A Freshman Senator's Dubious Debut

It's January, and you know what that means. Oklahoma legislators are racing to file proposed legislation for the upcoming session – bills that are good, bad, ugly, and utterly crackpot.

One of these is SB 484, put forth by Sen. Lisa Standridge, R-Norman. I'll let you select which category it falls under.

Newly elected to the Oklahoma Senate, Standridge represents District 15, covering most of Cleveland County. On Facebook, Standridge describes herself as a "Conservative warrior for children and families." She is the sole sponsor of SB 484, related to services and shelters for the homeless.

A succinct bill – perhaps its only positive attribute – SB 484 would make it a violation of state law for any municipality with fewer than 300,000 inhabitants to provide funding for homeless services. [Oklahoma City and Tulsa are the only municipalities in the state whose population size would exclude them.]

This prohibition includes outreach to people experiencing homelessness; the purchase of land on which to build a homeless shelter; staff positions to coordinate homeless services; and any other resources for homeless programs or shelters.

SB 484 defines "homeless person" as anyone staying in a temporary shelter, anyone without "a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence," or anyone who spends nights in a place that is not designed or "ordinarily used for regular sleeping accommodation for human beings" [such as in a vehicle, vacant building, parking garage, or storage shed].

The bill goes on to define "homeless shelter" as "a facility providing temporary housing and services for homeless persons." This definition appears to include emergency shelters set up for disaster relief, such as for displaced families whose homes were destroyed in fires, floods, or tornadoes.

Remarkably callous, SB 484 also specifically prohibits municipal services and shelters for people whose homelessness is the result of fleeing domestic violence.

VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES: ‘COUNTERPRODUCTIVE’

Agencies whose staff are in the trenches working to end homelessness are rightly critical of the provisions in Standridge's bill.

I sought out the perspective of The Homeless Alliance in Oklahoma City. CEO Meghan Mueller described SB 484 as "counterproductive to our approach to homeless services."

Mueller stated, "Homelessness can affect anyone – be they in urban, suburban, or rural areas." She added, “When you limit the ability of communities to respond to the needs of their own residents, no one wins.”

I also reached out to Standridge's office seeking comment but received no reply.

It is interesting that District 15, which Standridge represents, includes the city of Norman. Norman was a leader among Oklahoma communities in a nationwide effort to tackle homelessness among military veterans several years ago, gaining national recognition. Under the leadership of City of Norman staff, various partnering agencies collaborated under a unified plan. They implemented a streamlined process for transitioning people from homelessness to permanent housing.

The City of Norman has also operated a day shelter as a safe place for the homeless to escape inclement weather and access resources. [Overnight shelters typically are closed during the day.]

In recent years Norman Police have been actively involved in homeless outreach, engaging people sleeping under bridges and in other outdoor locations, partnering with social service agencies to link those individuals to available resources, including pathways to housing.

NIMBY IN NORMAN

A reactionary NIMBY backlash undermined this coordinated effort. A group of Norman residents began railing against homeless services at City Council meetings, in the press, and on social media.

Among other things, this faction has published images online of individuals experiencing homelessness in Norman without their consent, sometimes with misleading or degrading captions.

"They've made a lot of noise," one homeless outreach worker told me. "They have been loud, rude, and inappropriately aggressive at times, basically stalking city staff who were doing the hard work of trying to manage [homelessness]."

This past summer some local businesses submitted a petition to the City Council calling for Norman's city-sponsored shelter to be shut down.

One Norman resident who attended the meeting expressed the view that opening homeless shelters is "enabling people to get used to the homeless lifestyle." This seems to imply that overcrowded emergency shelters are desirable, happy places rather than basic accommodations for survival.

Unsheltered individuals die on the streets every year in Oklahoma communities and across the nation. Shelters offer an imperfect but crucial alternative.

Facing pressures, Norman's day shelter ended up closing its doors in June 2022. Another day shelter eventually opened, but once again the Norman City Council is struggling with uncertainties about its future.

