Supreme Court episode: Are sweeps the answer?

[00:00:00] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice, the Monday, July 1st Supreme Court edition of Seattle Nice. I'm David Hyde here as always with Erica C Barnett of Publicola. Hi, Erica. Hello. And welcome to our own political consultant Sandeep Kaushik. Hello. Hello, David.

[00:00:27] We pay him nothing. Yeah. So, everyone's talking about this latest Supreme Court case that gives the president immunity for official acts today, July 1st. My favorite tweet so far about that though, so Biden can't forgive student loans but he can't order a drone strike on the loan collectors.

[00:00:44] It's pretty good. Yeah. Why are you on Twitter? Yeah. Why am I on Twitter? Yeah. The existential question. It is an existential question. Whoa. Jinx. Jinx. Nice being Seattle Nice. I mean, say what you will about that Supreme Court case if you want, but we're talking

[00:01:00] about a different Supreme Court case, a recent case that upheld a ban on sleeping outdoors. Erica, what did the Supreme Court rule? Well, essentially this case is called Grants Pass v. Johnson. It's about Grants Pass, a small town in Oregon that has a pretty extreme ban on

[00:01:18] quote unquote camping. They upheld that ban and basically said that under the Eighth Amendment, being homeless is just an action. It's not a status. So the Eighth Amendment, you know, among other things says that you can't discriminate

[00:01:31] against people because of a status specifically like being an addict, like having an addiction. There's a 1962 ruling I think that this is based on and they said being homeless is not is not a status.

[00:01:44] So because of that city of Grants Pass can in fact do things like banning people from having a pillow or rolling up a t-shirt to sleep on or having a blanket. Gorsuch said additionally that, you know, the law bans both the rich and the poor.

[00:02:00] I mean he almost literally said that the thing that is frequently quoted sarcastically, the law bans are rich and the poor from sleeping in parks. So if you are somebody who is just picnicking and you fall asleep, it's also equally illegal.

[00:02:13] And dissenters, the liberals on the court pointed out that nobody is arrested under these laws for falling asleep on a picnic blanket. It's all homeless people. So that's basically what the ruling says and it applies to all the western states.

[00:02:27] It essentially overturns another ruling called Martin B. Boise that we've talked about a lot on this podcast. And so it frees up western states to, you know, pass laws or enforce laws banning people from sleeping outdoors, which a lot of them are pretty eager to do.

[00:02:43] Right. Boise and Grants Pass, right, that there was a ninth circuit right, ruling that it applied to the western states, right, that this Supreme Court just overturned. Yeah. Sandeep Kashik, what's been the local response to this ruling?

[00:02:57] Well, I think it's, I think one of the reasons this case in particular got such enormous attention, right, was the kind of odd bedfellows, expressions of support for the Supreme Court overturning as they just did the ninth circuit on this stuff.

[00:03:15] So you had everybody from here locally, city attorney and Davidson filing an amicus brief in support of the decision that the Supreme Court just made. In California, you had folks like the governor of California, the progressive governor of California Gavin Newsom

[00:03:32] or the mayor of San Francisco, London Breed also weighing in, asking the Supreme Court to overturn the ninth circuit. So it wasn't just conservatives or a kind of Republican like Ann Davidson that were kind of weighing in, asking for this.

[00:03:49] It was also in a significant number of cases sort of left or progressive elected officials who are grappling with the problems of encampments in their states or communities that were asking for that to happen.

[00:04:02] So in terms of local reaction, you know, Ann Davidson obviously who had kind of weighed in asking the court to take this action took a victory lap put out a statement in support of it.

[00:04:12] I think you see kind of the usual suspects on both sides of this locally Tammy Morales now the left most member of the city council decried this decision and kind of oddly said it was an attack on working class people

[00:04:29] like all working class people which I thought was an odd way to frame it since it's about homelessness but nonetheless came out very strongly saying that this is a terrible decision.

