1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,000 You're driving a Prius with a dog bomb sticker. 2 00:00:02,000 --> 00:00:02,800 Yep. 3 00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:05,120 It's good for your cred in a place like Olympia. 4 00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:06,120 All right, well good. 5 00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:10,640 Welcome to County Connection, the official podcast 6 00:00:10,640 --> 00:00:13,000 of the Washington State Association of Counties, 7 00:00:13,000 --> 00:00:15,280 where we dive into the legislative issues shaping 8 00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:16,880 the future of our communities. 9 00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:20,280 From budgets to public safety, infrastructure to elections, 10 00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:22,840 we'll break down what's happening in Olympia 11 00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:25,960 and how it impacts counties from across the evergreen state. 12 00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:28,600 Stay informed, stay engaged, and join us 13 00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:31,360 as we amplify the voice of Washington's 39 counties. 14 00:00:34,160 --> 00:00:36,400 Welcome back, everybody, to our second episode of the County 15 00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:37,800 Connection podcast. 16 00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:39,360 I'm Paul Jewell, government relations 17 00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:42,400 director with the Washington State Association of Counties. 18 00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:45,280 We're here today with Curtis Steinauer. 19 00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:47,040 Curtis, welcome back to the podcast. 20 00:00:47,040 --> 00:00:47,600 Thanks, Paul. 21 00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:48,400 Good to be here. 22 00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:50,160 Yeah, it's good to see you. 23 00:00:50,160 --> 00:00:52,200 Last week, we got kind of an update from you 24 00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:54,280 about what to expect this session. 25 00:00:54,280 --> 00:00:56,280 Here we are now in the second week. 26 00:00:56,280 --> 00:00:58,360 Feels like it's been longer than that, at least 27 00:00:58,360 --> 00:00:59,600 for me, I don't know about you. 28 00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:00,960 Yes. 29 00:01:00,960 --> 00:01:02,640 But now you've got a better idea. 30 00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:05,640 And there's been over 1,000 bills 31 00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:08,840 already dropped between pre-filing and really 32 00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:10,440 the first week. 33 00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:13,320 I know you're eager to talk about at least one 34 00:01:13,320 --> 00:01:16,080 that you think our members are really find interesting. 35 00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:16,920 What bill is that? 36 00:01:16,920 --> 00:01:20,640 So I want to talk about today House Bill 1380. 37 00:01:20,640 --> 00:01:24,520 This is a bill sponsored by Representative Mia Gregerson. 38 00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:28,280 This bill has to do with local governments 39 00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:31,800 authority to regulate access to public space. 40 00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:33,440 This is an issue that local governments 41 00:01:33,440 --> 00:01:36,320 been facing for the last decade or so. 42 00:01:36,320 --> 00:01:40,320 It's mostly in regards to how local governments are 43 00:01:40,320 --> 00:01:43,720 interacting with their local homeless community, 44 00:01:43,720 --> 00:01:45,840 their unsheltered community, in regards 45 00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:50,680 to setting ordinances that govern when, how, and in what 46 00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:54,560 manner people can access public space that's 47 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:56,040 accessible to the general public. 48 00:01:56,040 --> 00:01:58,480 So place like sidewalks and. 49 00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:00,440 OK, I was going to ask, what do you 50 00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:02,080 mean when you say public space? 51 00:02:02,080 --> 00:02:03,200 So you said sidewalks. 52 00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:04,960 But what about, so that's outdoors. 53 00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:06,800 So I'm assuming you're like sidewalks 54 00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:10,360 outside of public buildings, maybe parks, roadways, 55 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:11,120 things like that. 56 00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:12,080 What about inside? 57 00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:15,680 Oh, I think this bill gets to those spaces 58 00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:19,480 as well, a place like the lobby of a city hall, right? 59 00:02:19,480 --> 00:02:22,280 The specific terminology in the bill 60 00:02:22,280 --> 00:02:24,840 is any public space that is accessible 61 00:02:24,840 --> 00:02:26,840 to the general public. 62 00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:30,640 And so like you said, parks, that applies. 63 00:02:30,640 --> 00:02:31,920 Outdoor spaces apply. 64 00:02:31,920 --> 00:02:34,000 But I think also indoor spaces would apply. 65 00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:38,080 I think in the case of most Washington local governments, 66 00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:41,440 those indoor spaces are pretty limited, right? 67 00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:46,440 And where we really see this as a problem 68 00:02:46,440 --> 00:02:49,880 and where we're going to get into conflict between what's 69 00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:54,800 in this legislation and what local governments are trying 70 00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:58,960 to do and, frankly, from Waspac's perspective, 71 00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:01,640 have a right to do in terms of regulating the public space, 72 00:03:01,640 --> 00:03:03,840 it's really that outdoor space we're concerned about. 73 00:03:03,840 --> 00:03:08,520 So this bill is about local governments and their ability 74 00:03:08,520 --> 00:03:09,800 to regulate that access. 75 00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:11,880 You said it has to do with any public space that's 76 00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:13,640 accessible to the general public. 