Law enforcement pledges to continue to offer resources to individuals in need, and the goal is not to punish but simply to end the illegal activity

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

Members of the Camas City Council on Monday voted to ban camping in public areas and public sidewalks, a move that became an option in 2024 after a Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision that said that ordinances against camping criminalized homelessness. For years, a city could not ask the homeless to move on or stop camping in public spaces unless the city had a place for them to live — a shelter, for example.

In 2024, in Grants Pass vs. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that camping bans on public property regulated conduct, not the status of the individual who was camping. That has opened the door for cities across the country to enact bans or strengthen law already on the books. By some accounts, more than 200 cities have done just that.

Including Camas.

Ordinance No. 25-015 amends the city’s municipal code relating to unlawful camping and storage of personal property on public property.

The ordinance notes that public property “is intended to be used by the public for public purposes,” including recreational use, pedestrian, bicycle, and other public uses. Camping without adequate sanitation services presents a public health and safety concern.

Enacting this ordinance would allow the city greater ability to address unauthorized encampments or obstructions on city streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public property.

After some discussion at Monday night’s City Council meeting, the councilors voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.

Camas Chief of Police Tina Jones said her officers will still work with the homeless in offering available resources. Police officers would have discretion on how long it should take for a camper to gather belongings and move along from the site.

In fact, that is specifically noted in the ordinance language: A law enforcement officer … shall provide notice to the individual engaged in a violation and allow a reasonable opportunity to cease the illegal activity.

What is reasonable? That depends on the officer’s discretion, Jones said. 

The goal is not to punish. The goal is to end the illegal activity.

“Is everybody going to comply? Probably not,” Jones told the council. “Sometimes we are encountering people with mental illness. We are trying to get them connected to resources.”

Jones said she will want her officers to lean on their supervisors to get advice “in those situations that are in the gray. It’s not always black and white.”

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling on Grants Pass vs. Johnson, cities were required to offer alternative living accommodations before moving a camper. 

Even with the new ordinance, Jones said her department will still work with an individual.

“We have resource guides, and we still try to connect people with resources,” Jones said. “It’s still a practice that we encourage our team to help people to understand where the regional resources are.”

The new ordinance does have penalties, as well. But, again, the goal is to end the illegal activity first. So the first option is for a law enforcement officer to explain the new law and allow a “reasonable” opportunity for the illegal activity to cease.

If that reasonable time elapses, a first citation can be issued. A second citation would carry a larger fine as well as a 30-day exclusion order from the particular public property. A third offense could lead to a criminal trespass charge.