is proud of the county for “doing something different.”

    “I don’t take this lightly,” she said, “but not doing anything is not working either.”

    Grace Toohey

    Source link

  • Limits on San Francisco's clearing of homeless encampments upheld by 9th Circuit

    Limits on San Francisco's clearing of homeless encampments upheld by 9th Circuit

    A court order limiting San Francisco’s ability to clear street encampments of people who have nowhere else to go will remain in effect while litigation continues, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals marked a substantial win for the Coalition on Homelessness, a progressive advocacy organization that secured a preliminary injunction by challenging San Francisco’s policies for clearing encampments as fundamentally unjust and illegal under past court decisions protecting the rights of homeless people to sleep in public in certain situations.

    Thursday’s ruling is the latest decision in a sprawling legal debate over homelessness in the American West and how local jurisdictions may legally address it. The debate has pitted progressive activists and advocacy groups against liberal leaders such as San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who have been frustrated along with many of their constituents by the spread of encampments in downtown areas and other neighborhoods since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The debate has also sparked tensions between liberal and conservative judges of the 9th Circuit, including in a separate case out of Grants Pass, Ore. that is under consideration for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In its decision Thursday, the 9th Circuit panel declined to consider several arguments in favor of stricter enforcement measures that San Francisco and a coalition of other California cities had raised in recent filings, saying they hadn’t been properly raised or substantiated with facts in the lower district court. The judges did acknowledge, however, that the injunction only applies to “involuntarily homeless” people, or those who have not been offered alternative housing or shelter by the city, and ordered the lower court to clarify that point.

    In recent months, San Francisco has tried to justify its continued operations to clear encampments, saying they are inhabited by people who have been offered shelter or housing.

    The appellate judges also ordered the lower court to specify that the injunction prohibits the city from “threatening to enforce” its enjoined laws, but does not bar the mere presence of police officers near encampments.

    John Do, a senior attorney for the ACLU of Northern California representing the coalition, said Thursday’s order should help ensure that San Francisco continues ramping up resources and offering shelter and housing to homeless people, rather than simply criminalizing poverty.

    “It’s a resounding win,” he said.

    Jen Kwart, a spokeswoman for San Francisco City Atty. David Chiu, said they appreciated that the appellate court “confirmed again and further clarified that the injunction only applies to people who are involuntarily homeless, not those who have refused an offer of shelter.”

    However, Kwart said their office was “disappointed” by the court’s decision not to consider arguments posed by the city in the appellate process, including around the scope of its restrictions — which she said left critical legal questions about solving homelessness unanswered.

    “Cities cannot reasonably be expected to solve homelessness while operating under this uncertainty,” Kwart said. “At some point, a court will need to clarify the law in this area, and it is disappointing that in the midst of an intense homelessness crisis, we all must continue to wait for that clarification.”

    Breed’s office declined to comment on the pending litigation, but released figures Thursday claiming a 22% increase in the number of people connected to shelter or housing last year, and that 64% of people who city personnel interacted with at encampments “declined offers of shelter or reported already having shelter or housing.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, in a statement, said the ruling would “only create further delays and confusion as we work to address homelessness.”

    Liberal judges have argued that the constitution — and specifically the 8th Amendment’s provisions against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines — protects homeless people’s right to sleep in certain public spaces, with certain protective gear, when they have no where else to go. Conservative judges have rejected that idea, arguing that there is a long legal tradition of local jurisdictions enforcing “anti-vagrancy” laws.

    Circuit Judge Lucy H. Koh, who wrote the court’s opinion Thursday, was joined by Circuit Judge Roopali H. Desai; both were appointed by President Biden. Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, who was appointed by President Trump, dissented.

    Koh wrote that the litigation “raises difficult and important legal questions with real stakes for San Francisco and the thousands of unhoused individuals who call San Francisco home.” But, Koh added, the appellate court could not delve into city arguments about geographic and time limits on encampment restrictions that were never made in the lower court.

    Moving forward, the lower court should consider whether the city’s rules “leave involuntarily homeless individuals with a realistically available place to go,” Koh wrote.

    Koh wrote that her panel was bound by past 9th Circuit precedent on the 8th Amendment in such matters, but noted the Supreme Court may soon be reviewing the existing precedent.

    Bumatay, in his dissent, wrote that the 9th Circuit has repeatedly misinterpreted the protections of the 8th Amendment as it relates to homeless encampments, endangering public safety in the process.

    It “cannot be cruel and unusual to prohibit homeless persons from sleeping, camping, and lodging wherever they want, whenever they want,” Bumatay wrote. “While they are entitled to the utmost respect and compassion, homeless persons are not immune from our laws.”

    Newsom has called on the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to take up the Grants Pass case and rule in favor of local municipalities trying to rein in public encampments. He said Thursday’s ruling reinforced the need for such intervention.

    Do, the coalition’s attorney, called Newsom’s position “deeply, deeply troubling.”

    “It is incredibly unfortunate and shameful for our policy leaders to scapegoat unhoused people for their own policy failures,” Do said. “Homelessness didn’t come out of the ether. It’s a direct result of the lack of investment in affordable housing.”

    Kevin Rector

    Source link