Council rejects, then delays decision on Mayor Lisa Brown’s camping enforcement replacement

June 16, 2025 Updated Tue., June 17, 2025 at 7:44 a.m.

A cyclist takes pause in front of the tent city outside Spokane City Hall in this photo from December 2021. (DAN PELLE/THE SPOKESMAN-REVIEW)

By Amanda Sullender amandas@spokesman.com (509) 459-5455

Here's how council candidates would have voted

Here’s how council candidates would have voted

Sarah Dixit: District 1 Position 2

Supportive with clarification needed.

I am in favor of policies that prioritize services and outreach, which is the intention of this ordinance. However, criminalizing folks for being unhoused doesn’t get to the core of the problem. I would want to confirm with service providers and impacted community members that this is a policy they would support.

Kate Telis: District 2 Position 2

Supportive.

As a non-incumbent, I haven’t been privy to all prior nuanced discussions. As a Spokane resident, and based on my work as a prosecutor and nonprofit director serving families experiencing homelessness, this package of ordinances appears to reflect a reasonable, coordinated approach to public safety, housing stability, and compassionate services. The engagement-first framework, combined with clear public space standards and thoughtful shelter siting, balances accountability with dignity. I would recommend a 3-day engagement period and a 90-day sunset to evaluate effectiveness, ensure accountability, and adjust as needed before a final vote.”

Cody Arguelles: District 3 Position 2

Opposed.

I’m disappointed that the Administration and the City Council are ignoring the will of the voters. And worse, gaslighting them instead of prioritizing solutions that get people off the streets and keep our city clean and safe for everyone. This is not a replacement for Proposition 1, which passed with overwhelming public support. Prop 1 sent a clear message: our community expects meaningful, enforceable action and clear standards for what is acceptable and what is not. Instead, this creates loopholes instead of accountability and confusion instead of clarity.

Alejandro Barrientos: District 2 Position 2

Opposed.

While some elements of these ordinances are reasonable, I oppose them as a whole because they fail to reinstate Prop 1, which was supported by nearly 75% of voters. Instead, they read more like vague guidelines, weakening engagement and replacing immediate action with delayed, passive responses. This leaves no clear path to connect individuals struggling with addiction to shelter or treatment. In the midst of a fentanyl crisis, where Spokane already has one of the highest overdose death rates in the nation. We need policies that empower timely, compassionate, and effective action.

Christopher Savage: District 3 Position 2

Opposed.

These ordinances are a slap to the face of the citizens of Spokane. What was overwhelmingly approved of by the voters last year by 74% is not what is being approved of at the Council Meeting. They may say they are voting to reinstate Prop 1, but when you look into the language of each ordinance, much is left to the imagination when trying to figure out how this will actually help anyone whether they be Homeless or not. Giving free reign to do whatever you want downtown, with a 7-Day Camping Pass, is just going to drive more people away from our city center. As why would anyone want to come downtown to feel unsafe and unwelcomed?

After first rejecting it, the Spokane City Council on Monday delayed a decision on Mayor Lisa Brown’s homeless camping proposal.

The plan is aimed at replacing voter-approved camping restrictions overturned by the state Supreme Court, but it sparked criticism from the downtown business leaders who called it permissive and out of sync with get-tough laws voters want.

In 2023, voters passed a law that outlawed camping within 1,000 feet of schools, parks or playgrounds. But the Washington State Supreme Court overturned the popular ballot box item that earned 75% approval by voters fed up with open drug use on city streets and homeless camps in public spaces.

Brown’s replacement would have allowed anyone illegally camping on public property up to seven days’ notice ahead of any enforcement action. During that time, the city’s homeless outreach team and other service providers would have offered services to the camper, and would not write them a ticket if they accepted the offer of help. The law also would not have been enforceable if the person left after the warning.

After nearly two hours of testimony, the council rejected it on a 3-to-4 vote, with council members Lili Navarrete, Betsy Wilkerson, Michael Cathcart and Jonathan Bingle torpedoing the proposal.

But later in the meeting, the council reopened testimony on a revised version that would have shortened the time someone camping illegally had to leave from seven to three days.

After the second round of testimony, the council voted to table a decision in a unanimous vote. The meeting ended about 1 a.m.

“This is not what the people want. They don’t want to see our city becoming a mecca for drug tourists,” Spokane lawyer Richard Repp told the council in the first round of testimony. “You are trying to jam through some perversion of Proposition 1. This isn’t what the people passed to protect the schools and the parks and the daycare centers.”

The vast majority of public speakers in the first round of testimony spoke out against the proposed ordinance Monday.

Downtown businessowners and residents had advocated for a carve out for the city core – maintaining Prop 1 there while allowing a seven-day warning for other parts of the city.

Downtown Spokane Partnership CEO Emilie Cameron said the city should maintain “existing sit and lie” ordinances in the downtown.

“I’m asking you to protect the heart of the city now, not after. Protect downtown,” she told the council.

Earlier Monday, Bingle said the ordinance was in no way a replacement for the 2023 referendum – dubbing Brown’s proposal “Prop none.”

Cathcart said the mayor’s proposal “completely eliminates the sit and lie protections” that existed under Prop 1.

“This is a permissive camping policy. My concern is that we’re obviously going to attract more behavior that we don’t necessarily want to see,” he said.

Councilman Paul Dillon said opposition to Brown’s proposal included “a lot of projection.”

“ We’re not really solving the problem. We’re moving people along. And I want us to think about that, because that’s really what prop one does. I understand 73% of people voted for it, and I understand the frustration,” he said.

While the state Supreme Court did not throw out the policy on the merits of the policy, they likely will soon, Dillon noted.

“I really do believe that we all want the same thing. We all want a safe and clean and vibrant city. We all believe in different ways to get there, but there’s no doubt that this council unanimously wants that goal,” Dillon said.

A few speakers were in favor of the reforms. CHAS’ Dr. Luis Manriquez said the proposal will “make a minor difference” better than what is currently in place.

“To some of our city council members and to some of the people in the audience who have waxed poetically about the fear and harm and danger they feel at the existence of people on the streets, I would remind them to pretend it’s a person since they seem incapable of acknowledging others,” said Manriquez, who treats Spokane homeless individuals as part of CHAS’ street medicine. Enforcement “does not end homelessness.”