Influential homeless advocacy group says Tacoma taking ‘gamble’ on tent ban, urges repeal
An organization of lawyers involved in homeless-related lawsuits across the country is urging the City of Tacoma to repeal a code it says could criminalize homelessness.
That code bans walled structures, including tents, in parks and was passed by City Council in October amid public outcry.
In a Dec. 18 letter to city leaders, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty called the code “ineffective, cruel and expensive public policy to punish sheltering oneself in a public space when there are not adequate alternative locations to meet the basic need for shelter.”
Tristia Bauman, a senior attorney with the Law Center, wrote the letter.
“We urge the City to repeal (the code) or, at minimum, to delay enforcement until the City identifies adequate alternative locations where its homeless residents can shelter themselves during the daytime and nighttime hours,” Bauman wrote.
The city confirmed Monday it had received the letter and provided a statement to The News Tribune.
“The City of Tacoma does not criminalize homelessness and enforces laws and ordinances in accordance with all local, state and federal regulations,” according to the statement. “The City of Tacoma is continuing to work with service providers to ensure all people have adequate shelter as unauthorized encampments create health and safety concerns for people living in and around them.”
The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty has filed or joined cases involving homelessness across the country, including a case involving the city of Puyallup and Pierce County in 2018. A lawsuit claimed sweeps of homeless camps that destroyed property were unconstitutional seizures. Puyallup and the county since have settled with some of the plaintiffs.
Martin v. City of Boise, a case that received national attention, also was filed by the Law Center. Bauman’s letter was sent days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of that case, defaulting to a previous decision that found enforcing laws that criminalize sleeping, sitting and lying down outside when there is no access to indoor shelter is unconstitutional.
Tacoma’s tent ban is “substantially similar to the ordinances condemned” in the Martin v. Boise case, Bauman wrote.
Violating the city’s tent ban is a civil infraction, not a criminal one, but Bauman argued that it “lays the factual basis for enforcement of Tacoma’s criminal trespass law.” In addition, Bauman added, civil fines often go unpaid and result in warrants for arrest or ruined credit.
“Even if Tacoma wishes to gamble on the Ordinance’s legality, we are concerned that the Ordinance is ineffective and expensive public policy,” Bauman wrote.
While the tent ban was approved by City Council in October, enforcement of the code was delayed as the city worked to identify and open more shelters.
Earlier this month, the city opened a 22-unit micro shelter site in Hilltop, which is now at capacity at 35 people. Also this month, Bethlehem Baptist Church opened a 40-bed shelter under the city’s emergency shelter ordinance. Altheimer Memorial Church is undergoing a public comment period of the permitting process for a 32-bed shelter.
Both the Bethlehem Baptist and Altheimer shelters are overnight shelters from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., with target audiences of families with children experiencing homelessness. Bethlehem also targets single women and couples without children.
On Friday, the city of Tacoma said there are still about 70 tents and 25 individuals at the encampment at People’s Park and indicated it was almost ready to begin cleanup of People’s Park, once the remaining individuals “have been transitioned to sheltering options.”
“There is currently shelter available for individuals experiencing homelessness if they choose to accept it,” according to the update.
Bauman applauded the city for opening more shelters but said more are needed.
“Also, it is important to note that the existence of an alternative, such as an open temporary emergency shelter bed, does not necessarily mean that the alternative is actually accessible to or appropriate for a person who would be subject to enforcement of the Ordinance,” Bauman wrote.
