The Riverside City Council passed a 6-to-1 ban on homeless encampments on public property within a two-block radius of schools, city parks and homeless shelters. This ordinance requires city officials to post a notice on encampments, giving homeless individuals 24 to 48 hours to leave the area.
While it claims to prioritize public safety, the ban seems only to push the problem out of sight without truly addressing the root causes or providing humane alternatives. The city council’s decision marginalized vulnerable populations and failed to recognize this as a systemic state-wide issue.
Supporters of the ordinance, like Councilmember Jim Perry, argue that it will encourage
people experiencing homelessness to use “low-barrier” shelters and other city services, assuming that these resources are readily accessible and available. Many shelters in Riverside already operate at or beyond capacity, leaving few viable options for the homeless population.
Across California, data from Continuums of Care shows that shelters statewide consistently lack enough beds to meet the demand, especially in densely populated areas. This shortage of shelter space combined with stipulations such as the need for identification documents to access housing services, reveals a series of hurdles making it more difficult for homeless individuals to find shelter.
This ban on encampments also raises ethical concerns regarding the treatment of Riverside’s homeless population. By criminalizing encampments near schools and shelters, the city is pushing individuals into more isolated and unsafe areas. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, local governments have greater authority to regulate encampments, even if shelters are at full capacity.
The homeless population in Riverside and surrounding counties are particularly vulnerable to this change as officers have already cleared out homeless encampments by Santa Ana railroads. Displacing an already displaced population overlooks basic human rights and dignity for individuals who require immediate access to supportive services.
Moreover, homelessness in California reveals a series of social inequities. Black Californians, who make up just 6% of the state’s population, represent 30% of its homeless population. Policies like Riverside’s encampment ban are not addressing these systemic racial inequalities in the homeless population. Rather than addressing the underlying factors that make certain people more vulnerable to homelessness, this ordinance punishes individuals for conditions outside of their control.
Riverside’s financial commitment to addressing homelessness also falls short of what’s needed to make a meaningful difference. The county was recently allocated $34 million by the state to address homelessness, yet this funding will directly assist only about 100 individuals which is nowhere near enough people.
The city needs to invest in more low-barrier shelters within all communities, alongside transitional housing and affordable housing initiatives that provide long-term solutions. Without a more comprehensive approach, the city’s funding paired with the ban on encampments will not create a meaningful impact on homelessness.
Ultimately, the city council’s ordinance is only helpful for people concerned with the appearances of homelessness within the community. It fails to offer a tangible solution to the problem, leaving the homeless population struggling against systemic barriers. Riverside deserves a better approach, one that prioritizes lasting change over quick fixes and respects the dignity of every individual in the community.
