We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By accessing or using this Website, you accept and agree to be bound by our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.
If you do not agree with our policies, do not access or use our website. Our Privacy Policy explains the types of information we may collect from you or that you may provide,
as well as our practices for collecting, using, maintaining, protecting, and disclosing that information.
Accept

Advocacy


Published on Feb 11, 2019

Bill to regulate religious homeless encampments returns

Contact: Carl Schroeder, Shannon McClelland

HB 1754, and its companion SB 5644, brings back a proposal that we saw in 2015. As we did then, we have concerns that this proposal would undermine locally negotiated agreements between cities and their faith communities. We are working with the sponsor to understand what problem it is that this bill would address. We are looking for ways to ensure the ability for cities to regulate the location, frequency, and cumulative community impact of these hostings and are concerned about the language that prescriptively limits that.

Some specific concerns we have with current proposals are:

  • This year’s version waters down intent language in Section 1. Instead of local governments having the authority and discretion to protect the health and safety, cities would “have the discretion to bring guidance for the health and safety…” The former is much better because it’s accurate regarding our police powers.
  • Sex offender checks – Under this language a host “must ensure” that the checks are completed by city or local law enforcement. That’s unchanged from the last version, except now this is only required if the hosting is publicly funded or is required in an MOU. And this section is unclear as to what happens if a guest is a sex offender. It appears the host gets to make that determination. One city raised concerns that this language would undermine their ordinance which precludes registered sex offenders or those with active warrants from staying at these encampments.
  • The language on safety for indoor shelter is new and concerning. Fire safety requirements are too minimal.
  • The language on small houses needs work and will likely be opposed by some cities as a loss of local control over when and where small home villages are appropriate. Fire safety requirements are concerning. Also, this proposal requires that houses should be allowed for at least one year. The language also seems to automatically allow a renewable by MOU.

AWC was engaged with the proponents on this proposal during the interim. We will continue to work with the sponsors on the necessity of this policy.

HB 1754 is scheduled for a committee vote this week.

  • Homelessness
  • Advocacy

 

Recent articles


Related content

bill-iconAWC's bill tracker

Visit AWC’s bill tracker to learn about legislation with city impacts this year.

Copyright © 2018-2025 Association of Washington Cities