Across the Puget Sound region, people are struggling to keep up with the rapidly rising cost of housing and living expenses and many of our fellow community members are ending up homeless. Our current systems of care do not keep up with the need, and without enough affordable housing, many seniors, families, and individuals end up sleeping on the street and in vehicles.
Since the causes of homelessness are complex and individual—from losing a job or experiencing a sudden financial challenge such as a medical emergency, to mental health or substance use disorders—our approach to addressing the impacts of homelessness should be as well.
Shelter in Burien
There is a network of local and regional organizations that serve people experiencing homelessness. Burien currently has two shelters: a family shelter (Mary’s Place) that can serve up to 219 family members and a women-only shelter (Hospitality House) that can serve up to nine single women. Since 2019, Highline United Methodist Church has opened and operated a Severe Weather Shelter during times of extreme cold and can sleep up to 50 people.
It is important to acknowledge the deficits in shelter services here in Burien. While there are some beds for individuals and families, there are no designated spaces for single men, youth, or couples to find shelter. The available beds are continually full and shelters have to turn people away because they are over capacity. The need far exceeds the available resources.
Several community organizations, including Transform Burien, provide regular meals, health care, and other essential needs to people experiencing homelessness. Healthcare for the Homeless, Seattle King County Public Health Mobile Medical programs, and HealthPoint provide health care, dental, and pregnancy support. Seattle Union Gospel Mission and local churches also provide services.
DESC Bloomside, supportive housing in Burien, opened in 2024. Learn more about DESC on their website.
Participation in Regional Efforts to Address Homelessness
Burien participates in several regional efforts to address homelessness.
South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) Agreement
Burien participates in an interlocal agreement between the jurisdictions of Auburn, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, Tukwila, and King County to form the South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP). The agreement directs the south King County jurisdictions to work together to address affordable housing and homelessness. This collaborative model is based on similar approaches used in Snohomish County, east King County, and other areas of the country.
Participating cities contribute funds that support both SKHHP’s operations and Housing Capital Fund, which supports the creation and preservation affordable homes in South King County. The amount contributed to operations is calculated based on city population, whereas the funds that are allocated to the Capital Fund are each city’s SHB 1406 Funds. In 2022, the first round of Capital Fund awards was made, supporting two projects in Burien.
King County Regional Homelessness Authority
The King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA) is built on the idea that everyone deserves a safe and stable place to live. Their mission is to significantly decrease homelessness throughout King County, using equity and social justice principles. Burien is part of the South King County Sub-Region of KCRHA. The City’s Human Services staff meet regularly with a KCRHA liaison to discuss the needs of the area and the implementation of KCRHA’s five-year and sub-regional plans.
Citywide Efforts to Address Homelessness
The City supports several organizations that serve the needs of homeless community members through the Human Services Fund. The Human Services Commission provides funding recommendations to Council, who approves the final list of fund recipients.
Additionally, through American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, Human Services has managed the City’s Enhanced Public Safety Initiative. Approved in 2021 and launched in early 2022, the Enhanced Public Safety Initiative is a three-pronged effort to address gaps identified in the spectrum of services available in Burien. Comprised of a Neighborhood Outreach Care Coordinator, EMS Mental Health Co-Response team, and a Storefront Resource Officer, this initiative connects residents and businesses to services in the community. Creation of this effort was driven by community engagement efforts around public safety.
The City’s Human Services Manager works with local organizations, government agencies, and funders to coordinate partnerships and attract services to Burien. The Human Services Manager works with the Burien Police Department and community organizations to help coordinate responses to homelessness.
Leading with Services and Role of Law Enforcement
The Burien Police Department works in collaboration with the City’s Human Services staff to address homelessness at its root and to reduce the harm done to the unhoused community.
In 2018, the Burien Police Department repurposed three detectives and one sergeant to create the Crime Reduction Unit. This unit’s work is centered around crime reduction through modern approaches to policing. They still do traditional emphasis work and high visibility patrols, but they also coordinate resources and collaborate across disciplines to achieve long-term solutions to community conditions. The work of this unit has been widely celebrated because of how the detectives have broken down traditional barriers across disciplines through their willingness to focus on centering people in need.
Recognizing that a large number of police calls involve unmet mental health needs or people in crisis, the Burien Police Department launched a new co-response unit, adding to the resources already available in our Burien Community Response Team (CRT) model. This program, which launched in 2022, pairs a detective and a mental health professional (MHP) in our community full-time. Together, they respond to calls for service where their specialty skills and training are needed. They also do follow-up work, connecting clients to resources and taking the time necessary to build trust. This co-responder position is funded through a partnership with King County.
The Burien Police Department will continue to address criminal behavior when it occurs. Programs like Burien’s Co-Response and Crime Reduction teams help us address some of the underlying issues that can lead to criminal behavior.
Community Collaboration on Addressing Homelessness
Coordination of community and resources is critical to addressing homelessness—no one party can solve the crisis alone. The success of organizations working in Burien stems from their efforts to cooperate with each other.
Burien has attracted partnerships with organizations that can provide case management and outreach services to those experiencing homelessness. Burien’s unhoused community are regularly connected with trained outreach workers from Evergreen Treatment Services REACH program, Sound PATH (Project for the Assistance of Transition from Homelessness), Salvation Army Street Level Program, and Catholic Community Services’ CReW (Counseling, Recovery and Wellness) program.
