The lawsuit was followed by the recent removal of the contentious aiding and abetting clause
Staff Writer
In February, the City of Fremont City Council passed one of the strictest camping bans in the country in an effort to combat the city’s worsening homelessness crisis. However, the city has received backlash from homeless advocates and unions, which have criticized the broad language in the ban. One such group, the California Homeless Union, has filed a lawsuit challenging the ban.
Within the ban, the “aiding and abetting” clause has received significant disapproval with advocates as its language is interpreted by these groups as criminalizing helping any unhoused resident living in an encampment. CalMatters reported that three city council members as well as the mayor had been reconsidering the language of the clause. However, City Attorney Rafael Alvarado said, “The aiding and abetting clause would target people who help unhoused people set up illegal camps, not people who give out food.” This clarification led to the passage of the clause in the initial ban without further debate.
After the passing of the ban, the Fremont Police Association thanked Mayor Salwan, the city council members, and residents and business owners who supported the ban. Its statement said, “The Fremont Police Association remains dedicated to working with our city leaders, first responders, and community members to ensure this ordinance is implemented fairly and effectively while continuing our outreach to those in need.”
The California Homeless Union decided to put forward a lawsuit towards the entire camping ban on March 4th. California Homeless Union representative attorney Anthony Prince said, “The lawsuit, as filed, [takes] the position that the entire ordinance is unconstitutional. In other words, the court would not have to look beyond what’s actually written, expressly provided that it appears through the language alone that it is unconstitutional.”
A spokesperson for the union, Robbie Powelson, said in a statement to ABC7 News, “Fundamentally, when you’re unhoused, the laws that protect you [are] the laws that protect the human body. Because when you’re unhoused that’s what you really have—just your humanity. And you’re not protected by ownership of property.”
According to a report by CalMatters, city council member Raymond Liu voted in favor of the ban and said, “Our public spaces belong to the entire community and it’s really not compassionate at all to cede our public spaces to a select few individuals at the expense of everyone else in the general public. Families should be able to take their children to the parks, to the libraries, without fear, and all residents should be able to use our public spaces without encountering any unsafe conditions.”
During the March 18th city council meeting, the council voted to remove the controversial clause, possibly in part to the pressure of the lawsuit. In a statement to ABC7 news, councilmember Tersesa King said, “[This decision makes] sure that our organizations or people extending their hands to help the unhoused are not being punished.”
Liu said, “We’ve repeated so many times that this whole aiding and abetting thing was never meant to you know to refer food water, medical supplies, any of that to people.” In a citywide email to Fremont residents, Mayor Raj Salwan reinforced councilmember Liu’s statement.
Prince, speaking on the union’s opposition efforts, said, “We are trying to get a restraining order [on the ban] that will [hopefully] come long before we get to a trial on our civil rights case. A motion for a restraining order, simply requested in court, says [to the judge] to intervene now [in order to] stop the city from what they are doing. Otherwise, it will be too late to prevent [the unhoused] from being put at greater risk and losing valuable possessions.”
Fremont’s camping ban targets local encampments scattered throughout the city, such as this “homeless encampment near the corner of Osgood Road and Washington Boulevard in Fremont” (Photo Credit: Dai Sugano, Bay Area News Group).
Eagle Era 
Leave a comment