The city of Berkeley, California has become synonymous with far-left politics, making it the last place you would expect to embrace homeless sweeps. And yet, last week the city council voted to approve sweeps at two homeless camps that have been troubling the city for a long time.

Berkeley is embracing an aggressive approach to homeless encampments by allowing city workers to sweep tents even if no shelter beds are open and arrest or cite people in limited circumstances. Despite its reputation as one of the most liberal cities in the Bay Area, officials said they’re frustrated with two particularly entrenched encampments and need a tougher hand.

The Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 Tuesday evening to adopt the legislation following two hours of public comment during which most speakers opposed the proposal. The move came less than two months after the Supreme Court ruled in its Grants Pass decision that cities have the power to evict people from street encampments and confiscate their property.

So the heart of progressive California has now embraced the policy granted by a conservative Supreme Court. In case you missed the backstory, progressive governors and mayors up and down the west coast begged SCOTUS to overturn a ruling by the liberal 9th Circuit and they got what they wanted thanks to a 6-3 decision by the court's conservatives. Now even Berkeley is on board with this. In fact, the city's mayor sounds...surprisingly reasonable.

"We have these large, sprawling encampments where there have been major safety issues: fires, rats, crime. Things that pose a risk to the homeless people that are sheltering there and to the broader community," [Mayor Jesse] Arreguin said...

He says the new policy is specifically geared to clear encampments the city deems hazardous, even if Berkeley is unable to offer shelter.

"I don't think it's compassion, honestly, to let people die on the streets," Arreguin said.

Naturally, the usual suspects still oppose any effort to treat homeless people like everyone else.

Council Member Cecilia Lunaparra, who cast the sole vote against the resolution, called it abhorrent.

“This legislation would provide the city with sweeping powers to clear encampments without first offering shelter, and I think this policy, without the promise of adequate shelter and safe encampment sites, will result in cruel, inhumane and dangerous conditions for our unhoused neighbors,” Lunaparra told the Chronicle.

Members of the East Bay Community Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union, several homeless outreach organizations and other groups signed a letter Monday urging the City Council to vote against the legislation, arguing that it would “effectively criminalize individuals for being unhoused; place unhoused residents at increased risk and subject them to loss of community.”

That's to be expected. What's shocking is that these folks lost 8-1 in the most left-leaning city in California. If you're thinking there must be more to this story, you're not wrong. On the same day the city council passed this new plan to deal with these two specific encampments, Berkley was sued by a group of local business owners. Here's a bit of the complaint.

This case is about whether the City of Berkeley, when acting as a landowner, must follow the same nuisance laws that any private landowner must follow, and whether it owes an obligation to its citizens, enforceable by mandamus and injunctive relief, to maintain its streets and other rights of way free of obstructions so that the public may access and use these public rights for which they pay taxes. The answer to both questions is yes. 

For the past few years, the City has invited, permitted, and/or maintained a sprawling public encampment of tents and RVs on Harrison Street between Fifth and Ninth streets, as well as off of Harrison Street along Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Streets (“Harrison Encampment”)...

Upon information and belief, the City of Berkeley initially allowed these encampments because of its erroneous interpretation of a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Martin v. City of Boise...which decision was subsequently extended in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass...

Even though the Boise and Grants Pass decisions did not allow, let alone require, that the City permit encampments in such a way that they constitute a public nuisance, the City permitted and even invited the encampments on Harrison and Lower Dwight knowing they would be public nuisances...

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the City of Berkeley is continuing to maintain and permit the encampments...

In short, Berkeley hid behind the 9th Circuit decisions and allowed the camps to stay but now that those decisions have been overturned by SCOTUS they still refuse to clear the streets. This is despite the clear evidence that the encampments are a hazard and a danger, something the city itself admitted a year ago.

On August 31, 2023, the Assistant to the City Manager drafted a memorandum to the City Manager recommending an immediate declaration of nuisance and summary abatement of the Harrison Street encampment.  

The Assistant to the City Manager wrote, “Nevertheless, and despite these numerous efforts, for months (and at present) the [Homeless Response Team] continues to observe dead animals, open food sources and spoiled food, used uncapped drug needles, combustible materials like flammable gas containers inside unsafe wooden structures, bottles of urine, human feces, animal feces, soiled clothing and sheltering material, and other unidentifiable liquid and waste products. In addition, the large accumulation of debris and ad-hoc sheltering structures has completely blocked the sidewalk and extended into the roadway, creating numerous concerning fire and traffic safety hazards.” 

The complaint includes photos taken last year during a Fire Prevention Inspection of the camps.

The inspector wrote, "The number and types of calls combined with the observed code violations are sufficiently concerning for the Berkeley Fire Department to recommend that the encampments on the north side of Harrison St. be abated summarily. This action will significantly reduce the likelihood of severe injury or death from fire, as well as reduce the likelihood of substantial damage to property and public infrastructure."

I'm assuming that the city knew this lawsuit was coming and decided to, if not quite get ahead of it, at least take action as it was filed rather than wait for a court order. Whatever the case, the word has now gone out that even Berkeley is cracking down on homeless camps. If the most liberal city in California can do it, no one else has an excuse not to do likewise.