LARE is strongly opposed to the Los Altos Encampment Ordinance of 4/28/26. The ordinance is deeply troubling because it is both vague in its language and punitive in its enforcement structure, including the possibility of misdemeanor charges against unhoused individuals. Laws carrying criminal consequences must be narrowly tailored, clearly defined, and carefully constrained. This ordinance fails to meet that standard.  

​

In public comment during the 4/28/26 City Council meeting, concerns were raised that the ordinance could be abused by future councils to criminalize homelessness more aggressively. In response, it was argued that future councils could always amend or repeal a strong ordinance anyway. Respectfully, that argument misses the point entirely. We do not knowingly enact flawed or overly broad laws simply because they may someday be repealed and redone. The purpose of responsible governance is to ensure that laws are just, precise, and resistant to abuse from the outset. Future repeal is not a safeguard against present harm.

​

We were also troubled by statements suggesting that the ordinance is necessary because some community members “feel unsafe” around encampments. Public policy should be guided by evidence and constitutional principles, not generalized fear or discomfort. What empirical data demonstrates that homeless encampments in Los Altos are driving violent crime or significant threats to public safety? If such data exists, it should be clearly presented. If it does not, the Council has a responsibility to push back against narratives rooted in perception rather than fact.

​

History repeatedly shows the danger of governments validating fear without evidence. Across the country, we are witnessing policies driven by exaggerated fears of immigrants, resulting in mass detentions, racial profiling, and erosion of civil liberties. Local governments should not follow the same pattern by criminalizing vulnerable unhoused residents based on unsupported assumptions about danger or disorder.

​

Beyond the moral and policy concerns, the ordinance may expose the City to substantial legal liability. Across California, municipalities are increasingly facing litigation over anti-encampment ordinances and enforcement practices. The case of Boyd vs. City of San Rafael resulted in significant changes in San Rafael’s encampment ordinance, including the establishment of a safe camping site.  (https://clearinghouse.net/case/45858/) (https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/question/what-is-the-city-doing-to-help-the-unhoused-individuals-living-on-our-streets/#/city/answers/homelessness/what-is-the-city-doing-to-help-the-unhoused-individuals-living-on-our-streets)

Disability rights organizations have also warned that criminalization-focused ordinances may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when applied to unhoused individuals suffering from physical disabilities, mental illness, or substance use disorders, such as in the case of Berkeley Homeless Union vs. City of Berkeley.  (https://wraphome.org/2026/04/06/for-immediate-release-federal-judge-issues-major-order-against-city-berkeley-to-stop-practices-that-endanger-unhoused-residents/)

​

The City should also consider the practical impossibility created by overlapping regional ordinances. Surrounding jurisdictions including Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale also maintain restrictions on encampments. If every neighboring city prohibits unhoused individuals from existing within its jurisdiction, then enforcement effectively creates a system in which compliance with one city’s ordinance requires violating another city’s ordinance. This raises serious constitutional, humanitarian, and due process concerns. Laws should not place people into an impossible legal situation where lawful existence itself becomes unattainable.

​

An ordinance that is vague, selectively enforceable, and backed by criminal penalties creates significant risk for arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. That risk becomes even more concerning when future political leadership may interpret the ordinance more aggressively than the current Council claims it intends to.

​

Los Altos should focus on evidence-based approaches that address homelessness humanely and effectively, including outreach, mental health services, shelter access, safe camping sites, and regional coordination. Criminalization is not a housing policy, nor is it a substitute for solution-based governance.

​

We urge the Council to repeal or substantially revise this ordinance to remove vague provisions, eliminate misdemeanor penalties tied to homelessness-related existence, create a safe camping site, and ensure that any policy complies with constitutional protections, and basic principles of fairness and human dignity.