77 00:03:13,640 --> 00:03:18,760 So for instance, if it's just employee-only space, 78 00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:22,200 or maybe it's a space that's rented out to, 79 00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:25,280 you know, leased out to maybe a for-profit business 80 00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:27,040 or a service provider or something like that, 81 00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:29,000 we're not talking about those spaces. 82 00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:30,120 I do not think so. 83 00:03:30,120 --> 00:03:33,120 So yeah, and that's an interesting question 84 00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:35,840 that I hadn't really thought about too deeply, 85 00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:40,000 because the public spaces that we're talking about, 86 00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:43,520 you know, this bill is targeting a very specific realm 87 00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:46,520 of this, and that's, like I said, sidewalks, parks, 88 00:03:46,520 --> 00:03:51,040 public right of ways, places where over the last decade 89 00:03:51,040 --> 00:03:54,000 we've seen homeless encampments, and we've 90 00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:56,840 seen unsheltered people living. 91 00:03:56,840 --> 00:03:58,080 Kind of claiming those spaces. 92 00:03:58,080 --> 00:03:58,840 Exactly. 93 00:03:58,840 --> 00:03:59,600 At times, right? 94 00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:00,120 Right. 95 00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:03,520 Well, and you know, to be fair, I 96 00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:06,240 think the word that advocate organization 97 00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:09,880 would use is existing, right? 98 00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:12,120 We have a housing crisis in Washington state, 99 00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:16,720 and I think you have to start this conversation from a place 100 00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:21,080 of compassion and recognizing that in a lot of cases, 101 00:04:21,080 --> 00:04:25,360 when you have the unsheltered community in the downtown area 102 00:04:25,360 --> 00:04:28,400 of an urban core, or really anywhere where they're 103 00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:31,040 existing in public space, they often do not 104 00:04:31,040 --> 00:04:32,280 have anywhere else to go. 105 00:04:32,280 --> 00:04:35,960 Right, I think that's the point of some of these bills, right? 106 00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:39,600 If you are a person that doesn't have a home, right, 107 00:04:39,600 --> 00:04:41,080 and you're living on the streets, 108 00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:43,640 all your possessions are with you on the streets, 109 00:04:43,640 --> 00:04:45,880 you have to be somewhere, right? 110 00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:47,760 You can't just disappear. 111 00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:48,320 Yes. 112 00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:50,680 And whether we like it or not, that population 113 00:04:50,680 --> 00:04:52,400 exists here in Washington state. 114 00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:55,200 Correct, and this kind of gets into the first Supreme Court 115 00:04:55,200 --> 00:04:58,000 case I want to talk about in relation to this bill. 116 00:04:58,000 --> 00:04:59,720 Before I get into the details of this bill, 117 00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:01,720 this background is really important. 118 00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:04,360 And I think most people that have 119 00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:06,040 been working in county government 120 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:09,400 will be well aware of Martin v. Boise, which 121 00:05:09,400 --> 00:05:12,960 is a Supreme Court case that basically ruled that you can't 122 00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:18,000 criminalize homelessness, that you can't write a law that 123 00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:21,600 results in someone being fined, jailed, or made 124 00:05:21,600 --> 00:05:26,960 to move from a public space just because they're homeless. 125 00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,200 There has to be some other criminal activity 126 00:05:30,200 --> 00:05:32,920 or public disruption involved. 127 00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:36,920 And so that was the law of the land for many years. 128 00:05:36,920 --> 00:05:38,640 During my time as a housing coordinator 129 00:05:38,640 --> 00:05:42,720 in Grays Harbor County from 2017 to 2022, 130 00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:44,080 that was the law of the land. 131 00:05:44,080 --> 00:05:46,480 What are the impacts of that decision 132 00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:49,960 when we think about local government regulations? 133 00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:51,680 Because I know we haven't really gotten 134 00:05:51,680 --> 00:05:54,480 into the substantive nature of the bill and what it does yet. 135 00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:56,240 But it's definitely, I can tell you're 136 00:05:56,240 --> 00:05:58,240 leading us in that direction. 137 00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:02,360 So what are the practical implications of Martin v. Boise? 138 00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:05,800 You said it established that you can't criminalize 139 00:06:05,800 --> 00:06:07,000 being homeless. 140 00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:07,800 What does that mean? 141 00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:12,360 That means that the practical implication ended up being in it. 142 00:06:12,360 --> 00:06:14,480 And there was some other court cases 143 00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,000 that had to happen for us to get there. 144 00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:21,120 Several cities had a litigation brought against them 145 00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:25,240 by service providers that work with the homeless. 146 00:06:25,240 --> 00:06:27,200 When I worked in Grays Harbor, the city 147 00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:29,840 of Aberdeen, which is our largest city in the community, 148 00:06:29,840 --> 00:06:31,000 was one of them. 149 00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:35,200 And those court cases helped set a lot of legal precedent 150 00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:37,600 around how local government should 151 00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:39,440 interpret Martin v. Boise. 