Excellent reporting. Thank you so much Geeky Swedes.

Were there any actual concessions or promises made? Any agreement to future meetings? Any notion of written guidelines that would make them "be gone in 24 hours" if they didn't meet them. It sounds like all the comunity got was the Pastor saying he would think about it. Even if he is sincere, that's not much.

There are neighborhoods and communities that would welcome the hysteria exhibited by some members of the Ballard community. Kirkland, Redmond, etc. have all decided that they are communities that will not tolerate the presence of homeless citizens. That is why I don't live there. And by the way, since when has homelessness equated sexual predator? Most of the sex abuse stories I have read in the news were about coaches, ministers, teachers, foster parents , family members, and so on. Perhaps the woman who expressed concern about the safety of her young child should reconsider the level of supervision at the child care. In Washington State, licensed child care providers are required to keep children within visual range. This is intended to keep children from harm - both in and outside the home. But then again, the comments made at this evening's forum come from biased emotions and not reason.

We updated to say he will be speaking with SHARE/WHEEL as well as keep in contact with neighbors. Some folks stayed after the meeting to talk with Grumm to ensure they're part of that conversation.

I really hope this doesn't happen without having some more precautions and rules. No background checks? When you rent a house you can be subject to a background check. What makes homeless people any different? Bringing more homeless people into the already over-run with homeless Ballard is no good.

Geeky Swedes -

I echo Joshua's comment. Excellent reporting.

I do believe that, in these times, it is irresponsible -- even unconscionable -- for any organization to resist conducting proper background checks on homeless people moving en masse into a new (mostly residential) neighborhood.

The fact that the community was not even notified of this impending project until a mere five days before it was a done deal does not bode well for SHARE. They tried to slip these folks in under the radar.

The pastor of the West Seattle Nazarene did not do himself any favors by putting the onus on the Ballard community, trying to make neighbors here feel guilty for demanding background checks. Especially if there is a day care across the street! Ballard is experiencing an uptick in crimes of all kinds. The phrase "tone-deaf" comes to mind when I read of the pastors' and SHARE'S responses to legitimate concerns expressed at this meeting.

Because I volunteer for a top-notch organization that serves the poor, homeless and victims of domestic violence, I have seen first-hand that having well-devised policies in place -- and sticking by those policies -- helps everyone concerned.

I would be surprised if this particular church/SHARE project goes through at all. The organization and the pastor have not done their due diligence. This strikes me as one of the most poorly handled homeless "encampments" I have ever seen.

And the pastor's excuse -- that he was only given two weeks notice himself -- is appalling.

Who do they think they are kidding?

When I first read about this project on the blog two days ago, I was willing to give the the organizing groups the benefit of the doubt, primarily because I'm familiar with these types of issues. But after reading the report of this meeting, I don't believe the community will, or should, accept SHARE's amateurish and irresponsible way of operating.

A woman stood up and said her child attends the daycare. “I totally support getting everyone off the streets,” she said, pausing to choke back tears. “But I have to protect my child.”

Wow--I guess "total support" doesn't really go all that far these days. If you're a nimby, be a nimby by all means, but don't claim "total" support for getting everyone off the streets while you do it.

I have read the comments of Mickey and others, and it is clear thay they are small-minded individuals, with no openness to helping others. They believe everything is a lie, and everyone has an agenda, because they don't want to engage on the real issue. I think Mickey needs to move to the Eastside or a gated community where he can continue to ignore the plights of others and focus even more on himself.

Lie#1: they welcomed us in West Seattle and there were no problems:

http://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=5908

"I have lived in the neighborhood of the West Seattle Church of the Nazarene for twenty years. I am all for helping the homeless if they comply by the rules of the shelter.
My family, my neighbors, and myself have had numerous encounters with the homeless who have stayed in the shelter in the past and they have not all been nice. I had one man threaten to kill me with his Mac10 after swinging a back pack full of glass beer bottles at my neighbors head. The man told us he was here drinking with his buddies who stay in the church basement.
Any time someone has been turned away from the shelter they end up on my property or the property of my neighbors. I had one man completely strip down changing his clothes, he refused to leave my yard. He even urinated in my front yard twice before SPD arrived. I had a spanish speaking homeless man from the shelter use my yard for a toilet with the neighbors watching. It’s no fun to pick up human poop much less dog poop from your yard, especially if you don’t have a dog.
The whole immediate neighborhood has suffered severely in the past with complaints to the church head office. In the past when the church has opened the basement as a shelter the Green Acres apartments had as many as 10 vacant apartments at one time because of encounters with an angry drunk or an under the influence of who knows what wasted homeless person who ends up sitting at the back door of the church.
Many long time home owners who were raised in this neighborhood sold their family homes. One neighbor moved as close as six blocks away just to get away from the crime in the immediate neighborhood of the church. Homeless were caught breaking into his camper and sleeping in it as it was parked in his driveway.
Every time the shelter has opened over the years the neighborhood has witnessed an increase of unreported broken windows in vehicles, car prowls, car thefts, drug dealers on the corners, and numerous nasty prostitutes are working the bus stops.
In the darkness of the night or the light of day many neighbors have witnessed the property of the church being used by prostitutes for numerous years with complaints to the minister who is seldom around to see what is going on, he has a day job that keeps him very busy.
The church has had considerable destruction at the hands of the homeless. Doors have been replaced from being kicked in by the homeless. The last group who stayed completely destroyed the lighting on the back of the church making the parking lot VERY dark next to the field where rapes have occured in the past. I ran off a nasty prostitute who was in the church parking lot offering blow jobs for $20.00 to my neighbors as well as the homeless at 6:00 AM as they were going to work.
We have gone to the expense of installing a surveillance and alarm system to our property due to the numerous attempted break ins. We have worked too hard for what we have and my property is not a shopping center.
Comment by Desi Russell Seefeld — February 22, 08 11:54 am #"

" Pastor Grumm had a “Christian obligation” to take in the homeless."

Well, we live in a republic and under the laws of man, including zoning laws.

Good reporting on a community issue. The people have every right to be cautious because the homeless population has the image of being unstable substance abusers. The neighborhood doesn’t want an ever-changing group of men making them nervous. Why should this neighborhood be obligated to welcome such an unknown factor into their lives?

It’s not being small minded at all. The homeless are irresponsible folks that choose booze over doing what’s right. If people choose to help others, then they will do it on their own terms without some outside entity forcing it on them.

"I have read the comments of Mickey and others, and it is clear thay they are small-minded individuals, with no openness to helping others."

Please enlighten us Chucky, yee of such expansive thoughts. Since when is caution and accountability such an awful close minded thing?

Did anyone ask if it's legal to house 20 people in a building and lock the doors at night? Wouldn't that be a fire hazard?

Geeky Swedes, great reporting.

I am still very skeptical about this program, several great points are about the people who end up getting "locked out" and they end up in people's yard's or react by getting drunk and compromising the neighborhood. This is a highly emotionally charged issue, and I have said it before, we need to do what we can to help the homeless who are drug/alcohol free and with no criminal issue, but we also need to size this endeavour to fit the size of our community. We are to date unable to get police protection or support for the drug and alcohol problems we face daily on our streets from a homeless population that is unsavoury to say the least. We are also unable to enforce simple parking restrictions on our city streets where people end up living in campers. Given these facts how do we, the church, or SHARE plan to monitor or control what goes on with the folks they are bringinig into our community? The plan although in good spirit lacks structure or any follow up for the neighborhood impacted by it not being thought out well.

This is NOT about being small minded or unhelpful, it about making a plan that will set this up for success and not for failure. Belive me once it fasils the emotions will be even higher on this subject! NOt all homeless are drunks and drug addicts, but it is important to put energies and efforts toward those who will benefit the most, and that will be the success stories that will move this forward...it's all about a sound project plan, not just a reaction to a need.

My question to Margaret, Chuck and Tiktok is do you live on this block? Are you aware of the impact the Food Bank and soup kitchen have on us already?

Our Redeemers owes SHARE an apology for bringing them into an environment that they have not managed well. They do not use the church and they have not created a relationship with the neighbors that shows concern or compassion for what we are already experiencing.

Thank you to all the neighbors who attended the meeting last night. I coulldn't attend so I am happy so many people did. Thank you also to this website for such reporting.

Please also know that Trinity United Methodist Church at 23rd & 65th also runs a homeless shelter at night. While the church is not vacant, the shelter is not supervised by church members at night; the homeless shelter residents are "self supervised." That's alot of homeless people concentrated within a few blocks. It is asking alot for neighbors to put up with so many people coming from other parts of the city.

I was at the meeting and my head nearly blew off from the absolute lack of accountability on the part of SHARE other than the mantra “we do the best we can”. It’s not our fault- “we do the best we can”. We don’t have the ability to do (fill in the blank) “we do the best we can”. When crimes occur - “we do the best we can”. Yes I get that, however in this case THAT is not adequate. In fact it’s totally unacceptable. I don’t even understand how that lack of process actually exists?!!! EVERYTHING and I mean everything is reactionary. No concrete proactive accountability. Not even free background screening- “we do the best we can”. Actual quotes: “Sure there are 911 calls …but not many”. “I interview folks…I don’t let them come if they look suspicious”- are you kidding. That’s the screening. Each interview is ad hoc as told by the actual screeners (homeless) on stage. It was unbelievable. Seriously, I have never seen such an open display of arrogance on the part of the pastor and SHARE rep. Both of whom if you attended tonight straight forwardly stated that the meeting was only to meet your new neighbors. End of story. The SHARE rep actually stated that he would not speak on behalf of the org, said that if you had questions you could go down town to their HQ. Then said the neighbors at the meeting could only talk to the homeless on stage who then said “I can’t speak for SHARE.” WOW. My head is still spinning. The pastor completely side stepped any response; stated that he was doing what he was going to do and that ‘I don’t respond to those laws’…’however I do listen to the community’. HUH??? I could write out all the dialog said and still not exorcise the mind numbing experience.

I couldn't attend the meeting last night, so maybe this was covered but does the pastor live at the church or in the neighborhood? Will he remain there to work with the shelter or did he make this deal and then is not involved in seeing it through?

I am concerned that the people who made the decision to house this shelter in the middle of a residential neighborhood, that seems to already have a disproportionate number of homeless people, are not the ones who have to live with the consequences.

Are people really moving in tomorrow? How can you setup and run a shelter in such a short time? Aren't there any permits or an OK from the city?

"spoke out against mandatory warrant and sex offender checks.“We would not require that of our neighbors or each other,”"

Yes we do! Registered sex offenders HAVE to report where they live. Then you can go online and check where they all our so when you buy or rent a place, you KNOW if there are any within range!

Chucky,
That world you live in is great, I just wish it was reality. It's easy to knock down people by simply saying they don't want to help others, but that's bull. I could turn that around and say that the neighbors are doing an putting forth an extraodinary job to look out for each other.

The people who are skeptical, like Mickey, have generally created more positive change throughout history than those that blindly follow others due to perceived good intentions. Most businesses will steam roll through their agenda no matter what the consequences because that's in their interest. Look at how many things locally and nationally have been stopped because people simply questioned things.

SHARE certianly has a noble purpose but don't forget that it is a business and they get a lot of money from local government. If local government ran these shelters there could be better guidelines (e.g. background checks) in place, but the Human Services Department says straight out that they can't handle this issue and encourage others to. If the local government ran these shelters their certainly would be opportunities for input and suggestions before move in day. But the city and county just assume someone else deal with it so they don't have to. As for Pastor Grumm, well he's full of it. He didn't just find out about this and he's not going to do anything about it. He simply has done what developers have been doing for years - showing up at a meeting and saying he'll think about it. The goal is to show the city that they met with you - that's it.

From what I heard, it seemed like the two biggest issues, which would be easy to address are: 1. The church needs to have a daily presence at the site. 2. Both the church and SHARE need to perfrom a legitimate background check. Both are registered non-profits, so they could perform the criminal history and child abuse background checks FOR FREE through the Washington State Patrol. Then if they have a warrant - they get arrested. If they have a history of child abuse, maybe there's a center downtown that's not immediatley in a neighborhood where people live.

Did anyone detect the uneasiness from the SHARE folks and the pastor when pressed about the background checks? Was this the first time they ever heard of this? Certianly not, so don't think they'll agree to it. It can't If you are interested in either putting restrictions on this shelter or fighting it, I would suggest calling city and county officials - often! Don't be afraid to keep calling. SHARE does the same thing. SHARE will trample all over you if you let them. For lack of a better word, they extort money from the city and county by threatening to open "Nickelsvilles" unless they get funding. The county regularly gives them funds so they can bus people to shelters from downtown.

I'll end with my opinion that most neighbors do care about BOTH the homeless situation and their neighborhood, but rest assured that SHARE and Our Redeemer could care less about the neighborhood.

@8Chucky

It seems like you are the small-minded one. You can try and believe that a large majority of the homeless aren't dangerous and aren't a problem. But I have heard plenty of first hand stories and a lot of people don't follow your logic. A good number of homeless are dangerous and should not be in Ballard.

@dbaker

Its not only people who are sex offenders its should be a full background check.

chucky - Your comment shows:

1) You have little knowledge of the issues involved

2) You have little respect for your neighbors

3) You need to upgrade your reading skills.

Re-read my comment and you'll find that I am well-versed in these issues. I volunteer weekly with an organization that responsibly deals with issues of poverty and homelessness.

I have no doubt I am much more involved in this community than your are. I really have no use for uninformed attitudes such as yours.

What do you mean that Share is a business?

How much money do they get from the local government?

Why doesn't government run the shelters?

How would they do a better job if they hired someone to take the time to run background checks on all potential people in need of shelter?

The sad fact of the matter is that there are 9 registered level 3 sex offenders in the 98117 and 98107 zip codes...and there are 441 HOMELESS sex offenders in the City of Seattle.

How many of these homeless sex offenders are now going to be living in our residential neighborhood, under the radar? At least the ones with homes, the police know who they are, and where they are.

People from the food bank offered to do background checks for free...and still SHARE maintains that they don't want to do that. Why? I'm assuming it is because they have something to hide.

