After an all too-short break, the OO will be back early this week. At issue, what appears to be a joint proposal to turn an already questionable rubric that guides the City's actions on homeless dwellings and encampments into a more visibly vituperative policy—the proposal would rename the current Encampment Management Policy to the Encampment Abatement Policy. CM Ken Houston is introducing the proposal, but the Chief of Staff of Kevin Jenkins appears to have co-written it, making it for all intents and purposes a joint proposal. And for more than one reason.
At Rules several weeks ago, Committee members seemed very open to giving both Houston and Jenkins carte blanche in reorganizing the City's legislative schedule to introduce the measure. But the action will bring up questions of transparency, Houston asked that the legislation be introduced at the Public Safety Committee, not the usual area of homelessness policy, Life Enrichment—Jenkins said he would facilitate that. Then, CM Jenkins told Houston he'd create a special committee meeting for the proposal, and a special council meeting the week after with the assumption that the proposal will pass through the committee on first reading.
Houston's [and Jenkins'] legislation is itself confusing, as the title claims that the current policy will be "repealed" and a new policy introduced. But Houston's policy is instead a heavily amended version of the current policy, as a copy with strikethroughs representing deletions and underlines for additions makes clear.
Council President Jenkins scheduled a committee meeting for 9/10, several weeks earlier than the calendar of meetings would have held—the first committee meetings were to be held on 9/23, per the legislative calendar. And instead of the regular early evening Public Safety Meeting of 6 pm, the PSC will be held at 11 am.
The following week, a Council meeting which would have heard legislation forwarded from July's committee meetings has been cancelled by Jenkins, and a new Council meeting Jenkins apparently specifically scheduled just for the "Abatement" policy will be held a day earlier on 9/15. But instead of 3:30 pm, the usual time, that meeting will begin at 9:30 am.
Houston [and Jenkins'] legislation is dense—but the takeaways are a clear mandate for zero tolerance for vehicle-parked dwellings, an expansion of criteria for encampments of concern, and a more aggressive policy focused on criminalizing the return or resurrection of a former encampment site. More to come this week as the OO covers the Committee meeting live. Apologies for any mistakes, I am still literally on a much-deserved vacay.
Update 9/10/2025:
The California Interagency Council on Homelessness suggests that the Jenksin/Houston abatement policy, if adopted, could cause Oakland to lose its latest Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention [HHAP] funding. For Oakland and ALCO both that would be about $22 MM dollars each this year.
The revelation was publicly made at an Alameda County Board of Supervisor's meeting yesterday, as County staff introduced a resolution to apply for HHAP funds—the County files a joint application with Oakland for HHAP, and the two jurisdictions create an MOU to ensure that they applications are coordinated and comply with state policies.
Interim County Health Services Director Aneeka Chaudhry explained to the board that the department is flagging today's special committee meeting called by Jenkins to deliberate Houston's new "Abatement" amendments required.
"As a part of the application for the HHAP 6 joint application, we are required to comply with all state policies, and because the City of Oakland is considering updates to their encampment policy, we have some indication that it's not going to be compliant," Chaudhry told Supervisors, referring to the "Abatement" amendments.
"There's risk to not only Oakland's $22 MM, but also the County's $22 MM," Chaudhry later added.
The funding has become such a mainstay of ALCO and Oakland's homelessness policy funding that it is already programmed into the coming year, meaning the loss would mean a $22 MM loss to both Oakland and ALCO's budget--the loss of ALCO's funding would also affect Oakland, as some of that funding is also redirected back to the city along with other jursdiction such as Berkeley and non-incorporated county areas.
Chaudhry told Supervisors that Oakland's policy deliberations were being flagged to the board because the result would be leaving a significant amount of state funds "on the table...and puts them at risk."
During the deliberation, it was revealed that the state has sent a "redlined" version of Houston's abatement updates back to the City of Oakland and that the County is depending on the City to remain in compliance for its own application. The Board moved to send a letter to Oakland "reinforcing the state's feedback" in order to ensure winning the grant.
"It is our hope that they agree to the modifications in order to be compliant for the state guidelines and criteria for securing the grant funding..." Supervisor Lena Tam explained. She then said that the County would join Senator Jesse Arreguin and Assembly Member Mia Bonta, who had already been in communication with Council members about the potential of the Jenkins/Houston amendments to scuttle the grant funding if adopted.
Jonathan Russell, ALCO's Director of Health, Housing and Homelessness Services, told Supervisors that the main area of concern for the state in Oakland's "Abatement" amendments would be changes with regard to offering housing/shelter, and if not available, allowing public sites where encampments may be allowed to continue.
"The state has identified deficiencies in the clarity within the proposed draft policy as to where people may lawfully sleep," Russell said, outlining the state's policies.
"[the state's criteria of] ensuring that before any removal...the jurisdiction has identified available interim housing capacity...and if none is available, has identified reasonably accessible places where individuals may lawfully sleep within that jurisdiction...so that is the key piece that I would lift up to say in order for that ordinance to not be effectively criminalizing homelessness, there must be some place for that person to go within that jurisdiction such that that person may sleep lawfully if no shelter is available," Russell said.
Russell also told Supervisors that the updates specifics on handling belongings of homeless during an eviction and meaningful advanced notice were also of concern in the redlined critique. Russell gave a muted critique of the Jenkins/Houston policy by noting the state's current guidance is itself more aggressive than it has been in the past, and sets a "relatively low bar" for best practices that still allow strong "abatement" policies.
"[Oakland's proposed policies] just does not align," Russell said.
Even Haubert who voiced support for the Oakland changes, agreed that the HHAP funding couldn't be put at risk.
"We can't jeopardize the rest of the County's HHAP funding," Haubert said.
*a previous version of this article initially stated that Califonrnia's Housing and Community Development Department had communicated the issues with the Houston proposal, which was in error. Instead, the state agency that critiqued the legislation and suggested it would not be consonant with HCD's p0licy guidelines for the awarding of the HHAP grant was the Interagency Council on Homelessness, a state body comprised of high level directors at various state agencies. The ICH grades the homelessness policy portion of jurisdiction's applications for HHAP to the HCD however. Members include the HCD Director, Directors of Social Services, Emergency Services, Veterans Affairs and several others.
Comments ()