STANDRIDGE TAKES A STAND AGAINST THOSE IN NEED

Authoring SB 484 puts Standridge's credibility as a "warrior for children and families" into serious question.

The crux of the bill is this: "No municipality of this state with a population less than 300,000 according to the most recent Federal Decennial Census shall provide programs or services to homeless persons, including ... owning or leasing land for the purpose of building or maintaining a homeless shelter." It goes on to say that if such municipal services are already in place, the municipality "shall immediately terminate such services and, if the municipality currently owns or leases land for the purpose of building or maintaining a homeless shelter, cease using the land for such purpose." If passed, the proposed law and its prohibitions will go into effect on Nov. 1, 2025.

As of this writing, the senator makes no mention of SB 484 on her Facebook page [Lisa Standridge for Oklahoma Senate], despite numerous constituent comments about it posted without reply. Similarly, Standridge's official Senate web page reveals no statements or press releases from her office on this [or any other] topic.

Shortly before the November election, OU Daily quoted Standridge's campaign website as saying she is motivated "to strengthen laws to fix the homeless problem," framing it as a public safety issue. She also referred to "unsanitary and unsafe homeless encampments ... popping up all over Norman" on the website.

RIDDLE ME THIS ... AND THIS ... AND THIS!

This raises an immediate question of logic: How would a state law prohibiting municipalities from providing shelters possibly reduce the number of people sleeping outside?

It's the most salient question Standridge needs to answer if she wants to salvage any integrity. Her constituents and other Oklahomans, particularly those who live in smaller towns and cities, should be pointedly, persistently posing this question. The rationale that homeless encampments are a public nuisance is actually a good reason for communities to support shelters. This is a very easy talking point.

The bill's exceptions for Oklahoma City and Tulsa suggest a harmful agenda. By tying smaller communities' hands, is the goal to push out their homeless residents to the big cities where services are concentrated? This cynical notion only adds to the challenges of people in crisis and suggests they're persona non grata in their own communities. It also disrespects the metro areas' efforts on homelessness.

As the Homeless Alliance’s Mueller points out, "Moving a problem is different from solving a problem. Homeless response systems in large cities are already strained beyond capacity."

In light of the senator's boast of being a passionate "warrior for children and families," another question arises: Is her sponsorship of SB 484 not giving off a strong whiff of hypocrisy, given that children and families are among those that experience homelessness, and for whom there has long been a chronic shortage of shelter space?

Finally, what is happening to so-called Republican principles? How does the GOP's small government fetish [and its rhetorical nemesis, "government overreach"] square with a proposed state law that would stand in the way of municipalities addressing their own needs? By design, SB 484 would upend local control.

More and more these so-called conservative fundamentals are applied selectively, readily disposable whenever it might appease an increasingly extremist base.

For anyone interested in raising these questions with the senator, her phone number at the state capitol is 405.521.5535. Electronic messages can be sent to her official webpage. If any interested parties would like to pay her or her staff a visit, her office is Room 529.

SQUASH IT LIKE A BUG

Will SB 484 be among the hundreds of bills that, once filed, end up going nowhere? Or will it be heard in committee, and make it to the floor of both chambers for a vote?

As a retired social worker who devoted many years to engaging and housing the homeless, I am comfortable asserting that this bill needs to die. Squash it like a bug.

If the goal is to reduce the number of Oklahomans living outside, the involvement of local governments – whether they are in Norman, Lawton, Shawnee, or any of the other smaller communities across our state – should be encouraged, not hamstrung.

We need state lawmakers to offer support, not erect more barriers. Oklahoma communities face an array of complicated challenges. Homelessness is one the most complex. To tackle it effectively requires an all-hands-on-deck approach.

My unsolicited advice for Standridge is this: change your tactics. Withdraw SB 484. Be a real "warrior for children and families." Stand up for – not against – the least among us.