Is there some reason that we are obligated to import felons into our residential neighborhoods? Would we be just as comfortable having a halfway house for level 3 sex offenders next door to a daycare? Because it is pretty much the same thing.

What is the definition of a Level III sex offender? According to the State of WA:
These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs.

I was at the meeting last night, and agree completely with Nefos about the utter lack of accountability and willingness to answer any question directly. I am a mother who's daughter attends the aforementioned daycare around the corner. When I asked point blank what questions were asked in the screening process the answer was "I ask why are they homeless, and will they be accountable to follow our rules, and I talk to them, to see if they seem like a good person, that I could sleep next to them." As far as I'm concerned, that's not a good enough answer or screening process. If they are concerned about who they are sleeping next to, certainly the neighbors have a right to be concerned and want information as well.
I was surprised when the request of background checks was met with total resistance. Supposedly it "is disrespectful" and should not be done because it doesn't give confidence to these men for someone to pry into their lives. WTF??? I rent a home right now, and I signed, giving the right for my landlord to do a check on me. I also had to do a piss test and a criminal background check FOR MY JOB, as well as my past job. If these men truly are trying to make it back on their feet, and get jobs, and their own homes to live in, then welcome to the way of the world!!! If I hadn't agreed to a background check, I wouldn't be living in my house I am in now, nor would I be working at the job I have been in for the past two years. They need to wake up and realize that getting background checks is the way of the world, and if they are afraid to do it, or afraid to give them to potential "renters" then there MUST be a reason.

The background checks are about more than who is, or isn't, a sex offender. Drugs and theft are more prevalent problems among the homeless. Background checks should highlight any criminal activity.

SHARE/WHEEL is a non-profit co-op, which fact about 10 seconds with Google will show up. Another half-minute will show you that they are in fact registered in the State of Washington. I haven't researched their funding, but I doubt they get much from the city government--organizations of homeless people are, you know, poor. Given that you got something that basic and easy wrong, why should any credibility be given to the rest of your arguments?

Krawk!

amberdawn. Totally agree. But how many of the same people we are trying to background check for this are already in Ballard right now? PEOPLE. Background checks MUST be done. It's NOT disrespectful it's something these people must do if you want them to live in your neighborhood.

I think the main concern from all of us as a community is the lack of a well thought out plan. There should be accountability, and if there is going to be change to our commuity as a result of this, then someone from either the church or SHARE needs to step up, take responsibility and develop a plan for success and a plan for potential failures. You cannot put a neighborhood or a community at risk with so little planning. As it is now my kids coming home from school avoid walking anywhere near the food bank because of the folks who are milling about who just simply make them as kids uncomfortable. Lots of high school age kids use metro to get to activities and to social events in leiu of driving, and when it is dark do you want your kids walking a block or 2 home with any additional risks that they face now by living in the city?

Personally, all I ask is for a concrete plan, and this includes background checks and if necessary police presence (off duty officers paid at $150 an hour) to monitor the homeless population around the church after hours of closing, so the neighborhood is not further compromised. I am sure there can be donations received from SHARE..after all they got all those volunteers and donations to create a plan for car camps..if you want it plan it correctly, fund it appropriately...and that is what we as a community should demand. We should not be the result of a failure to properly plan.

"They need to wake up and realize that getting background checks is the way of the world"

You hit the nail on the head. Many of these folks simply prefer to drop out of society, live by their own rules, which is fine, that's their right and their choice.

However, what they can't expect is that we have to accept their lifestyle. We chose rules (background checks, drug testing, credit checks etc.) so that we would NOT be homeless and so we can live in a nice neighborhood, not a sh*thole.

They can claim such checks infringe on their 'dignity', but all they do is infringe on their pseudo-hippie, I-wanna-be-me, lifestyle.

Tune and drop out by all means, just do it somewhere else. I suggest Berkeley.

I think that everyone should have a background check. We should wear tags that announce what our background check finds. When meeting new people, we should kneel briefly, avert our eyes and offer our tag in submission for the others perusal. If we are deemed worthy, the other will tap us gently on our shoulder and we can rise and give each other gentle hugs of affirmation.

If I was homeless in a shelter, I would want the guy next to me to have a full police check. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want to get knifed and would be more than willing to give up my so-called 'dignity' for that peace of mind.

But then again, I realize life has rules. I'm an adult, not a 3 year old.

Jeez people, can't we discuss ANYTHING as a community without insulting one another, calling names, or suggesting a move to the Eastside? It's the same crap over and over and over again. Stop hiding behind the cloak of annonymity and try typing the words you would say to one another if you were standing face to face. The rest of us don't want to read your dipshit garbage.

'Buncha goddam children on here!

b.1961 or b.2006? Everyone does have background checks, all the time. When you rent, when you buy a car on credit, get a mortgage, apply for jobs, student aid, when you buy a gun. If you want to live in a place with no standards of behavior, I can recommend a few places nearby that you'd love.

I don't understand how manditory background checks = standards of behaviour.
I think it is a red herring and an easy thing to argue about.

@b1961. What is wrong with you? How old are you? Do you have a house or apartment or car? The only reason you wouldn't want a background check is if you have something to hide. You can't go to college, buy a house or a car without one. They are smart it's a way to minimize risk. b1961 why don't you house all these homeless with no background checks or any knowledge of what they have done in your living quarters?

"I don’t understand how manditory background checks = standards of behaviour." b1961 you really are an idiot If you don't see how those correlate. By the way its mandatory and behavior. Try to sound smart while spelling your words right.

Since SHARE and Pastor Stephen Grumm, without adequate notice and community review, are arrogantly forcing a self-monitored homeless shelter into a residential neighborhood building (no longer a church since it doesn’t have a congregation) without firm policies in place for accountability and responsibility please contact the city council relentlessly until something gets done.
SHARE makes their voice heard and so should you!
Here is a list of contact info for city council members that I found on SHARE's site (Thanks SHARE)
http://www.sharewheel.org/Home


Seattle City Council Contact Information:

Seattle City Council, 600 Fourth Ave, 2nd floor, Seattle, WA 98104:


Jean Godden:

jean.godden@seattle.gov; 684-8807

Tom Rasmussen:

tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov; 684-8808

Sally Clark:

sally.clark@seattle.gov; 684-8802

Jan Drago:

jan.drago@seattle.gov; 684-8801

Richard Conlin:

richard.conlin@seattle.gov; 684-8805

Tim Burgess:

tim.burgess@seattle.gov; 684-8806

Nick Licata:

nick.licata@seattle.gov; 684-8803

Richard McIver:

richard.mciver@seattle.gov; 684-8800

Bruce Harrell:

bruce.harrell@seattle.gov; 684-8804

b. 1961
Here is the news of 2009....a background check is done by employers, to get a car loan, admission to a college, rent an apt etc. It is failry simple and basic. I agree..if I were in a homeless shelter I'd want to know if thye guy next to me was going to knife me in my sleep too. Get real and get in 2009.

Really JB?
I am not worthie.
Mea Culpa.

Raven,

No kidding SHARE's a non-profit. Being a non-profit is not mutually exclsuive from being a business. I stated they were a business, which they are. United Way is a non-profit - do you think they aren't a business? As for funding, on line 1d, of their 990 IRS form, they declared 70% of their contributions from the government. Their most recent contribution was $50k from King County for bus tickets.

So Raven, you laid a big egg.

"My question to Margaret, Chuck and Tiktok is do you live on this block? Are you aware of the impact the Food Bank and soup kitchen have on us already?"

No, I always make sure to avoid living on the same block as a church, because they attract the wrong sort of people, i.e. Christians and the homeless.

Like I'm saying, fight the poor and undesirable all you want, by whatever means necessary, just don't claim to be "totally behind" solving homelessness.

Regarding the background checks, I don't want to know about bankruptcy issues or broken leases, I couldn't care less, but yes, I'll sleep better knowing that the men in this shelter are free of felony convictions, including felony sexual offenses. That's all I ask.

That said, I have to say that if it's a night-only shelter and these men all have somewhere else to be during the day, I am FINE with it. I honestly was not even aware of the Share shelter two blocks down on the same street.

I think a lot of the heat last night is residual from the soup kitchen operating out of the same property in question. That is bringing a lot of homeless up down all our streets, all day long, most days of the week. Unregulated, un-background-checked homeless. Yes, people's emotions are hot. And yes, there is a direct reason for that. Current, personal experience.

Share's MO is to drop these things into neighborhoods and then berate neighbors for being upset. I think what surprised them last night, was our collective experiences with other homeless services already in place in our neighborhood. We're not completely new to this ourselves.

David,
Comment further
You also mentioned that if local government ran the shelters there would be better guidelines. Explain please, and also why does Governemnt avoid providing this shelter services to citizens?
About Share
What is the total budget?
You cited 50k from King Co - what other funding do they get from Government?
How many people do they serve?
Thank you for taking time to share this information. Sure we could do our own research, but it is nice that we have a place to write and discuss.

You also might want to ask the pastor of Ballard First Lutheran about the filthy state of the buildings that were left when the homeless were there.

it seems to me to be a very basic requirement to ask for backgound checks (which the lady from the food bank offered to do for free.) If the city was going to put a halfway house for released felons in the middle of a neighborhood, next to a park where children play and a daycare center, wouldn't the neighbors get something to say about it? Ditto a halfway house for convicted level 3 sex offenders.

The reason that SHARE doesn't want background checks done is because of what would be found. Plain and simple.

No where is it written that the law-abiding, tax paying residents of Ballard are responsible for curing the world of homelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction. I for one refuse to feel guilty about making SHARE accontable.

I can see both sides of the argument, but on the whole I think the background checks are a good idea, especially at this point to relieve the concerns of the community.

Question: /would/ background checks relieve the concerns of the community? I see a few comments up there from people who clearly just don't want the camp there at all, but most people in this thread seem to be focusing on the background checks. If checks were done, would you be cool with the camp?

@b1961.

Maybe now you have finally got it. I'm sick of people posting things that make no sense. Welcome to 2009. I guess your name really says it all.

I think that the reason that share- wheel doesn't do background checks is different - they know what they will find........a bunch of broken humans.
They must feel that the system they have in place is adequate to ensure the safety of neighbors - those that need roofs and those that have roofs.
They might know that people, even good people sometimes do bad things. They might just assume this and go on and make their rules of behavior based on that least common denominator.
They might not have the organizational capacity to handle the information that they find with a background check.
They might think that all the work they will need to do to run background checks and keep that information current and have it travel around with the various shelters is a distraction from their mission of helping people find shelter.
They might know that background checks are a false sense of security for neighborhoods and want to encourage a deeper discussion.

Crown Hill,
Governemnt systems are generally a double edged sword. The oversight and detail they put into running things so that they can be held accountable to the very citizens they serve also creates a beaurucratic mess. An organization like SHARE has the felxibility to act quickly and not get approval on anything, whereas if King County ran the shelter we'd be talking about it for 10 years before anything is done. Budgets for organizations like this are usually compiled through the year based on projections. For 2007, the reported program expenses came to $497,408. It's been difficult in past years to get more detailed information, but thanks to the new rules for tax year 2008, an updated IRS 990 form will be required to be filled out. This was enacted because so many non-profits operated in a nebulous way and it was unclear the path of funds coming in and going out.

Gurple,

With background checks being done I would feel more secure, but I ask this. How many people are already on the streets of Ballard that don't and will not have a background check done? You can feel safe from one group of people and still look at another larger group of people and not feel safe.

The arrogance of Steve Grumm was simply remarkable. He expressly stated that this was his church, and he could unilaterally do what he wanted with the property, irrespective of zoning laws or the wishes of the communtity.

Well, a religious organization is not insulated from civil liability laws. I've seen similar smugness from leaders of other churches in my professional career. Those churches have now paid dearly for that arrogance in placing the safety of children second as they concealed the sexual crimes of clergy.

If Grumm wants to claim that housing the poor is part of his church's ministry, then his church will be legally responsible for any flaws in the screening and supervision of these men if a child or adult is hurt, and it could have been prevented. He can't pass off responsibility for screening and supervision to SHARE, as a means of preventing Our Redeemers from being exposed to liability.

Just this morning, I saw a piece on the news about a homeless man being sentenced in Clark County for the rape and murder of a 13 year old girl. If such a tragedy could have been prevented in our neighborhood, and the perpetrator was residing in the neighborhood as a result of deficient screening and supervision by organizations like the Church and SHARE, the family of the victim would own this vacant building, as well as the Our Redeemer Church property where Grumm's congregation resides. Grumm would lose his livelihood, and his personal assets would be exposed. Frankly, the liability could easily extend further up to the regional or national church organizations, even if they are congregational style churches (rather than hierarchical).

I sincerely hope nothing like that ever occurs in our neighborhood. But if it does, I will not hesitate to pounce because it was a risk that never should have been in this single family residential area in the first place.

@b1961.

If people have messed up and something shows up on their background check that could stop them from getting a job or a car or a house. Why should the homeless be a double standard? If someone "messed up once" and is using drugs or is a sexual predator or has committed multiple crimes would you want them living around you? I would rather not take the chance on them committing a crime in Ballard? If they have done these things there is a higher chance they will do them again. Let them have there "second chance" somewhere else.

Strike,

Second all you are saying. If shutting this thing down stops even one small crime let alone a larger offense than its worth it.

"why does Governemnt avoid providing this shelter services to citizens?"

Is it mandated in the constitution the the government has to house hippies?

"If checks were done, would you be cool with the camp?"

Yes, because, to be honest, they'd be hard pressed to find enough 'guests' then and SHARE knows it, that's why the refuse to do it.

"they know what they will find……..a bunch of broken humans"

Exactly, criminals. BTW when you break the law, you break yourself, you are not broken. Most poor people are not criminals.

"They might not have the organizational capacity to handle the information that they find with a background check."

The food bank offered and SHARE apparently didn;'t have the interest to say yes.

Nordic woman- you said it best

"No where is it written that the law-abiding, tax paying residents of Ballard are responsible for curing the world of homelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction. I for one refuse to feel guilty about making SHARE accontable."

