Spokane City Council to vote on homelessness overhaul amid downtown opposition

(The Center Square) – After months of buildup, the Spokane City Council is scheduled to vote on an overhaul of its response to homelessness on Monday night. The new approach would require a week’s notice before police could break up encampments, raising concerns among businesses.

Mayor Lisa Brown proposed the overhaul in May after the council spent the last year divided on the issue. Councilmembers Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart proposed means to bolster enforcement last summer, but the majority delayed action, citing a need for community input.

Stakeholders engaged in a months-long series of community roundtables leading up to January, during which many supported the conservative minority’s proposals. Brown’s approach attempts to strike a balance between support and enforcement, but some say it flies in the face of voters.

“The H.O.M.E. ordinances fail to address the breadth of issues that require swift action to clear public rights-of-ways,” according to a letter signed by 275 residents. “The proposed 7-day waiting period for enforcement in the H.O.M.E. proposal also ignores the urgency required to remove encampments that pose significant threats to life and safety in an urban area.”

The Washington Supreme Court struck down Spokane’s camping ban within 1,000-feet of a school, park or daycare in April. Nearly 75% of voters approved the law in 2023, but the court says it fell outside the scope of the initiative process, so Bingle and Cathcart tried to restore it.

While the council majority decided to hold off ahead of the overhaul, one of the policies up for a vote on Monday “would reinstate the provision of Proposition 1.” However, there’s no mention of banning camping within 1,000-feet of a school, park or daycare, according to Monday’s agenda.

Instead, the ordinance prohibits camping on or obstructing public property unless authorized by a state or local emergency declaration. Brown declared an emergency due to the opioid crisis last year, and the proposal also includes several exemptions that would prevent enforcement.

According to the proposal, someone is not camping or “knowingly obstructing access” if they’re exercising constitutional rights; requesting aid; obstructing access due to a disability; waiting in line to enter a business or nonprofit; attending events on public property; “resting while waiting for transportation” or resting on a chair, bench, sidewalk or others supplied by a public agency.

“The term ‘obstruction’ is ambiguous and does not clearly explain that enforcement is applicable across the entirety of public sidewalks and underpasses,” according to the letter. “Repealing the existing sit and lie and pedestrian interference ordinances with this vague new description makes it unclear how wider sidewalks and public plazas of downtown will remain clear.”

If an officer does find someone who fits the description of camping or obstructing access, they can issue a misdemeanor citation unless the individual accepts treatment, housing or leaves.

The ordinance regulates encampments differently than one-off cases, requiring officers to post a notice up to seven days before citing anyone unless there’s a reasonable threat to public safety. Another proposal satisfies some of Cathcart and Bingle’s demands but to a limited extent.

That ordinance would require good neighbor agreements between the city, the provider and the surrounding residents before opening shelters to prevent impacts on the neighborhood. Still, it doesn’t require the council’s approval to open the emergency shelter or transitional housing.

“If we lose downtown as a place where people work, want to go for entertainment and recreation or live,” residents wrote in the letter, “we risk losing the momentum we’ve worked so hard to gain over the last 25 years, including the taxable sales, property taxes, and economic impact that have become critical to maintaining our city’s budget and services in every neighborhood.”