Mayor Lisa Brown unveils replacement to anti-homeless camping law struck down by state Supreme Court

Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown on Thursday announced a plan to replace the city’s recently overturned anti-homeless camping law with one that would criminalize camping citywide, but with more emphasis on warnings and outreach and little on criminal enforcement.

Flanked by Councilmembers Paul Dillon and Zack Zappone and various city officials, Brown unveiled a proposal that, rather than just outlawing homeless camping within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and day cares, would overhaul relevant laws still on the books while also banning camping across Spokane.

She also revealed two more ordinances, one of which requires twice-a-year reports on progress. The other would expand when bad weather shelters open and require new city-funded shelters over a certain size to sign “good neighbor agreements.”

Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1 in 2023 by a roughly 50-point margin. On April 17, the state Supreme Court overturned the law, arguing that it exceeded the legal limits for local initiatives, but did not rule on the merits of the case.

Under Brown’s replacement plan, officers would give anyone illegally camping on public property seven days’ notice ahead of any enforcement action, Assistant Police Chief Steve Wohl said. During that time, the city’s homeless outreach team and other service providers would offer services to the camper , and would not write them a ticket if they accept the offer of help. The law also would not be enforceable if the person simply left the area and did not return until after the officer left.

In the limited cases where someone would not meet these or other exemptions, violations would be a misdemeanor referred to a therapeutic court.

The seven-day notice period would not be required if there is “significant risk” to public health, safety or public property.

The proposal would repeal the city’s existing pedestrian interference law and replace it with a similar “obstruction” law, which both bar sitting, laying down or arranging one’s belongings in a way that blocks the public’s access to public property, such as a sidewalk. Still, no ticket would be issued if the person accepts services or leaves when asked by an officer.

“We’re trying to thread that needle between being unnecessarily punitive with people who already are facing such massive obstacles,” said Alexander Scott, Spokane’s city administrator who helped draft the law.

If adopted, the proposed ordinance also would entirely repeal the city’s “sit and lie” laws, which criminalize anyone sitting or lying down on a downtown sidewalk between 6 a.m. and midnight, even if the path isn’t blocked.

Brown argued that law enforcement already had largely stopped issuing sit- lie citations, preferring to issue pedestrian interference citations.

Unlike pedestrian interference, sit- lie only applies to downtown and also requires officers to check if there is available shelter space before they are allowed under city code to issue a citation, extra requirements that officers and Police Chief Kevin Hall have blamed for bogging down enforcement.

Rather than relaxing those hurdles to issuing a sit- lie ticket, as Councilman Jonathan Bingle had proposed and the council majority opposed, Brown’s pitch eliminates the law altogether, focusing entirely on camping and obstruction of a sidewalk or roadway.

Several on the council criticized sit- lie on ethical grounds. Dillon has argued that the law essentially has been enforced on the basis of whether someone looked undesirable, rather than based on the severity of the conduct of sitting on the ground.

Supporters of Prop 1 remain skeptical.

In an interview, Councilman Michael Cathcart said he appreciates “what the mayor is attempting to do,” but doesn’t feel that the proposed changes were decided collaboratively. He accused the administration of not providing details in the ordinance on how staff would shut down encampments, including how they would store homeless people’s property, leaving the process to be determined by administrative practice rather than council-approved law.

He said the proposal lacked teeth if someone repeatedly returned to the same area after being asked to clear their camp.

“There has to be a point where if we’re referring you to a shelter, maybe you take the recommendation but don’t follow up on it and you’re there the next day, there has to be some point where we’re saying you’re refusing service, so there will now be some consequence,” Cathcart said.

Scott argued that the proposal is in alignment with the administration’s overall views on addressing homelessness, that connecting someone to homeless services was effective, and pushing them from one area of the city to another while giving them a ticket is ineffective.

“Just with police telling the person to move, they are going to come back, and even if they don’t come back to that spot, they’re going to go somewhere else, because we don’t have enough places for people to go, and that is the fundamental problem,” Scott said.

Cathcart, who has long called for “good neighbor agreements” for new shelters, was also skeptical of the rule proposed Thursday.

The agreement only would be required by shelters with more than 20 beds that receive at least $50,000 in city funds in a given year, and while it requires the creation of a team to respond to neighborhood concerns and some kind of resolution process to remedy violations of the agreement, it does not specify the terms of the agreement or remedies.

“I’m concerned that the good neighborhood agreement feels pro forma, with no prescription of what needs to be in there, and there’s no stick for what happens if you don’t have a good faith attempt to abide by it,” Cathcart argued.