Couper's tent has been moved just outside of Erie Street, at the intersection of Folsom Street. Photo by Laura Waxmann

Despite a city ordinance that gives homeless campers 24 hours to move and mandates that they be connected with a shelter alternative, police maintain the right to move encampments at their own discretion.

Two long-term homeless encampments that existed just a street apart from each other have been cleared since Sunday, one by police in a virtual sweep and the other by city homeless agencies in a three-week resolution process that included finding an alternative for the campers.

“SFPD still is acting as though they have the ability to sweep an encampment without offering shelter or noticing,” said Amy Farrah Weiss, founder of the Saint Francis Homelessness Challenge. “We need to have a different approach that actually assesses and addresses unsanctioned encampments prior to being targeted by the Department on Homelessness.”

In a process that involved almost a month of outreach and ended on Valentine’s Day, some 35 residents of the Trainor Street encampment, located on the alleyway wedged between Folsom and Harrison streets behind Rainbow Grocery, were offered refuge from the streets. Most were placed at the Mission’s Navigation Center for the homeless, a low-barrier 30-day triage center, while two more were admitted to city shelters.

But about a dozen people living on Erie Street, an alleyway on the west side of Folsom, were moved without notice, without offers of shelter and with no regard to the protocol required by Proposition Q that voters approved in November.

The so-called “tent-ban” ordinance makes tents pitched on city sidewalks illegal and amended the police code to empower officers to remove encampment residents with a 24-hour notice. As it turns out, however, police can go in at their discretion and move encampments – without notice or shelter.

“If a Public Works worker was to confiscate a tent or a homeless outreach worker were to [move] an encampment resident, they would have to give 24 hours and the option of a shelter,” said Jennifer Friedenbach, director of the Coalition on Homelessness, calling Proposition Q’s promise of “housing for tents” a “false narrative.”

“But police have a whole host of laws against homeless people they can use to remove encampments,” she said.

Sam Dodge, deputy director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive housing, which since last summer has spearheaded citywide efforts to clear sidewalk encampments and transition their residents into housing, said that the agency is following its own best practices that offer even more time than required by Proposition Q.

“That 24 hour notice [policy] is specific to Prop Q. – we are not using that,” said Dodge. “We give a written notice and post it with at least 72 hours warning.”

The police, Dodge said, are not named as an “enforcement entity in Prop. Q,” adding that “it doesn’t supersede other safety or criminal parts of the [police] codes.”

As far as local police are concerned, Proposition Q carries no weight when it comes to moving encampment residents.

“We have not received any instruction or directions about Prop. Q,” said Mission Police Captain Daniel Perea. “My basic understanding is that there is nothing in that proposition that [says] police are involved in the enforcement of it.”

The confusion was evidenced on Saturday morning when the Erie Street campers were roused by “a group of lieutenants and sergeants” standing outside of their tents, armed with an ultimatum: the campers had to move immediately, or else would become subject to ticketing and arrests.

“They told us we have 45 minutes and that [Public Works] trucks were on their way,” said a woman named Couper, who said she has been living on Erie Street for about a year.

Grounds for the encampment’s removal, according to Perea, were accumulated complaints against several of the campers that culminated in the weekend sweep after a local merchant complained that they were blocking the driveway to his business. Police officials have set up barricades along the alleyway sidewalk to discourage re-encampment on Erie Street. 

“We didn’t go out there because there is a Prop Q. issue,” said Perea, referring to the ordinance’s criminalization of tents on sidewalks. “We went out there because there was a law being violated – people were substantially blocking the sidewalk.”

The Erie Street encampment had received a number of complaints, according to Perea. Couper acknowledged that two of the encampment’s residents refused to comply with her demands that they keep the area tidy and cooperate with their surrounding neighbors.

“We did have some problem people that we wanted gone. They made the whole encampment suffer,” she said.

Police’s efforts to remove the Erie Street encampment on Saturday were stalled by homeless advocates, but the encampment was ultimately removed on Sunday morning.

Barricades have been set up along the sidewalk on Erie Street. Photo courtesy of Amy Farrah Weiss

None of its residents received an offer of shelter, and instead dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood.

“I said, ‘do we have any backup, like housing opportunities?’ And they said, ‘no, that’s not our job. We are here basically to get you to leave,’” said Couper. According to the woman, no one from the city’s Department on Homelessness and Supportive Housing’s Encampment Resolution Team was present to offer services or placement.

Couper, a former San Francisco firefighter, said that after making phone calls to outreach workers, members of the HOT team arrived, but all of the campers remain on the street.

Dodge said the Erie Street development was “not something [police] preplanned with us.”  

“It appears that it was a police operation based off of other activities not to do with housing status,” he said.