152 00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:43,520 And the place we got to was that under Martin v. Boise, 153 00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:46,920 you can't write an ordinance that 154 00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:50,880 says homeless people can't exist in public space 155 00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:55,400 unless you can identify an alternate place for them to go. 156 00:06:55,400 --> 00:06:58,600 For some communities, Olympia, I think, is a great example. 157 00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:02,680 Their solution was we create set-aside mitigated tent 158 00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:05,400 encampments where people are allowed to pitch a tent 159 00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:06,240 and exist. 160 00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:09,680 And because we have those spaces to refer people to, 161 00:07:09,680 --> 00:07:12,040 as long as we have an open spot in those spaces, 162 00:07:12,040 --> 00:07:15,120 law enforcement can interact with unsheltered people 163 00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:18,280 who are occupying public space in inappropriate ways, 164 00:07:18,280 --> 00:07:21,760 sleeping in a park, blocking a business doorway 165 00:07:21,760 --> 00:07:23,040 in a downtown area. 166 00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:25,120 And they can refer them to those mitigation places. 167 00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:28,480 Many other communities took the different strategy 168 00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:31,720 of ensuring that there was indoor emergency shelter 169 00:07:31,720 --> 00:07:33,040 to refer someone to. 170 00:07:33,040 --> 00:07:35,280 But the bottom line is Martin v. Boise 171 00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:38,000 made it so that you could not enforce ordinances that 172 00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:42,680 restrict sitting, lying, attempting to keep warm, 173 00:07:42,680 --> 00:07:45,120 pitching a tent in public spaces, 174 00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:48,280 unless you could say, these are the places you can do that. 175 00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:48,760 I see. 176 00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:49,400 OK. 177 00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:51,800 That makes a lot of sense because when you first started, 178 00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:55,120 you said a municipality, a city couldn't 179 00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:57,440 pass a law that says you can't exist in a public space. 180 00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:00,160 And I was sitting here trying to think to myself, 181 00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:01,560 now who would pass a law that says 182 00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:03,080 you can't exist in a public space? 183 00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:06,720 But what you're saying is it's a de facto law, essentially, 184 00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:09,960 because what they would say is you can't sit, stand, pitch 185 00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:13,600 a tent, loiter for a period of time, et cetera, et cetera. 186 00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:16,760 And that essentially made it quote unquote, 187 00:08:16,760 --> 00:08:19,120 if you were a person that was homeless, 188 00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:21,600 impossible to exist in a public space. 189 00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:22,960 And we can get into the weeds. 190 00:08:22,960 --> 00:08:26,320 There's some specifics that they eventually 191 00:08:26,320 --> 00:08:27,840 courts directed local governments 192 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:30,600 to be specific as to time, place, and manner. 193 00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:32,140 Those are some important terms that 194 00:08:32,140 --> 00:08:33,320 have made it into this bill. 195 00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:36,040 We'll talk about in a minute, which just means that, 196 00:08:36,040 --> 00:08:37,560 for instance, city of Aberdeen. 197 00:08:37,560 --> 00:08:39,160 Again, I'm picking on them a lot, 198 00:08:39,160 --> 00:08:41,320 but it's the place I'm most familiar with 199 00:08:41,320 --> 00:08:42,960 in terms of this issue. 200 00:08:42,960 --> 00:08:45,040 Their solution to this eventually, 201 00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:47,440 when I left Grace Harbor County, was 202 00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:51,080 to have a certain segment of the community's sidewalks 203 00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:54,720 where you could, between the hours of 10 AM and 6, 204 00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:57,880 or 10 PM, excuse me, and 6 AM, you 205 00:08:57,880 --> 00:09:00,720 could have a tent on those areas of the sidewalk 206 00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:02,600 in just one part of town. 207 00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:05,520 And that satisfied time, place, and manner. 208 00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:06,040 I see. 209 00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:09,080 So the manner is you can sleep in a tent, 210 00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:12,560 the time being 10 PM to 6 AM, the place 211 00:09:12,560 --> 00:09:14,960 being these specific streets, the sidewalks. 212 00:09:14,960 --> 00:09:17,320 So to just make this really simple and really clear, 213 00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:22,120 if I'm ABC City, we're just going to say I'm city ABC, 214 00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:25,160 I cannot pass, and I pass a law that says 215 00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:26,760 you can't camp on my sidewalks, you 216 00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:29,580 can't hang out in the park for more than two hours, 217 00:09:29,580 --> 00:09:31,800 you can't be in the park overnight, 218 00:09:31,800 --> 00:09:36,280 if it's you can't hang out under the eaves 219 00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:41,800 or around the grounds of City Hall past 10 PM, et cetera, 220 00:09:41,800 --> 00:09:42,300 et cetera. 221 00:09:42,300 --> 00:09:45,280 And those are just blanket regulations. 