A few months ago, one of our patients lost their tent in an encampment sweep. For many people, losing a tent means a canceled camping trip. For our patients experiencing homelessness, it means losing their lifeline.
Inside that tent were medications, identification documents and the phone number of their case worker. With one sweep, it was all gone.
Within weeks, patients in similar situations often arrive at emergency departments with preventable health crises, costing far more than the outreach that had kept them stable.
This is the outcome of policies that treat homelessness as a nuisance rather than a public health crisis. Georgia state House Bill 295 is one such policy that would only accelerate this crisis.
HB 295 could lead to costly local lawsuits
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
HB 295 allows property owners to sue municipal governments if they believe officials have failed to enforce policies prohibiting “illegal public camping.”
In practice, this targets homeless encampments that people experiencing homelessness (PEH) rely on for shelter and safety, often resulting in encampment sweeps, citations and arrests.
Encampment sweeps exacerbate the risks of physical injury, mental illness and overdose-related deaths among PEH by destroying essential belongings, medications and identification documents.
Protecting property owners should not come at the cost of criminalizing poverty, and HB 295 blurs that line.
The burden doesn’t lie solely with PEH. Encampment removal policies increase health care costs as chronic illnesses worsen without shelter, leading to hospitalizations.
Criminalizing homelessness also strains the incarceration system — encampment-related misdemeanors can result in jail time, increasing spending on policing, court proceedings and incarceration.
Rather than investing in long-term housing solutions, cities divert funds toward costly enforcement operations, emergency medical care and litigation — all costs taxpayers bear. This financial strain is particularly concerning in Georgia, where tort costs rank among the highest in the nation.
Similar enforcement-driven measures elsewhere have shown limited success. Arizona’s Proposition 312, which enables property owners to seek financial compensation from municipalities regarding encampments, increased administrative costs, diverted funds away from affordable housing and saw many reimbursement claims denied, thus eroding public trust in effective policy implementation.
Punitive action is not the solution. For example, California’s Homekey program converted vacant buildings into permanent housing, creating 9,000 new homes and sheltering over 157,000 PEH.
Strategies encompassing permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing and expanded mental health and addiction services are more effective and cost-efficient than criminalization strategies that cycle PEH through the court system, jails and emergency services. To put the cost into perspective, a single encampment sweep can cost $237,000, while supportive housing averages about $16,000 per person annually.
Invest in more housing, not incarceration
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
As students in the Health Students Taking Action Together (H-STAT) Street Medicine program, we work alongside health care providers and community partners to provide wound care, medical screenings, disease management and health education to PEH in encampments or shelters.
For many, these encounters are their only consistent medical contact. Our experience shows that the health of our patients hinges on whether or not they have access to shelter.
For instance, a patient with diabetes needs a safe place to store their insulin. Punitive policies like HB 295 can erase months of carefully coordinated medical care and outreach in a single day.
While HB 295 arose from legitimate concerns of public safety and property rights, its enforcement endangers PEH through involuntary displacement to more hazardous environments, such as freeway underpasses.
Encampment sweeps have repeatedly failed to improve public safety — they are costly, divert law enforcement resources, and some areas experience an increase in violent crime in the weeks following a sweep.
Sweeps also disrupt access to medical and social services, worsening health outcomes for those affected. If public safety is the goal of HB 295, evidence suggests it is unlikely to achieve it.
Jenny Mullins, who lives in an encampment, described it not as a collection of tents but as her “little village.”
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
“For us to have our little village back here is a blessing. … I may not have much. But what I do have is a blessing.”
When we enforce encampment removals, we dismantle communities, interrupt continuity of care and strip individuals of what little support and stability they have.
Our choice is simple: We can continue investing in policies that cycle people through sidewalks, emergency rooms and jails, or we can invest in humane solutions that are fiscally responsible and proven to work.
We urge Georgia legislators to reject HB 295 and instead invest in evidence-based solutions that promote public health, fiscal responsibility and long-term community stability that reduce health care and municipal costs.
Together, we can choose compassion over criminalization and help these communities preserve their “blessings.”
Megan Blasberg is an Atlanta native, Georgia medical student and director of H-STAT GA’s Street Medicine Program who works directly with people experiencing homelessness and is committed to building a Georgia where everyone has access to comprehensive, compassionate health care.
Mercy Olowoyo is a Nigeria-born and Florida-raised medical student in Georgia. She is a member of HSTAT GA’s street medicine program working to improve access to equitable Healthcare across the state.
Tamia Ross is a public health researcher and Georgia medical student whose work examines how policy and health systems shape equitable care, and a member of H-STAT GA’s Advocacy Team.
Additional signatories to this guest opinion column are Isabelle Blanchard, Kimberly Cang, Zachary Anderson, Hridith Sudev and Michael Daugherty.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
