The Washington Legislature is considering a bill that would allow cities and counties to be sued for enforcing any ban on public camping that is not considered “objectively reasonable.”

While advocates for those living unhoused in Washington say the bill would be an important step to providing rights and protections for a vulnerable population, opponents argue the legal definition is subjective and would open up local governments to costly litigation at the expense of tax payers.

If passed, House Bill 1380 would require that any city or town, code city or county laws regulating “the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping, or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public” do so in a way that it “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner.”

It would also allow parties and individuals to take legal action against cities and counties they believe are enforcing such a policy in a way that is not “objectively reasonable.”

The primary sponsor of the bill, Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-33rd District), said the legislation is part of a greater effort to codify rights and legal protections for homeless people. She referred to the idea as a “bill of rights” for the homeless population.

In an interview with The News Tribune, Gregerson said the legislation would prohibit local jurisdictions from regulating camping on public spaces, but creates a framework for them to do so.

“If you are going to enforce, then enforce through this lens,” she said.

Gregerson said the bill is intended to create representation for an otherwise vulnerable population.

On Jan. 21, the bill was the subject of a public hearing by the House Committee on Housing.

Jazmyn Clark of ACLU Washington testified in support of the bill. Clark said HB 1380 is a vital step toward managing the homelessness crisis, in part, because it includes language requiring local governments to consider the “totality of circumstances” when regulating camping on public property.

According to the bill, a local government must consider whether prohibitions on public camping protect the safety of both housed and unhoused individuals, whether there is accessible alternative shelter or housing available for those experiencing homelessness, and whether enforcement is proportional to the issue, among other factors.

Supporters of the bill say cities and counties would be protected from litigation as long as regulation of public camping considers those factors and is “objectively reasonable.

Opponents say reasonableness is difficult to define in this instance.

During the Jan. 21 hearing, Curtis Steinhauer, a policy analyst at Washington State Association of Counties, testified in opposition to HB 1380.

“Counties are responsible for addressing homelessness in their jurisdiction, and we appreciate the efforts of this body to advocate for the most vulnerable members of our communities,” Steinhauer testified. “However, this bill will result in unnecessary litigation for local governments without creating any new rights for unsheltered people.”

Steinhauer said the lack of a clear definition for what is “objectively reasonable” would leave local governments to guess when drafting policies to regulate public spaces.

“The only way to find out what ordinances meet this standard is through litigation,” he told the committee. “When litigation occurs, it will come at the expense of taxpayers in these jurisdictions, possibly paid for by revenue that could have been used to create more resources for vulnerable people that this bill is meant to protect.”

The City of Tacoma has an ordinance prohibiting camping in public spaces within a 10-block radius of a shelter or within a certain distance of a waterway.

Maria Lee is a spokesperson for the City of Tacoma.

When asked if Tacoma’s camping ban ordinance would be considered “objectively reasonable” under the bill, Lee told The News Tribune it is unclear.

“We recognize the intent of the proposed legislation, and we’re seeking to understand how it will interact with current city ordinances, including the camping ordinance.” Lee told The News Tribune in an email. “It’s likely that further legal interpretation will be needed to provide clear guidance regarding enforcement and to ensure city ordinances meet the new standard.”

The bill has not been scheduled for a floor vote. On Feb. 28, it was referred to the House Rules Committee.