Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Debate on Homelessness Policies in Washington

2024

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Oregon city law designed to address homeless encampments. Some see the ruling as a victory for local control, while others worry it will worsen the homelessness crisis in Washington. The ruling allows cities and counties to outlaw sleeping outdoors in public places, a decision that has ignited fears of increased homelessness.

Michele Thomas, director of policy advocacy for the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, criticized the ruling. She argued that it allows for the punishment of individuals simply trying to survive without shelter. Thomas called on lawmakers in cities and counties not to arrest or punish homeless individuals or issue fines. She warned that this decision, along with potential cuts to homeless services, could lead to more people experiencing homelessness, which she described as devastating.

On the other hand, Camas City Councilmember Leslie Lewallen praised the ruling as a win for local control. Lewallen, a Republican candidate in the 3rd Congressional District, emphasized that local governments need the authority to help homeless individuals. She pointed out that people in southwest Washington work closely with the homeless community and understand that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Local and state governments view the ability to limit outdoor sleeping as one tool to address the increase in unsheltered individuals. The 2018 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Martin v. City of Boise set the precedent that local governments could not punish individuals for camping if no emergency shelter beds were available. However, if a person was offered shelter and refused it, they could be cited or arrested. The recent Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson challenged an Oregon city's law that barred sleeping in public places due to a lack of available shelter capacity.

In response to the Martin decision, several Washington cities created ordinances requiring homeless individuals to accept housing, even if it was far away, to avoid punishment. These ordinances were put on hold pending the outcome of the Grants Pass case. Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds, chair of the House Housing Committee, expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that arresting someone trying to survive is contrary to effective solutions for homelessness. He believes the decision will exacerbate the problem.

Sen. Patty Kuderer, D-Bellevue, who leads the Senate Housing Committee, also criticized the ruling, saying it pulls efforts backward rather than helping move forward. Kuderer highlighted the importance of balancing the needs of local governments with the dignity of the homeless, referencing a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Both Peterson and Kuderer emphasized that addressing homelessness requires controlling rent costs, increasing affordable housing, and boosting funding for support services. They plan to revive legislation for a cap on rent increases and a new graduated real estate excise tax in the 2025 state legislative session.

Rep. Andrew Barkis, R-Olympia, a member of the Housing Committee, supported the ruling, stating that it gives cities the necessary tools to address the crisis. Barkis argued that the Martin decision limited cities' abilities to respond to new encampments effectively. He believes that instead of pouring more money into homeless programs or imposing rent caps, the focus should be on enhancing detox programs and mental health services, which many homeless individuals need.

State lawmakers have directed approximately $5 billion to expand housing and prevent homelessness since 2013, with over $4 billion allocated in the past two state budgets. Despite these efforts, Sen. Kuderer noted that people are falling into homelessness faster than they can be helped out of it. She believes the problem is solvable but that the recent Supreme Court decision does not contribute to solving it.

The Supreme Court's decision has sparked a debate on the best approach to address homelessness. While some see the ruling as empowering local governments to manage the issue, others fear it will criminalize homelessness and fail to address the root causes. The discussion highlights the complexities of balancing public order with compassion and support for the most vulnerable members of society. As cities and counties consider how to implement these new powers, the impact on homeless individuals remains uncertain. The ruling presents an opportunity for local governments to explore various strategies, but it also underscores the need for comprehensive solutions that address the underlying issues of homelessness.

Source