Report from Camp Compassion

A little report from Camp Compassion in Novato. In the past, we held down Lee Gerner Park for five years through a combination of public advocacy, and through litigation to block the closure – culminating in a settlement agreement where we got a self-managed camp for two years. However after the camp was burned down in an arson, we have moved to a different location. Now, we are using the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to obtain some protections for our members who were displaced in the new location. 

After relocating our members immediately initiated the ADA interactive process. That process resulted in several concrete administrative accommodations by the City:

1. The encampment was placed under a memorandum issued by the Chief of Police staying enforcement of anti-camping ordinances. 

2. Camp members were permitted access near the roadway; and

3. The City committed to providing at least 30 days’ advance notice before any eviction or displacement.

These outcomes were not achieved through litigation, but through an administrative decision by the City’s ADA coordinator. Under the ADA, cities are required to engage in a fact-specific inquiry when a disability accommodation is requested and to provide a written response explaining whether the request is granted or denied, and why. Since moving to our new location in April 2025 our campers have not been displaced. That’s going on eight months as of this article.  

Recently, I spoke with a disability rights attorney and asked whether she had seen similar administrative ADA determinations in homelessness cases, so that we could compare decisions and assess whether we were receiving fair treatment. I was surprised when she told me she had never seen an administrative accommodation decision at all - every accommodation she had secured came through litigation or through settlement. 

In Marin County, where there have been dozens of lawsuits challenging homeless sweeps and seeking injunctive relief, cities have gradually learned to respond to ADA requests. But in our experience, no city responded meaningfully to ADA requests until after it had been sued (usually by self-represented litigants). Litigation has effectively educated cities about how the ADA applies to unhoused people and that the law requires an actual response. In jurisdictions that have not faced lawsuits, ADA requests are often ignored - despite the fact that doing so is unlawful.

Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i), a public entity must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless it can demonstrate that doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. Further, 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 places the burden on the public entity to prove that a requested accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration or undue financial or administrative burden. That determination must be made by the head of the agency or their designee, after considering all available resources, and must be accompanied by a written explanation. Even then, the entity must take alternative steps to ensure that individuals with disabilities receive services to the maximum extent possible.

These provisions make clear that the ADA requires a fact-specific inquiry. That inquiry must include engagement with the disabled individual requesting accommodation and, where appropriate, consultation with medical professionals. The ADA is fundamentally a process-based statute, and compliance requires genuine fact-finding.

In homelessness litigation, ADA-based injunctions have consistently focused on this failure of process. In Boyd v. City of San Rafael (3:23-cv-04085-EMC), the court issued a restraining order preventing enforcement of anti-camping ordinances against individuals who had requested disability accommodations. More recently, in Berkeley Homeless Union v. City of Berkeley (3:25-cv-01414-EMC), the same judge issued a similar order barring the City from clearing an encampment until it completed the interactive process.

Through this report from Camp Compassion, we aim to share with the broader community examples of administrative ADA decisions issued in Marin County. These are not judicial rulings and are not publicly available, which makes it important to document what cities are voluntarily doing absent a court order. This is not to suggest that these accommodations are ideal or fully compliant with the law. Rather, they provide insight into what cities themselves appear to believe unhoused people may be entitled to as disability accommodations—though cities may well be underestimating what the ADA actually requires.

At Camp Compassion, the Town formally granted a 30-day advance notice requirement before any enforcement or displacement. That decision was issued in April, and as a result, our members have remained in place at their current location for nearly eight months.

In Fairfax, the Town issued an ADA response only after being sued in Schwarz v. Town of Fairfax. Although no long-term accommodation was granted beyond a brief temporary restraining order, the City made notable concessions, including providing a moving truck and professional movers to assist residents. Importantly, advocates were permitted to remain within the abatement zone to provide support, document the process, and help residents pack—reducing stress and harm.

San Rafael presents a different model. Following the Boyd decision, it is one of the few cities where unhoused people can legally camp in designated locations, using 10-by-20-foot sites. In that case, a primary accommodation involved expanding allowable square footage. The City also informally provided portable toilets, some of which were made wheelchair accessible.

In Vallejo, prior to the landmark injunction in Alfred v. Vallejo—the first injunction obtained by a self-represented litigant halting an encampment sweep after Grants Pass—the City granted a 30-day extension before abatement. That extension proved critical, providing the time needed to file the lawsuit and seek relief. Even limited notice periods can have significant legal and practical impact.

Conclusion

The Bay Area has a long tradition of using the law as a tool of resistance—from Fred Hampton’s self-representation in court, and using law books in the streets to challenge police conduct. Following that tradition of self-education in the law, and holding officials to strict interpretations of the law we follow a long tradition of resistance in the Bay Area. By educating ourselves about the law and applying it strategically, we strengthen our capacity to challenge oppression.

One of the most important uses of the ADA in challenging encampment sweeps is the insistence on in-person interactive process meetings with city officials. Sitting across from decision-makers and pressing them on concrete alternatives matters. In Alfred v. Vallejo, during an in-person interactive process meeting, I questioned the City Attorney about every conceivable alternative location. Each proposal was rejected. I documented every refusal and presented that record to the court. The judge cited it as evidence of deliberate indifference and granted a preliminary injunction.

Even when cities deny every request, the process creates a record—one that exposes the gap between rhetoric and reality, and that can be used to hold governments accountable for policies that inflict harm while masquerading as compassion.