It doesn't matter if the homeless people are long time residents of the City of Alameda. They need to be provided with advocates that can help them seek out all of the resources that are available to them. Thereafter, if they decline such services, they should be strictly prohibited from stealing from our driveways, vehicles, and local businesses. My family and I, along with a family friend have been the recent victims of this new trend in homeless crimes, and someone needs to finally put a stop to it.

I don't know what the answer is, because if the Police Department could do something about, I'm sure that they would. But there has to be an answer somewhere.

Mario - see:

http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2017/07/22/jean-sweeney-open-space-park-construction-just-moves-homeless-elsewhere/

In their initial homeless assessment during the fall of 2016, Operation Dignity identified 26 homeless people in Alameda and one question they asked was how long each person had lived in Alameda. The answers they received ranged from 1 year to 50 years, with the average being more than 14 years. While we cannot disclose Operation Dignity’s assessments because they contain private personal information, the mid-year demographics report (link below) from April 2017 shows “location when housing was lost,” documenting that of the homeless individuals receiving case management services, many were living in Alameda when they became homeless. In addition, when construction started at Jean Sweeney Park on July 10th and no trespassing strictly enforced, many people were known to the Alameda Police Department to be long time Alameda residents with a history of homelessness based on years of contact.

As I mentioned, the City is withholding Operation Dignity’s detailed assessment because it contains personal information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. (See, Government Code Section 6254(c)). The assessment is also confidential and subject to the official information privilege of Evidence Code Section 1040; namely; “information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.” Finally, the City believes that the public interest in nondisclosure of the personal information collected by Operation Dignity outweighs the public interest in disclosure. (See, Government Code, Section 6255.)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b29oupw0t34htzk/Demographics%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0