SEATTLE — California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statewide executive order to remove homeless encampments prompts a natural question of whether Washington is far behind, given the recent Supreme Court decision and the state’s continued challenges in the crisis.
It is also now likely to be part of a political debate as voters decide about who should be the next governor.
In a lengthy statement to KOMO News, Gov. Jay Inslee suggested he will not follow Newsom’s order with anything similar.
RELATED: Newsom issues executive order for removal of homeless encampments in California
“(His) directive to resolve encampments is already in action. Further executive action does not appear necessary because the governor has already directed state agencies to resolve encampments,” wrote spokesperson Jaime Smith. “Agencies are partnering with local governments and nonprofits to provide services and connect people to housing, or to immediately close an encampment in instances of an imminent health or safety threat.”
She also wrote, “Although the governor does not have authority to order cities to take specific actions on encampments, he has used his bully pulpit. There may be some further measures required, such as comprehensive plan requirements or planning statutes next session.”
Yet, candidates to replace him weighed in with a difference in opinion.
“It’s a good idea. It’s way overdue,” said Republican Dave Reichert about Newsom’s order. “What we know is people are not safe in those encampments. Human trafficking is happening. Some of these encampments are controlled by cartels. There is drug dealing happening, and this is where some of our fentanyl is coming from. It’s a dangerous place for people to live.”
Democrat Mark Mullet agreed. “This is a sign that the tides are shifting, and it’s very clear. We need to provide space, but at the same time the encampments aren’t safe for anybody, and they can’t be allowed to continue,” he said. “It’s time for us to start to get creative. Letting the encampments continue is not being creative. I think that’s being lazy.”
RELATED: Encampment on sidewalk between South Lake Union and Seattle Center continues to grow
In a statement to KOMO News, Republican Semi Bird criticized Newsom’s move and wouldn’t take a similar step.
“(It) lacks insight and the proper strategy to be effective,” he wrote. “I will activate the National Guard to build the infrastructure needed for an inpatient care initiative that will be focused on bringing mental health and addiction treatment resources to those who have been suffering and dying on the streets for far too long.”
Democrat Bob Ferguson didn’t give an indication one way or the other about Newsom’s order. He provided a statement to KOMO News that read “As governor, I will support state and local governments moving urgently to address dangerous encampments while supporting and assisting the individuals living in them. We can clear dangerous encampments and keep our public spaces available for the public while treating every Washingtonian with dignity. I will ensure that we build new permanent and transitional housing that is affordable for all members of our community to find a safe place to live. But that’s not enough – we need to ensure that Washingtonians who need mental health and/or substance use services can get those services, which will be the key to helping them stay housed.”
The King County Regional Homelessness Authority issued a statement arguing, “Housing solves homelessness, and KCRHA will continue to advocate for proven strategies to address the crisis. Utilizing outreach, connecting people to services, and matching people with housing best suited to their needs is part of creating a successful path to addressing unsheltered homelessness.”
RELATED: City plans to clear encampment between South Lake Union and Seattle Center
Seattle University Professor Sara Rankin, who is the co-chair of the Third Door Coalition and Director of the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, criticized Newsom and said it is not the right approach to tackling Washington’s issues.
“Even before it was reversed, Johnson never stopped cities from sweeping encampments. It didn’t require cities to allow homelessness in every place and at every time: instead, it contemplated that cities could constitutionally impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Critically, it never protected anyone who declined an offer of shelter because that person would be considered voluntarily homeless; instead, 8th Amendment protections applied only to people considered involuntarily so. Instead, Johnson stood for the rather morally obvious proposition that—if a city lacks shelter—it cannot also jail or fine a homeless person for not having shelter. So, the only thing that changed after the Supreme Court’s reversal of Johnson is that cities can now jail or fine someone who is involuntarily homeless,” she wrote, “Newsom could have issued this same executive order ages ago. That he chose to wait until after the Johnson case was decided makes no sense and strikes me as political posturing.”
