Longview Council to consider measure to 'aggressively' address park homelessness

'Reclaim' resolution sponsored by Boudreau, Halvorson may cost a bunch, put city at legal risk and upend police approach to the issue

A proposal to get tougher with homeless campers in Longview parks is up for consideration at a special City Council meeting tonight.

The proposal raises questions about whether the city can afford a more aggressive approach, whether it would be legal and whether the council should be telling police how to do their job.

Dubbed the RECLAIM resolution, the proposal would declare a public nuisance in city parks. (Reclaim stands for restoring enforcement, cleaning lawlessness and improving municipal spaces.)

It would establish a “zero- tolerance” policy directing “the City Manager to deploy necessary resources, including law enforcement overtime and budget authority, to restore safety, order, and cleanliness throughout municipal spaces, ensuring these public areas remain safe and accessible for all residents.”

It was drafted by councilman Erik Halvorson and Councilman/Mayor Spencer Boudreau and is the one of just a handful of items on the agenda for the meeting, which starts at 6 p.m. in Longview City Hall.

The resolution asserts that the city should “aggressively enforce all applicable laws against unlawful camping, drug use, littering, and other public nuisances in city parks, rights- of- way adjacent to parks, city- owned parking lots, and facilities.”

It is full of high-sounding rhetoric and hyperbole, asserting that “residents of Longview are justifiably outraged by the persistent, unlawful occupation of public parks and city property” and that the “city has legal authority and the moral duty to enforce its laws, restore public safety, and reclaim municipal spaces.”

The measure arises from the persistent presence of a few — six to perhaps a dozen homeless individuals — who have camped near the gazebo at R.A. Long Memorial Park and nearby library grounds.

City administrators are unsure of just how aggressively the resolution would require police to be, and whether it would change the Longview PD’s stepped “educate, encourage and enforce” approach to dealing with homeless campers.

Last week, City Manager Jennifer Wills met with Boudreau and Councilwoman/Mayor Pro Tem Kalei LaFave and Police Chief Robert Huhta and Assistant City Manager Chris Collins about the proposal.

“It was a great discussion and I believe a lot came from it,” Wills reported to the entire council in a May 29 memo. However, 10 questions emerged “to clarify …. what enforcement should look like in action, how success will be measured, what resources you intend to authorize, and how frequently you expect updates,” Wills wrote.

“Staff need this guidance to ensure implementation is both effective and consistent with Council’s vision and mission.”

Among the questions: “What does aggressive enforcement look like in practice? Are you expecting daily patrols and citations on first offense? Should staff maintain a role for education and voluntary compliance, and if so where does that fit in? What does “zero tolerance” mean operationally? Should staff stop issuing warnings entirely?” (See the full list of questions at the end of this column.)

Boudreau did not respond to my emailed list of questions for this story.

In addition to the ambiguity of this proposal, one wonders at its potential costs and how much manpower it would consume. Councilwoman MaryAlice Wallis said Chief Huhta estimates it would cost $985,000 annually to station an officer at a single park for 18 hours a day.

“We don’t have that kind of money siting around,” Wallis said.

The city already is facing a financial crunch. The parks department already is underfunded and facing a big maintenance backlog. And the police department already consume by far the biggest share of the city budget (33.4%).

Even if that near-$1million figure seems exaggerated or “worst case,” is this problem serious enough to warrant large expenditures? (It would seem much cheaper to rent out apartments for the few persistent offenders and subject them to police supervision rather than to mount an aggressive parks trespass and enforcement policy.)

Is enforcing camping and trespass ordinances the city’s biggest law enforcement priority, especially compared to drug and shoplifting problems? (Some of these campers are no doubt addicted, but they are using drugs, not selling them in quantities.)

And it’s not like police are ignoring the problem.

“This tiered (“3Es approach) allows for discretion and consistency while reserving immediate enforcement for serious or repeat violations. Education and Encouragement still means that they are no longer doing the violation- we don’t educate or encourage and walk away without a change in behavior,” Wills said in another memo to the council.

Since December, police have issued 27 written trespass notices for violation of park rules. Individuals are formally trespassed from all city parks for a period of 90 days, Wills reported.

Some people would just love to put these people on buses and ship them out of town, but that is illegal as well as heartless. And, despite last year’s U.S. Supreme Court Grants Pass case finding that cities can ban people from sleeping and camping in public places, the legal issues remain unsettled. Being too aggressive with the homeless could land the city in court on grounds that it is punishing people for being homeless.

Arresting and citing these homeless folks, many of whom have mental health problems, will just chase them elsewhere. The city, indeed, already is getting complaints about homeless campers moving to city parking lots on 12th and 14th Avenues after recently getting the campers to vacate R.A Long Park during prom weekend last week.

Finally, it’s best to allow police to do their jobs. Council members are not qualified to direct them on how to do it.

There’s no doubt that there's a bit of election-year grandstanding in this proposal, as
Boudreau is facing strong re-election opposition.

Ending homeless camping in parks — and everywhere else — is an admirable goal. But this proposed resolution is a bludgeon that treats the unfortunate as vermin. Homelessness is not an easy problem to solve humanely. Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the Supreme Court’s 6-3 opinion in the Grants Pass case, acknowledged that "Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.”

I understand the frustrations with homeless people at RAL Park, but they don’t justify the heavy-handed approach suggested in this proposal.

Here are the questions City Manager Jennifer Wills sent the council about the proposed parks “RECLAIM” resolution.

1. Define the exact problem we are trying to solve?

2. What does success look like?

• What outcomes would indicate this effort is working?

• Are you looking for a decrease in complaints, visual improvement in public spaces, increased community use, or specific enforcement statistics?

• What results would you hope to see within 30, 60, or 90 days?

3. What laws or policies are not currently being enforced to your satisfaction?

• Are there specific municipal code sections or state laws you feel have been inconsistently applied?

• Are you fully aware of what our current enforcement looks like?

• If you are, what shift do you want to see in our overall approach?

4. What does “aggressive enforcement” mean in practice?

• Are you expecting daily patrols and citations on first offense?

• Should staff maintain a role for education and voluntary compliance, and if so where does that fit in?

5. What does “zero tolerance” mean operationally?

• Should staff stop issuing warnings entirely (we use the 3 – E approach of Encourage, Educate, and Enforce)?

• Are there any exceptions based on individual circumstances, or should the response be uniform? If exceptions, how is that defined?

6. What does “immediate, direct, and sustained” enforcement look like?

• What timeline do you associate with “immediate”?

• How long should increased enforcement be maintained?

• Should this effort be treated as a short-term surge or part of an ongoing strategy?

7. What does “unlimited resources” mean in your view?

• Are you authorizing overtime, increased jail bookings, or external contractors?

• Should staff set budget caps, or proceed with flexibility and report back?

• What reporting would you like on costs and resource use?

8. What are your expectations for reporting and updates?

• How often would you like updates? (e.g., weekly, monthly)

• What format is most useful? (e.g., written reports, dashboards, public presentations)

• What specific data points or outcomes would you like tracked?

9. What role should support services and partnerships play?

• How do you see the important and successful work our coordination with mental health, housing, and outreach providers continue alongside enforcement?

• Are there any policy or programmatic changes you want staff to explore long-term?

10. What additional information would help you prepare for this discussion ahead of time?

• Are there materials, data sets, or briefings you’d like in advance?

• Please let us know what questions you plan to ask so we can be prepared with accurate information and context during the meeting.