As a citizen if there is any repercussions becuase of poor planning I will do whatever I can to make the church and SHARE accountable. A noight only shelter does not solve any problem, in fact it makes the homeless less accoutable. They will roam OUR streets, and be absorbed into our small community by day..that is unfair to do that to aq community as small as ours. If you have real hope for changfe get some church volunteers or folks from SHARE and set up computers in the church, help them find jobs, homesharing opprotunities and anything else to move thier life forward instead of a mediorce alternative to a night of sleep under a roof. Pastror Grumm you are first on my list to sue if anyone is harmed by you personal lack of a plan to make this successful. God di d give you and the people involved brains, and common sense for a purpose, so use them both.

Thank you David,
I do have to admit, I do like oversight and attention to detail -even if it is done by the Government. - As a citizen I do like to hold my government accountable.
Do you have time for more questions?
How many people were sheltered for nearly 5 hundred K? (unduplicated individuals)
How many people does Share Wheel employ?
How many people volunteers serve?
How does this group make decisions?

Error - How many people volunteers serve? =
How many total volunteers?

A church should take care of its immediate congregation and not dozens of people from outside the community. The people in that neighborhood didn’t move there to live next to a homeless shelter and have every right to block this project.

as the Pastor said:

“I apologize for the time frame that’s taking place. This is not typically how we make decisions,” Grumm said, explaining they were approached by SHARE/WHEEL a couple weeks ago. “Our problem is these people were left without a place to sleep by March 1st.”

What I want to know is how apologetic is he going to be when someone is hurt, property damaged, etc becuase he did not TAKE THE TIME to work out a concrete plan?

They are making the homless accoutnable??? Hello! Aren't they the ones who made bad decisions that got them homeless? Remember they had to run out of options with their friends, co-workers and families before they ended up on the streets..just how capable are they now of being accountable?? That makes the least amount of sense of all...

It sounds like Trinity United Methodist at 23rd and 65th runs an operation similar to the one proposed. Are there any nearby residents on this board that can share some of their experiences with this shelter?

Also, what about experiences with the SHARE/WHEEL tent city that Grumm hosted at his other church on 24th and 85th?

Time to lawyer up folks. If they want to drive down the value of our homes, time to fight back and drain their bank accounts with legal action.

b1961 wrote (about SHARE) "They might know that people, even good people sometimes do bad things. "

We are not talking about parking tickets here. We are talking about CONVICTED felons who are likely to recommit.

My sister prosecuted over 1,000 court cases of sexual predators. These cases would turn your stomach. Guess what? 440 of these 'good people" are homeless, walking the streets of Seattle. One of the criteria of a level 3 sex offender is the likelihood to reoffend.

"These offenders pose a potential high risk to the community and are a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. Most have prior sex crime convictions as well as other criminal convictions. Their lifestyles and choices place them in this classification. Some have predatory characteristics and may seek out victims. They may have refused or failed to complete approved treatment programs. "

BTW, I walked to Jr. High and High School every day by Calvery Lutheran. My Girl Scout tropp met there. If you think that daylight is any deterrent to sexual predators, you are misled.

I would take the civl case further. I would impress upon the pastor of Our Redemers that IF there is an incident of the kind that just happened in Vancouver, that not only would Our Redeemers, Calvery Lutheran AND the pastor's personal property be subject to a civil case for damages, but also THE PROPERTY OF EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION.

"Time to lawyer up folks. If they want to drive down the value of our homes, time to fight back and drain their bank accounts with legal action."

Ooo--well-thought out idea!

Who's more likely to find a pro-bono lawyer to work their side: a church trying to help the homeless, or an angry mob of homeowners?

All-
First off - the good and bad about blogs...can't we all just try to keep the name calling out of this. The more this occurs, the disservice it does to everyone around (and then this turns into a lose-lose outcome before we start).

1. Background checks - seems like a doable no brainer, someone there last night offered to do them, and the comment by the SHARE guys was A. let's do it (but we need some help) and B. that it would be a fairly consistent 20 - so it isn't like checks would have to be done every night for hundreds of folks. A very manageable request and I think someone offered that a Mercer Island SHARE group does it - hey, even someone we could copy on the 'how'.
2. The SHARE Coordinator and Pastor Grumm missed a great opportunity last night (maybe missed is putting it to lightly), and in my opinion, threw the SHARE guys under the bus (shame on you both). They're the reason for the shelter - the reason why this discussion is even happening! It was sad to me that they (Coordinator and Grumm) missed the real reason we were all there - to figure out how as a community we could all come together with a reasonable and timely approach to setting up a service for these guys that I thought came across as honest and willing to do this the right way. I did get the clear feeling these guys are trying to better themselves and turn things around - they just need a chance.
3. Well done My Ballard - great summary. I'd only change that I think a higher percentage than 1/3 want to help these men - we just want it DONE RIGHT (not demanding perfection, but certainly want to see some effort). Unfortunately, the two individuals leading this - SHARE Coordinator/Grumm showed ZERO effort last night other than showing up and then throwing the guys under the bus and subsequently backing back over them with their 'this isn't our deal...talk to the guys....'.

We're an intelligent, compassionate, and reasonable community - to steal from last night, "give us a chance" too....

4. When the verse about 'what is most important' was brought out: 1. Loving God with all our heart soul mind and strength and 2. Loving our neighbors... I think the lady missed a key factor that wasn't included. Neighbors includes both those men needing a chance (that were on stage last night) as well as those actual NEIGHBORS that were there asking that this be done right.

The neighbors clearly showed their willingness to meet in the middle, the men showed their willingness to meet in the middle, unfortunately the leadership showed NOTHING. Step up and do what is right to get this done in a quality way for all - we'll all be so much better off if we do.

Nordic woman and Ballard Guy seem to know what they are talking about. b1961 you are ridiculous. You don't care if people coming into your neighborhood deal/take drugs or are sexual predators? Well good thing most people do care about this.

@tiktok,

No not a "church helping the homeless" a church helping criminals and sexual predators. You can't say that they aren't unless this is performed the right way not the fast way.

I'll be happy to ask my sister, who is a lawyer, and homeowner in Ballard. I'm pretty sure that she would not only do it for free, but IF there was an incident of any kind, would be happy to do it and sell tickets. BTW, pro-hono works for everyone, not just the disenfranchised.

I have been the president of 3 401c-3 non profit ogranizations, all of which had to have millions of dollars of insurance. (they were not in any way connected to this kind of social agency.) One of the real concerns of OUR lawyers was in fact that if someone got hurt during an activity, is that the injured party or their family can in fact, sue not just the agency, but each member of the board of directors. Wake up and smell the litigation!

In fact, I think if SHARE thought about it a little more, they would see that it would be in their own best self interest to do background checks!

Why does Ballard have to be the place to help the homeless? Ballard is to nice.

Tiktok, who's more likely to be held liable when one of the residents breaks the law, assaults a neighbor or sexually assaults a child? The homeowners or the people responsible for injecting them into the community?

To answer a number of questions: yes, Pr. Grumm does live in the neighborhood as do a number of other Our Redeemer members including myself. As for exposure to the Calvary shelter residents, few, if any of you will ever see them unless you happen to be up and outside at seven in the evening when they walk from 24th Ave. to the church or at seven in morning when they walk as a group back to the bus.

I assume that the community/church/Share committee that is being formed will arrange some open houses (like those that have been held at Trinity Methodist) so those who wish can actually have some personal experience of this group of men that some of us are so anxious about - some of the characterizations expressed on this blog regarding the homeless involved in Share indicate that some of us very much need to have some personal experience of the men involved in this group.

As for background checks, those of us who would actually feel more secure if this were done might also consider requesting that the AA groups and the 36th District Democratic organization who meet at the Calvary building also submit to the same procedure. Indeed when Our Redeemer finally suceeds in finding another congregation to rent or hopefully buy the Calvary building, I trust those folks will demand that all the members of that organization undergo background checks.

Finally I encourage those of you distressed by the presence of homeless including some mentally ill people in our neighborhood during the day make the effort to meet with the leadership of the Calvary soup kitchen at the meeting that was proposed last night by its director. There are no doubt more things that can be done to alleviate some of the impact some of us have good reason to be concerned about.

Oh - I understand now....The issue isn't about whether or not they run background checks.
I guess I am pretty dense. I guess what we want is Share to institute a rule not to shelter people who meet some pre-established standards.

JB- I guess I just assume the worst in people - how do I know that you aren't some sort of pervert yourself? I don't know why it matters if I care or not - I don't know why I need someone to do background checks to know that the world is full of drug addicts, felons, murderers and deviants - Why argue over those details - it won't make you safe.

To those who are calling our neighborhood unwilling to help the homeless, I want to point out that we're not objecting to A shelter in the neighborhood ... we are hesitant to embrace ONE MORE homeless operation in a four-block square of a residential neighborhood. We are not NIMBY. This is alreay quite literally in our backyards, and our frontyards.
Our neighborhood already supports a food bank (a good thing, which not only helps the homeless, but also our housed neighbors who are struggling in hard financial times), a soup kitchen that operates most weekdays, and another Share shelter. We've also hosted Tent City twice in the 8 years I've lived here. We're already doing our part to help ease the problem of homelessness. And then some.

Judging by Nancy McKinney's (director of the food bank) surprised reaction last night to all the negative comments about the clients of the soup kitchen, I'm guessing that not many of us have complained to her until news of this new shelter have caused many of us to cry "enough is enough!"

"No not a “church helping the homeless” a church helping criminals and sexual predators. You can’t say that they aren’t unless this is performed the right way not the fast way."

HOMELESS criminals. HOMELESS sexual predators. Homeless people are always a mess, they always have issues. Wanting to help only the "right" homeless people, i.e. those without criminal records, substance abuse issues, good credit and who floss twice a day is a namby-pamby way of saying "I really don't want to help these people" without copping to it.

Which is fine! There's no law that we have to nice or caring.Just don't say, "I totally support getting everyone off the streets,” and then add a bunch of stipulations the rule out 90% of the people off the streets.

What's being "totally supported" here is not having to look at bums and keeping property values plummeting at the current rate, and not a faster homeless-shelter-nearby rate.

"if any of you will ever see them unless you happen to be up and outside at seven in the evening when they walk from 24th Ave"

A lot of hardworking people come home at that time. That's also when kids come home from after school activities, tutoring etc.

"to the church or at seven in morning when they walk as a group back to the bus."

A lot of hard working people are up and out the door at that time. Maybe working 12 hours a day is why we aren't homeless?

And what about the people who come to the church to hang with their buddies and aren't let in?

1961-You don't know that's my whole point thanks for proving it. "I don’t know why it matters if I care or not" You can't be serious you are saying you don't care if you knowingly allow homeless criminals to live in your neighborhood? It will make Ballard more safe running background checks and getting rid of the criminals. Good thing nobody agrees with you or Ballard would be over run with homeless criminals. Like i said before let these people in your home if you don't seem to care who they are. Yeah respond to that since you haven't yet.

Based on previous threads regarding this issue, I can't say I'm surprised by the nimby comments.

The background check issue is a red herring. For those of you arguing that you can't buy a house or a car without a background check, that is misleading at best. You can't buy a house or a car without a CREDIT check, which is not the same thing. The bank cares about getting paid back on the loan and nothing else. You might not be able to get a job without a background check, but even that is a maybe.

A just released felon who has always paid his bills on time could move in next door to you, and there's not a damn thing you could do about it. And, that's the point the pastor was making - you can't get background checks on your neighbors, so why is this any different?

Tiktok.

You are right I don't want to help the homeless people that have ruined their own lives through drugs or crime. And if you want to go ahead and let them in your house. The majority of the homeless people we are talking about have ruined their own lives. Unless the right homeless people to help can be found. Don't help any of them

Mahtli69- Don't be stupid renting or buying a house can take a BACKGROUND not just CREDIT check. Also going to school and getting student loans take a BACKGROUND not CREDIT check. Get your facts straight. Jobs can also take a BACKGROUND check. Its not misleading.

"A just released felon who has always paid his bills on time could move in next door to you, and there’s not a damn thing you could do about it. "

Well if he bought the house next to me, at least he would have a stake in the community. He'd have a paper trail. He could be held accountable by establishing him/herself back into the community as a responsible citizen who can be held accountable and not just go 'poof' and vanish into thin air.

FYI plenty of landlords do criminal back ground checks. I always did when I had rental properties. Also, people with criminal records don't often have good credit ratings, direct cause and effect.

"one of the members named Nicholas. "

Apparently they won't even give their last names in a public forum.

"Apparently they won’t even give their last names in a public forum."

Wait a minute--is somone going by "Ballard Guy" complaining that "Nicholas" won't give his last name in a public forum?

Dude, I was there, gave my full name. I'm not going to do it here, on a website, so I can be hounded by the Ballard Compassion Taliban.

"Unless the right homeless people to help can be found. Don’t help any of them"

Agreed! It's always best to err on the side of caution.

JB and Ballard Guy - I call BS. I have rented countless apartments in my life and own a house in Ballard. I've also had a couple of car payments over the years. I've had CREDIT checks for each of these transactions, but not a single BACKGROUND check.

When I worked in the aerospace industry that required a security clearance, my employer gave me a BACKGROUND check. Every other job I've ever had did not.

JB - Tell me the difference between background check and criminal background check. I thought I knew the difference...if I checked WATCH and you committed your last offence in Floriday - would it show up?

Jotto -

Your points lose all credibility when you say that groups like AA and the 36th Democratic organization should be screened with background checks if the neighborhood wants checks of the proposed residents at this shelter.

The critical distinction is that the men in this shelter are not just here for a meeting once a week and then leaving. Rather, they are living here every.. single...day. And are being supervised by...themselves. They don't pay property taxes, have no pride of ownership, and don't have long standing relationships with their neighbors, nor do their children play in Salmon Bay Park. Their wives don't jog in the neighborhood, and they don't walk their dogs on my street. These are are all signs and elements of a stable and safe community. Moreover, they are the very social/public policy reasons why the limitations in residential zoning codes are in place.

If someone wants an exception to the residential zoning codes -- like placing a high density hotel for men in the middle of a neighborhood, where those men have no fixed addresses, likely criminal histories, possible mental problems, and possible drug/alcohol problems -- you should expect certain conditions to be placed on that proposed use to protect the very things that the residential codes were designed to accomplish.

