The Spokane City Council's proposed unhoused "bill of rights," while perhaps well-meaning, is unnecessary and carries with it potentially damaging consequences. 

The Council should strike down the ordinance before it becomes law and focus on balancing the needs of serving a vulnerable population with ensuring the city's neighborhoods are safe and welcoming to all. If the Council passes the ordinance, we encourage Mayor Lisa Brown to veto it, while carrying on some of her initiatives to address the homelessness situation that appear to have some encouraging early results. 

We oppose the ordinance, while we are in full agreement with the proposed legislation's assertion that all people deserve to be treated with dignity, regardless of socioeconomic status. We encourage all to treat the homeless population with the same respect we would treat our peers. 

The proposed ordinance goes too far, however, in essentially making the unhoused population a protected class. Once again, while perhaps well-meaning, the ordinance creates an incongruency in protections, in that protected classes are immutable. In other words, a person's race, gender identity, national origin, veteran status, and other protected classes generally don't change, barring exceptional circumstances. Housing status can change quickly and easily and doesn't fit with other protected classes. 

The main focus of the bill appears to revolve around employment. It states that no employer shall "reject or disqualify an applicant solely because the individual doesn't have a fixed or regular residence, or because the individual is homeless or unhoused, or because the individual lives on the street, in a shelter, or in a temporary residence." 

As written, the ordinance provides a caveat stating that such protections don't apply if a job applicant's housing status has a legitimate relation to the primary duties of the job. Even so, this is an overreach in which the government is encumbering employers with a wide spectrum of needs. In reality, employers can restrict a number of activities as a term of employment that are otherwise legal, such as smoking or using marijuana. We wouldn't presume to know the needs of each individual employer in maintaining its workforce. Nor should the City Council. 

Beyond the employment aspect, provisions in the bill include the right to move freely in open spaces, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right to retain control of their personal papers. All of those rights exist already for homeless people, as they do those who are housed. It's unclear what those provisions are intended to accomplish. 

Last fall, Spokane voters passed Proposition 1, which banned camping on public lands within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, and other properties, with a 75% yes vote. Homelessness advocates sued to prevent the initiative from being enforced, and the Washington state Supreme Court will hear arguments on that case this fall.

We hope the Supreme Court upholds the voters' will, but regardless, it's clear that a vast majority of Spokane's citizenry wants our elected leaders to balance serving the unhoused population with warranted public safety concerns. The Council would be wise to make that its focus moving forward, and once again, if it doesn't, we hope Mayor Brown steps in as the voice of reason.