LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 28: A person walks past an encampment of unhoused people in the Skid Row community on June 28, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that cities can ban people, including those who are homeless, from camping and sleeping outdoors in public places, overturning lower court rulings. Skid Row is home to thousands of people who are either experiencing homelessness on the streets or living in shelters. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Los Angeles, California – Three years into a sweeping legal settlement aimed at reshaping the city’s approach to homelessness, Los Angeles is under fire from federal court and housing advocates for allegedly misrepresenting its progress by counting temporary cleanups as permanent solutions.
In 2022, city leaders agreed to a court-enforced plan with the nonprofit L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, committing to building 12,915 shelter beds or housing placements by 2027 and removing 9,800 encampments by 2026. But a growing conflict over what “encampment resolution” actually means has thrown the city’s compliance into question.
Central to the controversy is the city’s use of CARE-plus cleanups—operations in which sanitation workers clear sidewalks of tents, debris, and waste. These cleanups, which city officials argue are necessary for public safety and accessibility, have long been part of L.A.’s approach to managing homelessness. However, advocates and legal challengers argue they do little more than displace people and give the illusion of progress.
Elizabeth Mitchell, an attorney representing the L.A. Alliance, emphasized that simply clearing an encampment without offering shelter fails to meet the terms of the agreement. “If the person insists on staying where they are and nothing else has happened, that’s not a resolution,” Mitchell said. “They can’t count that.”
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter agreed. In March, he issued a court order barring the city from counting such cleanups toward the 9,800 goal, calling them “not permanent in nature.” Last month, he expanded on that view in a 62-page ruling, finding that Los Angeles had “willfully disobeyed” his order and clarifying that an encampment can only be considered resolved if the resident is offered shelter or housing — regardless of whether they accept.
That distinction is critical, and politically fraught. City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, who helped negotiate the original deal, testified that not every encampment removal was meant to be tied to housing. “We never would have agreed” to forcing individuals indoors, he said.
For some, this reveals a core tension in the city’s strategy: a growing disconnect between optics and outcomes. The Bass administration’s “Inside Safe” initiative does provide interim housing in hotels and motels — and occasionally transitions people into permanent homes. But the city’s day-to-day reliance on CARE-plus cleanups appears to be more about managing visibility than solving homelessness.
Advocates like Shayla Myers, who represents groups that have intervened in the case, warn that treating tents as statistics risks compounding harm. “Throwing away tents doesn’t help the homelessness crisis,” she said. “Building housing does.”
The city insists it is on track to meet its housing commitments, but critics argue that using a quota-based system for encampment removals puts unhoused Angelenos in greater jeopardy. A recent cleanup in the Westlake district saw city crews remove nearly three dozen tents with heavy machinery, some of which were likely home to people who received no housing offer at all.
For now, the legal fight continues — and the people most directly affected remain on the street.