[00:04:38] And you had the mayor kind of weighing in saying, hey, this is much ado about nothing nothing's going to change here in Seattle. I don't plan to kind of change or or or make our homelessness policies more punitive or restrictive in any way because of this.

[00:04:57] Yeah, so I mean I don't I'm not surprised. I mean I would not consider London breed or Gavin Newsom you know progressive lefties.

[00:05:04] I think that's a mischaracterization but you know I think much like Bruce Harrell much like you know perhaps Dal Constantine the King County executive, you know they are to varying extent in favor of homeless sweeps.

[00:05:16] I mean, Harrell, you know like Jenny Durkin before him like you know Ed Murray before her favored sweeping homeless encampments and so I don't think it's terribly surprising that they aren't decrying this decision.

[00:05:27] But you know I mean I do think you know on the very local level just in Seattle, it probably won't change a lot because the city already has rules known as M.D.R.'s multi disciplinary administrative rules that say that you're not supposed to sweep encampments

[00:05:43] unless you offer people some available shelter bed. Of course, you know as I said on Publicola this rule is mostly honored in the breach because they also have an exception in those rules that allows them to sweep at will with no notice if they deem something to be an obstruction

[00:05:59] and the city in the past has said it's an obstruction if it's in public essentially like if it's in a park, if it's on public property it is de facto an obstruction which just gives a ton of leeway for the city to do you know basically whatever it wants which is what it has done

[00:06:12] and that was under Martin P. Voisey so most likely I mean I don't see any reason for that to change or for the city to change its current sweeps you know behavior or policies it's still doing sweeps it never stopped doing sweeps except during the pandemic.

[00:06:24] I will say you know in other places I follow Burian pretty closely and in Burian you know they have a really restrictive law that they passed that King County which operates as its police department has not enforced and they haven't enforced it in part on some of the same grounds

[00:06:41] as the Supreme Court just overturned and so the sheriff's office is embroiled in a lawsuit against the Burian law and they are also claiming 14th amendment grounds which is due process and the Supreme Court kind of made some noises in their

[00:06:59] ruling in public statements that you know the 14th amendment is still an open question and so you know I think there's 8th amendment is cruel and unusual punishment and you know basically the court said it's not cruel or unusual but due process is a different

[00:07:14] one of the things about these laws and you know in the grants passed law but basically all of them they find you if you are homeless and have no choice but to sleep outside and so you're caught you know fulfilling this biological function and then it's escalating fines

[00:07:29] and eventually jail and so there is a real question of due process there when it's you know if you could afford a thousand dollar fine you could afford a thousand dollar room you know so you're essentially putting people in an impossible situation and then jailing them you know because they can't do the impossible

[00:07:47] so you know I think they're I think that's still an open question especially here locally probably not so much of the Supreme Court because I think we know how they would rule.

[00:07:57] So I want to hear your response to what Erica had to say both for Seattle but also with Ann Davison with the amicus brief stuff to essentially endorse laws in cities like Burian or grants passed that say you can't sleep in your car we don't have to offer you shelter that are

[00:08:14] that are sort of more draconian than the ruling here is there a problem with them kind of just going well this this solves some kind of logistical problems nothing's really going to change here but aren't they endorsing these much more draconian laws in other places.

[00:08:29] I don't think that was their intent in signing on to this right and so going back to the original decisions here by the Ninth Circuit Boise and then in particular, I think there was an effort to kind of over interpret those decisions right and so there were folks on the left that were claiming because

[00:08:49] of that initial Boise decision any encampment and cleanup was unconstitutional right Tammy Morales when she was running for the city council in 2019 made that argument that sweets are not only bad they're actually unconstitutional because of this Boise decision.

[00:09:07] So in some sense, I think folks were looking for clarity elected officials that are overseeing, you know, encampment cleanup policies and writing things like mdars and that kind of stuff.

