Does Pierce County want to end homelessness? Decision by Dammeier next week will tell
In the words of Pierce County Council chair Derek Young, D-Gig Harbor, it was “low-hanging fruit,” the kind of no-brainer homeless policy decision that should be easy.
But it wasn’t, and that’s what’s troubling.
On Tuesday, the council adopted interim regulations that would allow religious organizations, civic groups and commercial properties throughout the county to provide safe parking sites to people and families experiencing homelessness. It might sound like a mouthful, but the reality is it was nothing more than a long-overdue baby step — creating a framework that makes safe parking possible for people living in their vehicles right now while county staff and policymakers hammer out more permanent rules in the months ahead.
There’s little question quick action is needed. During the 2020 Pierce County Point-in-Time Count a staggering 31% of the county’s unhoused population was found living in a vehicle, abandoned vehicle or other structure. That’s one reason the need to create safe-parking sites was included in the county’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan to End Homelessness, which was ratified just last month with near unanimous support.
As it stands, safe-parking sites are restricted to the point of being essentially nonexistent in unincorporated Pierce County. The ordinance that was passed includes a host of safeguards, like limits on the number of cars allowed at any one site and stipulations requiring bathroom, water and trash service. It simply opens the door for organizations that want to help and creates a way for them to do so.
All of this should have made Tuesday’s action by the County Council a reason to celebrate — or at least provided a bit more evidence that a sensible, bipartisan approach to Pierce County’s homelessness crisis was possible. Allowing churches, community centers and local businesses to open their parking lots and provide safe overnight parking for a limited number of vehicles — in urban and rural Pierce County alike — qualifies as the least the county can do to combat an epidemic of human suffering and despair.
Instead?
The unexpectedly contentious party-line vote — with the Democrats on the council prevailing 4-3 — feels more like a warning sign of things to come.
A much-needed policy change that should be a done deal now heads to Executive Bruce Dammeier’s desk, where its fate is uncertain.
Could Dammeier, a Republican from Puyallup, use his veto pen to squash and delay the effort?
That’s the understandable concern, based on what transpired in council chambers earlier this week.
“That the bill came out of the council on 4-3 partisan vote is the strong signal that a veto is impending, and that is really disappointing,” said Pierce County Council member Ryan Mello, a Democrat representing Tacoma, Fircrest and University Place who voted in favor of the ordinance.
“If we’re considering this to be too bold and too much too soon, then we’re in a whole lot of trouble.”
There’s ample reason to fear Mello’s assessment is correct. During Tuesday’s County Council meeting, Republican Hans Zeiger offered a pair of resolutions that sought to curtail the reach of interim safe-parking regulations. One would have made safe-parking permissible only for religious organizations, as state law already allows in limited fashion. The other would have relegated safe-parking sites to Pierce County’s urban growth areas, all but ensuring that people currently living in vehicles in rural parts of the county wouldn’t have access to crucial services.
Zeiger — whose amendments failed, receiving support of only the Republican minority on the council — described both efforts as a matter of process during Tuesday’s meeting.
“I don’t want to leave the impression that the intent of this is to shut down or to exclude (safe parking at sites other than those already allowed under state law) in any permanent policy of the county,” said Zeiger, who represents the Puyallup, Sumner and Milton area on the council.
“We’re talking here about crafting interim regulations,” Zeiger explained. “ I think we should be cautious.”
While there’s no reason to suggest Zeiger’s deference to process is anything but genuine (and on brand), let’s also call this one for what it is: an excuse.
As anyone who’s familiar with the workings of Pierce County government can tell you, putting a countywide safe-parking policy through the standard bureaucratic wringer would add months, if not years, to the timeline. We simply don’t have that long to wait, particularly when the interim regulations have already been endorsed by the council’s Community Development Committee and local groups like the Tacoma-Pierce County Coalition to End Homelessness.
These regulations aren’t haphazard, and they’re far from radical.
Rather, they’re common sense and little more than common human decency.
During impassioned comments Tuesday, Pierce County Council member Marty Campbell, who represents parts of Tacoma, Midland, Fife, Parkland and Spanaway, laid out what’s at stake.
Whether it’s women escaping domestic violence, veterans or anyone else experiencing homelessness while living in a vehicle, Campbell said, “I don’t want to tell them, ‘No, wait six months.’”
“We’ve already taken way too long in our process,” Campbell said. “We owe it to those out there that are fighting every day on the streets. We owe it to those who will be homeless over the next couple months … to have a place for them to land safely.”
On Friday, county communications director Libby Catalinich said she expects Dammeier will “take action on the resolution some time before the end of next week.” He was not immediately available for comment.
The executive’s decision will go a long way toward proving whether Pierce County is serious about dealing with this crisis.
This story was originally published April 23, 2022 at 5:00 AM.
