成人X站

Washington Democrats introduced another controversial bill that prevents cities and towns from limiting or banning homeless encampments, effectively legalizing them on public property statewide. Worse, it provides special legal advantages to homeless individuals, virtually guaranteeing court victories for those who challenge encampment restrictions.

, sponsored by State Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac), restricts cities or towns to only regulate encampments on public spaces in ways deemed by a judge to be “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner.” This vague and subjective standard would even apply retroactively, potentially invalidating ordinances passed before this legislation existed.

Under the bill, a homeless individual could sue a city or town over an encampment restriction and seek injunctive or declaratory relief. Homeless plaintiffs are also granted an affirmative defense, arguing the restriction is not reasonable. If the city or town loses the case, taxpayers would be forced to cover the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees.

More from Jason Rantz: Democrats embrace sanctuary status as law gives illegal immigrants unemployment benefits

How does this homeless encampment bill stop cities from enforcing restrictions?

It’s clear how this vague and poorly constructed law could discourage cities or towns from implementing bans or restrictions on homeless encampments.

Gregerson, who has openly argued that homeless individuals have a right to camp wherever they choose, would deem most such laws unreasonable. The legislation’s lack of clarity intentionally invites inconsistent enforcement; the same law could be interpreted differently depending on the judge presiding over the case.

Even if one judge sides with a city, another judge handling a challenge to the same law by a different plaintiff could easily rule the opposite way, leaving cities in perpetual legal limbo.

More from Jason Rantz: Here鈥檚 what left-wing media choose to ignore after Jan. 6 mass pardons, commutations

A bill that’s intentionally vague to help homeless live in encampments

The bill fails to define what qualifies as “objectively reasonable,” likely because the concept itself is entirely subjective when applied to laws restricting encampments.

However, it explicitly instructs courts to consider the impact of such laws on the homeless when determining their reasonableness. The bill even provides a built-in defense for the homeless, allowing them to violate so-called unreasonable ordinances if they claim it was necessary to stay warm and dry. Courts are not told to consider the ordinance’s positive impact on a community.

Under these circumstances, how can a city or town realistically defend an ordinance? They can’t, and that’s likely by design. This seems to explain why Rep. Gregerson didn’t bother seeking input from the cities in her district before pushing this legislation forward, according to one local lawmaker speaking to “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

More from Jason Rantz: Climate change alarmists could ban or restrict medical anesthesia under new bill

The homeless encampment legalization bill is an affront to cities

Most cities and towns simply cannot afford the wave of lawsuits that would inevitably arise from challenges to their homeless ordinances. Ironically, the concept of “objective reasonableness” is inherently subjective, making it costly and burdensome to repeatedly defend even clearly constitutional and just laws.

For the few cities or towns with the resources to fight back, activist organizations are incentivized to keep finding new plaintiffs to challenge the same law over and over until they land a judge who sides with them.

What city or town has the time, money or patience to endure these constant legal nuisances?

Does Mia Gregerson聽want to see people suffer outdoors?

Gregerson initially faced significant opposition when she floated the idea of a so-called “homeless bill of rights.” After the radical proposal drew scrutiny from both local and national media, she quietly shelved it. But her intent was never to abandon the idea — just to reintroduce it in a less obvious form.

Now, HB 1360 serves as a backdoor to passing that same homelessness bill of rights. It’s just as extreme. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, Gregerson is actively making the crisis worse. And it’s intentional — almost as if she’s fulfilling some twisted fantasy of watching people suffer outdoors while tying the hands of local leaders who want to enact policies that push people indoors. Is this a “squalor voyeurism” fetish?

The bill already has eight co-sponsors, a troubling sign of how far-left Washington’s lawmakers have become. But the blame doesn’t just fall on these lawmakers. Voters keep electing these radicals. Those who may complain about this disastrous bill might need to take a hard look in the mirror and recognize they’re complicit.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the聽podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on聽,听,听听补苍诲.