Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Encampment Ordinance Prop1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over encampment ordinance centers on process, enforcement and Prop 1; vote to defer first reading to June 2
Summary
Council members debated a proposed amendment to Spokane's camping/obstruction ordinance, with supporters saying it simplifies citywide rules and critics saying it replaces voter‑approved Prop 1 language and shifts enforcement to administrative rules. The council deferred the ordinance's first reading to June 2 by a 5‑2 vote.
Council members engaged in extended debate over a proposed amendment to the city's camping and obstruction code, described in the transcript as ordinance 36679 (relating to prohibition of encampments). The amendment and surrounding process prompted sharply divided remarks about transparency, community input and how enforcement would be implemented.
"This is the exact kind of professional discourtesy that I've come to expect from council members," Council member Cathcart said of how the ordinance amendment was presented. He criticized the timing and approach, saying the proposal would "literally strike all of our existing camping code" and leave enforcement to rules that do not yet exist.
Council member Zappone said the change was discussed in roundtable meetings and argued for the amendment: "I support this change because I think it's actually stronger and better for Spokane to have this change. The origin of this was actually started at the roundtable discussions...how can we make something that's simpler, understood throughout the whole city..." Zappone also said there would be more community engagement going forward.
Council member Bingle questioned some characterizations of the process and said disagreements may reflect differing recollections of past meetings: "I certainly wouldn't accuse anybody of lying here, but probably misremembering...there were definitely opportunities where...we are meeting in other staffers' offices about, hey, here's something that we could do where we could meet in the middle."
Other council members raised concerns that adopting the amendment could remove the existing sit/lie protections voters approved in Prop 1 and transfer significant enforcement detail to administrative policy. Cathcart highlighted a change in timeframes discussed by some speakers, saying an earlier standard of three days had been replaced with a longer seven‑day period under the draft language.
Council member Dylan described the aim of combining rules into a single, citywide code: "So to really bring it all under, one, umbrella. And then, on some of the questions around the effectiveness of enforcement...that intake, that case management, getting people to services, is proving, really effective."
Several council members also complained about limited advance access to the draft ordinance. Cathcart said council members received the document late and that a staff slideshow had been given to reporters before full council members had received written copies.
After extended discussion, the council voted to defer first reading of the ordinance to June 2; the motion to defer passed by a voice vote recorded as 5‑to‑2 with abstentions noted in the record for a member who was not present on audio at the time.
