Lisa Olsen, Pacific County commisssioner

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments on public property provides local authorities with new power. The decision got a mixed response and is seen as unlikely to make a difference in Pacific County, which has experienced a variety of housing problems in recent years.

Homelessness is a nationwide crisis, with an estimated 653,000 individuals experiencing homelessness and approximately 28,000 of those living in Washington state. It is estimated that 36 out of every 10,000 residents in the state are homeless — the sixth-highest homeless rate per capita in the U.S.

Pull Quote

‘The homeless problem is not going away until state government steps up, and that won’t happen unless voters apply pressure and are willing to pay the taxes needed to build/fund the hospitals needed.’

Flint Wright, Long Beach Police chief

Although many individuals are involuntarily homeless, the overall impact of homelessness has been deemed a severe nationwide public health crisis. It has been shown to exacerbate mental illness and increase crime, including drug use, as well as create sanitation issues and more severely impact minority groups.

The reason has been overwhelmingly shown to be a lack of availability of resources and housing to help people get back on their feet, including assistance to kick drug use. The outlook for reversing the course is widely concerning, and the recent ruling has led to concerns that the issue will continue to worsen.

New case law

The case was filed in 2018 as Johnson v. Grants Pass, in response to the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, ticketing homeless individuals living on public property. The lawsuit argued that it was cruel and unusual punishment that caused undue harm to those living outside who had no other living arrangement options.

Johnson v. Grants built off a 2018 ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Martin v. Boise, originally filed as a lawsuit in 2009. That court ruled that enforcement actions against homeless individuals constituted cruel and unusual punishment when the number of homeless individuals outnumbers shelter availability — resulting in them being “involuntarily homeless.”

In both cases, the arguments came down to two things: the definition of “involuntary homeless” and, secondly, whether or not enforcement actions constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution meant to keep people free of “cruel and unusual punishment.”

“As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter,” the Ninth Circuit ruled.

The ruling in Martin v. Boise eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to review the case. As a result, the case was upheld and remained in effect through June 28 prior to the overturning of Johnson v. Grants Pass.

According to the lengthy opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Grants Pass, the previous rulings by the lower courts were unfounded. The critical point of contention came down to it being implied anyone homeless is “involuntarily homeless.”

“The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause focuses on the question of what ‘method or kind of punishment’ a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense,” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch states in his opinion for the majority.

“None of the city’s sanctions qualifies as cruel because none is designed to [induce] terror, pain, or disgrace … Nor are the city’s sanctions unusual because similar punishments have been and remain among ‘the usual mode[s]’ for punishing offenses throughout the country,” Gorsuch later adds.

Concerned voices

Although the ruling garnered a 6-3 majority, the opposing justices argued that all this decision would do is further worsen an ongoing crisis. The ruling has received a mixed response nationally, with those disagreeing with the court’s decision arguing that no matter how it looks, acting against those deemed vulnerable is against humanity’s best interests.

“I remain hopeful that our society will come together ‘to address the complexities of the homelessness challenge facing the most vulnerable among us.’ That responsibility is shared by those vulnerable populations, the State and cities in which they reside, and each and every one of us,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor states in her dissenting opinion.

“This Court, too, has a role to play in faithfully enforcing the Constitution to prohibit punishing the very existence of those without shelter. I remain hopeful that someday in the near future, this Court will play its role in safeguarding constitutional liberties for the most vulnerable among us. Because the Court today abdicates that role, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor later added.

The American Civil Liberties Union has objected to the Supreme Court’s ruling and filed a friend-of-the-court brief. The ACLU argued that the ruling turns a homeless person into a “criminalized person” strictly based on their vulnerability and unfortunate situation.

“Everyone deserves a safe space to sleep, but for too long, we have been overly reliant on police as a solution,” Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington Michele Storms stated. “We cannot punish our way out of homelessness and poverty.”

“Systemic issues require systemic evidence-based solutions and investments in our communities. The ACLU of Washington will continue to challenge efforts and policies across the State that seek to criminalize people experiencing homelessness,” Storm added.

The ACLU of Washington filed a lawsuit in Spokane County Superior Court on Aug. 1 challenging the City of Spokane’s ordinance making camping, sitting or lying on public property a misdemeanor offense — which carries a fine of up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail.

It will be the first case in Washington state to test the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court.

Local reaction

Pacific County has been stuck in an ongoing housing crisis that has not abated. The number of people needing housing significantly outnumbers the availability of housing. The county also does not have a homeless shelter on either end of the county.

