Should cities dismantle homeless camps?

“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

What’s happening

Last month, a federal appeals court covering the western United States refused to hear a case seeking to knock down rules that bar cities from forcing homeless people off the streets if there aren’t enough shelter beds available.

In response to the decision, a group of powerful conservative judges accused the court of “paralyzing” local communities in their efforts to combat homelessness — particularly the large homeless encampments that have become increasingly common in recent years.

In many areas — including deep-blue cities like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco — city leaders have ordered police to break up “tent cities” and imposed camping bans that make it illegal to set up shelters such as tents in public spaces. The moves have sparked a series of lawsuits seeking to limit cities’ ability to dismantle encampments. At the same time, cities like Phoenix and Portland, Ore., have received court orders demanding that they break up large encampments within their jurisdictions.

Why there’s debate

Part of what makes the debate over encampments so contentious is that it pits groups that generally agree on the long-term solutions to homelessness against each other. Most Democratic mayors of major cities and homeless advocacy groups share a vision that includes major investments in affordable housing and mental health treatment as a way to solve the broader problem, but there are deep divisions over what to do about the acute and immediate issue of encampments.

Many advocates believe that tent cities should be left standing because they are often the safest, most secure option a lot of people have. They argue that knocking down tent cities does nothing to address the underlying causes of homelessness while also destabilizing people’s lives and making it harder for them to access the one-on-one care they often need to get themselves off the streets.

But others argue that allowing people to keep living in encampments that are often hotbeds of crime, violence and disease only makes it more likely that they’ll never escape homelessness. They point out that most cities conduct sweeps only after a lengthy and expensive effort to provide people with safer and more stable housing alternatives — including, in some cases, sanctioned encampments in areas chosen by city leaders — that can serve as a true platform toward rehabilitation.

What’s next

Critics of the appeals court’s ruling say they plan to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up their case and are hopeful that the conservative justices will ultimately strike down existing limits on when cities can force homeless people off the streets.

Perspectives

Tent cities are frequently the best place for the homeless to set themselves on a better path

“Encampments can provide people with physical and emotional security, especially as record numbers of homeless people die on America’s streets. They can also provide people with a sense of agency and stability. That stability is also helpful for the volunteers and resources who serve the unhoused, because they know where to find the people they are working with.” — Livia Albeck-Ripka, New York Times

Society should not tolerate the types of living conditions that exist in most encampments

“What should be clear is that conditions often associated with these encampments — rodent infestations, fetid surroundings, hazardous housing — are unacceptable. They don’t help the homeless, and they should have no place in America.” — Editorial, Washington Post

Raiding camps does nothing to solve homelessness

“Sweeping homeless camps was never going to be a solution to the crisis on our streets. … It has always been a veneer, an attempt to act like the city is responding to its residents’ concerns over the homelessness crisis on their doorsteps while never actually addressing its root cause or investing in a solution.” — Nuala Bishari, San Francisco Chronicle

It’s unfair to ask local residents to sacrifice their public spaces to filthy, dangerous tent cities

“You aren’t a bad person for wanting safe and clean public places. That’s something local governments are supposed to provide. That necessitates limits on their use. This is normal. Drivers are free to use the freeway but people aren’t allowed [to] walk down the middle of it. Public spaces require rules that will allow the public broadly to use and enjoy them.” — Victor Joecks, Las Vegas Review-Journal

Encampment sweeps create chaos for people who are already living on the brink

“A tent is a tent, but for many it’s the safest, most private space someone may have while experiencing homelessness. When encampments are removed, people lose more than their belongings or shelter, they lose stability and trust in their community.” — Amy Denhart, San Diego Union-Tribune

If encampments are going to exist, city leaders should at least choose the right location

“[A sanctioned camp is] a more stable landscape. It also dramatically improves the ability of social service providers to connect regularly with those in need, gain their trust and hopefully open the door to tailored social services. It is the option that can make a difference in a matter of months, not years.” — Editorial, Sacramento Bee

No camps should be allowed to stand when better options are available

“Many of those in encampments don’t want to go to shelters because of rules against pets, drug use, and intimate relations. But there is an upper limit to the increased violence and public health dangers city residents should tolerate just because homeless people feel that the available shelters cramp their preferred lifestyles.” — Editorial, Washington Examiner

If cities put enough resources into actual solutions, encampments would all disappear

“This is how we end encampments. Not by raiding tents or by criminalizing people at their most vulnerable. But by working, as a community, to ensure everyone has safe, warm homes where they can live independently and with dignity.” — Amy Denhart, San Diego Union Tribune

Cities break up tent cities to placate voters, not to help the homeless

“By now, it’s clear that elected officials are more interested in managing constituent ‘frustrations’ over witnessing poverty than they are in addressing the underlying conditions that have made cities uninhabitable for poor people.” — Jonny Coleman, Appeal