Burien Police Department also works directly with the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program (LEAD). Their goal is to improve public safety and public order and to reduce the criminal behavior of people who participate in the program. The Burien LEAD program diverts people who have committed certain misdemeanors into community-based treatment and support services—including housing, health care, job training, treatment, and mental health support—instead of processing them through the traditional criminal justice system. Learn more about the Burien LEAD program.
On June 12, 2023, representatives from eight homelessness programs that work in Burien spoke to the Burien City Council about their strategies and approach. They spoke to the complexity of the region’s sheltering systems and noted that Burien does have jurisdictional access to certain shelters. They also described the proactive efforts that they take to reach people living in tents, cars, and other unsheltered situations and build relationships with them so they can get them connected to the most appropriate services.
The Role of Schools
The Highline School District is required by federal law to support children and youth experiencing homelessness. The McKinney-Vento Program provides support for students experiencing homelessness.
Pertinent Legal Rulings
Ordinance 832
On March 4, 2024, the Burien City Council adopted Ordinance 832, amending Burien Municipal Code (BMC) 9.85.150, which prohibits individuals from sleeping overnight on public property if there is a shelter, bed, or treatment facility available. See frequently asked questions for details and answers to questions about the ordinance and its enforcement.
Addressing Camping in Parks
BMC 7.30.110 on Camping states "No person shall camp in any park area including any park parking lot."
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (United States Supreme Court, 2024)
Grants Pass’s ordinance prohibited sleeping “on public sidewalks, streets, or alleyways;” “[c]amping” on public property; and “[c]amping” and “[o]vernight parking” in the city’s parks.
The United States Supreme Court reasoned that “the Eighth Amendment [was] a poor foundation on which to rest the kind of decree the plaintiffs seek in this case and the Ninth Circuit has endorsed since Martin. The Supreme Court found that “Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like ‘occupy[ing] a campsite’ on public property ‘for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.’” These laws apply to the unhoused, backpackers, students, or anyone else.
The Supreme Court concluded that “Homelessness is complex” with many causes. The American experiment continues, and “people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others. But in our democracy, that is their right. Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”
As a result, the United States Supreme Court reversed Johnson v. Grants Pass and rejected the reasoning in Martin v. Boise.
Parenthetically, the dissent in Grants Pass noted, “No one contests that local governments can regulate the time, place, and manner of public sleeping pursuant to their power to ‘enact regulations in the interest of the public safety, health, welfare or convenience.’” The dissent explained, “This power includes controlling ‘the use of public streets and sidewalks, over which a municipality must rightfully exercise a great deal of control in the interest of traffic regulation and public safety.’” But the dissent did not stop.
The Grants Pass dissent added, “Some cities have … have sought to impose geographic and time-limited bans on public sleeping; ... Others might “limit the use of fires, whether for cooking or other purposes” or “ban (or enforce already-existing bans on) particular conduct that negatively affects other people, including harassment of passersby, illegal drug use, and littering.’ All of these tools remain available to localities seeking to address homelessness within constitutional bounds.” (Citations omitted)
Potter v. Lacey (Washington State Supreme Court, 2024)
The City of Lacey “passed an ordinance barring people from parking [] large vehicles and trailers on public lots and streets for more than four hours per day. The City then ordered Potter to move his trailer and truck off the city hall parking lot and off Lacey streets.” Potter sued, claiming a violation of his “Washington State constitutional right to intrastate travel.”
The Washington State Supreme Court noted, “binding authority of this court holds that the City actually has the constitutional authority to adopt parking laws of general applicability. The Washington Constitution provides municipalities with police powers to protect health and safety: ‘Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.’ Wash. Const. art. XI, § 11.”
The Washington State Supreme Court added many federal courts have concluded that “municipalities have the right to enact parking and driving laws of general applicability, even if they limit the ability of residents to use the streets. The Court noted the following examples Lai v. N.Y.C. Gov’t, 991 F. Supp. 362, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[P]laintiff’s ability to travel is limited by her physical condition and the shortage of on-street parking spaces in New York City, [but] her right to travel has not been abridged by the City’s parking regulations.”); State v. French, 77 Haw. 222, 231 n.9, 883 P.2d 644 (1994) (upholding conviction of violating traffic law against intrastate travel challenge; federal “‘right to travel is not a right to travel in any manner one wants, free of state regulation’” (quoting United States ex rel. Verdone v. Cir. Ct., 851 F. Supp. 345, 350 (W.D. Wis. 1993))); cf. District of Columbia v. Smith, 93 F.2d 650, 651 (D.C. Cir. 1937) (“The power to regulate the use of streets and highways by restrictions on the parking of vehicles is one universally recognized, and its reasonable exercise is consistently upheld.”).
“Potter [] failed to show that Lacey’s parking ordinance violates his asserted state constitutional right to reside in the manner that he has chosen.”
As a result, the Washington State Supreme Court found that “Potter has not established that his claimed constitutional right to travel intrastate, or to not travel intrastate, or to reside, protects his preferred method of residing in Lacey: by siting his 23-foot trailer on a public street in violation of generally applicable parking ordinances.”
State v. Long
In this case, the City of Seattle impounded a vehicle from a city lot where someone was living. The court reviewed the case by analyzing the “excessive fines” component of the 8th Amendment. The State Supreme Court took up the case and determined the act of taking away someone’s place to live by impounding the vehicle was an excessive fine under the circumstances. This case does not directly prohibit ticketing and impounding vehicles but makes clear to government that the 8th Amendment will be used to interpret the reasonableness of the city’s actions when the vehicle’s intrusion is measured.
Updated July 19, 2024