State-Local Partnerships in California
Governor Gavin Newsom has expanded California’s “Encampment Delegated Maintenance Agreements” to include the cities of Ontario, San Bernardino, and San Diego. These partnerships, now totaling 13 statewide, allow local agencies to conduct encampment removals on state highway rights-of-way with state-provided funding. The program focuses on debris collection, vegetation management, and graffiti abatement, prioritizing areas that threaten public health and safety. Caltrans reports that since July 2021, nearly 26,500 encampments have been cleared, resulting in the collection of approximately 457,000 cubic yards of debris.
Lawton’s “Tent City” Closure
In Lawton, Oklahoma, city officials have formally finalized the closure of a prominent “Tent City” following a unanimous City Council vote on July 27, 2026. The ordinance removed a property exemption that previously permitted camping on land held by the Lawton Unhoused Trust Authority. Mayor Stan Booker stated that 11 of the 19 individuals living at the site accepted rehabilitation services, emphasizing that “intense, regular, repeated, face-to-face” engagement was the primary driver for successful transitions into shelter.
Enforcement Debates in Dallas
In Texas, the management of encampments has become a focal point of legislative tension. Dallas City Council member Cara Mendelsohn, chair of the Housing and Homelessness Solutions Committee, has criticized the city’s approach, alleging that enforcement of anti-camping ordinances has been insufficient. Mendelsohn argues that failing to enforce existing state and local laws—which prohibit obstructing public ways and public defecation—is “inhumane” for both the unhoused population and the broader public. City data indicates over 44,000 encampment-related calls between October 2020 and September 2025, alongside more than 1,200 non-offense deaths in public settings.
Strategic Divergence
The current landscape reflects a divide between enforcement-centric models and service-heavy outreach. California’s model relies on state-local fiscal coordination to scale up clearances while integrating behavioral health services. Conversely, the Lawton example highlights the role of specific non-profit coalitions in facilitating individual exits from encampments, while Dallas highlights the friction between municipal leadership and the political appetite for strict ordinance enforcement. As cities navigate these challenges, the debate remains centered on whether legal enforcement serves as a necessary catalyst for service engagement or as an ineffective displacement tactic.