Mahtli69,

"A just released felon who has always paid his bills on time could move in next door to you, and there’s not a damn thing you could do about it. And, that’s the point the pastor was making - you can’t get background checks on your neighbors, so why is this any different?"

Landlords ecspecially now do background checks so a felon would not be able to get necessarily move in next to me. I'm sure landlords wouldn't want to rent to a felon especially when the neighborhood would find out about it. No you can't get background checks on your neighbors but they are having background checks ran on them.

I'm sorry - I'll stop bating others in this discussion and let you all get on with your day.

Ballard Guy, maybe we should make the homeless people pass the WASL before they can move into the shelter. That'll weed 'em out!

Mahtli69,

Go to some higher priced homes and see what it takes to rent them. And you just proved our point. You have had a background check ran on you in the past.

You think these guys have good credit ratings?

If that's the only check you want, then great: only homeless with high credit scores are allowed in.

"Dude, I was there, gave my full name. I’m not going to do it here, on a website, so I can be hounded by the Ballard Compassion Taliban."

Ooo--hounded! That sounds horrible! People saying mean things about you on a website! They'll be outside your porch with pitchforks next demanding that you submit to a background check or leave the community!

b1961

The difference is the criminal background check CAN sometimes be more thorough. But both show criminal history.

"Landlords ecspecially now do background checks so a felon would not be able to get necessarily move in next to me. "

Maybe they don't do that down Rainier Valley way, that's probably the kind of 'ideal' neighborhood they want to turn Ballard into.

Tiktok,

People who won't do a background check have something to hide.

Thanks for the back and forth JB -

"People who won’t do a background check have something to hide."

Absolutely! Sort of like people who put their letters in "envelopes" versus just jotting everything on the back of a postcard. I think all my neighbors, particularly the renters, should make their background check available to me.

I'm not worried though, I think between a period ofexpensive litigation and maintaining a general atmosphere of aggressive hatred and intolerance, Ballard will remain a Nice Neighborhood for the Right People.

"I think all my neighbors, particularly the renters, should make their background check available to me."

No problem, I already did make my name public, when I bought my house and put my name on the publicly accessible deed. Anyone who knows where I live can do a check on me. Come on by.

Why can't we expect the same at the church?

Very Important - Please Read

I had two questions I asked people to get answers to -

#1 Is it true, that this is transitional housing for Ex Cons and/or Sex offenders? This is what I was told by a Real Change saleman was the case. This would explain lack of background checks. Obviously, you don't do a background check. It sort of defeats the point.

#2 What financial incentive does the Pastor have in this arrangement exactly. What does he gain financially exactly personally. Is he being paid a single penny from anyone involved.

Without those two questions answered, we have not got a clue what we are even talking about here. Did anyone address those questions?

I could not make the meeting. Sorry

YES or NO?

Anyone at all....

PS - This is a non profit, which is a Tax free shelter for many, and nothing more. Not all Non Profit's are for the Betterment of the world. Is this a tax shelter or a legit organization trying to help Ballard? Who the heck are the people? I smell a rat here, frankly.

That's exactly how it should be. Its turning into a bad neighborhood for the wrong people. What do you want? All the homeless people to run free without a care in Ballard?

Those of you who think renting a place requires a background check are delusional. Credit check maybe, background check rarely.

JB - Renting a high-end place might require a background check IF the market is right and there are multiple potential tenants to choose from. If anything has been on the market for more than a month or so, then the first person who can pay the rent will move in.

And, NO, my ONE background check doesn't prove your point at all. Mine was for a friggin security clearance, not the keys to an apartment. Not even comparable.

BHO,

If this is a transitional house. Do you want it in Ballard? Criminals are more likely to repeat.

Mahtli69


You are wrong it does take a background check. I have had them done to be considered for a house. Obviously we are not going to agree on this, but i actually have had one run so I have proof.


So lets just get this clear and please answer this. You would not care if homeless people with no background check to see what their criminal history was were allowed to move into Ballard?

Ok maht, let's just run credit checks. No one under 700? Also, contracts with names, ssn, references. All pretty standard to rent here on the north side or would you rather we be like Rainier Valley and not give a damn?

"you can’t get background checks on your neighbors, so why is this any different?"

That is not quite correct. We can easily check if any of our neighbors are sexual predators. Actually, it isn'that difficult to go on line to the King County Courts website and see if anyone has in fact, committed a felony.

I like the fact that the supporters of this SHARE/Wheel project always play the NIMBY card. Well, how close is Calvery Lutheran to Salmon Bay School?? There are laws about having halfway houses for felons within a certain distance of schools.

Tiktok, if you wanted to live in the Central District next to a crackhouse, I'm sure that could have been arranged. For the most part, people live here because it WAS a nice, quiet, safe neighborhood. Why should they all live in fear?

This is starting to sound like an ugly mob. Hey, wait, I know--we need background checks for posters here!

Papers, citizen?

It is not appropriate to strong arm a neighborhood into this scenerio with mere days notice. My hope is that Pastor Steve listens to the local affected people that ultimately support and attends his church.

Shame on SHARE for putting the homeless individuals in front of the firing range without anyone of authority to answer tough questions or provide needed clarification of accountablity.

Please... let's not rush into this. If we're to move forward with SHARE, Let's do it with support from the majority.

Also... one answer that didn't get clarified. Are the men staying in this shelter required to check in at the downtown headquarters daily?

EVERY job I have ever had required disclosure of any criminal background.

As I mentioned, someone offered to do this for free. Why doesn't SHARE take advantage of that?

Because it would close down there operation in Ballard, that's why.

2nd 106 and 107. Well said.

"You would not care if homeless people with no background check to see what their criminal history was were allowed to move into Ballard?"

JB - Yes, I would care and I share your concern, but, No, I don't think it's within my rights to do anything about it. Ballard is not my private property.

Raven
I
ts a forum people can post what they want here. This just shows people are pissed at the way homeless shelter is trying to be run by SHARE/WHEEL. Grumm and you people who supported this are crazy to think you won't get resistance from the people living in Ballard.

Maht

So you care but won't do anything about it? Obviously your comments don't hold weight because you aren't prepared to do anything. If this shelter is going to be done it must be forced to be done right.

http://www.kirotv.com/investigations/2825037/de...

For more information about the laws regarding day cares/schools and sexual predators.

http://ml.waspc.org/Legal.aspx

I still need to watch the tape, but my understanding was that during the meeting-proper, anytime SHARE was asked for something they didn't want to provide (written guidelines?) or answer (the offer for free background checks?), they would give the dodgy response: "Come to our office downtown." Knowing full well that will dissuade many people.

A tidbit: Why did the Food Bank have to offer background checks to Grumm at the meeting? (an offer which was turned down as "inhumane") I ask because Grumm is ON THE BOARD at the Food Bank. You connect the dots.

Another tidbit from inside source (hopefully someone else can confirm): The original plan was to put a *women's* shelter into that church... but it was Grumm that forced through the men's shelter instead.

From everything around this incident, and from prior personal experience: That guy simply cannot be trusted.

George well said

Yes or No?

Did anyone ask if this is transitional housing for ex Cons and/or sexual predators directly. This is my understanding of what the place is. If nobody knows, could someone please direct me to the video of this meeting, so I can answer this question myself, which is THE most important one, but I assume people were to shy to ask.

Tiktok, if you wanted to live in the Central District next to a crackhouse, I’m sure that could have been arranged. For the most part, people live here because it WAS a nice, quiet, safe neighborhood. Why should they all live in fear?"

They shouldn't! I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm for the utter ejection of all homeless people from Ballard--but I say be upfront about it:

Ballard--a Nice Neighborhood for the Right People, All Others Leave By Sundown.

None of this "We want to help poor people" thing. Of course, Ballard has the disadvantage of having all those churches. The old joke about "one bar per church in Ballard" takes on a darker meaning when you consider that it means "one church for every bar". Churches are sadly prone to consorting with the poor, desperate, sinners and even criminals. They should be closely monitored, and hammered with ruinous litigation and vitrolic discourse whenever their activities threaten the Three Pillars of High Property Values, The Children and Clean Streets.

And you know, putting these guys thru a good rigorous check will help prepare them for reality. What could be more compassionate than teaching a man how to fish?

Hello All
I attended the meeting with my wife and observed an attitude which can best be described as entitlement and arrogance from both Pastors Mattson and Grumm and some of the SHARE members who spoke. The request for outstanding warrants, sexual offender history and background criminal checks to be done on the new tenants was totally sandbagged with the attempt to embarrass our 'non compassionate' position. We assume these folks are running away from something or lying low when they are adamant that they can do their own background checks.
Jessie Israel stepped up to the plate and offered time and energy for these checks to be done but was issued an additional hurdle by SHARE to 'take it downtown' to work out the details there. Not one of the SHARE members, whom I believe are all 'co-members' and by definition ‘co-involved’, offered to personally assist in this endeavor. I guess their thinking is why give any ground or throw away any time when they have the green light anyway.
My wife and I believe that the soup kitchen, along with the food bank, is a problem. Daytime operations make it a magnet for an undesirable element who come in their cars/trucks/RVs as well as metro, to ‘party’ and claim turf. Where one can see a motley crew boozing it up in a parked car or just loitering without purpose, needles, hard drugs, and psychotic alcoholics are not far behind.
There is work to be done to help our fellow human being down on their luck but rest yourselves with this thought. Where there is a free ride to sleep, eat and play…the word gets out and more will come.
See you at the Loyal Heights meet 12 March 7:00 PM

Tiktok
"Who’s more likely to find a pro-bono lawyer to work their side: a church trying to help the homeless, or an angry mob of homeowners?"

I think the question of interest to most people on this post should be "Who is the city going to listen to more, homeowners that pay taxes or a church that pays none."

29

Inconsistency #1:

"Pastor Grumm lives in the neighborhood"

No, pastor Grumm lives west of 24th Avenue W and south of 65th.

Inconsistency #2:

“I apologize for the time frame that’s taking place. This is not typically how we make decisions,” Grumm said, explaining they were approached by SHARE/WHEEL a couple weeks ago.

-- On Monday, a neighbor talked to Grumm. Grumm said he was contacted by SHARE six weeks ago.

-- On Tuesday, I talked to Grumm and he said he was contacted by SHARE three weeks ago.

-- On Thursday, Grumm said he was contacted by SHARE a couple of weeks ago.

Well, what is it?

Doesn't the Old Testament say something about not bearing false witness against your neighbor?

Correction: west of 24th Avenue NW

I don't like seeing any riff-raff in Ballard. Anyone who doesn't bathe daily or tip their hat to a lady ought to be arrested on sight.

I really want to help the homeless, but I only want to help them if they live in someone else's neighborhood. And, of course, they only deserve help if they've arrived at their current situation through a combination of perfect decision-making and horrendous luck. I'm willing to help in any way I can, but I don't want to see them. Or pay for it.

I've been lurking for months and love this blog. The bitchy people, the friendly

people. anyway - here are my two cents:

as for background checks - I ran an apartment on capital hill for years. The

management company ran a credit and background check. $35 bucks a pop I think at the

time. basic stuff - that takes a few days to have run - mostly delayed trying to

contact references. So the actual crimninal and credit check probably takes a day.

We ran it on all possible tenants. Single house landlords don't tend to do it as

they are too cheap or inexperienced in the seedier side of Seattle at night.

as for "bad apples" roaming the neighborhood - perhaps it is Share\Wheel being

involved that causes the problem or not - but I know of two churches that house a

small number of adults with few issues. One on Capital Hill (all women) and one on

Phinney (all men) about ten men I think a night. Yes - I know Capital Hill is very

urban and filled with addicts. My point is that the women don't cause any trouble

and spend their days trying to not look homeless as it is so dangerous for them

outside.

as for the men - when I lived one block off greenwood near Diva - I would see the men

staying at the church come by in a group fairly quietly from the bus in the evening

and disappear in the church. I never saw them very often - usually on their way

there. They moved quickly and quietly through the neighborhood. And left the area

immediately. The trash outside my house was never unusual. It was a non-issue. I

think the key is that they left the neighborhood immediately.

Then! When the tent city moved in down the street at the lutheran church on

greenwood that looks lika a viking hall with its arches over the door (76th)? -

there was a huge increase in public drunkeness on my steps, bottles left, waste, etc.

Fights on our corner. We were a couple blocks from the tent city - I think just

outside of their awareness area.

Panhandling went WAY up outside Ken's market. There are always our usual

neighborhood panhandlers/Real Change sellers - but they are nice and part of the

neighborhood. Tent city just brought in a bunch of people with a handful of bad

apples that have no desire or care to fit in respectfully in to the neighborhood.

Tent City did well at policing their immediate area - but it is the two to five block

radius around that area that suffers.

The problem isn't how they police themselves while on their property - it is that the

bad apples hang out a few blocks outside the watchful eye of where they stay - and

drink and shoot up - and then go back to the tent city. The number of syringes in my

yard went up from never to frequently. And one of the reasons I moved off Capital Hill is being able to garden without having to pick up syringes. Or pick up human crap from my flowerbed. The tell-tale sign it isn't dogcrap is dogs don't use tissue.

So, it isn't the immediate area that is the problem - it is the border around it.

Like - the church area itself will probably be run okay - and the block around it - but the parameter a few blocks out will suffer.

And - Share seems to be so in-your-face about their "rights" to be there instead of

appreciative of any community support. I am far from a fudamentalist - and not particularly religious - but - the Salvation Army's mens unit is in a warehouse down south of the kingdome - far away from single family homes. Far away from just about anything down there. And - they will put you up for "free" and work with you to get sober and get job training. But - they have rules. I figure - you want help - fine. But - since life isn't working out so well with the rules you've played by so far - then maybe its time to adopt someone else' rules for a bit. When you can afford your own place - then you can go back to your own rules. I mean - if the price for having a shower, a shave, a place to learn how to make resumes and get mail and get clean clothes - costs the price of you having to sit there through a church service - tough.

