While nearly 75% of the city voted to outlaw camping within 1,000 feet of a school, park and daycare in 2023, Spokane’s state legislators are now pushing to allow homeless individuals to sue over the “objective reasonableness” of those regulations.
Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane, and Rep. Natasha Hill, D-Spokane, are cosponsoring House Bill 1380. If approved, it would require regulations around “sitting, lying, sleeping, or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property” to be “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner.”
Spokane passed Proposition 1 over a year ago, expanding the city’s laws around camping on public property. However, the Spokane Police Department couldn’t enforce it until June, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9th U.S. Circuit of the Court of Appeals’ Martin v. Boise decision.
The Martin decision held that anti-camping laws constitute cruel and unusual punishment and violate the Eighth Amendment. After SCOTUS overturned it, many areas passed similar laws to Proposition 1 nationwide, but now, some in Spokane say that HB 1380 contradicts their vote.
“HB 1380 also flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s 2024 Grants Pass decision by allowing Washington cities to enact ordinances that treat public rights of way as campsites rather than public resources meant for everyone,” Gavin Cooley, chief executive officer of the Spokane Business Association, wrote to SBA members on Thursday.
He said the city of Spokane made its stance clear when more than 52,000 people passed Proposition 1 in 2023. Despite this, the progressive Spokane City Council has taken a different approach, repeatedly stalling proposals from its conservative minority to support Proposition 1 and similar laws.
Homelessness has become a highly politicized issue in Spokane as the region attempts to mitigate a crisis that’s now affecting more than 2,000 people.
Despite representing constituents that overwhelmingly passed Proposition 1, Ormsby and Hill are pushing to allow homeless individuals to sue the municipality for the “objective reasonableness” of that law.
The proposal aims to “Encourage the efficient use of state and local resources by providing clear guidance … on how to balance public safety with the urgent need to transition people experiencing homelessness to safe and stable housing; Protect local governments whose ordinances are objectively reasonable against litigation … and Encourage local governments to enact objectively reasonable time, place, and manner regulations to manage public spaces effectively and preserve public peace, health, and safety for the benefit of the entire community.”
Cooley, who served as the city’s chief financial officer for 17 years, said the state should focus on “proven solutions” that helped mitigate homelessness in Boise, Houston and other areas.
The Legislature’s House Housing Committee held a public hearing over HB 1380 on Tuesday. The bill garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, which is also suing Spokane over Proposition 1 and other related laws.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in city of Grants Pass v. Johnson upheld ordinances against public camping but emphasized the need for reasonable regulations,” Jazmyn Clark, an ACLU of Washington representative, testified. “House Bill 1380 aligns with this principle.”
Members of the Washington State Association of Counties and Washington Association of Cities, representing all 39 counties and 281 cities, testified in opposition. Mayors from Auburn, Covington, Renton, Normandy Park, Mercer Island and a Kennewick official joined in dissent.
“The only way to find out what ordinances meet this standard is through litigation. When litigation occurs, it will come at the expense of taxpayers,” WSAC Policy Analyst Curtis Steinhauer testified. “Possibly paid for by revenue that could have been used to create more resources for vulnerable people that this bill is meant to protect.”
Housing Committee staff member Audrey Vasek said, “Objective reasonableness must be determined based on the totality of the circumstances, with special consideration given to the impact of the law on persons experiencing homelessness.”
HB 1380 would take effect immediately if approved, applying retroactively to all lawsuits “regardless of when the cause of action arose or when the laws were enacted,” she said.
According to a fiscal note, HB 1380 would have “non-zero but indeterminate cost and/or savings.” The document notes potential litigation costs and staff time to revise ordinances but later states that “the potential for litigation and associated costs is a significant concern.”
“Unfortunately, this is modeled on a law that is in place in Oregon. On day one of its effective date, the city of Portland was sued, and it was a $175,000 settlement because they didn’t want to continue further litigatory risk,” Carl Schroeder, AWC government relations deputy director, testified. “So it’s not an unreal concern, and it’s the only experience we have with the standard.”
The House Housing Committee scheduled an executive session for HB 1380 on Jan. 28, when the officials will decide whether to amend the proposal and/or send it to the next step in the legislative process.
