I'm familiar with some of the work done with the city and various non-profits on this issue in the past.  I can't claim to know the solution, but I can point out barriers I witnessed and encountered:

1. Satpal Sidhu once said in his opposition to helping the the 100+ folx on the city hall lawn in 2019 or so, that we would just be inviting more to come out of the woods asking for the same help.  He also talked about shanty-towns he's familiar with to illustrate his opposition to any kind of more formal encampment or tiny homes, when folks suggested finding property somewhere, where a more managed approach to encampments could be attempted.  I've never heard him oppose throwing them in jail; but any other form of support he seems to know why it would never work, and diminishes the person suggesting it as not knowing anything themselves.

2. Michael "this is a national problem" Lilliquist -- I've never heard a solution from -- unless it's "come join the bystanders, waiting for someone else to solve the problem".  I don't get the same father-knows-best vibes from him that I did from Satpal, which I appreciate, but it hasn't lead to any better outcomes.  At least he has the courage to engage with it a little -- of his colleagues on the council -- I have no idea with they think -- safe space for them, perhaps.  To be fair, none of them are without compassion, for all that's shown to be worth -- and all of them will get yelled-at without mercy by one sector of our community or another, no matter what they do.  That's not a justification for inaction; but I'm not just going to critize here -- that's a tough situation.

3. Surplus property -- the city and county has a bunch of it.  But try to use any of it, and neighbors come out of the woodwork proclaiming their compassion for the homeless, just don't put them near our house.  At some point, 'what about the children' gets thrown around.  Even successful initiatives like tiny homes struggle to find space.

4. The "soul saving" lighthouse mission isn't in this for community good.  I've got zero respect for their motives; taking advantage of people in their most desperate moments to push their religious agenda.  They do, as far as I know, have a function where they don't prostelitize -- maybe the overnight beds -- but I've heard from friends who have worked there or supported their programs that the do prostelitize in the programs.  They don't seem to be as transparent on this question as a local taxpayer whose city is funding them might prefer.  Maybe the city isn't paying for the religious part of it -- who knows.   No really, does anyone know?  The city gives them a ton of money, and I think they have wealthy supporters as well.  Also, there are lower legal barriers & requirements for religious groups to offer this kind of thing than non-religious -- god only knows why.  Starts to seem like the city is all to happy to let the church take over here.  

5. Public misconceptions about homeless folx -- starting with us-and-them / pathologizing -- there must be something wrong with them kind of thinking -- makes it all to easy to stereo-type them as drug-users, and to support non-solutions like throwing them in jail; and makes it all-to-difficult to recognize and address actual issues.  There are studies showing the cost of jail per night; versus the cost of housing someone that evaluates recidivism rates, etc. that tend to disfavor jail as a solution, and yet...  Even putting-up more porta-potties seems beyond us -- with all of the health-related concerns with human waste that directly impact all of us...  we're still inclined toward punishment over problem-solving -- no toilet for you!

6. Dignity isn't respected as much as property.  What is the last count -- 850 or so people living on the street or in the woods, etc.  2 or 3 bathrooms they can use.  Their stuff can be stolen if they're not monitoring or protecting it; or thrown away if the cops clear them out -- everything is temporary and destined for theft or loss.  Safety comes in groups, and with weapons (sticks, sometimes knives, etc.)  I was taking a morning walk a year or two ago -- walking past the parking garage, there was a voice on a loutspeaker somewhere, harassing a person who might have been homeless who was attempting to sit near the public bathrooms -- it wasn't a professional 'move along' even, but disrespectful tone and language.  I think they were watching them remotely from a mounted camera there.  Sometime prior to that, we learned of cops luring a mentally ill person known to say something repeatedly they thought was funny ("oh yeah", or something like that) into a cop car with $5, to ultimately drop them off at Sherries where their off-duty buddies were eating, as a prank.  The 3 cops did it.  The supervisor knew they were doing it.  Was this person respected?  Absolutely now -- he was objectified and dehumanized -- by cops.  Was he capabable of consent?  Arguably, no -- the paper reported a bit on some of the mental issues he struggled with.  If he wasn't capable of consent to be used in their prank, then was he kidnapped by the cops?  The chief wrote them a reprimand in disappearing ink.  The next chief stood in front of a camera and told the city that this doesn't reflect the BPD.  I don't believe those officers were let go.  I have often wondered if they have since been promoted.  Whatever the case -- I think these cops didn't see a human being with dignity when they pulled their "prank", while they were busy not-reflecting the BPD.  This isn't one bad act, or one bad apple -- these are people from our community, who we hired and empowered, and paid.  They do reflect BPD -- and they reflect us too.

I can airmchair it as well as the next person -- but truth be told, I don't know the solution.  I think a lot of folks are frustrated, afraid, punitive, authoritarian, humanistic, compassionate, etc. -- all of the good and bad things we can be.  Involuntary hospitalization might help with addiction issues for some -- civil liberties can make that difficult, and shouldn't be taken lightly, but it's not impossible.  We might consider how we could lower the bar for support agencies that are not religious, in order to better leverage the willing labor and skills we have in our community that could and would help if they weren't legally probited from doing so -- and perhaps offer an alternative to the church for those in need who would be more responsive to that.  Work with neighboring counties needs to coincide with anything done locally (this is not a concession that nothing should be done locally until something is done nationally).  As for the jail or "sweeping" strategies we use -- you can't punish or bully the homelessness out of someone any better than you can pray it away, and it's expensive besides.

I know too little about this to have much of an opinion at this point.

The change does make me curious though -- why long-term care funds for seniors et al. were left out of the investment pool in the first place -- there must have been some reasoning behind it. 

I know the older you get, the more conservative / lower risk-reward your investments should be; in contrast to when you're younger and can tolerate and benefit from higher risk-reward options.  I wonder if this isn't at least part of the thinking behind Hasegawa's preference for the stability of the guaranteed, if lower-return, municiple bonds.

No counterpoints here -- just some additional info:

I believe WWU parking is "self-support" funded -- which I believe means that it is not taxpayer-funded. (That includes lot maintenance & repair, as far as I know).  Increasing parking costs has long been a contentious issue for the campus community (esp. for employees dealing with ever-increasing cost-of-living.)  Sorry to hear this is also impacting NSYS.  I've always been curious (if I'm not mistaken about this) how/why parking for the CTC's parking is paid for by the state.  I must say though, I don't disagree completely with increasing pressure on folx to reduce SOV trips -- vastly more walk/bus/bike communiting than what we do now is needed.  I sometimes wish parking fees could pay for more covered bus stops, bus passes, better county-connectors, etc. -- though I realize that SOV trips are necessary for some situations.

Ferguson has cut $18M from WWU so far.  Covid recovery (enrollment, funding shifts) is another factor that is still relevant.  I'm glad you mentioned adjuncts -- they are some of the best instructors sometimes (speaking as a student), while the least-paid and least job-secure.  Working-class staff have certainly been impacted as well.  Students most of all.

The regional universities and also K12 are public treasures -- we need to support them better than sometimes do.  That needs to include a vigilant instinstance responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds; sober reflection and critique in all things, and a strong sense of inquiry into how they impact the communities they serve.  Seems like renters, very generally, ought not be subject to 10x increases in a single year.  I wish NSYS well as they search for a solution to this.