I think I would feel better about that church setup - if it turned out those people sleeping there - were the for the night and then during the day they had to report to someone (like the salvation army) - that tracks them and holds them accountable. It is the utter lack of records for these guys that is the issue. Even the background check thing wouldn't be such an issue if someone somewhere was keeping tabs on them and if they broke the rules they are given a bus ticket to Berkeley :)

-NordicGnome

you guys have hit the nail on the head with not trusting this Grumm guy.

Trust & integrity are a huge part (or should be) of a persons' life. especially people who work daily trying to "help" or rehabilitate others. There is something in this for Grumm. Don't be fooled. he is dancing around so many issues that he can not keep them all straight.

It is tragic, I feel, bc it was hopefully a great, genuine thought in the beginning but once it turned to lies & deception it has become very sticky.

I welcome any & all background checks, credit checks, etc... as if you have nothing to hide or fear, why make a big deal about it. It all seems very elementary to me.....

Ugh! sorry about the extra lines - I cut and pasted from notepad and didn't catch before posting.

Thank you, NordicGnome for sharing your experiences.

This is what you sound like

Typical extreme word twisting. I'm no mediator, but I've heard lots of people allude to supporting the shelter if there were background checks. Seems like a simple compromise. Heck, I'd even donate money for the background checks if I knew they couldn't get them for free (which as a non-profit, they can). Until the church and SHARE agree to this simple request neighbors will continue to assume that everyone has a warrant or is a sex offender. Save your drivel for when people don't want the shelter even though background checks have been done. By the way, we're paying for it now through taxes, so that's no argument.

Someone posted the "Cease and Desist" orders to SHARE/Wheel from the City of Seattle sometime back. Once they are here, I think that they will be hard to get rid of.

I do NOT think it is the responsibility of Ballardites to support this group without some accontability. We would not allow a halfway house for drug addicts, felons, work-release or sexual predators WITHOUT informing the neighbors. IF they are such an "asset" to our neighborhood, wny wouldn't they jump at the chance to prove it?

I have not noticed Share/Wheel trying out these tactics in Magnolia, Laurelhurst or Broadmore, have you? Wonder why not?

It seems that over and over, the card they play is "shame on you, you Ballard facists, for not embracing these people." I for one will not be guilt-tripped into inviting felons into a residential neighborhood.

As I read through the comments, I am struck by the sheer amount of speculation about motives and the sheer amount of unfounded rumors. Isn't it possible that Pastor Grumm's motivation was a genuine desire to help the less fortunate? Isn't is possible that perhaps he was approached on short notice by a group in need? The idea that he is personally profiting from this is: a) just speculation from people who clearly want to find a way to vilify him and an excuse to keep the homeless out; and b) really pretty absurd. I suspect what you have is a man trying to live his Christian values, not someone getting kickbacks to let sex offenders molest our children. Perhaps he did not handle the situation as well as he could have, and perhaps more time should be taken to address neighborhood concerns, but spreading rumors and innuendo is counterproductive and serves no purpose other than to incite and inflame. All of the postings about when Pastor Grumm knew what are based on third or fourth hand information. I, for one, don't place much weight on such "information." I think we need to give Pastor Grumm the benefit of the doubt and see how he handles it from here. To assume he has evil motives and is trying to pull one over on the good people of the neighborhood is unwarranted. Posting the location of his home is also unwarranted and smacks of vigilante-ism (if that's a word). It also undermines a legitimate debate over the appropriateness of the use of this facility to spread rumors, without any real information, that SHARE is transitional housing for sex offenders (which I suspect is not true), or to interject racial overtones by tying the homelessness issue to "blacks and Mexicans trying to take over Ballard" (read Black Helicopter's comments to the post about the poor woman who died at Golden Gardens).

How about a healthy, non-reactionary, debate about this issue, rather than one founded in hysteria?

This is what you sound like // Feb 27, 2009 at 12:48 pm

I don’t like seeing any riff-raff in Ballard. Anyone who doesn’t bathe daily or tip their hat to a lady ought to be arrested on sight.

Puleeze! Do you own a house and have a family and have worked hard to make your place nice for yourself and others (who would appreciate it?), or were you clever in pulling our collective legs? Our concerns are real, yours must be flippant.
OingoBoingo

A problem with background checks is they're $35 each time. The homeless can't pay for them, whereas the application fee for a lease usually covers it (plus--do the homeless have valid photo ID?). Plus, they take a few days. Imagine a homeless guy shows up at the shelter. He wants to sleep there...tonight. The check takes a day. Or two. What do you do--tell him to come back later? Supposing he comes back a week after the background check--how do you know he hasn't been arrested in that time? Do you run a background check every night?

This is just goofy. People are up in arms over Teh Homeless moving into Ballard, because a few might or might not be pervs, "Oh, this is a NICE neighborhood, stuff like that doesn't happen here except for bad homeless people."

But the principal of Whittier Elementary got busted for being a perv, and quite a media spectacle of one, at that. A background check was undoubtedly done prior to his hiring, and he was Mr. Popular, who would've expected?

Background checks alone -- or excluding the homeless -- won't take care of safety issues. Get over it, watch your kids, and mete out trust very selectively. Your kids are probably at more danger from the creepy dad of a classmate (who isn't being watched and doesn't have to be in by 7 p.m.) than random homeless guy who must live under supervision.

I live several blocks from this church but frequently walk by with my 2 kids on the way to Salmon Bay. So while I'm notin the immediate vicinity, I am very concerned. Especially by the lack of concern from Pastor Grumm.

I worked for years as the administrator of my church in GL, and I currently volunteer to coordinate the nursery program there. We always run background checks on anyone desiring to serve in any of the children's ministries. As a non-profit, we can do this FOR FREE, and with an online account with WSP it only takes a few minutes. This obviously helps protect our children, but it also protects the church. I assume Pastor Grumm's church has children's ministries... At least I've seen signs for VBS summer program there. It would make at least insurance liability sense for him to do this simple practice in his congregation. If you do this with your own people, how then is it disrespectful to ask the same of potential residents? Can't do the research on this, but seems to me they should be legally required to do checks since there's a preexisting (I'm assuming licensed) daycare across the street. If she's licensed, she's had to do the same.

@#44. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with churches. Pastor Grumm's example, as I've observed here at least, hasn't inspired much confidence. But other churches work hard to be good neighbors while also trying to serve the needy. I think this church needs to reexamine how to be "wise as serpents, gentle as doves" (from the Bible) on their approach to the needy.

Hey Concerned - The problem here is not a single person had the courage to ask the two most important questions

1. Is this a transitional housing for ex cons and or/sexual predators as the Real Change salesmen stated, who happens to know a lot of the truth of what is going on here in Ballard.

2. Is the "Pastor" gaining a single penny personally from this move. Is his church getting any kickback or payoff?

Two very simple questions. But, he used reverse psychology on those at the meeting, and it would seem they left with thier tails between thier legs, because he accused them of being uncaring. He played the audience like a fiddle. I'm sorry, but that is a fact. 1/3 supported the shelter by the end? Sure, you dealt with a time share salesman type it would seem. How damn gullible has Ballard become. I miss Old Ballard. You people have zero street smarts who fell for this bull.

Do you know how many "Pastors" are Pastors for financial gain? How easy it it to become one? Grow up will you?

My God, if all I need to do is become I pastor to hoodwink any person I want, maybe I should do it.

It takes about 20 minutes to fill out a form and .35 cents to drop the form in the mail.

My God! How pathetic it is that these people have this much power over you folks.

Board Brown. I do think there is a lot of relevance to your post, but is your first name board and is your last name brown? Anonymity allows for pointed comments and brevity in a venue that doesn't have the time or patients for expansive contextual arguments, which is what someone like myself would need in order to weigh in my opinion and have it evaluated by my entire community.
That being said, personal insults are frustrating to me, and are unfortunately second nature to others.

Do the SHARE residents that stay in the shelter required to check in every day downtown?

If not... why would they ever leave the neighborhood that provides a foodbank and soup kitchen just steps away?

Excluding the "2/3 of the shelter residents that have a job" of course.

Amy
Often times homelessness is the unfortunate next step for the sex offender. I just asked my friend who is a probation officer in Multnomah County. Granted, that's Oregon, but how different could it be from King County? He said many sex offenders are homeless because they're so ostracized nobody wants to put them up or give them a job.

Of course that principal committed a misdemeanor so he's probably living in some home, but if he had a wife and kids, it's not the same one they're in.

The fact is you want to do a background check before something unfortuante happens.

I guess I missed something. Were the homeless people going to work in the daycare?

There are daycares downtown. And homeless people. And excons. And probably, sexual predators. Has something terrible happened down there lately, that I'm not aware of?

I would add that I live on the fringe of Ballard. My family sees homeless people daily. They hang out one block away in the summer and say "hi," when we walk past. They won't hurt you, and to act like they'll give you the cooties by looking at you or living within a mile of you is ridiculous. Yes, sometimes they're annoying with the panhandling, but so are little kids and high schoolers and hipsters and middle-class entitled people and Republicans and old people and everyone else.

Sometimes you get a creepy vibe from a guy (looking "homeless" or in a three-piece suit or say, a white truck), and you avoid him. If you see someone acting crazy or dangerous or drunk (frat boy or homeless guy), you can call 911.

I am really shocked the responses on here. I'd almost think I lived in ...ugh, Magnolia.

Amy - To answer your question. Yes, something bad did happen downtown. People are raped and murdered every day downtown. That is the point. Go downtown if you like that. We dont want it here. OK?

"My family sees homeless people daily. They hang out one block away in the summer and say “hi,” when we walk past. They won’t hurt you, and to act like they’ll give you the cooties by looking at you or living within a mile of you is ridiculous."

Excepting the rare pipe-beating murder, sure. Omelets/eggs/etc.:

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_03020...

"Detectives have arrested a 45-year-old man, accused of beating another man to death with a metal pipe.
Investigators believe the suspect and the victim, both homeless and living in their cars, had a fight on Friday over a dog. "

So, to answer my question... No, there is no video of the meeting. It was a sales pitch, 1/3 bought the pitch and nothing was answered.

We don't even have a video as promised for those who could not attend? But, someone was brave enough to say to the media the Pastor is doing the Christian Thing.

Gee Thanks

you people on this blog are more disturbing to me than any homeless person i have ever encountered.

good riddens judgemental people with nothing better to do than blast your other fellow neighbors!

i was just in a coffeeshop this morning and the conversation i overheard was, "have you ever been to that myballard.com blog?..they are such bitchy, mean spirited people. it is just awful!"......

i guess that is how you want ballard to look to the outsider. no thank you very much. try not to work too hard "one-upping" and hating each other with your passaive-aggressive, my life is perfect and i own ballard mentality.

i think i definition of "COMMUNITY" should be looked up by all.

...a definition, not i definition, for the grammar police. yes, i make mistakes sometimes.

Ha, Why don't YOU move to the burbs? Nice and safe and white and conventional and absolutely no freaks who like to go nuts and shoot up their families or schools or workplaces. Weird people never try to kidnap kids or hurt them. Nope. That only happens downtown, where The Homeless are.

This is the city. Get over yourselves. Ah, you will someday. Ballard is changing and will totally become like Queen Anne, Cap Hill and Downtown. Thank god.

I grew up poor. I'm not scared of poor people or homeless people. I'm sorry you are. You should be more afraid of your "normal" neighbors.

Black Helicopter Ops -

It might have helped if you were there before insinuating that people were sheepishly cowering to the pastor or the SHARE representatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I went expecting this to be a question and answer session, so that I could alleviate my concerns over how this place operated if it went into effect. What I learned though, was that the Church and SHARE only intended for this to be an informational meeting whereby they explained how things worked.

I asked numerous direct questions of Pastor Steve, and also asked for the formal SHARE representative (not the residents) to respond to direct questions about the security measures. Not once did I get a direct answer, as they continually passed off on providing an answer or asked one of the residents to respond.

Due to the format of the meeting, there was no opportunity for legitmate questions and answers. Rather, it was just speeches. And there were many people wanting to explain their perspective. As a result, there was no viable opportunity for anyone to pin down SHARE or the church about whether this was transitional housing, or any other question for that matter. I was frankly furious at the calculated effort to dodge answering direct questions. Indeed, Pastor Steve was heard whispering to someone that he was not going to answer any questions at all, unless he was forced to do so.

Having said that, I don't think that this is being run for profit by the pastor. I don't see any room for profit margins, nor do I see anything sinister in his motives. I'm sure in part he also wants people in the vacant building to protect it from vandalism, because his church will profit from it when it is eventually sold. I don't find anything particularly unreasonable about that.

However, I take great issue with the deliberate effort to avoid providing precise answers to precise questions that go to the heart of the neighborhood's security. And looking at the forest, rather than the trees, I take even greater issue with the entire concept of placing a rotating group of 20 men in a single family residential neighborhood.

Ok Amy -

How about we bring you to Pioneer Square tonight and have you walk around. I will video tape the results for you for free. I am not afraid of poor people, in fact many are my friends.

However, a meth head who gets out of control in MY neighborhood with me or a passer by, is going to find out I am not the spoiled little Ballard boy you take me for.

Don't assume you know who all these people are on here because you don't. May are Old Ballard and a bit tougher than you seem to believe. You live in La La land and let the problem solving continue here.

Strike - The reason I did not go, is because there was supposed to be a video crew there. That is what was said on her two days ago. I just wanted two questions answered

1. Is it true this is a home for ex cons/sex offenders

2. Is the Pastor personally gaining in any way shape or form financially

That's it....

The coffeeshop converstaion is funny. Thanks, Jules.

By the way, I did look up "Community". It reads, "A unified body of individuals, the people with common interests living in a particular are." Yes, that seems to sum up the majority of what I've heard from the people actually living near 23rd and 70th.

GOD I live the stench of the internet on a sunny Friday afternoon. Cheapest entertainment in town.

Let me guess.... the homeless guys in Tullys with the backpacks are bad mouthing the people trying to sort of this mess....

amy - Yours is the only voice of reason on here today. Thank you.

Here is the final piece of info that sealed my resolve. It was no secret at the meeting that I was against the shelter. And I raised very pointed questions about security. What I got was canned answers such as "we do the best we can", and "I have to sleep next to the person so I'm making sure he is a decent guy." I also heard repeatedly how alcohol is not allowed, nor intoxication.