222 00:09:45,280 --> 00:09:48,160 And there are people who are homeless in my community 223 00:09:48,160 --> 00:09:50,080 and have no other place to go. 224 00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:51,680 I'm violating the law. 225 00:09:51,680 --> 00:09:55,600 But if I'm XYZ City and I have the same regulations in place, 226 00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:59,040 but at the same time, I designate a location 227 00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:00,840 or two or three, something that's 228 00:10:00,840 --> 00:10:04,240 adequate enough for the number of people 229 00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:09,080 who are in my location roughly, so that I have some place 230 00:10:09,080 --> 00:10:12,800 where they can go, then if I have those same laws in place, 231 00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:15,680 I am in compliance with the law. 232 00:10:15,680 --> 00:10:16,760 That's right. 233 00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:18,760 And a couple important things. 234 00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:22,600 One, I don't know that I would assert adequacy was a standard. 235 00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,000 You didn't have to say we have 150 unsheltered homeless people 236 00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:29,000 on our point in time count, so we have to have 150 places 237 00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:29,880 to sleep. 238 00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:31,380 That was not part of the standard. 239 00:10:31,380 --> 00:10:32,960 You just had to have a place. 240 00:10:32,960 --> 00:10:33,760 So just a place. 241 00:10:33,760 --> 00:10:36,280 But it couldn't have been just big enough for one 242 00:10:36,280 --> 00:10:38,200 if you clearly had 100, could it? 243 00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:40,440 So Martin v. Boise, and again, this 244 00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:42,240 is going to be important for when we do dig 245 00:10:42,240 --> 00:10:44,840 into the specifics of this bill, Martin v. Boise 246 00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:47,760 was enforced on not the ordinance itself 247 00:10:47,760 --> 00:10:50,160 and the ordinance's structure, but the enforcement 248 00:10:50,160 --> 00:10:51,240 of the ordinance. 249 00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:54,320 So what Martin v. Boise basically said when it was the law 250 00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:56,280 of the land, and not the decision itself, 251 00:10:56,280 --> 00:10:58,800 but eventually what the practical implications 252 00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:01,680 on the ground were after that ruling and the case 253 00:11:01,680 --> 00:11:05,800 law that came after it, is that you could have a no sit, 254 00:11:05,800 --> 00:11:08,720 no lie ordinance for your sidewalks, for example. 255 00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:12,520 But if you didn't, if when the law enforcement approached 256 00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:16,480 a unsheltered person that was sleeping in a business doorway, 257 00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:19,760 if they couldn't identify a place for that person to go, 258 00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:22,400 they wouldn't be able to enforce that law. 259 00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:24,000 That was the standard. 260 00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:24,500 I see. 261 00:11:24,500 --> 00:11:29,800 So at that moment, when I wanted to, 262 00:11:29,800 --> 00:11:33,600 wouldn't say I might want to enforce, if there's no space, 263 00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:36,200 regardless of whether I have space allocated, 264 00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:37,920 if there is no space at that time, 265 00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:40,460 whether it's an indoor shelter, an outdoor space, whatever 266 00:11:40,460 --> 00:11:43,720 it may be, then that's really the test. 267 00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:44,240 Yes. 268 00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:44,840 OK. 269 00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:48,480 Yeah, and I think I've been remiss to not do this earlier 270 00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:51,140 in this discussion, but I think at this point, I should pause 271 00:11:51,140 --> 00:11:52,360 and say, I am not an attorney. 272 00:11:52,360 --> 00:11:55,520 None of this should be construed as legal advice. 273 00:11:55,520 --> 00:11:58,120 All of the decisions that local governments have made 274 00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:01,040 about these ordinances involved a lot of time 275 00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:03,520 between elected officials and their prosecutors 276 00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:08,480 and a lot of litigation between the service providers that 277 00:12:08,480 --> 00:12:10,160 are working on behalf of vulnerable people 278 00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:12,240 and the local governments that have these ordinances. 279 00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:13,920 That's, I think, one of the biggest problems 280 00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:15,580 with this bill we're going to talk about. 281 00:12:15,580 --> 00:12:18,600 In 2024, we had a new Supreme Court case 282 00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:21,160 that set everything on its head a bit, 283 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:23,480 and that's Grants Pass v. Johnson. 284 00:12:23,480 --> 00:12:25,920 This is a case that came out of Grants Pass, Oregon. 285 00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:29,200 Grants Pass, Oregon had a law that was one of the laws 286 00:12:29,200 --> 00:12:31,440 that we were speaking to that essentially, it 287 00:12:31,440 --> 00:12:35,200 didn't say you can't exist unsheltered in the community, 288 00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:40,920 but it was so onerous or a lower level court 289 00:12:40,920 --> 00:12:44,480 ruled that it was so onerous toward unsheltered people 290 00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:47,440 about where they could be and when they could be there 291 00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:50,600 that Party Johnson, the party that brought the lawsuit, 292 00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:53,720 asserted that it violated vulnerable people's 8th 293 00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:56,000 Amendment rights, and that it amounted 294 00:12:56,000 --> 00:12:57,320 to cruel and unusual punishment. 295 00:12:57,320 --> 00:12:59,280 So it ended up being a civil rights case. 296 00:12:59,280 --> 00:12:59,780 Correct. 297 00:12:59,780 --> 00:13:02,960 And it got peeled all the way to the US Supreme Court, 298 00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:04,760 and in 2024, the US Supreme Court 299 00:13:04,760 --> 00:13:08,440 ruled that it did not violate unsheltered people's 8th 300 00:13:08,440 --> 00:13:10,080 Amendment rights for a local government 301 00:13:10,080 --> 00:13:12,680 to regulate the use of public space. 