OPINION: Washington bill only adds confusion to homeless issue

This editorial was published in The Columbian of Vancouver, Wash.

———

Addressing Washington’s homeless crisis while also protecting the rights of the unhoused requires thoughtful, targeted legislation. Instead, House Bill 1380 would implement convoluted rules that only add confusion and bureaucracy to the situation.

The official explanation of the bill, which has passed the House Housing Committee and is under consideration by the Appropriations Committee, is that it would allow “objectively reasonable regulation of the utilization of public property.” The practical implication is that it would allow people to sue cities and counties that restrict camping in public places, effectively ending anti-camping bans.

Rep. Mia Gregerson, D-SeaTac and prime sponsor of the legislation, said during a hearing last week that the proposal is “not a one-size-fits-all fix, but this bill does seek to help provide guideposts to allow each community to deal with their own unique challenges,” The (Spokane) Spokesman-Review reported. (The bill has eight Democratic co-sponsors, none from southwest Washington).

Gregerson’s explanation is the Pollyannaish version. Instead, the legislation would not fit any municipality in the state and would force meaningful efforts to reduce homelessness into lengthy court battles.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 ruling that municipalities have the right to pass and enforce anti-camping regulations. The court, in a case out of Grants Pass, Ore., upheld ordinances that prohibit people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows or cardboard boxes for protection while sleeping within the city limits.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this nation’s homelessness policy.” Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.

In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Indeed, that is a difficult choice. But local jurisdictions have been afforded the power to act in the best interests of their communities. Attempting to circumvent that power through a state law would only delay necessary actions by local governments.

Make no mistake, outlawing camping in an effort to remove homelessness does not solve the problem. If there is a lack of housing and shelter beds, that problem is not mitigated simply by telling people to go elsewhere. Cities must adopt comprehensive measures that include housing, shelters, and services for mental health and substance abuse.

But if a municipal government believes that an anti-camping ban can contribute to those efforts, the Legislature should not undermine the will of that community. Defending anti-camping ordinances in court and trying to prove that they are “objectively reasonable” would divert time and resources that should be spent on reducing the number of homeless people.

Vancouver and Clark County have camping bans that call for criminal citations. Those citations can be erased through community court, which connects participants with resources. Battle Ground recently passed a ban on camping in public places although the city has no shelters.

Regardless of the approach, legislators should work to help municipalities deal with the issue rather making those efforts more difficult. House Bill 1380 would only add to the problem.

TNS