[00:09:19] We're looking for some clarity about what is and what isn't allowed right in terms of policies on those front. And in some sense what the Supreme Court did in terms of Seattle specifically is just a kind of retroactive endorsement of the policy that already exists right

[00:09:36] and so the city has obviously that's not true. The city has a policy that complies with Martin V Boise. Okay, yeah, but the point the point was Martin V Boise did not bar all encampment clean up right.

[00:09:52] Right. So some people sort of tried to push it in that direction and claim that it did, you know, that was the argument Tammy Morales is making in 2019 that I'm not sure I'm not I'm not as obsessed with old elections as you so I can go back and know exactly what she was saying vis-a-vis the constitutionality.

[00:10:08] But I will say Tammy Morales does not have the power here in the city of Seattle. We're talking with the city of Seattle's position so aside from like your sort of obsession with the left most council member let's talk about like what the actual city as a whole you know particularly the executive department which enforces these policies you know has has done and you know they have never hesitated to remove encampments except during the pandemic when the CDC you know said you should not be pushing people around.

[00:10:35] Right and right so again I don't think this is going to change city policies obviously when the mayor weighed in after this decision came down that's basically what he said is he's not going to he's not going to push to change any kind of policies like the current policies that the city has are going to remain in place and and Erica you laid them out I mean I think we could quibble about your expansive definition of the word sweep but we've done that in the past I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole again.

[00:11:05] But here's where I do think longer term it potentially has an implication for Seattle and the longer term implication is this it does essentially allow much harsher anti camping policies to exist in say suburban cities right you mentioned Burian or other places look the city of Portland Oregon is just I think today starting to enforce a anti camping organization.

[00:11:35] So I think that in the past there's been a lot of disagreements that they pass where you know Portland where there's been a kind of stronger backlash against some of the same kinds of issues were grappling within Seattle that you know this decision clearly kind of you know ratifies their ability to do that kind of stuff.

[00:11:55] If you have suburban cities being allowed to essentially push to bar encampments in their jurisdictions what they're essentially doing is pushing the problem to Seattle right I mean they're trying to essentially push homeless people out of their communities and where they're going to go they're going to go

[00:12:16] to someplace like Seattle which is not doing what the you know Burian is doing and so longer term I think it is it is a problem and it does sort of destabilize our efforts to have a kind of unified regional approach to addressing the problem right and then if the homelessness gets bad enough

[00:12:35] and cabinets get bad enough in Seattle we'll have a backlash here right so I do think longer term it is a destabilizing decision for us.

[00:12:43] Well I think that you know I mean the problem with all of these decisions and all of this entire discussion is like you know let's say LA adopts a law that says that you know it's 100,000 homeless people or however many it is I'm making up that number because I don't know exactly what it is but let's say it's a lot.

[00:13:03] It's a lot.

[00:13:04] So they pass an ordinance that says they can't be there so what does that accomplish I mean this is just all of these laws are just magical fucking thinking you know the idea that we can just sort of like I don't know banish homeless people to the countryside somehow you know where they can

[00:13:23] like you know I guess starve live off the land I you know I don't know there's no long term plan reflected in any of these policies it's just we don't want them here we want a homeless free city.

[00:13:33] And you know on a small scale like Burien maybe you get it or maybe grants pass maybe you get it you get rid of your you know 100 homeless people because they all go to Seattle.

[00:13:43] But you know then Seattle passes a backlash law or Portland already has a backlash law you know the the magical thinking here is this idea that we can just vaporize the problem vaporize people and you know as so to my art pointed out in her descent I mean this is you know there's

[00:14:01] a lot of people who have to sleep and if they don't have a place to sleep they will sleep outside and the sort of denial of this like very basic fact you know is the ultimate problem here you know we are not solving the actual problem

[00:14:16] and you know that it's easy for you know Neil Gorsuch or whoever to say well the city should solve the problem well okay yes they should but we're not doing that and so this is this like the stop gap bullshit where we say you know everybody you know every single city can just pass a law ban and camping

[00:14:33] is just insane to me I mean it's just you know it's so it's so beside the point because I mean the point is we're not even really trying to actually solve the problem.