But advocates for the homeless said that police’s efforts to address the merchant’s complaints only further destabilized the camp residents, and did nothing more than push the issue a few blocks over. Couper, for example, moved her tent less than 50 feet away.

“With the city’s new Department on Homelessness,  they’re supposed to be having a kinder gentler approach to sweeps and giving people two weeks notice. They are doing that for some encampments and not for others,” said Friedenbach. “What we are doing is destabilizing people … [and] pushing people around from block to block. We are using a lot of resources to move people around …and [that is] not solving the issue.”

Follow Us

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Where did this idea come from that it is “ethical,” or good public policy to encourage camping on the streets? To allow blocking public sidewalks? To allow pooping in doorways? To sanction mass dumping, vandalism, theft? “Homeless advocates” have an agenda now that has nothing to do with the welfare of the citizens of San Francisco. They are advocating for the “right” for certain grownups to be exempt from public laws. Grownups who are unable to take care of themselves, or live in a city environment and respect their neighbors, need to move to an environment they can function in, or they need to be taken care of by the state.
    Not left to mess up the world for the vast majority of the public struggling to be in SF, and who remain responsible members of the community.

  2. This is great news! Sounds like police are every bit in he right in this case. Thanks for reporting some much needed progress, Mission Local (despite the usual anti-safety rant).

  3. I am VERY happy to see this happening. The SFPD has obviously been working a lot harder at clearing sidewalks, which has made my life and the lives of every other wheelchair user MUCH easier. A lot of us had to resort to operating our wheelchairs and mobility-assistance devices in the actual street, which is incredibly dangerous for us, because the sidewalks were impassible due to encampments. I am not without sympathy for those who struggle to live on the street, but that shouldn’t mean that people living with physical disabilities, who also are more likely to experience poverty and homelessness, are additionally burdened by being unable to get around the sidewalks because people in encampments have blocked the sidewalks with oversized tents, furniture, and other detritus. We need to be able to get to the grocery store, the pharmacy to pick up our lifesaving medications, to our medical appointments without being stalled or having to overexert ourselves trying to find alternative routes because the sidewalks are blocked. I suggest that Ms. Weiss also consider the needs of wheelchair users who need passable sidewalks when she does her advocacy. I would also suggest that her lack of consideration for so many other people’s needs was a contributing factor in her defeat at the polls.

  4. About time the City starts growing a back bone.

    I grew up here my whole life and am disgusted on what has happened here- ppl from all over the country are flocking to San Francisco, why? Free phones, phone bill paid, bikes, tents, health care, and tents… this is stupid and not sustainable and not fair to the hard working residents of this City who have to work two jobs to stay in the area.

    To the homeless advocates: if you care so much about the homesless, why not offer them shelter in your home or backyard??

    I have sympathy for ppl but the ones I see have made a choice in life, a choice to give up- that is fine, but that does not mean they can do what they want, laws should apply to everyone.

    Market Street has become an open area insane asylum- this has to end.

    Mayor Ed Lee has been a disaster for this City and the supervisors are no better.

  5. “Our plan, and my commitment to you, is to remove all Mission encampments within the next four months, in an effective and humane manner,” said Campos in a press release addressed to Mission District residents and businesses. “I am glad to report that the process for encampment removal is already underway,” – 09/13/16

    1. Fancy that, four months after 9/13/16 is…1/13/16, after the election. How convenient.

      Thank you for everyone who voted against the Ombudsman position which was he self made next stepping stone in SF politics.

  6. Thank you sfpd so much for removing the tents and allowing customers to use the sidewalks to get to our business.

  7. Get these people out of here. They are non local residents or San Franciscans that fell on hard times. They have come here to live like animals because the city rarely does anything about it.

    1. That’s actually not true. Over 70 percent of them (I forget the exact number) actually had homes in San Francisco at one time or another.

      1. >Over 70 percent of them

        This is a highly debatable statistic. Because of how the question is asked (Did you have stable housing in SF before you became homeless) lots of people would qualify technically. Stable housing includes sleeping on couches or even in a long term shelters. You could have moved here, stayed in a SRO for a month and then become homeless and now you are a part of that 70%.

        If they instead asked, where would you living a year ago, those numbers MAY be different. They also may not be, but there is no way of knowing based on how the question is asked.

  8. They are breaking several laws – thanks SFPD for finally doing something. That said, the mission and soma police are the only ones that permit people to take over the sidewalks. Even the tenderloin doesn’t have people living in tents, They would be better off camping in pac heights, but then there aren’t enough heroin dealers there.

    1. Mike, we have the same problem in the Bayview. Tents, campers, rampant drug sales, crap, garbage. It’s disgusting.

  9. Seems pretty straightforward to me – people blocking sidewalks, obstructing businesses, violating sit/lie. Not to mention the rampant abuse of heroin. Cops come in to protect laws. Sorry not sorry.