302 00:13:12,680 --> 00:13:17,160 And they also, in this decision, overturned Martin v. Boise, 303 00:13:17,160 --> 00:13:19,800 and they said that local governments have the right 304 00:13:19,800 --> 00:13:21,680 to regulate these things. 305 00:13:21,680 --> 00:13:24,920 And they said that when a local government does 306 00:13:24,920 --> 00:13:28,080 pass an ordinance that regulates the use of public space, 307 00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:31,320 they shouldn't pass ordinances that specifically single out 308 00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:33,200 one class of people. 309 00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:36,760 They're saying that if someone has a right to access this 310 00:13:36,760 --> 00:13:39,600 space, everyone has a right to access this space in this way. 311 00:13:39,600 --> 00:13:41,640 But if you regulate the right to access space, 312 00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:43,880 you say there's no sitting on the sidewalk. 313 00:13:43,880 --> 00:13:46,760 As long as you say no one can sit on the sidewalk 314 00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:49,680 and no homeless people can sit on the sidewalk, 315 00:13:49,680 --> 00:13:54,440 that you have that power as a local government under Grants 316 00:13:54,440 --> 00:13:55,520 Pass v. Johnson. 317 00:13:55,520 --> 00:13:57,280 So we had the Martin v. Boise case. 318 00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:00,160 That was the law of the land for a while, which we just spent, 319 00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:03,200 it feels like, 10 minutes kind of explaining. 320 00:14:03,200 --> 00:14:05,960 And now you're telling me that this Grants Pass versus Johnson 321 00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:09,680 case that came afterward basically wiped that right off 322 00:14:09,680 --> 00:14:11,160 the table. 323 00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:13,480 So even though that was the law of the land, 324 00:14:13,480 --> 00:14:15,960 how long was that case law in effect? 325 00:14:15,960 --> 00:14:17,960 I don't remember exactly when Martin v. Boise was, 326 00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:19,880 but again, my entire career. 327 00:14:19,880 --> 00:14:21,520 A couple of years at least, right? 328 00:14:21,520 --> 00:14:23,240 2017 to 2024 at least. 329 00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:24,960 OK, so five to seven years. 330 00:14:24,960 --> 00:14:26,560 Let's say five to seven years. 331 00:14:26,560 --> 00:14:27,520 That was the case. 332 00:14:27,520 --> 00:14:33,880 Now we have this new pass out of Grants Pass, Oregon, 333 00:14:33,880 --> 00:14:36,120 which is a beautiful place, by the way, 334 00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:40,040 called Grants Pass v. Johnson, which 335 00:14:40,040 --> 00:14:43,160 put essentially Martin v. Boise to the test again 336 00:14:43,160 --> 00:14:44,960 in front of the US Supreme Court. 337 00:14:44,960 --> 00:14:46,720 And they basically overturned it. 338 00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:47,360 Correct. 339 00:14:47,360 --> 00:14:48,240 OK. 340 00:14:48,240 --> 00:14:49,920 So what are the implications now? 341 00:14:49,920 --> 00:14:52,120 So the implications now are, like I said, 342 00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:54,440 we're under Grants Pass v. Johnson now. 343 00:14:54,440 --> 00:14:56,480 That's the doctrine local governments 344 00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:58,120 are operating under when they regulate 345 00:14:58,120 --> 00:14:59,880 the use of public space. 346 00:14:59,880 --> 00:15:05,360 And a very simplified version of the environment right now 347 00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:07,920 is that local governments have the authority to regulate access 348 00:15:07,920 --> 00:15:11,680 to public space as long as they regulate it for everyone 349 00:15:11,680 --> 00:15:13,520 and not for a specific class of people. 350 00:15:13,520 --> 00:15:14,200 OK. 351 00:15:14,200 --> 00:15:15,800 You did mention that. 352 00:15:15,800 --> 00:15:20,480 So any law that you would pass regarding time, place, 353 00:15:20,480 --> 00:15:23,480 and manner for access to public spaces 354 00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:26,640 has to apply to everyone equally. 355 00:15:26,640 --> 00:15:31,520 You're not allowed to single out people who are homeless, people 356 00:15:31,520 --> 00:15:35,040 who are wearing red shoes, people who have blue hats, 357 00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:38,560 people who wear brown coats, none of that stuff. 358 00:15:38,560 --> 00:15:43,200 It has to be applied everywhere all the time to all the people, 359 00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:44,520 exactly the same. 360 00:15:44,520 --> 00:15:45,720 Yeah, essentially. 361 00:15:45,720 --> 00:15:46,520 Yes. 362 00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:47,120 Yes. 363 00:15:47,120 --> 00:15:52,920 And so now with that background, we can finally, mercifully 364 00:15:52,920 --> 00:15:54,120 talk about this bill. 365 00:15:54,120 --> 00:15:58,640 So Representative Grayerson has introduced House Bill 1380. 366 00:15:58,640 --> 00:16:02,800 And this is a direct response to the new legal climate 367 00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:06,400 we're under with Grants Pass v. Johnson. 368 00:16:06,400 --> 00:16:09,480 This bill introduces a new legal standard 369 00:16:09,480 --> 00:16:18,600 into this very complex and frankly fast changing legal 370 00:16:18,600 --> 00:16:20,680 environment that local governments have had 371 00:16:20,680 --> 00:16:23,520 to navigate over the last decade. 372 00:16:23,520 --> 00:16:25,720 And what this bill would do is it says, 373 00:16:25,720 --> 00:16:28,800 just like Martin v. Boise had ruled, 374 00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:33,920 that when local governments are crafting these ordinances 375 00:16:33,920 --> 00:16:36,200 to regulate the use of public space, 376 00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:39,800 they have to take into account time, place, and manner. 377 00:16:39,800 --> 00:16:42,360 And it sets a new legal standard around that. 378 00:16:42,360 --> 00:16:44,680 It says that local government ordinances 379 00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:48,120 have to be objectively reasonable in regards 380 00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:50,120 to time, place, and manner. 381 00:16:50,120 --> 00:16:53,680 So objectively reasonable is a legal framework 382 00:16:53,680 --> 00:16:56,160 that comes out of another Supreme Court case 383 00:16:56,160 --> 00:16:58,320 that I don't remember the name of. 384 00:16:58,320 --> 00:17:02,920 But it was a 2002 case about police use of force. 