The purge: plight of the homeless

Adrian Tomaszewski
5 days ago
4 min read

By Winston Chu April 2, 2025

Despite shouts and protests, police officers move through streets and alleys, forcibly removing people from corners and sidewalks. Some people are handed court slips, while others are arrested. Their belongings are confiscated, and they are instructed to clear the area and go elsewhere—though the truth is, they often have nowhere else to live.

Following the Grants Pass v. Johnson Supreme Court case in June 2024, such incidents have increased. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that local governments can fine, arrest and even jail homeless individuals for camping and sleeping in public, even if homeless shelters are at capacity. Now, it is legal—and easier than before—for cities to enforce policies that penalize the homeless without fear of being sued for cruel and unusual punishment.

Since the decision, many cities across the U.S. have already taken this opportunity to enact measures to combat homelessness. Six cities in Washington have passed new laws to criminalize homelessness, with one city reversing a requirement to offer spaces in nearby shelters before clearing an encampment. In Florida, residents can sue municipalities they believe are not doing enough to clear the streets.

California has been no exception. After the ruling, Gov. Gavin Newsom has cracked down on the state’s homelessness crisis, marking a different attitude compared to his prior “permissive” approach, which he described in a speech to push for “unprecedented results.” While he announced $920 million in funding to address the issue of homelessness, he warned counties that they would not receive this money if no progress is being made to clear out encampments on streets. Consequently, cities such as Fremont have tried to take aggressive action: officials were given the authority to charge people caught aiding and abetting homeless camps, placing a target on service providers trying to help. However, this clause was later dropped in response to backlash from community advocates.

The shift in Newsom’s approach can be attributed to California’s homeless population and percentage of unsheltered individuals being the largest in the nation. In fact, California accounts for about 28% of the total homeless population in the U.S., according to the Senate Housing Committee. Shelters in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Jose, particularly in downtown areas, often operate at max capacity, unable to accommodate for such a large population of homeless. As a result, the streets are lined with tent encampments filled with homeless people who have nowhere else to go.

However, critics of the court decision and encampment clearing policies argue that the recently proposed methods fail to adequately address the homelessness crisis. The non-profit news organization, CalMatters, finds that these sweeps and fines result in a higher chance to lose touch with support services, loss of personal items and most importantly, still leaving people stuck on the streets—just in different locations.

To effectively address the issue, critics are looking toward the origins of the homelessness crisis. One major contributing factor to homelessness in California is the housing costs. Enacted in 1995, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Control Act restricts the ability of cities to impose rent control on single-family homes or housing built after 1995, granting landlords more authority to set their own rental rates when new tenants move in. Around the same time, NIMBYism, a movement centered around the acronym “not in my backyard,” opposed housing development in certain communities. Years later in 2020, the first rent control law in the state went into effect: the Tenant Protection Act aimed to keep housing prices affordable by limiting how much landlords can increase rent. However, a case study conducted by the Rosen Consulting Group finds that rent control often makes it less profitable for landlords to build and maintain rental units, decreasing the housing supply even during times of high demand.

“YIMBY not NIMBY! A root contributor to homelessness is housing, so solutions include building more houses and bringing market prices down. There should also be more efforts to provide homeless individuals jobs so they can pay for homes,” Sophomore Yashika Agarwal said.

In order to combat landlords from setting high rent, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation sponsored Proposition 33 in the 2024 general election, which aimed to grant cities more control over housing costs, including single-family homes, new apartments and new tenants. However, the proposition was struck down by 60% of voters.

Homelessness advocates also push to resolve high rates of mental illness and drug abuse. Beginning in the 1970s, the process of deinstitutionalization closed many psychiatric hospitals in favor of community care facilities, forcing many people who needed aid onto the streets. In March 2024, California passed Proposition 1, strengthening the public health system through funding mental health treatment, substance use disorder services and housing for homeless individuals.

“The recent crackdowns on homeless encampments is not fixing the problem. There needs to be a humanitarian law in which homeless individuals are treated with respect and given the proper resources they need to rehabilitate back into society,” Junior Mahika Khosla said.

Ultimately, while there is no simple solution to the homelessness crisis, it is up to citizens and state leaders to champion effective measures, such as addressing housing costs, mental illness and drug abuse, to fight for those who cannot themselves.

About The Contributors

Winston Chu is a junior at Leland High. This is his second year in Journalism, and his first year as a movie columnist. He enjoys speech and debate, watching television series, and sleeping.