Fact check: Which California cities have been accused of forcibly removing homeless people before major events?

1. The Los Angeles pattern: event-driven sweeps draw repeated accusations

Reporting from 2022 through 2024 documents Los Angeles clearing encampments ahead of major events, with repeated allegations that these removals were timed to reduce visibility of homelessness during the Super Bowl and local festivals. Coverage describes encampments near SoFi Stadium and along routes for CicLAvia being cleared, with residents displaced and human rights groups criticizing the actions as attempts to “hide” unhoused people during events ^{[1] [4] [5] [2]}. City officials have sometimes disputed knowledge or responsibility for particular sweeps, creating conflicting narratives between municipal authorities and advocates; for instance, one council member denied prior notice of a removal even as residents and LAPD officers reported it occurred ^[2]. These episodes highlight a pattern where enforcement activity spikes before high-profile events, producing both immediate displacement and sustained controversy about city intent and humanitarian impact ^{[5] [2]}.

2. San Francisco’s APEC preparations: cleanup praised and questioned

In San Francisco, reporting around the 2023 APEC summit describes a noticeable reduction in visible homelessness following city efforts that added shelter beds and intensified street “cleanups,” which officials framed as public-safety and sanitation measures ^[3]. Advocates acknowledged a short-term reduction in tents and drug activity but expressed concern that the changes were temporary and came at the expense of displacing vulnerable people. The coverage frames the city’s actions as a combination of emergency measures and event-driven pressure, with advocates warning that adding shelter beds does not address long-term housing needs and may mask systemic failures ^[3]. This episode underscores a recurring tension: municipal leaders point to short-term resource deployment and accommodation, while service providers and rights groups argue that coerced removals produce harm and do not solve chronic homelessness.

3. Event organizers, human rights groups, and advocates: different frames, similar alarms

Human rights organizations and local advocates consistently frame pre-event encampment clearances as coercive and harmful, emphasizing displacement, loss of belongings, and curtailed access to services ^{[1] [5] [3]}. These groups tie the actions to efforts by cities and event stakeholders to manage reputational risk and public perception. Municipal officials and some city statements, by contrast, emphasize public safety, sanitation, and temporary shelter capacity as motivations for removals, asserting the need to clear hazardous conditions ahead of large gatherings ^{[3] [2]}. The public-policy debate therefore splits along accountability lines: whether removals are an operational necessity or a rights-compromising tactic driven by event optics. Both frames appear in the reporting, with consistent calls from advocates for transparent notice, due process, and longer-term housing solutions rather than episodic sweeps ^{[3] [1]}.

4. Historical echoes: displacement beyond immediate event windows

Historical reporting ties Los Angeles’s present-day encampment removals to a longer lineage of displacement practices in the city, most notably the Chavez Ravine eminent-domain takings that uprooted predominantly Mexican American neighborhoods decades ago ^[6]. That history is used by critics to contextualize contemporary sweeps as part of broader patterns of displacing marginalized communities in service of development or civic projects. While modern removals focus on unsheltered populations rather than property takings, the narrative continuity highlights how public projects and high-profile events can intersect with power imbalances to produce displacement, fueling distrust of municipal motives and legal processes among affected communities ^[6]. This perspective informs advocates’ calls for structural reforms and safeguards against event-driven enforcement.

5. Geographic spread and limits of available documentation

The evidence set provided most strongly implicates Los Angeles and San Francisco as California cities accused of pre-event encampment clearances, with multiple contemporaneous reports documenting each city’s actions around distinct events ^{[1] [4] [2] [3]}. Other cities are not named in these summaries, and several pieces focus on analogous removals in other jurisdictions (Chicago) to illustrate the national pattern of event-linked sweeps ^{[7] [8] [9]}. The documentation in the provided materials does not list additional California municipalities beyond L.A. and San Francisco, so claims about other cities would require further sourcing; the current corpus supports a conclusion that L.A. and San Francisco are the principal California examples cited in these reports ^{[5] [3]}.

6. What the reporting leaves out and what to watch for next

The assembled reports document actions and responses but leave gaps about long-term outcomes for displaced individuals, legal findings on alleged rights violations, and systematic municipal policies that govern pre-event clearances. Advocates demand data on rehousing outcomes and inventories of lost property, while cities cite short-term shelter availability; independent audits or legal rulings would clarify whether actions violated due-process or human-rights standards ^{[3] [1]}. Future coverage to watch includes follow-up investigations on rehousing rates post-event, city policy changes regarding notice and storage of belongings, and any litigation outcomes challenging the removals. These factors will determine whether the events cited represent episodic enforcement spikes or evidence of enduring, policy-driven strategies.