385 00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:04,640 And that case ruled. 386 00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:06,840 And it's now the law of the land in every state 387 00:17:06,840 --> 00:17:12,120 in the United States that when a police officer uses force, 388 00:17:12,120 --> 00:17:16,440 they're allowed to as long as their decision was objectively 389 00:17:16,440 --> 00:17:19,720 reasonable given the totality of circumstances. 390 00:17:19,720 --> 00:17:22,640 That's the language and statute, which basically 391 00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:26,400 means that if police use force, they 392 00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:28,360 have to have a good reason to. 393 00:17:28,360 --> 00:17:30,120 And they have to be able to defend 394 00:17:30,120 --> 00:17:32,760 their reasons for doing so. 395 00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:38,800 It can't just be because they wanted to or out of coercion. 396 00:17:38,800 --> 00:17:41,720 It has to be that there was a legal purpose in order 397 00:17:41,720 --> 00:17:44,960 to enforce the law or keep people safe or execute 398 00:17:44,960 --> 00:17:45,800 their duties. 399 00:17:45,800 --> 00:17:48,320 It was objectively reasonable to use force. 400 00:17:48,320 --> 00:17:52,560 So we have this bill that you're saying 401 00:17:52,560 --> 00:17:55,040 is injecting kind of this new legal standard 402 00:17:55,040 --> 00:17:57,640 into this whole conversation around how 403 00:17:57,640 --> 00:18:00,360 do you regulate public spaces. 404 00:18:00,360 --> 00:18:05,240 But wants us to go back to this idea of time, place, 405 00:18:05,240 --> 00:18:07,920 and manner, which sounds like going back 406 00:18:07,920 --> 00:18:10,160 to the previous Supreme Court decision, 407 00:18:10,160 --> 00:18:14,120 even though we have a new decision in the Grants Pass 408 00:18:14,120 --> 00:18:17,160 case that kind of wiped that one off the table. 409 00:18:17,160 --> 00:18:20,240 And then at the same time, it's adding some ambiguity, 410 00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:22,880 it sounds like, to the mix. 411 00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:24,000 Why? 412 00:18:24,000 --> 00:18:27,120 Why would that be the case if the Supreme Court has given 413 00:18:27,120 --> 00:18:31,040 pretty clear direction under Grants Pass v. Johnson 414 00:18:31,040 --> 00:18:32,760 that local governments do have the authority, 415 00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:34,640 as long as it applies equally to everyone, 416 00:18:34,640 --> 00:18:38,440 to regulate as they see fit, essentially, with regard 417 00:18:38,440 --> 00:18:39,920 to access to public spaces? 418 00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:42,680 My best understanding is that this is an attempt 419 00:18:42,680 --> 00:18:44,600 to strike a middle ground. 420 00:18:44,600 --> 00:18:47,160 It is more permissive for local governments 421 00:18:47,160 --> 00:18:48,880 than Martin v. Boise was. 422 00:18:48,880 --> 00:18:54,480 It doesn't say you can't enforce your ordinances unless you 423 00:18:54,480 --> 00:18:56,240 have a place to send someone. 424 00:18:56,240 --> 00:18:58,320 It says that when you write an ordinance, 425 00:18:58,320 --> 00:19:00,880 it has to be objectively reasonable. 426 00:19:00,880 --> 00:19:03,600 Now, there's a more cynical side of me 427 00:19:03,600 --> 00:19:06,440 that I think recognizes that part of the purpose 428 00:19:06,440 --> 00:19:10,640 behind this legislation is to enable the advocacy 429 00:19:10,640 --> 00:19:13,960 organizations to bring suit against local governments, 430 00:19:13,960 --> 00:19:17,960 they think, are creating ordinances that are intentionally 431 00:19:17,960 --> 00:19:21,640 meant to outlaw the existence of unsheltered people. 432 00:19:21,640 --> 00:19:23,400 Well, OK, stop there for a second. 433 00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:25,000 So let's unpack that for a minute. 434 00:19:25,000 --> 00:19:28,480 So you're saying that what you think the intent is, 435 00:19:28,480 --> 00:19:32,400 what you've heard the intent is, is to try to create or try 436 00:19:32,400 --> 00:19:35,440 to carve out a middle ground between Martin v. Boise 437 00:19:35,440 --> 00:19:38,600 and the Grants Pass v. Johnson decisions 438 00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:41,000 in that what's being proposed here 439 00:19:41,000 --> 00:19:45,240 is less restrictive and more permissive to local governments 440 00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:49,160 than Martin v. Boise, but obviously not as permissive 441 00:19:49,160 --> 00:19:52,720 as Grants Pass versus Johnson. 442 00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:57,080 And I assume that has to do with this objectively reasonable 443 00:19:57,080 --> 00:20:00,320 standard that is somewhat ambiguous. 444 00:20:00,320 --> 00:20:03,320 At least I'm interpreting it as somewhat ambiguous. 445 00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:04,720 And let me tell you why. 446 00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:08,840 When you said that this was based upon in many, 447 00:20:08,840 --> 00:20:13,680 or at least this standard is used in cases of, say, 448 00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:15,920 police use of force, and we also know 449 00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:19,920 it's used in self-defense cases as well, 450 00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:25,200 again, were your actions in that particular instance 451 00:20:25,200 --> 00:20:28,560 objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances? 452 00:20:28,560 --> 00:20:31,760 It's also used in other places that 453 00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:34,360 aren't necessarily related to local government 454 00:20:34,360 --> 00:20:35,880 regulation of public spaces. 455 00:20:35,880 --> 00:20:38,200 So injecting that creates some flexibility. 456 00:20:38,200 --> 00:20:40,320 It also creates some ambiguity. 457 00:20:40,320 --> 00:20:43,320 I will admit that when I read it at first 458 00:20:43,320 --> 00:20:48,080 in preparing for this podcast, a few alarms went off in my head 459 00:20:48,080 --> 00:20:51,840 because I was trying to find some good definitions for this 460 00:20:51,840 --> 00:20:54,520 related to local government regulation of public spaces, 461 00:20:54,520 --> 00:20:55,920 and I couldn't find any. 462 00:20:55,920 --> 00:20:58,280 And then you say, as I'm thinking about that, 463 00:20:58,280 --> 00:21:00,160 and you're talking about this middle ground, 464 00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,400 and I'm thinking about what I just said, then you say, 465 00:21:03,400 --> 00:21:06,240 the more cynical part of me thinks that maybe this is also 466 00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:09,680 an opportunity for litigation to actually occur. 