Given Mayor‑elect Zohran Mamdani’s announcement that he will not continue enforcement “sweeps” of homeless encampments, New Yorkers face a choice: accept a hands‑off approach and the problems that follow, or insist that compassion be matched by concrete, funded alternatives. Stopping sweeps without replacing them with humane, practical solutions will not solve homelessness it will allow unsafe, unsanitary and unsightly conditions to spread across our streets and parks, to the detriment of both people living outdoors and the neighborhoods that surround them.
The realities of unmanaged encampments are plain and urgent. Where people are forced to live outdoors without services, basic sanitation breaks down. Without reliable toilets, hand‑washing stations or trash removal, human waste and refuse accumulate. That creates public‑health risks, increased exposure to pathogens, rodent infestations and breeding grounds for vermin. Open‑flame cooking, candles and makeshift heaters produce a constant fire risk; every year camps burn and lives are lost. For the people living in those camps the conditions are brutal: lack of clean water, chronic exposure to weather, limited access to medical care, and a higher risk of injury, overdose and violence.
Public safety worries extend beyond health. Encampments can become magnets for criminal activity — not because most unhoused people are criminals, but because unregulated spaces can attract illegal drug markets, trafficking and predators who prey on vulnerable people. For small businesses and homeowners, encampments can mean blocked sidewalks, thefts of delivered goods, and a tangible decline in quality of life. For tourists and commuters, the city’s public spaces lose the sense of order and accessibility that makes urban life workable. These are not petty complaints: they are legitimate harms borne by multiple communities when homelessness is managed only by avoidance.
At the same time it’s important to be clear-eyed about the alternative. Sweeps — the forcible removal of people’s belongings and displacement from sites where they have sheltered — have been widely criticized and for good reason. They inflict trauma, scatter people away from outreach teams and services, and often leave people with fewer possessions and fewer options. Sweeps without offers of shelter or housing are cruel and ineffective. So this is not an either/or debate about compassion. The choice is between policies that clear people out of sight and policies that actually reduce homelessness and protect public health.
What the city needs is a plan that makes it unnecessary for people to live in tents on sidewalks. That plan should include:
- A rapid scale‑up of low‑barrier emergency shelter and supportive housing so that people have real alternatives to encampments; that means more beds, flexible admission rules, and onsite services for mental health and addiction care.
- Adequate sanitation at known congregation sites: toilets, hand‑washing stations, regular trash pickup and pest control to reduce disease and fire risk while longer‑term housing solutions are developed.
- Outreach and case management teams embedded with harm‑reduction services (including safe‑supply or supervised consumption where evidence supports it), so people can access treatment, benefits and housing placement rather than being shunted from place to place.
- Safe storage for personal belongings and a clear, rights‑respecting process for any removal of property, so sweeps do not simply rob people of their few possessions.
- Designated, managed encampment sites as a transitional option where necessary — with rules, sanitation and services — coupled with robust programs to move residents into permanent housing.
- A funding and accountability framework: specific targets, timelines, and transparent reporting so New Yorkers can judge results rather than rhetoric.
Mayor‑elect Mamdani can refuse sweeps on principle; that is a defensible position if it is part of a comprehensive, well‑funded strategy that reduces unsheltered homelessness and protects public spaces. But a promise to simply stop enforcement without the investments above is, in practice, a recipe for more encampments and the attendant health and safety hazards.
New Yorkers should demand both compassion and competence. It is possible to oppose the violence and indignity of sweeps while simultaneously insisting that the city government be responsible for the consequences. If the incoming administration truly wants to change how New York treats its most vulnerable residents, it must commit the resources and political capital to housing, services, sanitation, and harm reduction — not just the moral high ground of inaction. Without that commitment, we will watch tent by tent turn into sprawling, hazardous camps that hurt the very people the city says it seeks to help and erode the fabric of neighborhoods across the five boroughs.