[00:14:43] We're not really trying my question for you Sunday visit irresponsible for somebody like doug Constantine to praise the Supreme Court ruling. Given the implications not necessarily directly for Seattle but for some of the surrounding communities that might have.

[00:14:58] Much harsher laws concerning somebody just being homeless sleeping in their car having nowhere else to go not being offered anywhere else to go.

[00:15:08] No I don't think it's irresponsible because as I said earlier I do think this ambiguity is this and there have been people on the left that are trying to push. Their interpretation of the ninth circuit decision in in in Boise.

[00:15:23] To a point that you know would have potentially restricted the city from pursuing the current regime in terms of encampment cleanups and so people on the left are allowed to object to things. They're interpreting my sentiment Morales objecting as as having this tremendous power.

[00:15:45] I'm just saying there was a clear ambiguity there and they were people that were interpreting it one way and others and yes the city sort of has to a significant extent kind of made their decision about that but but the question. I mean it hasn't changed.

[00:16:00] I just I don't understand this. If you'd let me Erica interrupting me. So look, I agree with with you Erica that this isn't some kind of panacea or magic bullet that's going to solve some problem it does.

[00:16:16] Like I said it retroactively endorses the current policies that are essentially in place in the city of Seattle. I do think there are potential negative implications for it longer term.

[00:16:28] I mean, I'm sorry I'm shaking your head because it doesn't I just want to be clear the current policies in the city of Seattle.

[00:16:35] It's not retroactively endorsing those policies those policies are not out of line with Martin B. Boise the previous regime before the Supreme Court made this decision. Nobody is arguing that our policies like would have needed to change if this had gone another way they are complicit.

[00:16:52] With Martin B. Boise and I just this whole this whole thing about the left has it has an opinion that disagrees with Bruce Harrell or whatever or Jenny Durkin like who the fuck cares the left lost this battle and like we do sweep we have never stopped doing sweep so I don't know man like I don't care if

[00:17:10] Tammy Morales has a different opinion I don't care if she's wrong on the law I'm not saying she is or isn't but like it also I don't know it's not what I'm focused on right and I get it but what I'm saying it's it's not

[00:17:19] irresponsible to say we want some clarity on this on on this issue given that some people have been pushing back on it on our policy I will also say to be clear here because we're talking about Portland, Oregon and their backlash law

[00:17:34] and I think it is a backlash law and it is going in effect today but it is a watered down version the first version of it that they passed which basically banned any kind of tent being on a on a city street at any time during

[00:17:45] daylight hours ran into legal challenges and and got overturned by a judge they passed another one where I think where Portland is trying to get is to their version of what they think is a sweet spot which is like we will offer you an alternative place to go

[00:18:01] and now it may not be a place you like very much and I think the place they're headed are these which I think is a bad idea but these large scale authorized encampment areas with you know 100 200 tents in them and they will offer you that place

[00:18:20] you know as an alternative to you camping on their streets right I think that's where their current version of their laws headed they're concentrating them in a camp

[00:18:29] right which is I think a bad I actually think that is a bad idea and bad policy and it's going to lead to how do you not have that turn into thunder down right I mean I

[00:18:39] you know we've talked about this before when you concentrate you know folks having issues and problems in a single place it makes not only it's hard to govern that but at the individual level it makes people's problems worse

[00:18:52] right we've learned that through decades and decades of you know efforts to alleviate poverty right and so I don't think that's a super great idea on the part of Portland but nonetheless right I mean I think there's I think what you're seeing here is a lot of cities

[00:19:07] trying to grapple with reality and you said they were sort of magical thinking among the people that sort of support this issue but there's been a lot of magical thinking on the left about this too that you know oh you know these encampments are all like sweetness