467 00:21:09,680 --> 00:21:13,480 Explain that to me a little bit with the frame of mind of, 468 00:21:13,480 --> 00:21:15,920 OK, this is a middle ground, but we've 469 00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:18,920 got this squishy term in here, and it 470 00:21:18,920 --> 00:21:22,560 might make an opportunity for advocacy groups 471 00:21:22,560 --> 00:21:24,720 to maybe get some better definition around what 472 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:25,400 that means. 473 00:21:25,400 --> 00:21:26,520 Is that kind of what you're thinking? 474 00:21:26,520 --> 00:21:27,280 Yeah, absolutely. 475 00:21:27,280 --> 00:21:30,280 So I would not say that it's somewhat ambiguous. 476 00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:32,960 I would say that it is completely ambiguous. 477 00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:36,560 I would say that there's absolutely no legal precedent 478 00:21:36,560 --> 00:21:39,640 for what ordinances might meet that objectively reasonable 479 00:21:39,640 --> 00:21:40,520 standard. 480 00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:44,040 We have a decade of case law under Martin v. Boise 481 00:21:44,040 --> 00:21:46,760 and then eventually Grants Pass v. Johnson, 482 00:21:46,760 --> 00:21:50,760 and this would set that cycle completely over again. 483 00:21:50,760 --> 00:21:53,120 Because instead of having to meet the precedent set 484 00:21:53,120 --> 00:21:55,160 in those cases, local government ordinances 485 00:21:55,160 --> 00:21:57,480 would now have to meet this brand new legal standard. 486 00:21:57,480 --> 00:22:00,400 Yeah, because with this term, there is no precedent, right? 487 00:22:00,400 --> 00:22:01,080 Correct. 488 00:22:01,080 --> 00:22:03,440 No precedent and no definition in the bill. 489 00:22:03,440 --> 00:22:07,040 And frankly, we've heard even from the advocacy 490 00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:09,280 organizations that are in support of this 491 00:22:09,280 --> 00:22:12,480 that the only way to define what ordinances would 492 00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:14,720 meet the objectively reasonable standard 493 00:22:14,720 --> 00:22:15,840 is through litigation. 494 00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:16,480 Interesting. 495 00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:18,520 We're not the only state that's done this though, right? 496 00:22:18,520 --> 00:22:19,000 Correct. 497 00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:22,160 So our neighbors to the south have a similar regulation 498 00:22:22,160 --> 00:22:22,640 in place. 499 00:22:22,640 --> 00:22:24,040 I don't know how old it is. 500 00:22:24,040 --> 00:22:26,000 What has their experience been so far? 501 00:22:26,000 --> 00:22:29,680 Right, so in 2021, state of Oregon, 502 00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:33,400 the legislature in Oregon passed the exact language that 503 00:22:33,400 --> 00:22:36,080 is in Representative Gregorson's bill. 504 00:22:36,080 --> 00:22:40,000 They passed this in direct response 505 00:22:40,000 --> 00:22:42,080 to a local government ordinance that they 506 00:22:42,080 --> 00:22:44,360 saw as problematic that the city of Portland 507 00:22:44,360 --> 00:22:50,120 had enacted to try to address its unsheltered population. 508 00:22:50,120 --> 00:22:54,960 This law passed in June in Oregon in 2021. 509 00:22:54,960 --> 00:22:59,040 City of Portland made some, seeing trouble coming, 510 00:22:59,040 --> 00:23:02,440 made some changes to its ordinance in July. 511 00:23:02,440 --> 00:23:06,360 That wasn't sufficient for the advocacy organizations 512 00:23:06,360 --> 00:23:08,320 and they sued that September. 513 00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:10,640 So it's a very quick turnaround from when 514 00:23:10,640 --> 00:23:15,280 Oregon passed the law to when a lawsuit was eventually filed. 515 00:23:15,280 --> 00:23:18,640 And unfortunately, you'd think that that lawsuit might 516 00:23:18,640 --> 00:23:20,320 have created some precedent. 517 00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:22,520 But unfortunately, the city of Portland, 518 00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:27,440 out of fear of this litigation, settled quickly 519 00:23:27,440 --> 00:23:28,480 when they were sued. 520 00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:31,880 And they settled to the tune of $145,000 521 00:23:31,880 --> 00:23:34,200 for a lawsuit that didn't even last two months. 522 00:23:34,200 --> 00:23:34,720 Wow. 523 00:23:34,720 --> 00:23:38,240 So they settled really quickly to avoid a bigger payout 524 00:23:38,240 --> 00:23:39,480 potentially. 525 00:23:39,480 --> 00:23:41,840 But what we got out of it for our use 526 00:23:41,840 --> 00:23:43,400 was actually really nothing. 527 00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:46,040 There's no presidential court decision 528 00:23:46,040 --> 00:23:48,520 for us to base anything on moving forward. 529 00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:50,520 Have there been any other lawsuits in Oregon 530 00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:53,120 around this objectively reasonable standard? 531 00:23:53,120 --> 00:23:55,440 There has not been another lawsuit in Oregon. 532 00:23:55,440 --> 00:23:58,720 I will say that Oregon has far less urban space 533 00:23:58,720 --> 00:23:59,800 than Washington does. 534 00:23:59,800 --> 00:24:02,920 And to my knowledge, local governments in Washington 535 00:24:02,920 --> 00:24:05,360 have more ordinances that I think 536 00:24:05,360 --> 00:24:08,920 are seen as targets for lawsuits by advocacy organizations 537 00:24:08,920 --> 00:24:11,320 than municipalities in Oregon do. 538 00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:12,520 And most of these are cities. 539 00:24:12,520 --> 00:24:14,800 I actually don't know of a county 540 00:24:14,800 --> 00:24:18,440 that is going to be subject to a lawsuit very quickly 541 00:24:18,440 --> 00:24:20,360 after this ordinance passes. 542 00:24:20,360 --> 00:24:23,360 But it would affect all of us in the long term. 543 00:24:23,360 --> 00:24:24,920 And so this is an issue for counties. 544 00:24:24,920 --> 00:24:27,560 And we're advocating that this bill would just 545 00:24:27,560 --> 00:24:30,600 cause a necessary litigation without creating any new services 546 00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:31,880 for unsheltered folks. 547 00:24:31,880 --> 00:24:33,680 So the bill had a hearing this week, is that right? 548 00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:34,200 It did. 549 00:24:34,200 --> 00:24:34,960 And how'd that go? 550 00:24:34,960 --> 00:24:38,640 So the hearing included a lot of opposition testimony. 551 00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:40,960 I don't know exactly how many people testified. 552 00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:45,360 I think somewhere between 20 and 30 people showed up to testify. 