How should this community respond to homelessness?

By Erik Larson

On the banks of the Chehalis, at the end of an unimproved right-of-way called River Street, there is nothing … or at least there is now.

For the past several years it was the site of an unsanctioned homeless camp where at some points as many as 150 individuals took shelter. While it may have been salvation for those with nowhere else to go, it also served as a shelter for criminal activity and those who wished to live outside the law.

Those who were most vulnerable, regularly became victims of abuse and sexual assault. Those trying to escape addiction found themselves surrounded by the substances they were running from, unable to break free. But with all its problems, it was still the best option for many who lived there, and shutting it down proved to be a complicated endeavor.

The federal court Martin v. Boise decision came down from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in September of 2018, only two months after the purchase of the River Street property. The impacts of the decision have been felt across the West Coast, and they have been dramatic.

In essence, this decision restricts the police powers of the government with respect to restricting access to public places if insufficient shelter space exists. This creates a unique issue for many local governments that are tasked with maintaining the police power but not the availability of shelter.

Ever since the decision of the 9th Circuit, these communities have struggled to address the changing legal environment, and to this day anyone who tells you they know exactly what the law says on the issues is either omniscient or foolhardy. The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court, which is currently deciding whether to hear the matter. It is entirely possible the Supreme Court will replace the interpretation of the 9th Circuit with its own. It is an uncertain time.

As happens with most uncertain questions of law, it inevitably ends in a lawsuit. There have been many lawsuits since Martin v. Boise, businesses suing over impacts of the restriction of police powers and activists suing over the lack of compassion, all hoping for the courts to uphold their view and more importantly, impose it.

I remember asking one of the plaintiffs to sit down and discuss their grievances, and being told, “There is nothing to discuss, we are going to sue you.” And that is exactly what they did.

The lawsuits had two impacts: It kept the public from being part of the discussion, and it delayed any decision making which could possibly be postponed until the City knew where it stood. Whether they will believe it or not, I believe we would have ended up exactly where we are today about six months sooner, and with better public support, if the lawsuits had been avoided.

Unfortunately, that is not the alternate universe I get to live in. One issue which has come up regularly through this entire ordeal has been why this is an issue in the first place.

According to the 2019 Grays Harbor Homelessness System Performance data provided by Grays Harbor County Public Health & Social Services, there were a total 419 households who sought assistance for housing in the past year and only 101 were able to enroll in housing programs.

The remaining 318 households represent the unmet need, people who sought help and there was none available. The average length of time spent homeless for those who received support was over two months, while those without support may spend more than a year without stable housing.

The reality is that as a county we are not doing enough to address the existing need in our community, and at the current cost of existing programs funding would need to triple to do so. This is hardly feasible, but something needs to be done.

In July of 2019, the City of Aberdeen decided to create an encampment to provide a shelter location which would meet the requirements of Martin v. Boise. It was estimated at the time around 120 individuals were unsheltered in Aberdeen, and the Temporary Alternative Shelter Location (TASL) was created to meet that need.

At the time I am writing this, 81 individuals currently reside at the TASL site. Across the State of Washington, and inside the boundaries of the 9th Circuit, similar facilities are springing up in other communities. These facilities are not a solution to the problem of homelessness; they only serve to treat the symptoms. These communities all have similarities — the urban hub of a region, the location of public services like DSHS and Social Security, a shortage of shelter options from regional programs.

They are all naturally where people end up when they are in need. And for the most part, these programs facilitate their primary function. They get the unsheltered off the streets and make them easier to manage, easier to help — but who is going to provide that help?

We need to focus on increasing capacity to meet the needs of our community, and we need to stop pretending this is an isolated problem we can just bus away like blowing leaves into our neighbor’s yard.

In cities like Marysville, which was held up in the news as having solved this crisis, you can start to see the solution. In Snohomish County, there exist large and well managed housing programs that are sufficient to meet their needs. When an individual is contacted by Marysville Police, they have somewhere to send them and outcomes are better for everyone. They have shown having sufficient capacity for support can lead to good outcomes, and are integral to addressing homelessness and other social issues.

We need to get people off the streets in the short term, and facilities like TASL do this, but this needs to be followed by long-term solutions. Aberdeen is not going to accept the status quo, and I do not expect the new administration to be less demanding.

Erik Larson is the outgoing mayor of Aberdeen. His term ends at the end of the year.