So states the CACHE (Citizens Advisory Commission on Homeless Encampments) report, released Aug. 13.

CACHE was authorized June 17 by action of the King County Council.

The 22-member panel was created to study and make recommendations to the executive and council on the need for homeless encampments, options for locating the encampments on public and/or private land in King County, and policy guidelines for the location of future encampments.

After only five business meetings and two public hearings, all held within a two-month timeframe, CACHE published a 42-page final report. The report was mandated by the ordinance that created the commission.

CACHE consists of 18 voting members and four non-voting members. One voting commissioner missed the meetings at which votes were tallied.

Here is a summary of the panel’s recommendations.

A need for homeless camps?

Thirteen of the commissioners agreed that there was a need for homeless encampments at this time in King County. To clarify their position, they added the following:

1. A clear line in the sand must be drawn. A sunset date for phasing out encampments must be required, but only when there is no longer a need for encampments, based on the existence of an adequate continuum of emergency shelter and transitional and permanent affordable housing in King County.
2. Homeless encampments are needed at present because King County and its communities have failed to provide adequate responses to homelessness.
3. Careful management and oversight, size limits and service linkages must be critical components of approved encampments.”

Four commissioners did not agree that there was a need for homeless encampments in King County at this time. These commissioners indicated, “… Permitting encampments in King County legitimizes an unacceptable alternative for persons who are homeless and lets all of the residents of King County ‘off the hook’ for finding and securing more suitable and immediate alternatives to homelessness.”

On public or private land?

Eleven commissioners supported the use of public or private lands for homeless encampments, stating, “Specific and consistent occupancy standards / criteria must be developed for encampments on public land (including health and safety criteria).”

These 11 commissioners stated it was unreasonable to place the entire burden of hosting homeless camps on private property owners (including churches), when suitable public land may be available. Placing encampments on public lands may allow tent cities to remain longer at a single site. Commissioners heard from camp residents that stability is critical to finding jobs, sustaining links to needed treatment and support services.

Three commissioners supported the use of private land only. They said, “… Use of public lands for encampments would be inappropriate, in part because governments should not be in the business of making properties it holds for the benefit of all citizens available to small groups for the establishment of tent cities. … Encampments on public lands could prove more difficult to manage; for example, it might be more difficult to evict undesirable residents from an encampment on public versus private lands. Use of public properties might also result in allowing longer encampments in single locations than is healthy either for the tent-city residents or the communities that are located nearby.”

Three commissioners voted not to permit the use of either public or private lands for homeless encampments.

What rules govern the siting homeless camps?

When it comes to policy guidelines for determining the location of future homeless encampments, commissioners agreed on the following:

• Organizations sponsoring a homeless camp must secure a written agreement from the host property owner.
• Organizations sponsoring a homeless camp must promptly notify local government departments responsible for land use about the agreement, including cities containing or contiguous to the camp.
• Organizations sponsoring a homeless encampment must notify the local community about the date the encampment will begin, the length of the encampment, the maximum number of residents allowed, the site of the encampment and the dates, times and locations of community meetings about the camp.
• Organizations sponsoring a homeless camp must hold one or two informational meetings for the neighboring community to explain the proposal and respond to questions.
• Encampments must provide suitable buffers from surrounding properties.
• Encampments must consider impacts to on- and off-site parking.
• Encampments must consider impacts to personal and environmental health, and access to human services.
• The duration of stay for each encampment must be compatible with climate-related location limitations.

Recommended policy guidelines that were not agreed upon unanimously are these:

• For camps on public lands, agreements with the host party shall not be executed prior to formal opportunities for public input. (10 yes, 7 no)
• Notice to the local community about the encampment should be given
• Between 5-14 days in advance. (4 votes)
• Between 14-30 days in advance. (10 votes)
• At least 30 days in advance. (3 votes)
• Notification activities must be conducted
• Within two blocks of the camp. (10 votes)
• With 1/4 mile of the camp. (7 votes)
• Camp residents should be limited to
• A maximum of 100 per camp. (9 votes)
• A maximum of 75 per camp. (8 votes)
• The duration of a camp at any specific location should not exceed three consecutive months at any one time, and not exceed six months in any two-year period. (14 yes, 3 no)
• King County should identify and specify King County parcels that could potentially be used for homeless encampments. (11 yes, 3 no)
• Multiple encampments in unincorporated King County should be spaced no less than 25 miles apart from each other. (9 yes, 6 no, 2 abstaining)

Policy guidelines considered by the commission but not approved are these:

• Sponsoring agencies should be required to carry a $2 million performance bond. (3 yes, 12 no)
• Sponsoring agencies should be required to carry a $2 million liability insurance policy. (3 yes, 12 no)
• A special permitting review board should be established to review and grant permits for homeless encampments. (4 yes, 10 no, 1 abstaining)
• Sponsoring organizations should be limited to sponsoring no more than one camp at any one time in unincorporated King County. (4 yes, 11 no, 2 abstaining)
• Camps may not occupy host sites until legally required permits have been obtained. (5 yes, 11 no, 1 abstaining)

The reported stated, “People who are homeless are fundamentally no different from those of us who are, for the present, housed. In fact, we realize that any one of us could become homeless tomorrow, whether as a result of earthquake, fire, unemployment, domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse or any of the other many factors that can contribute to homelessness. People who are homeless are an integral part of our King County communities; in working to prevent and end homelessness, all of us are doing no less than creating a safety net on which any of us might someday depend for our own survival.”

At the time this paper went to press, no date had been set for the county council’s deliberation of the report. The report is available on the CACHE Web site at www.metrokc.gov/dchs/cache.