Residents Lost Everything Before a Court Order Intervened—Highlighting the Trauma and Futility of Sweeps
In the early morning hours of June 3, city workers began dismantling a homeless encampment in Berkeley, California. Officials cited public health concerns, including reports of needles, human waste, and a rat infestation, as justification for the sweep. They claimed the camp posed risks not only to nearby residents but also to the people living within it.
But by mid-afternoon, a federal judge intervened, halting the sweep and allowing residents to return later that day. While the court order provided critical protection, the damage had already been done. Many residents lost belongings, stability, and trust. The raid left lasting harm in its wake despite the temporary legal reprieve.
Residents Dehumanized as Belongings Are Seized Without Adequate Notice
When residents returned to the encampment later that day, many found their belongings gone—thrown away without warning. City officials claimed they had provided adequate notice, but several unhoused individuals said the sweep blindsided them. One woman, profiled by KTVU Fox News, had been attending a sobriety treatment program when the raid took place. By the time she returned, everything she owned was gone. No warning. No chance to protect her possessions.
City officials argue that they had posted notices as far back as January, alerting residents to the fact that a sweep would eventually take place. But advocates tell a different story. The Berkeley Homeless Union pointed out that a judge had issued a temporary restraining order on encampment removals earlier in the spring. That order expired in late May, but the city didn’t notify residents of the June 3 sweep until it was already underway. In reality, the only “notice” some residents received was a flier posted after city workers had already begun clearing the site.
Erin Spencer, a longtime encampment resident, was one of the few who managed to save his belongings. He was awakened at 6 a.m. and given just 20 minutes to move. Because he had experienced sweeps like this before, where people’s belongings are treated like trash, he had already prepared a makeshift trailer to keep his possessions mobile. His foresight allowed him to wheel away what little he owned before the city moved in.
Others weren’t as lucky. Whether they were away at medical appointments, working, or simply unable to move quickly enough, their possessions were confiscated or discarded—another example of how sweeps dehumanize unhoused residents and erase what little stability they have.
Aftermath of the Sweep
Following the judge’s emergency order halting the June 3 sweep, several residents, including Erin Spencer, returned to the encampment. About a week later, the court issued a follow-up ruling, permitting the roughly dozen residents with disabilities to remain on-site for the next two months. The judge also directed the city to assist them in securing shelter.
In response, a spokesperson for the city of Berkeley claimed that motel accommodations were already available for homeless people in the city. The city also pointed to a long-term housing initiative announced in 2023, with units slated for completion in 2031. While both efforts are important, particularly the push for permanent housing, they fall short of addressing the immediate needs of people living on the streets today.
For example, one of the encampment’s residents named Popcorn said that they “didn’t know where else to go” during the sweep. Popcorn said, “there [is] nowhere else for [them] to go.” As a result, Popcorn chose to move down the block before they found out about the judge’s ruling.
Popcorn’s experience highlights a critical hypocrisy in the city of Berkeley’s supposedly effective housing plan. When homeless residents cannot access temporary or permanent housing options, they are forced to live farther along the street. Neither the city’s goal of clearing up encampments nor its objective of reducing homelessness was achieved.
What, then, is the outcome of these sweeps?
Not less homeless, not safer streets, and not fewer homeless encampments, as residents are compelled to just move somewhere else. Instead of promoting public health, they threaten the emotional, physical, and mental health of residents living in the encampments.
Residents of the Berkeley encampment live in constant fear that their belongings could be confiscated at any moment. Treated like trash, their possessions—and, by extension, their dignity—are routinely disregarded. It’s not hard to grasp the deep psychological toll these repeated sweeps inflict.
Sweeps Continue Across California and Our Country
This sweep is not alone. It is indicative of a vast trend across our country that dehumanizes unhoused Americans living in encampments.
On May 12, California Governor Gavin Newsom published a plan to mobilize cities to remove homeless encampments. Fueled by the landmark Supreme Court case of Grant v. Johnson, the Governor encouraged cities to use arrests, fines, and fees to prevent homeless encampments from building up across the state. The plan also included a $3.3 billion budget to fund a range of punitive measures and reduce the number of homeless encampments.
But the growing initiative for sweeps does not just stop in California. Early this spring, the US Forest Service evicted roughly 150 homeless men and women living in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon. A majority of the residents were disabled. In DC, 34 homeless encampments had been cleared by the end of May.
Moreover, these sweeps have cost taxpayers millions of dollars. For New York, the city spent $3.5 million to conduct its sweeps in the first three quarters of 2024 alone. One report from the city of Los Angeles cites that it spends $100 million annually on homelessness.
But surprisingly, despite the high price tag to criminalize homelessness, American cities fail to spend enough on permanent housing for residents. As homelessness continues to rise in our country, where are the housing programs to follow the data? As housing prices continue to rise, where do we see more initiatives to build more housing?
For now, the two-month reprieve granted by the judge offers a brief sense of relief for encampment residents in Berkeley, shielding them (temporarily) from the constant threat of displacement. However, the protection is limited, and the underlying crisis remains unresolved. Whether the city will fulfill the court’s directive to provide housing for disabled residents remains uncertain. Only time will tell.
