A few blogs ago, I wrote about the court case Grants Pass v. Johnson, which made it legal to impose criminal penalties for homeless people eating, sleeping, or lying on public property when they had no other place to go. While it is still a relatively new case, Grants Pass has already started impacting policy in Santa Clara County, California.

So what’s happening?

Santa Clara Valley Water District has said that employees have been assaulted and need policemen to help carry out work near creeks with homeless encampments, and have also stated that these waterways have been polluted by trash, human waste, and other debris.

Yesterday, board members of Santa Clara County Board voted almost unanimously for a new ordinance banning camping along nearly 300 miles of creeks. The ordinance lays out property by the creeks that will belong to the district where it will be illegal to set up encampments.

This decision will take place on January 2, 2025. If, 72 hours after a verbal and written warning, homeless people have not left the area, they can be fined up to $500, do community service, or serve 30 days in jail.

The Punishments

Firstly, when I read that one of the penalties for the homeless who failed to leave the area within 72 hours was community service hours, I was in disbelief. Community service can consist of giving back to the community through public works projects, volunteering at shelters, and other similar activities. Making a homeless person volunteer at a shelter is just an incredibly ironic situation made possible by this new ordinance.

It’s unlikely this could help anyone — it takes money to imprison the homeless people, forcing them to do community service when they do not have the means to do so, and odds are they will be unable to pay any fines, because if they did they would be able to afford a better living than one in a tent by a creek.

Zooming out

In the context of Grants Pass v. Johnson, it’s sad to see what an immediate effect this case has had on our country. It’s easy to see just from this one example exactly how harmful this decision will prove to be. Here, instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, officials are punishing homeless people for living in specific areas who literally have nowhere else to go.

There are an estimated 700 homeless people living by these creeks. This ordinance will strip them of their homes — if you can call living in an encampment that — while providing them with no other place to stay or other options to help.

While I’m sure the water district was just trying its best to ensure members of their community would have clean water, this injustice started in the Supreme Court. It will be hard to watch this ordinance be carried out on January 2, and to make matters worse, this will not be an isolated event.