Well, as I was leaving the meeting, a guy in the back of the room was leering at me. He then approached me and started challenging everything I said publicly in a pretty confrontational manner, accused me of lacking compassion, etc. He reeked of alcohol, and his appearance was consistent with someone that might be homeless. I walked out and when I was on the sidewalk, one of the other homeowner's in the neighborhood came up and told me that the guy was staring me down outside, and then starting to follow me. I looked behind me and sure enough, there he was, about 20 feet behind me, staring at me like he wanted to charge.

I walked back inside, intending to grab the microphone and bring this to the attenion of SHARE and the church of why the neighborhood had concerns. The guy followed me back inside. But before I spoke, I walked back up to the guy and asked him if he was involved with SHARE. Again, reeking of alcohol, he indignantly denied that he was homeless, and started throwing out wild accusations against me.

I ended up not saying anything because I didn't have proof that this guy was involved with the church or SHARE. But the experience certainly reinforced the reasons why I do not want this in my neighborhood. Even if this guy wasn't part of SHARE, it provides a concrete example of the related problems that this operation will draw to the neighborhood.

Amy being the voice of reason. She is an idiot who is just giving up Ballard to the homeless criminals. When something happens to her or someone she knows she won't have this same attitude.

All you people who say Ballard is going to end up like Queen Anne or Downtown. MOVE THERE you are not helping Ballard not be like that and you seem to like the way those neighborhoods are.

Amy, you rock.

Mahtli69
" This is the city. Get over yourselves."

You think this is a voice of reason? Wow. Voice of settling I'll accept. Reason? Nope.

Homelessness is all of our problem.

@6 "The fact that the community was not even notified of this impending project until a mere five days before it was a done deal does not bode well for SHARE. They tried to slip these folks in under the radar... This strikes me as one of the most poorly handled homeless “encampments” I have ever seen. "

- How do you know? Maybe 5 days notice was all they were given before leaving their former shelter... you are assuming a lot. I'm sure those who need a place to sleep at night would rather have a poorly handled encampment than none at all... For someone who volunteers for the homeless you sound out of touch.

@9 "Any time someone has been turned away from the shelter they end up on my property or the property of my neighbors. I had one man completely strip down changing his clothes, he refused to leave my yard."

- Sorry to say it but I think this is a good thing. If homelessness is OUT OF SIGHT, it is likely to be OUT OF MIND. Maybe if more yards become flooded with the nearly 2,000 homeless population on Seattle/King County then we could actually get enough attention to fix the problems!

@10

-zoning laws and Christian Obligation aren't mutually exclusive.

@31- I understand your desire for a plan... but who do you suppose creates it? Just because SHARE is advocating for the homeless does not mean they are now responsible for making your community in perfect harmony with the homeless. Your community = Your interest, should = Your planning.

@32- hmph. God forbid you ever lost your job and your home... especially if you didn't have family or friends willing to take you in. Sometimes a temporary problem can become a long term reality.

@41- I agree..if I were in a homeless shelter I’d want to know if thye guy next to me was going to knife me in my sleep too. Get real and get in 2009.

- you would never WANT to be in a homeless shelter... that is the difference. Housing is a basic need, the quality is determined by things like a background check, income and a pattern of good choices but denying someone basic housing that would keep them from sleeping outside on the basis of whether or not they can pass a background check is denying someone a basic human right: Shelter.

@49- you don't have to be insulting to speak your mind. What is the phrase "welcome to 2009" supposed to mean?

@68- "b1961 you are ridiculous. You don’t care if people coming into your neighborhood deal/take drugs or are sexual predators? Well good thing most people do care about this."

-I'm sure b1961 cares, but the jump from homelessness to drugs, sexual predators and general crime is bigger than you are making it. Learn how to discuss rather than insult.

@77- "A lot of hard working people are up and out the door at that time. Maybe working 12 hours a day is why we aren’t homeless?"

- working is a luxury that I'm sure many homeless would love the opportunity that you and I have.

@79- "A just released felon who has always paid his bills on time could move in next door to you, and there’s not a damn thing you could do about it. And, that’s the point the pastor was making - you can’t get background checks on your neighbors, so why is this any different?"

- Thank You!!! We bought our house and got a car loan without a background check. The only time I ever neeeded one was for my job.

Rob M,
Yes.

Pretty soon you all will be advocating for background checks before letting people into jail... lol.

Josh&M

Sounds like you making excuses for this program. It was handled poorly stop trying to bailing them out by blaming other people.

In answer to a couple questions posted earlier....yes, the Church/Pastor/congregation gets 250 bucks a month for letting the shelter stay, it was buried in the information packet we got at the meeting last night.
Also, there are videos of the meeting, I saw several people taking video, including a KOMO guy. I'm guessing that other than the KOMO guy, the other people that took video haven't had time to do anything with it since the meeting ran till 10 or so (I left after 9 to relieve the sitter) and today is a work day which means going to your job. I'm sure over the weekend a video will be made available.
I was disheartened like strike, that questions were dodged, people were long winded, and the Share rep who was sitting in front of me was literally seething, mumbling under his breath about being pissed, and answered his cell phone twice. It seemed, like strike said, that it was never their intent to answer point blank questions, but instead to just state their story. Huge disappointment.

The jump from homelessness to drug abuse and crime happens all the time Josh&M look at the figures.

The "homeless" are not a homogenous group. Many of them are just a little help away from being as upright a citizen as any of us. Some of the homeless are perfectly fine individuals, but are just a victim of a psychological disorder and a lack of safety net. Medication and stability would have a lot of these people functioning perfectly in society. I'm not channeling Susan here, and I don't think they're all wonderful people, but some can be with a little help. We can't be so naive to think that a lot of these guys aren't hard core drug users, felons, or criminals waiting for a good opportunity. Desperation can bring out the worst in anyone.
But even the "worst of the lot" can have less of a negative impact on society with some investment from the city. Housing with counseling winds up saving the city money from keeping the homeless out of emergency services.
So how do we go about helping them out? How do we actually help them without being enablers of the same behavior that pushed them into homelessness?
Is this shelter going to do anything to reduce the need for itself? Are these guys going to take advantage of the stability to get work and get ahead, or is this just going to promote more of the same?

I really don't know. I do know that the way things are right now isn't getting us anywhere.

The community has an issue with this homeless shelter because the church hasn't been completely forthcoming about it and refuses to do anything more than eyeball the homeless as a "screening".
Obviously a large number of these guys' background checks would come back with typical vagrancy/urinating in public/panhandling types of citations, but that's not what concerns most of us. We're worried about the guy who beat his "friend" with a pipe or the child molester. I wouldn't even have a problem with the guys who have drug/alcohol convictions if they're at least making an attempt to go through treatment. But to avoid any real screening at all is just reckless.
The other big problem we have with it is that Ballard has been getting over run with aggressive drunks and drug addicts to the point that it's going to turn us into another U District/Pioneer Square and affect our business and property values. Property value may seem like an abstract for someone living on the streets, but it's very real for us. What people are worrying about is that this shelter will become a magnet for more homeless than just the ones that sleep in the church, but the aggressive/drunk/drugged/schizophrenic that make for a seemingly high level of danger to a community.

Homeless people can work it's the homeless people who have committed crimes (which is a lot of them) who can't work. Nobody is going to give someone with that kind of information of their background check a job. In most cases its their own faults.

Josh&M and Amy

It seems that you are giving into the church with there incomplete plans to make this shelter happen. Once again who is the city going to listen to? The Church or the people living in the neighborhood? We all know the answer.

Josh&M
I hate to break it to you but banks will automatically search your background when you apply for a loan. Read the fine print in both your Uniform Residential Loan Application and Application Certification & Authorization. When you sign that you give them permission to check all aources to make their decision...and they do.

Josh&M - You're laugh riot! Really. You should work that into a comedy routine and take it over to Giggles.

Considering that I was homeless in 1991, I'm going to assume I know a bit more about homelessness, DSHS, food stamps and disability than you do.

And yes, I currently volunteer with a highly functioning, responsible organization that has the broad respect of the Seattle community -- unlike SHARE.

But feel free to list a reference to 12 or 15 more comments and tell us all how wrong we are to have legitimate concerns.

Tiktok and all the others who have bashed the woman who is concerned about her child's safety and spoke up in the meeting. First off, her comments were shortened for the blog and did not convey her entire message. For one, she volunteers at the homeless shelter at her church.

But I for one would like to come to her defense.

1) She is a good person and probably a whole heckuva lot more open-minded than you who bashed her. The reason she broke into tears is that this is a highly emotional issue for her. She is a homeless advocate - and while you may scoff (I'm sure you will as this medium is perfect for it) she is highly conflicted about this shelter. She wants to support it and all she was looking for is one thing - that the men who will be staying at this shelter are checked (with ID) against the sexual offender list. She, frankly, doesn't even care about other open warrants or types of infractions. I don't think this is too much to ask because if these men were renting or owning where they were living and were sexual offenders - they would be REGISTERED.

I still don't know why people are arguing this - if you are a sex offender you are required to register your home and work address . . .

I don't know the exact statistics but there is a highly disproportionate number of sex offenders (unregistered) in the homeless population. I don't think that is too much to ask and she volunteered to partner with Jesse to help SHARE accomplish that task - FOR FREE (it is not $35 a pop for a non-profit as was stated above)

We are not saying that homeless = sex offender. ANYONE = sex offender. However, we do have a right to know if someone is considered a sex offender and for them to register where they are living like the rest of the population. I don't understand why that can't be done - just because it's a short-term address doesn't mean it's not an address.

"She is a good person and probably a whole heckuva lot more open-minded than you who bashed her. The reason she broke into tears is that this is a highly emotional issue for her. She is a homeless advocate - and while you may scoff (I’m sure you will as this medium is perfect for it) she is highly conflicted about this shelter. "

Hey, if the person who works with and for the homeless is skittish about having them near her kids, is that supposed to make me feel more or less worried about this?

I never doubted that she cares for the homeless, just that she was "totally supportive". Supporting something...except when it happens right near where YOU live, we have a name for that. I encourage her to embrace it if that's how she feels--there's a large community of people who'll say "Yeah! Me too!" She doesn't need to feel alone or like an outcast.

Yes, I can't say it enough. If you are a legally classified non-profit, which both SHARE and Our Redeemer are, all criminal background checks are FREE.

Tiktok, read the whole post before jumping on me - are you really saying that homeless people staying at a fixed residence shouldn't be held to the same rules as others? That is - if you are a convicted sex offender you REGISTER.

I didn't say she had a problem with homeless people being near her kids. Way to condense my post and my sentiment.

I can't stay online here and pounce on everything others say that I disagree with and I don't want to. I just wanted to give her some defense. Were you at the meeting?

Strike's post 154 for the win.

I'll add my voice to the "enough is enough" crowd. I readily affirm that I have zero compassion for 20 more homeless strangers in my neighborhood. Not in my backyard.

Let some other neighborhood open up their hearts--and their wallets, to pay for all the smashed windows and destroyed property.

Already, this talk of additional shelters for society rejects and the not-coincidental rise in postings about car prowls has caused my girlfriend to stop jogging (an activity she very much enjoyed) and me to spend time and money on a security system. It makes me sick. I don't want to compromise my and my loved one's safety and lifestyle for the sake of random strangers. I don't apologize for this sentiment. I made the choice to work hard and earn a nice house in a fabulous community, and reject the notion that I should throw all that away in order to spare the feelings of some bums.

JB- as much as you would like to you can't simplify the issue by continuing to make over generalized statements about all homeless people.

You tell me to look at the facts... show me some and maybe I'll change my mind.

Josh&M

I NEVER said ALL i said MOST. You are just seeing what you want to see. Some homeless people are motivated and not criminals and that's who needs to be helped. So if this shelter is going to happen it is the church's responsibility to find the right ones to help. This pastor doesn't seem to be doing enough to ensure that the people that will be in the shelter will be the right person to help. Not the homeless person who threw their life away through drugs or alcohol or crime.


If you are arguing the fact that homelessness leads to crime and substance abuse you are blind to it all.

What is this fixation on criminal background checks, and why is it so difficult for angry Ballardites to understand that the homeless are as entitled to their dignity as any other citizen? The reason for resistance to a criminal background check is that it presumes guilt. Get it?!
Certainly many of us have had to complete these checks for employment or loans or other business, but I've never completed one simply to enter a certain neighborhood. If you work with children, you are required to complete a background check. This provides some small amount of safety for children. But if you think completing a background check on everyone who makes a path through your neighborhood guarantees your children will be safe from sexual predators you are operating under a false sense of security.
I don't disagree with the notion that the neighborhood needs to be part of the decision-making process, but I am shocked by the bigotry, hatred and sweeping judgements expressed in some of the comments about individuals and families who are homeless. It is especially shocking considering that any number of us could be in the same position at any time in the near future - and through no fault of our own. If ever there was a time for compassion and the Golden Rule, this is it.
To the individual who asked if I lived on the same block as the church the answer is, "no". I live down the street from an auto body shop and several taverns - including a biker bar - and one of them plays the most ungodly Irish music until late into the night. All in all, it is an assault on the senses, but it is what I tolerate to live in a tolerant Ballard neighborhood. On the street where I live we approach each other with, "how can we make this work?", rather than "here's what's wrong with you!".

If it is to hard to find the "right" homeless people to support than we can not support any. Either do it right or don't do it at all. If this doesn't happen to saves a mere 1 crime than it is worth it not happening. Ballard has enough crime caused by the homeless.

Mickey,

Your assumption is wrong... The fact that you were yourself homeless does not make you an expert or right and does not change the fact that I don't think background checks should be required to offer a basic human right to people sleeping outside. This should be available to all people, including former criminals.

Margaret

Compassion and Golden Rule go out the window when these people start committing crime or bring drugs into the neighborhood. If this is going to work they have to take the right steps which they are not. And if you think they are taking the right steps you are out of your mind.

Josh&M

"This should be available to all people, including former criminals."