553 00:24:45,360 --> 00:24:48,320 And I think two people testified pro 554 00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:50,560 aside from advocacy organizations. 555 00:24:50,560 --> 00:24:54,240 So you had a handful of advocacy organizations, all lawyers, 556 00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:58,360 the ACLU, Northwest Justice, I think an independent lawyer 557 00:24:58,360 --> 00:25:01,680 on their own accord, all showed up to testify pro. 558 00:25:01,680 --> 00:25:04,280 The National Housing Alliance testified pro. 559 00:25:04,280 --> 00:25:07,800 And then one former planner and one official 560 00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:10,760 from the city of Berrien testified pro. 561 00:25:10,760 --> 00:25:13,640 City of Berrien is Rep. 562 00:25:13,640 --> 00:25:14,800 Gregorson's district. 563 00:25:14,800 --> 00:25:20,080 And everyone else, many mayors, many city planners, myself, 564 00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:21,720 and the Association of Washington Cities, 565 00:25:21,720 --> 00:25:23,720 counterpart for us, Carl Schroeder, 566 00:25:23,720 --> 00:25:26,160 all showed up and testified in opposition. 567 00:25:26,160 --> 00:25:29,360 And the same unified testimony that this 568 00:25:29,360 --> 00:25:31,440 would result in unneeded litigation, 569 00:25:31,440 --> 00:25:33,320 that it takes away local government control, 570 00:25:33,320 --> 00:25:37,040 that it subverts the decisions that the Supreme Court has 571 00:25:37,040 --> 00:25:39,080 made in recent years. 572 00:25:39,080 --> 00:25:39,720 OK. 573 00:25:39,720 --> 00:25:42,960 Well, given that that's how the hearing went, 574 00:25:42,960 --> 00:25:46,520 what do you think we can expect with this piece of legislation 575 00:25:46,520 --> 00:25:47,600 moving forward? 576 00:25:47,600 --> 00:25:49,560 Is it going to continue to move? 577 00:25:49,560 --> 00:25:51,440 I know we've been in conversation 578 00:25:51,440 --> 00:25:52,760 with Rep. Gregorson. 579 00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:54,200 This is her bill. 580 00:25:54,200 --> 00:25:56,720 I know she's really passionate about it. 581 00:25:56,720 --> 00:25:58,040 And by the way, Rep. 582 00:25:58,040 --> 00:26:01,160 Gregorson has been great to work with in the past. 583 00:26:01,160 --> 00:26:03,280 And I've spoken to her personally, 584 00:26:03,280 --> 00:26:04,600 along with you on this bill. 585 00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:08,240 And I know that she's really open to hearing our concerns 586 00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:09,960 and potential solutions. 587 00:26:09,960 --> 00:26:13,720 How do you think things are going to move forward, 588 00:26:13,720 --> 00:26:15,840 knowing that we're only in week two of the session? 589 00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:17,080 There's a long road ahead of us. 590 00:26:17,080 --> 00:26:18,160 Yeah. 591 00:26:18,160 --> 00:26:19,160 And I agree. 592 00:26:19,160 --> 00:26:21,320 Rep. Gregorson has been great to work with. 593 00:26:21,320 --> 00:26:23,600 She's brought us into the conversation. 594 00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:28,120 I had naively, first session, with all the opposition 595 00:26:28,120 --> 00:26:33,320 testimony, I had hoped that the bill might slow down or not 596 00:26:33,320 --> 00:26:35,480 move based on that feedback. 597 00:26:35,480 --> 00:26:36,720 That's not the case. 598 00:26:36,720 --> 00:26:41,160 It has an executive session planned for next Tuesday. 599 00:26:41,160 --> 00:26:45,600 Because the chair is the second on the bill, 600 00:26:45,600 --> 00:26:47,720 and they've scheduled an executive session, 601 00:26:47,720 --> 00:26:50,440 I would expect that to move out of committee. 602 00:26:50,440 --> 00:26:54,800 We have a meeting with all the other stakeholders, ACLU, 603 00:26:54,800 --> 00:26:56,960 several other advocacy organizations, 604 00:26:56,960 --> 00:26:59,560 as well as the Association of Washington Cities and several 605 00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:01,480 cities themselves. 606 00:27:01,480 --> 00:27:03,760 We have a meeting with all of those stakeholders 607 00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:05,880 and Representative Gregorson that we're setting up 608 00:27:05,880 --> 00:27:08,880 before that executive session to provide some feedback 609 00:27:08,880 --> 00:27:10,680 since the public hearing. 610 00:27:10,680 --> 00:27:13,080 And then the bill will continue to move through the process 611 00:27:13,080 --> 00:27:17,800 and will continue advocating that this doesn't help 612 00:27:17,800 --> 00:27:21,080 unsheltered folks and causes a lot of problems 613 00:27:21,080 --> 00:27:22,760 for cities and counties. 614 00:27:22,760 --> 00:27:25,840 OK, so the ACLU is involved? 615 00:27:25,840 --> 00:27:26,920 Yes. 616 00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,400 They are the loudest advocate for the bill. 617 00:27:30,400 --> 00:27:32,360 And they're also the organization 618 00:27:32,360 --> 00:27:34,360 that brought the suit against city of Portland. 619 00:27:34,360 --> 00:27:35,400 OK, interesting. 620 00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:37,320 All right, well, that's great information. 621 00:27:37,320 --> 00:27:38,880 Thanks for that level of detail. 622 00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:43,520 Boy, that was a long journey backward and forward, Curtis. 623 00:27:43,520 --> 00:27:46,040 I'm glad that you're on top of it. 624 00:27:46,040 --> 00:27:49,280 Second week, you're what, 10 days in. 625 00:27:49,280 --> 00:27:50,280 How are you holding up? 626 00:27:50,280 --> 00:27:53,720 You know, sometimes you take it one day at a time. 627 00:27:53,720 --> 00:27:56,640 I think I'm down to one minute at a time. 628 00:27:56,640 --> 00:28:00,000 Lots to do, just trying to move things forward 629 00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:02,120 and stay on my two feet here. 630 00:28:02,120 --> 00:28:04,760 Well, keep up the good work. 631 00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:06,440 I know our members really appreciate it 632 00:28:06,440 --> 00:28:07,680 and they're dependent on you. 633 00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:08,200 Yeah. 634 00:28:08,200 --> 00:28:09,520 All right, we'll see you next time. 635 00:28:09,520 --> 00:28:12,200 Thanks, Paul. 636 00:28:12,200 --> 00:28:14,280 Thanks for tuning in to County Connection. 637 00:28:14,280 --> 00:28:16,040 Stay in the loop by subscribing to us 638 00:28:16,040 --> 00:28:17,760 through your preferred podcasting app 639 00:28:17,760 --> 00:28:21,080 and following us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. 640 00:28:21,080 --> 00:28:23,360 And don't forget to join the Hub, your go-to source 641 00:28:23,360 --> 00:28:25,720 for the latest news and updates from the Washington State 642 00:28:25,720 --> 00:28:27,080 Association of Counties. 643 00:28:27,080 --> 00:28:29,920 Until next time, stay connected and stay informed. 644 00:28:29,920 --> 00:28:30,920 Thank you.