SEATTLE — Amid a rising tide of camping restrictions, one lawmaker thinks a new state standard could help protect both homeless people and cities.

After last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision knocking down a rule that reined in how much a city or county could prohibit people from living in parks and on sidewalks, Washington cities have quickly expanded how much land is unavailable for camping, restricted the hours in which someone can pitch a tent and upped the penalty for breaking those rules.

Most recently, King County suburb Burien outright banned anyone from sleeping outside, making being homeless essentially illegal in the city.

Rep. Mia Gregerson, D-SeaTac, doesn't see officials offering services or ways for people to move indoors with as much urgency. Her bill would continue to leave cities to develop their own policies regulating sleeping or camping as long as they meet a statewide standard. But the bill has drawn criticism from city officials who say it is too vague.

House Bill 1380 says any laws regulating the use of public space must be "objectively reasonable" as to the time, place and manner. It also protects cities from paying for damages to people who say they have been hurt by unreasonable policies, though the city might have to pay attorneys fees.

"This bill speaks to the cost to us — to society and to local governments both — in resources, but also in people suffering from having to survive outside," Gregerson said.

For about five years, two federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings established that cities on the West Coast could not arrest people for living outside if there were not reasonable alternatives — an adequate number of shelter beds or affordable housing, for instance.

In June, one of those rulings, Johnson v. Grants Pass, was overturned by the Supreme Court, and many city officials no longer felt obliged to offer shelter before clearing someone from an encampment or using threat of arrest to enforce camping bans.

In Washington, cities including Auburn, Bremerton, Chelan County, Lakewood, Washougal, Wenatchee and Spokane Valley took quick action to create or expand camping bans.

Many of those officials are now objecting to the bill, saying the wording is too vague, which will lead to lawsuits over whether individual bans are "objectively reasonable."

Melissa Chin, assistant city attorney for the city of Bellevue, said the vagueness of "objectively reasonable" may lead to inconsistent application.

"While the intent of this bill may be laudable, as written, the city cannot support this legislation," Chin said.

Chin warned financial resources might be spent defending against lawsuits rather than funding community services. That same concern was echoed by a deputy city attorney from Kent and a representative from the Washington State Association of Counties.

Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus was among a dozen mayors who sent a letter to Gregerson voicing concerns about the legislation. She thinks the city has been successful in developing programs that support people and hold the government and homeless people accountable.

"We would rather spend that money helping individuals than having to fight lawsuits," said Backus, who sits on the King County Regional Homelessness Authority's board.

The bill does not give examples or define what objectively reasonable means, leaving judges to determine that in court as legal challenges arise, according to a state staff person at the House Committee on Appropriations hearing Feb. 12. The bill directs judges to give special consideration to the effect of the law on homeless people.

Gregerson said at the hearing that "objectively reasonable "is a well-established standard" used in other legal areas, and her choice to use it was informed by experts.

The standard of "objectively reasonable" was first created to evaluate whether a police officer's use of force was appropriate. It has been applied to other circumstances to judge whether an action was justified on a case-by-case basis.

Fadi Assaf, an attorney with the Northwest Justice Project in King County, pushed back against the claim that there would be an increase in cases under the bill. He reemphasized that monetary damages cannot be awarded.

According to Assaf, advocates are already filing lawsuits. Burien's, for example, is already being challenged.

"If anything, objectively reasonable regulations will lead to fewer lawsuits for damages when cities sweep encampments, because the rules will be clear as objective and reasonable restrictions and guidance is developed," he said.

Gregerson's bill is modeled on Oregon's House Bill 3115, which passed during the 2021 legislative session. The law has been used to successfully challenge local camping ordinances, including a case where the Portland City Council opted to pay $175,000 in attorney fees to the Oregon Law Center to resolve a lawsuit.

A recent complaint filed against the city of Grants Pass in Oregon claims the city's law restricting sleeping or storing personal belongings is objectively unreasonable. The claim says an approved area to spend the night is too small and does not provide a reasonable place to sleep or keep dry.

People who testified in favor of the bill said it allows local governments to regulate public spaces while providing protections for people experiencing homelessness. Sharyl Brown from Jewels Helping Hands, an outreach program in Spokane, said she experienced a cycle of addiction, homelessness and incarceration for a decade.

"For many unhoused individuals, safety depends on being in public spaces, yet they are constantly penalized for simply existing where they have nowhere else to go," she said.

Brown also made a call for greater investment in support and services.

Some homeless advocates also take issue with the bill, including Eric Tars, a senior policy director at the National Homeless Law Center.

"As helpful as it appears to want to be toward people experiencing homelessness, it's basically a bill about protecting municipalities from liability," Tars said.

The bill includes an emergency declaration, meaning if passed the law will take effect immediately.

©2025 The Seattle Times. Visit seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.