Washington Democrats pass a bill to legalize homeless encampments on public property

01/25/2025 / By Laura Harris

Washington State Democrats have introduced House Bill 1380, sponsored by Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-WA), which aims to legalize homeless encampments on public property statewide.
The bill restricts cities and towns from banning or limiting homeless encampments, instead requiring judicial approval. Judges must deem restrictions “objectively reasonable” based on time, place and manner.
Homeless individuals are granted the right to sue cities or towns for restrictions, with the potential to receive injunctive or declaratory relief and legal fee coverage if successful.
Critics, such as Jason Rantz, argue that its vague standards could lead to inconsistent enforcement and significant financial burdens on cities and towns facing frequent legal challenges.
Some view HB 1380 as a strategy to implement a more radical “homelessness bill of rights” without facing previous backlash, potentially exacerbating the homelessness crisis by prioritizing encampments over broader community needs.

Washington State Democrats have introduced a new bill that would effectively legalize homeless encampments on public property statewide.

House Bill 1380, sponsored by State Representative Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac), aims to limit the ability of cities and towns to restrict or ban homeless encampments, instead placing the decision in the hands of judges. (Related: Homeless encampments are exploding in size all over America as rents soar and evictions surge.)

The bill, which was introduced on Jan. 17, not only prevents cities and towns from banning or limiting homeless encampments but also provides special legal advantages to homeless individuals, virtually ensuring their victory in any legal challenges to such restrictions.

Under the proposed law, cities and towns would be restricted to regulating encampments in public spaces only in ways deemed “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner” by a judge. This vague and subjective standard, which applies retroactively, would invalidate ordinances passed before the introduction of the legislation.

The bill grants homeless individuals the right to sue cities or towns over encampment restrictions, seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. Homeless plaintiffs are also given an affirmative defense, arguing that a restriction is not reasonable, and if they win, taxpayers would be responsible for covering their legal fees.

This provision is currently under review in the Washington State legislature.

Rantz: HB1380 is an intentional barrier to any city or town implementing homeless encampment bans

This provision is seen as an intentional barrier to any city or town implementing bans or restrictions on homeless encampments.

In an article for 770 KTTH, Jason Rantz argued that the lack of clarity and subjective standards will lead to inconsistent enforcement, with different judges potentially interpreting the same law differently. This inconsistency could place cities in a legal quagmire, unable to defend their ordinances effectively.

Moreover, the financial burden on cities and towns is another significant concern. The threat of constant legal challenges means that local governments, many of which are already financially strained, would face a wave of lawsuits and legal fees. This reality could effectively tie the hands of local leaders who wish to implement policies that address the root causes of homelessness and improve public safety.

In other words, the introduction of HB 1380 is seen by some as a backdoor approach to passing a “homeless bill of rights,” a more radical proposal that faced scrutiny and backlash earlier this year. Rantz argued that instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, the bill actively exacerbates the crisis, prioritizing the comfort of homeless individuals over the broader needs of the community.

“Now, HB 1380 serves as a backdoor to passing that same homelessness bill of rights. It’s just as extreme. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, Gregerson is actively making the crisis worse. And it’s intentional – almost as if she’s fulfilling some twisted fantasy of watching people suffer outdoors while tying the hands of local leaders who want to enact policies that push people indoors. Is this a “squalor voyeurism” fetish?” Rantz wrote.

Learn more about the state of America and its cities at Chaos.news.

Watch this report about homelessness in California.

This video is from the Right Edition channel on Brighteon.com.