This community will not support this. Prior criminals are more likely to repeat that is a fact. So you are condoling more crime in Ballard.

Margaret,

A quick google search for share/wheel will find you agreements that cities other than Seattle have entered into with s/w for the tent cities. They require valid ID and checks for warrants and sex offenders.

Example: http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/Assets/!Global+PDF...

I don't think it's unreasonable to require the shelter to have the same agreement as the tent cities.

Josh and M:

"Thank You!!! We bought our house and got a car loan without a background check. The only time I ever neeeded one was for my job."

Could you explain to me how a car or house can rape a young girl?

So I do not get your point. Maybe when YOUR 14 year old girl is living within a mile of scads of mentally ill homeless people things will not seem so theoretical to you.

I don't think the debate on this forum is productive. I posted earlier suggesting an honest debate on the facts, not one based on hysteria. Clearly some minds are closed to the idea that homeless does not necessarily equal sex offender or dangerous criminal. I suspect that there is nothing that will change some minds, and there is no dialogue to change intollerance. As my grandpa used to say, some people have minds like steel traps, once they snap shut, you'll never get 'em open.

And here is a report from the City of Bothell concerning crime at Tent City 4.

http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Housing/TentCity/B...

In a 3 month period there were 5 felony warrants, 2 misdemeanor warrants, 2 domestic violence assaults, 1 DUI, and 1 drug related arrest. 2 sex offenders were discovered through the background check--1 was denied entry.

The report does say that in the surrounding neighborhood the crime rate didn't increase, but one can't deny that crime did occur within the Share/Wheel tent city.

(Sorry if the links are goofy, but I can't fix it...just copy and paste as needed.)

Also, for all you people defending this shelter, I have one simple solution:

Find a homeless person, and invite him/her to live with you for 60 days. Babysit them, if you will. Or, find like minded individuals and offer to stay at the shelter overnight, everynight, and monitor these people. Isn't that also the "christian" thing to do?

I will not be holding my breath.

No, your solution is to let them live near me with no promises for my safety, no plan to monitor these irresponsible people, and no accountability from you for your acquiescience to a potential life threatening situation.

All you people give is crossed fingers, hoping everything goes well, and if something bad happens, tea and sympathy.

What a bunch of arrogant suckers!

Concerned

What is your point exactly. I can say the same thing for you. You are close minded to the fact that having this shelter ran the way these people want it to is irresponsible and does not take in to fact the safety of the people who actually live here and are not homeless people brought here. Isn't the safety of those people the first on the list. Don't try and be the "only one who cares" for these people. You are just putting the homeless before the people who live here.

Timely article from southern Washington today. He is a homeless level III sex offender. Certainly, an official check would have picked up on this. Of course, SHARE and the church wouldn't have picked this up...

http://www.katu.com/news/40189657.html

@margaret, my question about living on this block was posed to determine if you had experience with the soup kitchen and Food Bank. We currently have up to 150 people walking by our home that use these services. This neighborhood has been very supportive of these services and organizations and their patrons. We have first hand experience with the patrons of these services and unfortunately some of these experiences have been negative. These services have been in place for upwards of seven years.
We recognize the impact this additional shelter would have upon our neighborhood and simply wonder if there could be better distribution throughout the community.

Wow, I can't believe I just read through all that! "Emotions run high..", well said, MyBallard!

One thing that seems apparent, through all the platitudes and rants on both sides, is that no one seems to be aware of the genesis of the Share/Wheel group.

Tent City started becoming a social organization, of sorts, back in 1995, as I recall. A group of people, living under I-5, banded together in protest of the CITY'S TAXATION. It celebrated homelessness as a social statement, not as a backdrop to the lack of low-income housing. I remember this, because I lived in a low-rent apartment on First Hill, on a part-time, minimum-wage job. (Yes, I paid my rent on time most months, and yes, I had to submit to background and credit checks, and yes, I had to make tough choices because of my economic situation. And no, my credit wasn't perfect.)

Note: this group started as a way to drop out of the system.

Fast forward to this decade: The Tent City group has grown exponentially, and has re-branded itself as a solution to the housing problem in Seattle with the name Share/wheel. They have been to Ballard four times in nine years, that I've been able to count, and I have waited for and ridden the bus with the 'guests' many, many times. Wanting to be welcoming and compassionate, I gave them what I could at the time: a friendly conversation, and jokes, if I had any at hand.

Interestingly, I was oftentimes rebuffed, and at other times, the conversation revealed that many of the residents I personally met, still held the belief that the city was at fault in it's taxation and social policies.

Excuse me for sounding ungrateful for having yet another opportunity to engage in such 'delightful' conversation, but I don't expect I will find much has changed, yet again. The reality is that Share/Wheel is dishonest about the whole situation. Is it possible that there are people that have been helped by the experience of what Share/Wheel has provided? I, certainly, hope so. Given that I have seen the same people return to the neighborhood, when the group has come back to Ballard, I don't think that we are getting an accurate account of how this is being handled, nor what they are actually trying to accomplish.

The fact that Ballard has been strong-armed by another religious leader and the Share/Wheel organization in such blatant fashion, this time around, is downright galling.

Homelessness is a complex issue, and it's clear by all the arguments above that this is not being handled by the church, nor Share/Wheel, nor many in our own community, as such. This shelter is being shoved down our throats without any warning (I found out Wednesday, through an apology letter on my doorstep by the Ballard Food Bank), nor consideration to the dishonesty of the organization we are dealing with. I have nothing against the residents; if they want to drop out of society and not pay taxes, that's just fine. This is America; our nation was founded as a result of a protest to taxation. Indeed, I know many beautiful locations that make way more sense than Ballard. But, make no mistake, I'm absolutely livid about Share/Wheel.

The fact of the matter is that there are 441 homeless men in Seattle who are Level Three Sex offenders. ALL sex offenders have to register their whereabouts...except, of course, the homeless, who have no fixed address.

It is NOT unreasonable to ask for background checks for the men living in the church. As a matter of fact, there are laws in place to ensure that level 3 sex offenders are not living in proximity to schools or daycare centers. Now, how will anyone know unless background checks are done?

I'm sure that SHARE thought that by sneaking under the radar, their plan was a fait acompli. If indeed their proposed residents are so benign, then why wouldn't they agree to (free) background checks?

Holy cow bookreader, that's fascinating info (no sarcasm). Can you elaborate? Is it true that this is nothing more than a bunch of societal dropouts taking advantage of a gullible preacher?

Giving a break to someone who was laid off, well that's something even I can get behind (though I'd wonder why they didn't set something aside/prepare for disaster). But a bunch of deadbeats who, though capable of supporting themselves, simply choose to instead take advantage of working citizens' mandatory generosity? To choose to not work & pay taxes, and instead live off the taxes of others?

That's appalling.

Read the link in my post #189. Homeless sex offender killed a 13 year old girl on Sunday.

Anyone have any more questions?

Oh, and to answer Margaret's question "why is it so difficult for angry Ballardites to understand that the homeless are as entitled to their dignity as any other citizen?"

Answer: because homeless forfeit dignity when they come into my neighborhood, unable or unwilling to support themselves, begging for a place to stay. Put simply: when someone begs for my help, I reserve the right to set conditions for providing that help. Don't like the conditions? Don't accept the help.

Dink, this has always been SHARE's schtic, acceptance of homelessness as a lifestyle, as an acceptable choice. Respect for this lifestyle. SHARE is not in the business if ending homelessness. Sadly, Seattle's whacky far left can't see this and finds the whole idea of protecting our private property as somehow evil.

Screw 'em, I say. Let's remind our leaders who pays their salaries.

@G #186

Right on and thank you very much for the hard cold facts.
I don't want the 'element' who have outstanding warrants and are convicted sex offenders in a temporary living arrangement in my neighborhood. Same goes for the minimally supervised (out of control) soup kitchen.

I'm a big fan of Ballard Guy and JB. Rock it. And Margaret--I do think homeless people deserve respect and dignity, as they are human beings. They are not, however, entitled to the same rules of citizenship as they to not pay taxes and are simply a drain on responsible citizens.
Amy--I grew up in a poor family too. It doesn't mean that today I embrace the idea of living in squalor and accept the downward spiral of a community.

I am all for helping the homeless, but not without the same screening process any citizen has to go through to do anything in this society. It seems there is a happy medium that both sides can agree upon, but it will involve giving in from both sides, a compromise.

I attended the Calvary Lutheran Church meeting tonight and in my humble opinion, though SHARE may be a long-standing orginization, they did nothing to convince me that they will last long in the face of our current economy. They couldn’t effectively give answer to basic questions, such as background checks (something that is currently done by a judgement call by those on the screening panal) I think SHARE needs to grow a bit, given the current economy and need for housing. SHARE needs to realize that a FORMAL screening process that includes background checks, along with a good record of stays in various neighborhoods will do wonders and avoid the confrontations they faced last night. In my opinion SHARE needs to grow and change just like the rest of us have to to fit into society. If they want to continue to exist and fold into various neighborhoods around town, they need to allow background checks. I kept hearing last night that this is the main thing the community had a problem with. Imagine how that meeting would have went if SHARE would have come armed with background checks for everyone scheduled to move in Calvary? Instead everything ended up being so unsettled, with no real answers. The natural answer from SHARE in my opinion, should have been to provide background checks from all of those moving into Calvary, along with a list of shelters that house sexual offenders in a safe environment. In a perfect world sexual offender housing would be areas of land with housing that are near a prison or a county jail and everyone in that housing area would have to stay in the shadow of a jail facility for at least 5 years and earn their way back into society, instead of just being released as they currently are. I know this is a dream, but makes total sense to me. If the prison system releases a sexual predator, they need to monitor them for at least 5 years. Of course we as taxpayers would have to approve this???? hmmmm....that's a stretch...

The suggestion last night to put this shelter off for a few weeks until all sides had a chance to work through their issues was the most sensible thing said all night. I can't understand why that wasn't thought of before the meeting, as it is clear that this area is already saturated with homeless programs. What came to mind last night was what this area is already overwhelmed with the homeless and we need to find answers because the homeless are not going to go away, even if this shelter doesn't happen. In this economy, the homeless in our area probably won't go away even if Ballard Food Bank and their soup kitchen was gone. Too late for that. The economy is in the toilet, as we all know and there is little to no cahnce for the homeless group to rise above and move on without our help.

Ballard has a chance here to become a model in how to handle homelessness. Not all of the homeless are sexual predators , drug addicts or violent criminals. Many just need a way to re-enter society and can with help.

Ballard Food Bank is looking for a new building and their desire is to find a place in a non-residential area and include thier meal program within their new site. Why not propose an idea that Ballard Food Bank's new site also include a multi-service center for our people in need?

As a Ballard resident, I have heard many compliments from residents, businesses and also the homeless in the last year or so that the current management at the food bank has worked hard to be fair and address the needs of those they serve. I say we as a community need to help relocate the food bank and meal program to a site that is big enough to address their current needs, as well as house a multi-service center that would help our needy neighbors. Anyone? Lets go Ballard. Help us and help the needy at the same time. HELP BALLARD FOOD BANK MOVE. They will help others and make us a happier community by moving those in need to a place more suitable.

This states that Share/Wheel may NOt set up on or NEAR a park. I would think that this includes Salmon Bay.

http://resources.bandwidthmarket.com/corporate/...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/pdf/Consen...

In June, 2008 Share/Wheel signed an agreement with the City of Mercer Island that MADATED that all residents of their encampment show identification for the express purpose of checking for sex offenders and outstanding warrants. Why is this not the same set of conditions for Seattle???

http://www.ci.mercer-island.wa.us/files/Temp%20...

Back ground checks must be done and accounted for by an independent source, otherwise its like letting the fox collect the eggs.

First of all, I'm a college student who lives extremely close to Calvary, I am a former volunteer for the Soup Kitchen and I did my Eagle Project for the Food Bank. Also, my scout troop meets in Trinity and we have never had any problems with the people who sleep there.

This being said, I have had negative experiences with the homeless who patronize the Soup Kitchen, such as the use of my yard as a bathroom and a garbage can, not to mention the fistfight that broke out at the soup kitchen a few days ago.

I find two objections to this service.

First and Foremost, I believe this has been mismanaged and poorly represented by Our Redeemers, and I think that more discussion and more consideration is needed on this topic before any decision, for or against, is made.

Second, I think that SHARE is taking too much for granted by not providing background checks on their prospective patrons. They are only causing problems for themselves and for the neighborhoods they inhabit by simply assuming that the people applying for their shelter are benevolent.

In anticipation of comments:

No, I do not believe that a Background Check is an invasion of privacy, i wouldn't care if anyone did a background check on me as i haven't ever committed a crime, and it isn't my problem that other people have. SHARE is establishing a shelter of disadvantaged people in proximity to children and families, by putting their name on the shelter they should be concerned with how their patrons behave, we as members of the community should not have to pay for their irresponsibility.

I do not believe that all homeless people are criminals, i believe that EVERYONE has the potential to be a criminal, and if the patrons of this organization are going to be in transit while I'm asleep, or the kids at my Scout troop are leaving for home, i want to know that they are simply responsible people who have fallen on hard times, in this case I believe that it is the decent thing to do to aid them. That being said, I am not entirely convinced that Calvary is the proper place to house this shelter.

Respecfully Submitted

votre voisin

This same agreement with Share/Wheel is quite specific about any schools or day care centers within 600 feet of the encampment. See below:

http://www.ci.mercer-island.wa.us/files/Temp%20...

I live on the same street as Calvary Lutheran Church. The issue of SHARE having a shelter is not the issue for me. The issue is the disregard of the neighbors of Calvary Lutheran Church by the current landlords, Our Redeemers Lutheran Church. They are letting this building languish.
As it became quite apparent at the meeting last night Rev. Steve Grum and his congregation have no idea what goes on there every day. We witness daily the 150+ people who visit the soup kitchen 4 times a week. We have the homeless defecating in our back, side and front yards. They leave trash and garbage in our planter beds and yards. They have entered out back yard and have stolen items. We have been tolerant yet there is no action taken by Our Redeemers on this issue. We have been tolerant because we know how vital these type of feeding programs for the health of the homeless. At the same time Our Redeemers is letting Calvary Church languish. Homeless arrive late at night and sleep in the bushes or try and break in. Now Our Redeemers, not considering the impact another homeless program is going to have on their neighbors decides for us what is going to happen. That is not a good neighbor. It is time that Our Redeemers start acting like a good neighbor.

