This article looks at Spokane County’s new ordinance making private property owners financially responsible when homeless encampments on their land create public health or safety problems, explains how the law works in practice, highlights potential gaps and concerns, and suggests a narrow change to protect landowners who seek police help when squatters refuse to leave.
Homeless encampments have become a persistent challenge across the country, and Spokane County has moved to shift more accountability onto property owners when camps take root on private land. The county argues taxpayers should not foot cleanup bills for filth, hazards, and threats to public safety, and the new ordinance gives officials a legal path to recover those costs from owners. That’s a straightforward principle: if your land becomes a public nuisance, you should be part of the solution, not a reason for taxpayers to keep paying more.
The ordinance adds a nuisance designation for camping on private property, something the county’s board had previously missed when it updated its nuisance code last winter. Under the new rule, officials can step in to abate encampments and then charge the property owner for cleanup costs rather than spreading the burden across county residents. The county also built in a short notice period so owners have a chance to respond before the government moves in.
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.
This policy is practical and honest about costs. County services are not bottomless, and freezing taxpayers with cleanup bills simply rewards neglect and invites repeat problems. Property owners who ignore encampments or treat their land as a de facto shelter without addressing hazards should face consequences, and placing responsibility on owners is a way to press them to act or seek sensible help.
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 are practical limits to this idea, though, and they matter. Owners don’t always have the ability to evict or move people on their land, especially if the occupants refuse to leave and law enforcement response is slow or constrained. Charging an elderly or otherwise vulnerable landowner for cleanup when they tried and failed to get squatters removed strikes many as unfair and could chill legitimate requests for police assistance.
The code lays out a 48-hour notice and a $250 daily fine if the county has to abate, plus the cleanup costs become a lien against the property. Those are blunt tools that will motivate some owners to act, but they also risk penalizing people who genuinely lack means to clear an encampment or who face hostile occupants. A basic fairness test suggests the county should make sure owners who seek help in good faith are not left holding the bag.
A narrow fix would protect property owners who involve law enforcement before abatement and still fail to get cooperation from the encampment. If a landowner documents that they asked people to leave and called police, the code could bar charging them for abatement unless they themselves were complicit. That preserves the deterrent against neglect while shielding those who try to do the right thing but lack the muscle to enforce it.
This ordinance also sends a clear message to people who occupy private property: the county will not let long-term camps fester without action. By tying costs to the property, Spokane County creates an incentive for owners and managers to prevent encampments or address them early, reducing risks to neighbors and public infrastructure. The approach leans on private responsibility rather than expanding taxpayer burden, which fits a conservative view of limited government and accountable stewardship.
Implementation will be the test. County officials must apply the law fairly, give meaningful notice, and coordinate with law enforcement and social services so cleanup does not merely displace people without offering options. If the policy is enforced with common sense and protections for homeowners who seek help, it can be a reasonable step toward restoring order and protecting public health without turning cleanup into another permanent taxpayer line item.
Add comment