On Homelessness:

The status quo is awful and is not compassionate for anyone. Our unjust capitalist economic system has led to disgusting levels of income inequality, heartbreaking poverty, and growing homelessness. While Berkeley has spent decades fighting to change this economic system, we have not escaped its impacts. It's hard to reconcile living in one of the wealthiest regions in the world with watching encampments grow and conditions worsen. People are right to be furious with those who have allowed this to continue, but we must be clear-eyed and honest about the role the City of Berkeley should take and what results we can expect.

Berkeley cannot solve poverty or homelessness, and a tough-on-crime approach only serves to hide the problem. Even if we successfully removed all encampments and cleared every sidewalk, the people living on the streets would only be pushed to another sidewalk, another city, or into a carceral system that perpetuates poverty and is exorbitantly expensive for taxpayers. We need to accept that poverty is a problem whether it's in Berkeley, Richmond, or Santa Rita Jail.

We need to invest resources to combat the root causes of homelessness. The city can build more housing, improve access to physical and mental health care, provide quality education, and ensure food and rental assistance. These approaches are proven to reduce chronic homelessness. We also need to advocate for our state and federal governments to step up and create large-scale change at every level of our social and economic system, because anything Berkeley does alone will be a drop in the bucket.

We need to treat homelessness as a public health emergency. This means cleaning up and preventing hazardous large-scale encampments that endanger both their residents and the surrounding community, and working every day to get people off the streets and into housing. We need to open an emergency Alternative Sites shelter as soon as realistically possible and connect people with county resources. We also need to avoid punitive measures, such as citations and arrests, that do nothing to get people off the street, cost a fortune to enforce, increase liability risk, and only serve to move homelessness, not solve it.

We need to be honest about our limitations as a city and not mislead people with false solutions. We cannot solve poverty in Berkeley, and we also cannot and should not just push it out of the city. Living with and bearing witness to income inequality is a reality of the world we've created. I will work every day to bring our community together and search for creative, compassionate, and effective solutions.

We need to be both realistic and ambitious in our relentless pursuit of solutions to homelessness.  We hope this summary helps people understand the current state of things and where I stand.  More ideas about solutions are always welcome!  Reach out to dariaforberkeley@proton.me with suggestions.

  • Some other candidates have proposed a version of a policy that would first try to connect people with services, but if people refuse, would have them cited, arrested, or forcibly removed from city sidewalks, streets, or parks.

    While this policy sounds common sense, it is not an honest and affective approach.

    1. Berkeley policy already states that the city can enforce state and local laws, which can include citation or arrest, if individuals' "shelters" create a hazard or nuisance for the public; this policy is enforceable regardless of the city's ability to offer housing. In 2024, the council specifically named the Harrison Corridor as a priority for this enforcement, and it has been enforced at city parks, such as Ohlone Park.

    2. We have very little shelter to offer. Our current congregate shelters rarely have extra capacity, and other housing solutions (such as hotels) are generally reserved for specific populations. Given our city's current budget crisis, the supply of empty shelter beds is likely to get worse.

    3. Citations against unhoused people are likely to become delinquent fines and eventually arrest warrants. Arresting people who are unhoused for their inability to pay a municipal citation will only exacerbate their cycle of poverty and make it harder for them to find housing, employment, or social services. Furthermore, Alameda County already runs a program to dismiss tickets and fines for formerly homeless people.

    4. Arrests don't necessarily lead to criminal charges and jail time. The District Attorney gets to decide how they prioritize enforcement, and in San Francisco, 4 out of 5 people arrested for camping on the street were never charged. There's no evidence the Alameda County DA would charge these cases at a higher rate.

    5. A growing body of research shows that repeatedly and forcibly moving people from sidewalk to sidewalk poses serious public health risks and can lead to increased fatalities.

    1. Oakland's policies are actually less strict than Berkeley's. Oakland doesn't cite or arrest people for camping, even if they refuse shelter (Berkeley can).

    2. Albany bans camping in some public and green spaces but does not have a citywide ban.

    3. Fremont passed a citywide ban on camping, and their homeless population went up more than Berkeley's did.

    4. San Jose has a policy to issue citations to those who refuse housing, but only when the city actually has shelter to offer, and they don't punish people when beds run out (as Berkeley's have).

    5. San Francisco regularly arrests people for camping, but nearly 80% are released without being charged with a crime. Those who are charged and incarcerated cost taxpayers even more.

    1. The lawsuit is based on federal disability law, and a municipal ordinance could not have resolved the issue.

    2. Once the lawsuit was filed, the judge certified it as a class action covering anyone in Berkeley who is disabled and living on the streets.

    3. A ban would likely have expanded our legal exposure to the rest of the city.

  • The Alternative Sites model is based on the Grayson St. Shelter (2021 to 2022), a 50-bed indoor shelter with 40 spots for RVs to park. It was managed by Dorothy Day House and had running water, toilets, showers, storage, pets allowed, no curfew, case management, and up to $1,500 in vehicle repair help. It served about 150 people and connected about 30 to permanent housing.

    City staff have said that Grayson-style programs and motel-based shelters have been more successful than traditional shelters at moving people out of encampments and into permanent housing. While we need to be honest that there are some real roadblocks to implementation, I will work tirelessly to open a facility that gets people off the streets and out of the jail cycle.

    Q: Wouldn't a sanctioned site just open the city up to more lawsuits?

    1. Any city-run shelter carries legal responsibility. A staffed shelter and safe parking site like Grayson is built and inspected like other shelters, not like a tent camp.

    2. The court did not require Berkeley to create a sanctioned site; this would be our choice. But the court did find the city violated disability law under its current approach, so the status quo is already costing us in court.

    3. Having a real, accessible place to offer people makes it easier for the city to meet its legal obligations when it does need to clear an area.