Message clear: Lacey doesn't want homeless

• Published April 29, 2008

In a meeting with The Olympian's editorial board, Mayor Sackrison of Lacey said he does not believe a single church in Lacey will be able to meet the requirements of the ordinance. What further incenses Mayor Sackrison is that "100 percent of the testimony" on the homeless ordinance and the recommendation of the planning commission was to enact an ordinance similar to that passed by Olympia and Tumwater.

But council members Hearn, Nelson, Burgman and Darby insisted on much more stringent requirements.

It's an old government ploy — don't ban something outright (because that's unconstitutional). Instead erect so many roadblocks the ordinance becomes a de facto ban.

Hurdles and roadblocks

The council imposed 16 pages of limitations on every host church. Each host congregation, for example, must have $1 million worth of general liability insurance and pay for a conditional use permit to house the homeless. Each church must have a kitchen and the entrance must be manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Host churches must log every visitor and track every single homeless individual's circumstance. Shelter residents must present identification or be fingerprinted. How many homeless individuals have a driver's license for identification purposes?

By erecting those hurdles, the council majority has, in practical terms, made it impossible for churches to meet their biblical call to shelter the homeless. It's a shameful — and perhaps unconstitutional — infringement on the rights of religious congregations.

The way the ordinance is crafted sends the clear message that the council majority simply does not want to accommodate the poor. The ordinance is heartless and mean-spirited.

We look forward to the day when a different council will do the right thing and repeal the burdensome ordinance and accommodate the poor and homeless as Olympia and Tumwater councils have done.