[00:19:21] and light and I never heard anybody on the left say that and I will say I was at a I was an outreach conference there's a very interesting my point there's an unwis there's been an unwillingness to admit that

[00:19:32] encampment sometimes turn into significant public health or public safety problems so I was adding to finish my point I was at an outreach conference last week and it was very interesting talking to people who actually do this work and are

[00:19:47] very aware of what encampments are like much more so than policymakers I would say and much more so than people that don't go into encampments and what they talked about you know was the danger of encampments yes and I do think you know

[00:20:00] turning you know making giant concentration camps for homeless people is a bad idea it's very dangerous but you know they also talked about like the reality of sweeps you may choose to you know think of sweeps as sweetness

[00:20:12] and light Sunday that you know they're compassionately offering people you know wonderful shelter and storing all their belongings but one of the stories I heard was about you know a person who you know had been swept from place to place

[00:20:25] and while he's away from his tent the sweeps workers it came along through away all his stuff including his dead wife's ashes which he had been keeping with them for you know as long as he had been able to and they just threw him away because they were just junk

[00:20:38] that is what happens at sweeps like brutal shit like that happens brutal traumatizing shit and like and I think there is magical thinking when people think that a sweep is not a big deal because somebody you know shouldn't have been there in the first place

[00:20:51] you know and is unrealistic about like what actually happens to people stuff it gets thrown away I mean yes the city stores some stuff in a place that you know is inaccessible to most people but when you lose every earthly possession it is gone

[00:21:05] and I just think like let's let's be a little bit real about what this actually means for people who are living on sheltered as opposed to you know while we got a sweep them because they can't just be there in our way like let's let's let's just look at what it actually means for people

[00:21:20] sure and you know obviously the as you've you've referenced that the protocol right the mdar that the that the city of Seattle developed in 2017 is intended to kind of address some of those those concerns though of course you're right that is that fully 100% complied with in every situation obviously not

[00:21:39] and I don't think anybody at least I don't think any rational person who has a serious seriously is grappling with with the issue that encampments and homelessness presents is saying that sweeps are a great policy I think what they're saying is sometimes they beat the alternative right when you have encampments that turn into you know nodes of criminal or other

[00:22:04] sorts of destructive behaviors you have to take action if that was the only time we were taking action and if the action was something other than a violent sweep and when I say violent I don't mean physically that they're beating people up or anything like that I just mean like the violence of losing everything you

[00:22:21] know you're talking about the trauma you're talking about the trauma okay sure yeah yeah I mean I think it's a violent act to come into someone's home and steal everything I think if you were burglarized and lost you know everything like every memento from your family you would you

[00:22:34] experience that as a form of violence but these are not the only two alternatives like yes of course like when I when there's a violent encampment that's gotten huge and there are problems you deal with the problems and that may mean you know focusing on that encampment saying we really need to prioritize these folks for appropriate shelter and housing

[00:22:53] but you know I just don't think like a flat out sweep is ever the best answer there's always a better answer than just either throwing away people's stuff and telling them to move along.

[00:23:03] Obviously I agree with you Erika people's possession shouldn't be you know thrown away and destroyed and there was certainly a period in Seattle prior to the current protocols where that was that sort of thing was happening much more consistently and even as a matter of policy they've tried to work to address that you know it's not a

[00:23:23] perfect system by any means but as I said before I think it beats the alternative.

[00:23:29] That's it for another edition of Seattle Knives we're gonna leave it there he's Sandeep Koushik she's Erika C Barnett I'm David Hyde Mad Max is beyond the Thunderdome came out in 1985 and I'm looking at IMDB only gets a 6.2 rating so not a great film gets a lot of references here on Seattle Knives that's at least according to the critics.

[00:23:48] Tina Turner man how could Tina Turner only get a 6.2? Our editor is Quinn Waller and you our listeners are also our donors on Patreon thank you so much for listening and for donating and just thanks goodbye.