Like many local governments, the City of Lakewood struggles to connect unhoused individuals with shelter and available services. This connection is sometimes as simple as outreach and education. At other times, the solution is much more complicated.
The Lakewood City Council adopted an ordinance in 2024 based directly off an ordinance out of Grants, Pass Oregon that withstood a challenge at the Supreme Court level.
The city’s ordinance (Ordinance 808) prohibits sleeping on city sidewalks and in other public spaces. In passing this and other ordinances addressing homelessness, the city harmonized its approach to enforcement with recent court decisions and other efforts to help the unhoused population.
City leaders recognize that enforcement actions do little to help the unhoused unless there is also investment in outreach, education and supportive services. Fortunately, the city has been building these resources over the years, with one example being its Behavioral Health Contact Team.
To date, there have been no arrests due to noncompliance with the new regulations and some success stories of people who are now housed because of the work of our Behavioral Health Contact Team and our police officers.
A bill currently before the Washington legislature would negatively impact cities like Lakewood, which is trying to strike a balance between helping people in need and keeping public spaces safe and accessible for everyone.
As proposed, House Bill 1380 would require that any municipal or county laws regulating “the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping, or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public” do so in a way that is “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner.”
While the intent of the bill is to provide rights and protections for vulnerable people within our region, there are unintended consequences that could be costly to taxpayers.
If the city were to request a person to leave a public space where they have created a shelter or encampment, they could take legal action against the city and claim the city is trying to enforce its laws in a way that is not “objectively reasonable.”
Without clear definition of what is “reasonable” according to law, cities are left to decide whether to enforce a law and risk the possibility of costly legal challenge or allow people to continue to live outside in public spaces with negative impacts on the environment and overall community wellbeing.
I personally have voiced this to my representatives but they have turned a deaf hear to me as to how this impact other towns and our parks
I wish more would reach out to oppose this
It does seem vague. However, even though Lakewood admirably has reach out teams and has some emergency funds to help housed people address emergencies, and supports LASA, to my knowledge there is no emergency shelter in Lakewood. Wouldn’t an emergency shelter help the situation?
I strongly support the Grands Pass ordinance and feel that Steilacoom should do likewise.
Put the care of the taxpaying citizens of Steilacoom first.
The rule the State is proposing is much too vague so they will probably pass it to make them feel good about doing something thus creating legal situations for small cities.
Don’t allow our public areas to be camp sites and public nuisances.