On Wednesday morning, Oakland leaders gathered to hear a new proposal to solve homelessness that immediately drew backlash.

Outside City Hall, homeless activists were protesting what was going on inside. At a special meeting of the city's public safety committee, Councilmember Ken Houston was presenting his proposal for a new Encampment Abatement Policy. But first he displayed current pictures from his old neighborhood of homeless RVs and junk blocking the sidewalks.

"This is where I grew up. This is where my mother raised me. This is where I walked to school every day. Every day. And it did not look like this. We did not have to deal with this," said Houston. "Someone has to take a bold stand. We cannot keep living in this condition, and we cannot continue to let individuals live in this condition."

Houston's plan would allow the city to close camps without notice. Offers of shelter would be made "when available," but would not be required. Vehicles in violation of city code could be towed, and all sidewalk camps would be subject to closure. And finally, people who return and reestablish a camp within 60 days could be cited or arrested. The plan drew harsh criticism from homeless advocates at the meeting.

"The solution to the problem is not to take their stuff and put them in jail. The solution to the problem has got to be humanistic," said longtime Oakland homeless advocate James Vann. "Oakland is not a city that wants to put its citizens in jail. We are not that Oakland.  We are better than that!  We can take care of our people, and we should and we must!"

"The things that you guys want to take from us are the only things we own in this world," said unhoused resident Shontoya Norbert. "We're not perfect. Yeah, we need help. But to throw us on the street with absolutely nothing will fill up the jail, number one, OK?  You're trying to criminalize being homeless when we can't afford a home. It's really hard to sit there and watch people make decisions in a life that they've never experienced, who've never walked a day in our shoes,"

But Kevin Hester said his construction business was being heavily impacted by the encampment just outside his door.

"We know this is a very difficult issue. But what is happening right now is not working. And something needs to change," Hester said. "I'm born and raised in Oakland. My company is born and raised in Oakland. But if something doesn't change, we may be forced to move out."

There are warnings that Houston's plan, as currently written, could present a barrier to getting State and county housing funds. It appears to violate some requirements about providing advanced notice and alternative locations for sleeping. Nicole Dean, with Care for Community Action, addressed that issue in her comments.

"Suddenly there's all this urgency after years of resistance and delays to plans that would actually house people," she told the committee. "This policy would undermine our ability to work with the county and the State to do that.  It threatens our access to the funding we need to provide that kind of housing."

Houston said his plan is in line with last year's Supreme Court ruling that cities do have the authority to prohibit camping and sleeping on public property. He calls it a bold stand, and many agree with him that the current policy isn't working.