Municipal Regulation of Homeless Michael Scruggs & Darby DuComb, Schlemlein Goetz Fick & Scruggs, PLLC

Municipal Regulation of Homeless

• Conflicts with Land Use, Housing Standards, and the Constitution

• Regulatory Relief for Encampments

• Enforcement of Civility Laws

Conflicts with Land Use, Housing Standards, and the Constitution

• Tent City 3 – Seattle v. El Centro De La Raza (2002)

• Parties enter into 10 year settlement agreement over land use code violations.

• Jones v. Los Angeles (2006), vacated.

• Unlawful to criminalize homelessness at all times in all public places.

• Tent City 4 – Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ (2009)

• City’s moratorium placed undo burden on church which was excused from permit process due to City’s refusal to process the permit.

• Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (2012)

• Unlawful to summarily seize and destroy personal property belonging to homeless persons.

• Bell v. City of Boise (2014)

• Unlawful to criminalize homelessness at all times in all public places

• Hooper v. Seattle (2017)

• Plaintiff’s request for Temporary Restraining Order against Seattle and WSDOT denied.

Municipal Clean-Ups of Homeless Encampments

City of Seattle Multi-Departmental Administrative Rules No. MDAR 08-01

• Process varies from department to department

• Parks and SDOT have greater authority to immediately remove persons and property

• Each department staffs process with City employees

• Trained, provided proper equipment, participate in process improvement

• Usually requires

• Three Day Notice to Camper before enforcement action

• Social service outreach to campers

• Sorting of trash from personal belongings, safe storage of personal materials seized

City of Seattle Multi-Departmental Administrative Rules No. MDAR 17-01

Regulatory Relief for Encampments

• RCW 35.21.915 Temporary encampments for the homeless-Hosting by religious organizations authorized-Prohibitions on local actions

• RCW 35A.21.360 Temporary encampments for the homeless-Hosting by religious organizations authorized-Prohibitions on local actions

• RCW 36.01.290 Temporary encampments for the homeless-Hosting by religious organizations authorized-Prohibitions on local actions

• SMC 23.42.054 Transitional encampments accessory to religious facilities or to other principal uses located on property owned or controlled by a religious institution

• SMC 23.42.054 Transitional encampment as an interim use

• SMC 23.76.004 Table A – Temporary encampment as an interim use is a Type 1 decision

Seattle’s Regulation of Church Temporary Encampments

SMC 23.42.054

• Allow no more than 100 persons to occupy the encampment site as residents of the encampment.

• Comply with fire safety and health standards:

• Fire extinguishers, 100-person first aid kit, access aisles, power protection, no litter or garbage accumulation, designated smoking areas, information sharing, no open flames

• Provide toilets, running water, and garbage collection

• Chemical toilets, running water, and regular garbage service

• Cooking facilities, if they are provided, may be located in either an indoor location or outdoors

• Sink with running water, nonabsorbent preparation counter, refrigerate perishables, cleaning products for all cooking facilities

• Government access and inspections

• No minors without a parent or guardian

Seattle’s Regulation of Secular Temporary Encampments

SMC 23.42.056

• Community Outreach Requirements

• Allowed in most zones other than Residential

• Property must be 25-feet from residentially-zoned lot

• Exception provided if use is set back from residential use and adequately screened

• Property is within ½ mile of transit stop

• Property is 1 mile from other encampments, property is 5,000 square feet or larger and provides 100 square feet per camper

• Property does not contain an environmentally critical area or wetland, and does not create parking or setback violations for existing permitted use

• Property is not an unopened right-of-way, park, playground, or public trail

• Encampment Operations Plan

• Indemnity from Operator to City for all encampments on City property

Enforcement of Civility Laws

Washington’s War on the Visibly Poor:

A Survey of Criminalizing Ordinances & Their Enforcement

By Justin Olson & Scott MacDonald

Seattle University School of Law May 2105

Legal Paper Series #15-19

Published by the SU Homeless Rights Advocacy Project

Washington’s War on the Visibly Poor

Washington’s War on the Visibly Poor Ordinances Per City Reviewed

5 5

6

5

2

4

0

1

5

7 7

8 8

12

Seattle Vancouver Auburn Burien Bellingham Pasco Spokane

Civil Criminal

Washington’s War on the Visibly Poor Conclusions

This report shows:

(1) Washington cities are increasingly criminalizing homelessness;

(2) these laws frequently target necessary life-sustaining activities, even though people without shelter have no reasonable alternative but to conduct these activities in public;

(3) the enforcement of these laws raises legal and policy concerns, such as inconsistent or selective citation and sentencing practices;

(4) the enactment of overlapping and compound ordinances raises constitutional equal protection and due process concerns;

(5) the link between income disparity and enforcement of these ordinances should prompt lawmakers to re-consider the societal impact of homeless criminalization; and

(6) the limited and inconsistent access to data impedes researchers from demonstrating the full extent of homeless criminalization.

Malicious Harassment of Homeless Persons

12A.06.115 - Malicious harassment. A. A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one (1) of the following acts

because of his or her perception of another person's homelessness, marital status, political ideology, age, or parental status: 1. Causes physical injury to another person; or

2. By threat places another person in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or property or harm to the person or property of a

third person; provided however, that it shall not constitute malicious harassment for a person to speak or act in a critical, insulting,

or deprecatory way so long as his or her words or conduct do not constitute a threat of harm to the person or property of another

person; or

3. Causes physical damage to or the destruction of the property of another person.

B. "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent to: 1. Cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to another; or

2. Cause damage immediately or in the future to the property of another; or

3. Subject another person to physical confinement or restraint.

C. For purposes of this section: "Homelessness" means the status or condition of being without a home, including, but not

limited to, the state of living in the streets.

D. Every person who, in the commission of malicious harassment, shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefor as

well as for the malicious harassment, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately.

Seattle Firefighter, acquitted in attack on homeless in park, fails to win his job back – Seattle Times, September 10, 2015

Follow the Money

Anatomy of a Swindle:

How a rogue Non-profit Captured the Emerald City

The Blog Quixotic – Keeping government clean

September 13, 2016 by David Preston

Everyone is accountable everywhere all the time.

Who?

• Non-profit housing and homeless shelter providers

• Employees, agents, accountants, and board of directors

• Media personalities, donors

• State and Local elected officials, auditors, attorneys

• City departments, funders

What?

• Skimming, Fraud, Embezzlement, Tax Evasion, Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice

Resources

Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC)

http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Specific-Planning-Subjects,-Plan-

Elements/Homeless-Housing.aspx

Michael Scruggs - Darby DuComb mps@soslaw.com – dnd@soslaw.com

(206)448-8100