(The Center Square) – Despite pleas from across the state, lawmakers advanced a bill Thursday that could allow homeless individuals to sue over the “objective reasonableness” of local camping bans.
House Bill 1380 passed through another panel last month before the Appropriations Committee approved it Thursday. The House Rules Committee will still need to schedule a floor debate before it can pass through the Senate, but HB 1380 just took its next step toward becoming law.
While the U.S. Supreme Court established the “objective reasonableness” standard in 1989, it’s still largely untested. Leading up to Thursday, local officials from across the state testified against HB 1380, citing the financial risk it poses to municipalities regulating homelessness.
“At what point do we value our kids?” said Rep. Michelle Caldier, R-Gig Harbor. “How is it that individuals who are struggling with homelessness take precedence over them?”
The Democrat-controlled committee rejected several amendments to HB 1380. Some would’ve exempted areas within a few miles of a school, daycare or existing shelter. Others exempted sites within a certain distance from businesses and playgrounds and limited the extent of financial risk.
While several other Republican amendments also failed, the committee passed one that applied HB 1380 to the state capitol. The lawmakers ultimately approved Substitute House Bill 1380, which clarified several other aspects of determining “objective reasonableness.”
“A single bill is not going to fix this issue,” Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds, said. “This is part of the solution.”
According to SHB 1380, the changes specify that the standard would apply to the local laws and resulting enforcement. The new version determines the standard “through an assessment of the totality of the circumstances” based on the following factors:
the need to protect public health and safety, including the general public and homeless individuals;the “availability and accessibility” of shelter or housing options within the municipality;the impact on the homeless population, including access to services, safety and basic needs such as “keeping warm and dry”; and“the proportionality of the law to the issue it seeks to address.”
The substitute also requires a court to give “special consideration” to the intended use and characteristics of the public property in question; the “unique needs and circumstances of the local community, including the prevalence and characteristics of homelessness; and the potential long-term impact of the law and enforcement on the homeless population.
“I’m still head-scratching. The fact that we don’t know some of the critical core pieces of this legislation, what they mean, is kind of laughable,” Rep. Josh Penner, R-Orting, said. “This new language that’s come forward attempts to solve it but continues to confuse.”
Prime sponsor Rep. Mia Gregerson, D-SeaTac, asked the cities requesting a definition of “objectively reasonable” to review SHB 1380. She wants their feedback on the new language as the bill moves to the House floor for debate before heading to the Senate.
“Most emails that I’ve received this session [are about] this,” Rep. April Connors, R-Kennewick, said. “Mayors and city managers from Normandy Park, Auburn, Covington, Renton, Kent, Kennewick, Mercer Island, Bonney Lake, Buckley, Gig Harbor, Lakewood, Pacific, Ruston, Steilacoom, Sumner, University Place and Aberdeen. Those are just the ones that contacted me.”
