Despite there being only two active bills related to homelessness this legislative session, the policy discussions were intense. One proposal that generated a lot of concern among city officials was HB 2489, which would have restricted city adoption or enforcement of ordinances related to camping or using public property unless shelter space was available. This reignited the fight over the response to the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson and Martin v. City of Boise cases. Perhaps more concerning, the standard for what constituted adequate shelter was incredibly difficult to meet in practice. Ultimately, this proposal did not advance.

The other major bill of the year, HB 2266, attempts to provide more certainty in the siting of shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing (STEP) projects. It does so by restricting conditions that cities can apply to these facilities through operating agreements, good neighbor agreements, funding commitments, and distance requirements. While many cities were not thrilled with this proposal, we were able to secure a variety of amendments to make it more implementable, and ultimately AWC was neutral on the proposal.

One observation we made to policymakers was that despite their laudable goals, both bills were the latest in a long line of proposals to dictate how cities address policies geared toward helping people experiencing homelessness rather than a means to actually fund and invest in more shelter and housing. It is far past time legislators balance policy-based approaches with new revenue tools and resources if we want to make progress.