“We have local homeless that stay in our area wherever they can find a place,” Long Beach Police Chief Flint Wright said. “We know them, and they know us, and we seem to have a good relationship with them overall. We also have homeless that come from out of the area, see there is nothing for them here, and then leave.”

Due to the previous ruling in Martin v. Boise, authorities’ options were limited. As a result, when officers contacted homeless individuals, all they could do was ask them to move along — which many complied with.

But a few have steadily tested how far authorities are willing to go.

A man in Raymond has been an issue for the community for several years, and authorities have had their hands tied. The individual has landed himself in jail several times, including with a subsequent felony conviction.

Jail space

This alone adds to another issue: the lack of space available in the Pacific County Jail. The jail is regularly at capacity due to several factors meant to keep inmates safe. The jail has been heard over the radio regularly rejecting suspects, including those with multiple felony warrants.

Regarding encampments in the county, one of the bigger issues has been an encampment at Tamarack and Whipple near Tokeland and North Cove. The Pacific County Commissioners have been bombarded with complaints from residents in the area irritated at the issue — which reached its boiling point last month.

The Pacific County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched at 12:39 p.m. on Aug. 28 to the report of a weapons offense at a county-owned property in the area. A 911 caller reported that they walked through the property, and “a guy pulled a gun” on them.

According to radio traffic, nothing came of the incident.

The sheriff’s office’s weekly media report released on Aug. 26 showed that the agency responded to three vagrancy calls and the weapons offense. The Long Beach Police Department responded to one vagrancy call. Information for the other three law enforcement agencies was not readily available.

“I would not say that the homeless situation is worsening but [it] is not improving either,” Wright said. “It seems to stay consistent with our local homeless population, and then the visiting homeless come and go at about the same levels. At times, it picks up but then seems to go back to our normal levels.”

How many?

It is estimated that about 108 individuals are homeless in Pacific County. However, it is nearly impossible to account for everyone. The statistic only accounts for those who have been contacted and noted as being homeless — and more and more are passing through.

Pacific County has one “homeless person bed” in south county operated by Peninsula Poverty Response and a couple of short-term housing options. There are zero full-time multi-bed facilities in the county, and the $258,000 worth of grant funds the county was awarded is barely putting a dent into the crisis.

“The homeless problem is not going away until state government steps up, and that won’t happen unless voters apply pressure and are willing to pay the taxes needed to build [and] fund the hospitals needed,” Wright said.

Wright also offered insight into what he has seen drive homelessness, which includes a combination of mental illness and drug addiction, a person who just wants to live on the street, or an individual’s ability to afford housing.

Commissioner thoughts

It’s unclear what actions the county will take moving forward. The commissioners have been working with Pacific County Prosecutor Michael Rothman to interpret the law. The two sides have explicitly looked at what options can be taken for the Tamarack/Whipple encampment.

“We are hopeful that the Grants Pass Supreme Court decision will give us an opportunity to more effectively address the occupation of public rights-of-way in our county,” Commissioner Lisa Olsen, a Republican, said. “Lack of affordable housing opportunities is a statewide problem that suffers from multiple symptoms. Washington state, like the other two states along the Pacific coast, is one of the highest taxed and regulated in the western United States.”

The overall response to homelessness will likely have to come from the state legislature to adequately fund additional housing projects, outreach services, and rehabilitation services capable of meeting demands.

“One would think that that level of ‘contribution’ of our personal funds would create avenues to solve the housing problems, but it has not,” Olsen said. “Even before the excessive inflation we are experiencing, the bulk of our population was finding it difficult to manage the high cost of rent/mortgage, utilities and necessities — food, gas, services.”

“This is not a problem that can be solved by one-time ‘rebates’ or awards of cash, which are all sourced by the money we have already given up in various taxes, so we are paying for someone to take our money, repackage it and distribute it back to us in insultingly low amounts,” Olsen added.

Olsen said that something has to budge, and if the state won’t, then a path for other sectors needs to be opened up — otherwise, the situation will continue to be short-term fixes to a long-term problem.

“The way services are provided must be completely revamped,” Olsen said. “If government cannot do it, then government must make it easier for private sector/non-profit to accomplish this with some sort of collaboration of services that work.”

“These changes of view and focus must be done at the state level first. The counties are trying to put bandaids on hemorrhages to attempt to help and protect our neighbors and [are] being asked to do it with cheesecloth,” she added.