Rantz: Washington Democrat pushes bill that makes being homeless a civil right

Washington Democrats are preparing a bill that would establish homelessness as a protected class, legalize homeless encampments and RVs statewide and strip cities of the authority to enforce restrictions on homelessness, including bans on encampments, according to a draft of the legislation obtained by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. If enacted, the bill would elevate being homeless to the status of a civil right in Washington.

The bill, drafted for State Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac), creates new categories of “constitutional and civil rights” for homeless people. It would allow the homeless in Washington state to live virtually wherever and however they please, barring cities and counties from meaningful enforcement.

Gregerson’s legislation is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v Johnson, which allowed municipalities to enforce encampment bans. But this bill doesn’t just reverse the Grants Pass ruling — it takes a step further, institutionalizing permissiveness toward homelessness that could fundamentally reshape Washington communities, eroding local control and expanding the presence of encampments statewide.

How does the Mia Gregerson legislation make being homeless a civil right?

Under the bill, homeless people are protected from “discrimination based on housing status.” This bars virtually any regulation against the homeless, even when there is shelter space available. And the motivation for the bill is clear.

“[M]any communities within Washington are enacting and enforcing laws that disproportionately impact homelessness or make living in public a crime,” the legislation claims. “These laws are potentially unconstitutional, make it harder for people to exit homelessness, do not solve the underlying problem of homelessness, and waste precious public funds.”

Grants Pass makes it clear that the laws being referenced are not unconstitutional. Still, Gregerson’s bill claims the laws restricting homelessness are “inhumane.”

As defined in the legislation, the homeless can not be subject to “any law, policy, or practice regulating public space that results in disparate treatment or has a disparate impact on people who are homeless.”

The bill grants the homeless “the right to survive in a nonobstructive manner” on public property when “that person has no reasonable alternative but to survive in public space and existing shelter facilities within the local government’s jurisdiction are inadequate in number or are functionally inaccessible.”

Where can the homeless legally live under this bill?

Under the proposed bill, public property where homeless individuals may establish encampments includes parks, plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks, public building interiors and even “natural and wildlife areas,” such as freeway shoulders and medians.

The legislation also introduces new civil rights for homeless individuals living in vehicles, granting them unprecedented freedom.

It gives homeless individuals living in cars or RVs — operable or not — free rein to remain as long as they are legally parked. Additionally, the bill would appear to override local zoning laws, allowing vehicle encampments on private property with the property owner’s permission, further diminishing local authority over land use.

The homeless civil rights bill would result in explosion of encampments statewide

The language of the bill provides two significant challenges.

First, it would render small and midsize cities powerless to remove encampments. Most smaller cities lack shelters and have no feasible means to establish them, leaving them perpetually unable to enforce encampment bans.

Second, the bill fails to clearly define what constitutes “functionally inaccessible” shelter facilities. While it provides examples — such as a transgender woman (biological male) being denied access to a women-only shelter — it leaves the door open for more subjective interpretations. Under the bill’s language, a shelter could be deemed inadequate if, for example, it prohibits a homeless addict from smoking fentanyl on-site. This reflects a glaring omission in addressing the realities of addiction as a leading driver of homelessness.

Adding to its shortcomings, the bill includes a section explaining the factors behind Washington’s surge in homelessness. Rep. Gregerson attributes the crisis to “economic hardship, a severe shortage of safe and affordable housing, discriminatory housing policies, the inability to secure gainful employment, and a diminished social safety net.”

Noticeably absent from her list is any acknowledgment of addiction or mental illness — two of the leading contributors to homelessness. This omission underscores the bill’s detachment from the root causes of the issue it purports to address.

Mia Gregerson didn’t talk to mayors in her district

Prior to drafting the legislation, State Rep. Mia Gregerson did not consult with any of the local mayors represented in her district, according to multiple sources. It doesn’t appear she’s spoken with any of them even as she shops the legislation around.

“I’m disappointed a member of the legislature that represents my community did not consult our city council and city before drafting this legislation,” Burien Mayor Kevin Schilling explained to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. “My hope is the legislature this year works to offer support to cities by expanding substance use disorder programs, emergency shelter capacity, and law enforcement assistance so that each element of this issue can be tackled accordingly.

In addition to Burien, the 33rd legislative district includes SeaTac, Normandy Park, Des Moines and Kent.

It’s unclear if Gregerson has any co-sponsors for the legislation. According to a source with direct knowledge, the state representative has been pushing it through her caucus and the 33rd Legislative Democrats group.

Gregerson declined a request for comment made through her office.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz