³ÉÈËXÕ¾

A controversial bill that gives homeless individuals the right to sue a city for enforcing its camping and “sit and lie” laws continues to make its way through the Washington State legislature.

Public testimony was taken Wednesday on in the . The bill aims to ensure that local regulations concerning activities like sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property are “objectively reasonable” in terms of time, place and manner.

If a city’s policies fail this standard, individuals experiencing homelessness could challenge them in court.

The bill cleared its first legislative hurdle by receiving a “do pass” recommendation from the on January 30 with a party-line vote of 8-6, with Democrats in the majority.

‘Objectively reasonable’

The term “objectively reasonable” is central to HB 1380. However, the bill does not provide a specific definition, leaving room for interpretation. This vagueness has raised concerns among municipalities about potential legal challenges.

“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, Smart Justice Policy Director for ACLU-WA, said.

This is an attempt to create those “reasonable regulations.”

The proposed legislation emphasizes that any city or county laws regulating the use of public property must be fair and considerate, especially towards individuals experiencing homelessness. It introduces a private cause of action, allowing individuals to seek injunctive or declaratory relief if they believe a law is not objectively reasonable.

The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson upheld ordinances against public camping but emphasized the need for reasonable regulations This means that if someone feels a local ordinance unfairly restricts their ability to perform basic life-sustaining activities in public spaces, they can challenge it in court.

More politics: WA Democrats debating ‘tax the rich’ property plan as alternative to cap increase

Provides protections for homeless individuals on public property

Supporters of HB 1380 argue it’s a necessary step to protect the rights of homeless individuals. They believe everyone should have a place to rest and maintain their belongings without fear of punitive action.

During the public hearing in front of the House Housing Committee, the bill’s sponsor, Representative Mia Gregerson (D-Seatac) said: “This bill has been carefully crafted to preserve the ability for each jurisdiction to regulate their residents’ use of public space and to decide what they think is objectionably reasonable.”

Advocates highlight that punitive measures, such as sweeping encampments, often result in the loss of personal belongings, making it even more challenging for individuals to escape homelessness.

Cheryl Brown of Jewels Helping Hands recalled a homeless man losing his identification and housing voucher after an encampment sweep, leading to his arrest.

“These policies create a cycle that’s hard to escape,” she said.

More on MyNW: Democratic proposal would raise state minimum wage to $25/hour by 2032

Could lead to more lawsuits instead of money for housing

On the other hand, opponents express concerns that the bill could lead to increased litigation against cities, diverting resources that could otherwise be used to combat homelessness.

They worry that without a clear definition of “objectively reasonable,” municipalities might face numerous lawsuits, forcing them to choose between funding essential programs and defending their ordinances in court.

Additionally, some fear that the bill could limit local governments’ ability to manage public spaces effectively, potentially leading to safety and sanitation issues.

Curtis Steinhauer, representing the , argued that it “will invite lawsuits without creating new rights for homeless individuals.”

Karl Schroeder from the pointed to similar laws in Oregon that resulted in costly legal settlements, stating, “This creates uncertainty and financial risks for cities.”

Normandy Park Mayor Eric Zimmerman opposed the bill, saying it “does nothing to solve homelessness” and could force cities to maintain encampments rather than invest in housing and rehabilitation.

“It will drain city budgets away from service support and into litigation,” he added.

The crux of the controversy is the undefined nature of “objectively reasonable.” Without clear criteria, cities are left to interpret the standard on their own, likely leading to legal disputes. For now, the debate over what is “objectively reasonable” remains unresolved.

A vote in the House Ways and Means Committee has not yet been set.

Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public policy for ³ÉÈËXÕ¾ Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on , or email him here.