Homeless encampments have been a growing problem for some time now, and not only in the nation's major cities. Even here, in Alaska, Anchorage is beset by encampments, which in that city are not only a public health hazard but also a buffet table for bears. Even so, some local governments are slowly figuring out how to deal with these threats - and yes, they are threats, to law and order, to health, to sanitation, and more.
Spokane County, Washington, has had an idea: A new ordinance puts property owners on the hook for the cost if the county has to clean up a homeless enclave on their property.
Spokane County now has the authority to recover abatement costs from private property owners if the owners permit encampments that create public health and safety concerns on the estate.
The county prosecutor’s office proposed the idea in April after it slipped through the cracks last winter, when the Board of County Commissioners overhauled its nuisance code for unincorporated properties.
Camping on public property is already largely prohibited, but the board didn’t designate the activity as a nuisance on private property until Tuesday, when it passed the prosecutor's office proposal.
It allows the county to clean and remove encampments at the expense of the property owner, rather than county taxpayers.
That's a good idea, up to a point. There's no reason at all that the taxpayers should be on the hook for this cost, and honestly, these sprawling islands of filth have to be, as Spokane County puts it, abated.
If the county identifies an encampment on private property that could be classified as a nuisance, the relevant officials must provide a 48-hour notice so the owner can address the issue before the county steps in.
If the county abates the property, it can charge the owner responsible with $250 daily fines.
The property owner would also be responsible for any costs associated with the abatement, such as removing junk vehicles, clearing waste and other things necessary to address the issue.
According to the county code, “All such costs and expenses shall constitute a lien against the affected property.”
There's one possible downside I can see to all this: Some of the squatters may not be willing to leave a property just because the owner tells them to.
Read More: Seattle's Homelessness and Open-Air Drug Use Crisis Now Exploding Under Socialism
Gillibrand Thought Scott Turner Didn’t Know Homelessness - She Picked the Wrong Guy
The county code does not seem to hold any exemption for the simple refusal of a property owner's request. For example, a vacant lot, owned by an elderly man who lives alone; he goes to the encampment, asks the homeless dwelling therein to leave, and they laugh at him and say no. What is he then to do? Try to run them off at gunpoint? Tempting, perhaps, but it's hard to see Spokane County going along with that.
A good solution, it would seem, would be modifying that section of the code so that, if a landowner seeks the help of law enforcement, after such a refusal on the part of the homeless people in an encampment, they shouldn't be held accountable for the cost.
Overall, though, this is a good idea. There are too many feather merchants out there who may be willing to let a homeless enclave flourish on a piece of property they own, especially if they can't see (or smell) it from their home. This gives them a little incentive to get things cleaned up; and, it also sends the message to the encampments that Spoken County just ain't having it any more.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member