Congressional candidate and Camas City Councilor Leslie Lewallen addresses the issue of Washington’s growing homeless populations

Leslie Lewallen
Congressional candidate, 3rd Legislative District

Major cities across the country are being crushed by growing homeless populations. For cities in Washington, one of the nine states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the problem of homelessness has become a kitchen table issue thanks in large part to two rulings handed down by the Ninth Circuit: Martin v. City of Boise and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. Hardly a day goes by without a new headline covering another story of drug addiction among the homeless, the ever-growing numbers of unhoused people, rising crime or public health concerns stemming from homeless encampments. The status quo is untenable. For cities to meet their obligations to their citizens, the precedent set in Martin must be overturned or the Court must provide clarity on “the governing legal standard.” Additionally, there must be an honest conversation about how to effectively and compassionately address the multifaceted homelessness crisis.  

The seeds of Grants Pass v. Johnson were planted in the Ninth’s 2018 decision in Martin v. City of Boise in which the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment prevented cities from criminally prosecuting individuals for sleeping outside when shelter space was unavailable. However, the court also emphasized that it intended its holding to be narrow, writing that their ruling was not to suggest “that a jurisdiction with insufficient shelter can never criminalize the act of sleeping outside.” 

Following Martin, the City of Grants Pass attempted to rework their camping ordinances in a way that accommodated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling but still allowed them to address the growing homelessness in their area. In response, the Ninth Circuit struck down the new ordinance, and refused the city’s request for a rehearing before the entire Ninth Circuit bench. Grants Pass then appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States where certiorari was granted and oral arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday, April 22nd.

For states, cities and municipalities, much of the frustration surrounding these two cases stems from the lack of clarity provided by the Ninth Circuit as to how their rulings were to be applied. In the absence of clarity, lower district courts have stepped in to define the limits for them. Unfortunately, as Grants Pass discovered, district court rulings have broadened what was originally intended to be a narrow decision, leaving cities unsure what actions they can take without risking litigation. 

For the sake of the cities being overwhelmed by homeless populations, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to determine if every attempt to manage and regulate vagrancy constitutes cruelty under the Eighth Amendment. If so, then it is time for the High Court to give clarity where thus far confusion has reigned by detailing what recourse is left to states who seek to manage the crime, drugs and public health concerns that arise from these populations.

Implicit within the rulings of Martin and Grants Pass is the tacit promotion by these liberal justices of the failed “Housing First” agenda so popular among progressive bureaucrats. What these judges and officials fail to acknowledge, however, is that housing alone is not enough to fix the homelessness crisis. Far too often, “Housing First” becomes “Housing Only” and the root issues that led to a person becoming homeless are left undiagnosed and untreated. Before spending more money or building more shelters, elected officials must define the metrics of success for any policies they wish to implement. The universal goal of any homeless policy should be to exit people from the state of homelessness – not build a homeless industrial complex!

Connecting people with the services they need – whether they want those services or not – must be the metric we use to gauge the success of any new homeless policy. While addressing immediate needs – shelter, food, clothing – is important, the approach taken so far clearly has not worked. It’s time to consider tying access to those immediate needs to the acceptance of treatment for the underlying causes that led the person to the streets. Recovery necessitates providing those in crisis with programs to treat drug addiction, provide medical help, education and job training. Shelters are often the first stop for someone leaving the streets and are therefore the ideal place to connect those in need with the resources that can lead to recovery. State and local governments must coordinate and utilize available federal resources to expand the spectrum of services available through shelters and outreach programs; and rethink their methods for encouraging those in need to accept treatment for their underlying root causes. 

Finally, family reunification has to be a priority in any attempt to break the cycle of vagrancy. Family is traditionally a great source of stability, providing the love and support necessary to build a new foundation for someone experiencing homelessness. In fact, HOPE Atlanta, the only nonprofit organization in that city providing reunification services, reports that 84% of those they assist remain housed 30 days after reunification, and less than 3% become homeless again after being reunited with family. Reuniting a person in crisis with loved ones ultimately gives that person a better chance for recovery and long-term stability.

Today’s housing crisis did not happen in a vacuum. Clarity from courts combined with a holistic approach to helping people leave the streets are two necessary steps to turning this crisis around. Housing alone is not enough, because there is NOTHING compassionate about providing shelter while still allowing someone to suffer.

---

Also read:

• 
  Letter: ‘President Trump has stopped the flooding’
  Camas resident Anna Miller argues that the immigration system’s due process framework has failed under volume and backlog, and credits President Donald Trump with prioritizing enforcement to stop illegal border crossings.
• 
  Letter: ‘If we want workable immigration reform, we must first restore basic human dignity to the debate’
  Vancouver resident John Ford argues that restoring human dignity to public discourse is essential before meaningful immigration reform can occur.
• 
  Opinion: Is the cheap fast-food burger a thing of the past?
  Mark Harmsworth argues that rising minimum wages and B&O tax increases are driving higher food prices and squeezing low-income consumers and small businesses across Washington state.
• 
  Opinion: Blood on the highways fails to move Ferguson and Kotek
  Lars Larson criticizes Washington and Oregon governors over licensing policies he says are linked to deadly truck crashes and ongoing highway safety risks.
• 
  Letter: ‘When we curtail one group’s rights we leave open the door to losing our rights too’
  Camas resident Anthony Teso argues that constitutional protections apply to immigrants and warns that limiting one group’s rights risks undermining everyone’s civil liberties.