I did not attend the meeting last night. But I have read everything on this blog regarding this controversy. I think it is extremely reasonable to require SHARE perform background checks on every individual who will possibly be using the church as a shelter. If an applicant does not agree with this requirement, then he will not be considered.

Who in the neighborhood agreed or will agree to be the liaison with SHARE and the pastor?

Also, anyone who is concerned about this possible addition to our neighborhood, there will be a meeting at the Loyal Heights Community Center on March 12th @ 7pm regarding the formation of a Neighborhood Patrol Group. Residents will be encouraged to sign up for a shift walking the streets with other neighbors. I believe as residents, we need to demonstrate more of a presence in our neighborhood---that we aren't going to tolerate burglaries, drug transactions, and graffiti as well as disturbances of the peace from anyone, homeless or not.

By the way, Mindy's my real name. What's yours?

FYI. This just in - "heard from a neighbor who heard from a friend who heard from a friend who heard from a family member..." but it sounds like Pastor Grumm has decided to postpone the SHARE shelter for now. I'm sure we'll hear something official soon and there will now be some time to get this setup the right way and make it a win-win.

Thanks Mickey for your saying that you were homeless but you still have concerns about SHARE not running a safe program in a completely residential neighborhood. I was homeless in the late 80's and when I heard about this particular shelter my reaction was, "Are they crazy?!" There is a big difference between a transitional shelter for people trying to get on their feet, and a crash pad for people who are so beyond functional, or hiding from the law that they won't join a program to get their *%$) together. And yes, flame on you people who say I have no compassion and am just a rich white NIMBY. But I'm not going to take you seriously until you 1) have been homeless too like I was and 2) have logged as many volunteer hours working to help the homeless as I have.

FYI - I have done volunteer work side by side with Steve Grumm in the past. He has lied to my face more than once. My personal experience, but if he can lie to me he can lie to everyone else.

Josh&M
I don’t think background checks should be required to offer a basic human right to people sleeping outside.

What makes you think shelter is a basic human right? Can you imagine pioneers operating under that ridiculous premise? For a homeless person, a shelter is a gracious gift and when they lose gratitude the results are not good. In fact, I believe when anyone loses a sense of gratitude the results are not necessarily good. Submitting to a background check would seem like a great show of gratitude for the gracious gift given to them.
Also, most Christians believe that the best way to overcome your sins is to expose them to the light of day and not keep them hidden in a dark place of the soul. SHARE is not "protecting" anyone by shielding them from background checks.... they are enabling the ones who are not willing to expose their failures... own them, and do the very difficult work of changing behavior. The ones with nothing to hide would have no problem with background checks, I think we all know that.

Wow it seems that posts later in the day seem to make moresense. Thanks to everyone for having a reasonable voice in this matter.

AMEN! to #210! Couldn't of said it better...

Shelter was once law in the harsh Nordic countries, in whose stories ravens figure prominently. Y'know, places like Sweden. Guest-right, it was called--you took in the stranger, if only for a little while. I really don't particularly like knowing that some of my neighbors are so heartless that they'd turn away their own to make more food for me and mine.

Krawk!

This whole issue and its ramifications has put me over the edge....stop here if you want.

Why has Ballard become a mecca for the homeless? I can't count the number of times I have witnessed some drunken asshole yelling and screaming at a bus stop at some little old lady. This is while waiting for the light at market and 15th with my windows rolled up! "Who the hell is screaming??" Or how about watching some scab covered addict crawling out of a hole in the side of that crappy old house behind Sip and Ship. What the hell? Conversely all the disgusting condos and the scumbag developers who built them to make a buck and the city planners who allowed it, are all morally bankrupt. Ballard has been transformed and strippped of its heritage by people who are soulless money grubbing zombies. What a bizzare mixture we have! Fancy big-ass condos and a burgeoning homeless population with more being bussed in every damn day.....who would've thought that would be Ballards fate a mere 6-7 years ago. Syttende Mai anybody?

My son is a senior at BHS. He and his friends have numerous stories regarding run-in's with complete and total scumbags in Ballard. Two-three years ago he could name the eccentric few that harmlessly roamed Ballard. These days there are HOARDES of drunken, addicted wastrels that have come to call Ballard home. The story of run-ins with drunken, agressive, "down on their luck" homeless people are repeated again and again by everybody I talk to about it. Its not just Ballard either. Nobody has mentioned Kinnear Park on QA and the effect on the people who live nearby.

I don't see Ballard as a quaint, special corner of Seattle anymore. I see it as a dumping ground, I see it as a place where I need to stay alert and don't let my guard down. Something is out of whack. (8 yrs of W maybe??) My daughter (BHS '06) was walking with friends one evening heading north from the library and some punks started picking on them. Her friend (a female) was punched in the face with no provocation. The assailants laughed and chided them as they strutted away victoriously. They called them suckers and chumps for not fighting back. I have no time for people with that attitude. We as a society should not tolerate that behavior. There has to be a limit, a line that cannot be crossed.

Those kids that attacked are scum, plain and simple. Civilty can be extended when it is not abused. If people can't behave in a civil manner then they must pay the price. The only problem with that scenario is that we have no stomach for standing up for ourselves. We are like the elk in Yellowstone National Park that learned to live for decades without wolves. Scientists would play recordings of wolves and the elk, ignorant of the threat, would not react. Once the wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and started killing elk, the elk knew that wolves meant death and they learned to adapt or die.

I guess I feel like all the defenders of these homeless people need to reexamine what is really happening here. Ballard has changed for the worse. The Kumbaya, why can't we all just get along attitude, is infantile and ultimately self damaging. The neighbors of the church and all people with a stake in Ballard, need to stand up and be heard. As the old saying goes "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel".

Josh&M -

You simply don't get what the core of the problem is here. (Reading comprehension, my friend.)

Numerous people, including myself, have already commented that the main thing that irks us is how badly this project has been handled by the church and SHARE. NO communication with the neighbors about what was impending, and when the community did find out on its own, a last-minute meeting was scheduled at which the pastor and SHARE's representatives inspired absolutely NO CONFIDENCE in their leadership. They paid lip service and played dumb with the assembled crowd.

Furthermore, I never said background checks were necessary for people to have the right to sleep on the street. (Once again, reading comprehension.) I said that because crimes of all types are increasing in our neighborhood, it is not at all unreasonable to demand background checks on a large, unknown group of homeless people moving into a building right in the heart of a residential area, with a day care center only 300 feet away.

I'd encourage you to try and pay better attention but you are a complete waste of my time.

JH-
I share you sentiments and your emotions...the defenders of the homeless need to work out a solution fo rthe few homless people we can actually ahelp and ask otrher communities to assist...how can we stop the constant stream of them coming is a whole other issue....not making it easy would be a start

Raven

What are you talking about? Are we a nordic country? Have you taken in homeless people by the 20's? I don't think so.

Grumm is a joke.

I already posted a wordy post, so I'll be short and to the point. GET REAL BALLARD....THE HOMELESS ARE HERE AND ARE NOT GOING TO LEAVE. WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO HELP THESE PEOPLE! STOP YOUR BITCHING AND OFFER REAL IDEAS TO HELP REMEDY THE PROBLEM!!!

AND PLEASE STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER HERE... THIS IS THE INTERNET AND ALL YOUR NASTINESS MAKES BALLARD LOOK SO BACKWARD TO ANYONE READING THIS FROM ANOTHER AREA. WE'RE ONLINE HERE IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY....BE KIND AND THOUGHTFUL IN YOUR POSTS. WE SHOULD BE USING THIS FORUM TO COME TOGETHER TO FIND SOLUTIONS, RATHER THAN ATTACKING EACH OTHER. LETS COME TOGETHER AND FIND A SOLUTION...

Raven,
As you might guess from my name I am Nordic, and I am 5th generation Ballardite. During the dpepression, we did have two food banks here to help our NEIGHBORS. Peoople who lived here and worked here....NOT vagratns bussed in here. (Portland, Bellevue, Kirkland all bus THEIR homeless tSeattle.
CS...WE,the residents of Ballard are under NO obligation to hep the homeless ! None! Nada! How about we buy them all bus tickets to....Chicago?
i have no problem helping my NEIGHBORS in need.....there people are NOT our neighbors. How many are from Seattle? From Ballard? None, I;ll betcha.

CD

The point is SHARE and Grumm tried to find a solution but went about it in a totally wrong and unsafe way. People in Ballard should not be subject to a half ass and incomplete plan for a shelter. Especially when the safety of kids or elderly or anyone in the Ballard area is coming into play

CD

It appears nobody shares the same opinion as you

JH - I'm feeling some of the same sentiments as you. So what do we do??? That is really the question. We can bitch and moan here, but that's not doing anything.

Anyone have any suggestions on the next steps? Constructive suggestions PLEASE... not just more bitching and moaning!

Who do we call, write, petition??? Anyone versed on this sort of thing? Power in numbers...

Anyone?

Regarding video of the meeting: I couldn't make it to the meeting, but my cam was there. Haven't had a chance to review the footage yet (freakin' forever to read this comments thread) but if the audio is decent, I'll try to get it posted somewhere.

Regarding #206: Grumm did not postpone the opening by a week; City of Seattle did.

MG

Maybe we could start a petition to stop this shelter/halfway house from happening? I think that at least starting a petition that Ballard is fed up with the homeless people on the streets and the lack of the city or police doing anything. We need to get something signed and bring it to the city mayor possibly? What do you think?

It would be nice to be able to sit outside and enjoy a coffee without people sleeping next to you or yelling at god knows what.

JB-
I THINK THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO SHARE MY VIEWS, THAT BEING PROBLEM SOLVE INSTEAD OF WHINE, BUT SADLY THIS SITE HAS BECOME KNOWN FOR BITCHY-CRAZY POSTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO ANSWERS. I'M JUST SORRY TO SEE WHEN PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATION SEARCH BALLARD, THEY WILL COME UP WITH THIS SITE OF PISSERS AND MOANERS WITH NO SOLUTIONS....

Oh just look at the last few posts there are going to be solutions just not in the direction you want them. No shelter or halfway house or whatever it is without doing it right. And working on cleaning up Ballard.

And why are you writing in all caps? You seem to be the moaner? And I have seen no solutions from you.

CD2-
It's all about choice and planning..we do not have to put up with a bad plan, nor do we as a comunity have to put up with an over population of homeless in our small community..we don't..and using caps and shouting does not make it so. I beg to differ, we do have answers and a great deal of proposed solutions. First I have heard...

1. make a plan
2. get agreement'take up people on the free background checks
3. create rules for the safety of the community
4. seperate the chemical addicts from the others
5. create a plan about sex offenders and those with a criminal backgrounds (felons etc)
6. Plan for the number of homeless we can actually help and determine that number
7. Do not tolerate more homeless than we can help
8. stand up to stop an over population

so where is the problem? I have also heard concern, emotional response and questiosn..but basically we are all asking for a concrete plan instead of a knee jerk reaction to a situation SHARE and Pastor Grumm have decided to react to without considering the neighborhood and community.

It's clear..just read it

cd - 5th generation racist

JB-You can read my solutions in a previous post. No caps, no need. It won't help here. I can see that.
e/c -I have read all of your posts here several times. I need to leave here and will no longer interact with your good old boys club. I won't waste my time. All you do is give each other a back rub and offer no real long term solutions. Good luck.

I suggest that we
a. start a petition. I would be more than happy to circulate one and/or stand down in Ballard for a few hours each day to take names.
b. Insist that SHARE/WHEEL at the very least abide by the same requirements that they have in Mercer Island, ie: mandatory background checks, and no shelter within 600 yards of a school, park, or daycare.

BTW, for the Nordic guy above...I AM Nordic and I have never heard of any law, policy, or tradition that says you have to take in the homeless. I think you made that up. Please provide some sort of proof.

One idea is that the church could hire a caretaker. Someone to live in the building, care for the grounds and be an intermediary between the neighbors and Our Redeemers. They would be able to see first hand what we as neighbors observe with the soup kitchen.
I think one of the concerns of this proposed shelter is the fact it is self-managed, meaning no staff by either SHARE or Our Redeemers. Because the church facility is not used by the congregation there is no accountability by the church for what is happening there.

It seems obvious that the neighborhood does not want this facility. Isn’t that a solution? Just say no to the hobo hotel. The Ballard isn’t obligated to help the homeless and why should they?

Self managed= the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

The Ballard community isn’t obligated to help the homeless and why should they?

Nordic woman-
I support that, and would sign up!

this is what the King county web site has on the subject:

Emergency Services & Ending Homelessness
Everyone needs a safety net. The City of Seattle helps struggling families and homeless people find stable housing and access other services critical to living independently, such as job training, and mental health and health care. We also support special populations, such as persons with HIV/AIDS and children leaving the foster care system.

The City of Seattle offers emergency services in:

Shelter and housing
Emergency food
In addition, we are a founding agency and major funder of the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, and we created and support Safe Harbors, a data collection system that will help us end homelessness.

For information about our partners and other programs serving Seattle’s homeless and hungry populations, visit:

211 Community Information Line
Committee to End Homelessness in King County
United Way of King County
If you are a homeless person needing assistance, please contact the 211 Community Information Line by dialing 211 or 1-800-621-4636.

here is a link to allthe homless "drop in" centers when you put ijn the Ballard zip code (non are listed in Ballard) so not sure how SHARE can respond to having looked at these options first?
Most are downtown

They even have shelters geared toward those with mental disabilities, ex-felons and sex offenders

http://www.resourcehouse.com/en/wa/cgi-bin/resu...

This is from Our Redeemer's website about the Tent City that they had in their parking lot:

" Screening is done for all residents, including criminal and sex offender checks."
http://www.ourredeemers.net/tentcity3.html

So what has changed that they are now refusing to do background checks? Is it because of what these background checks (which were offered for free) would turn up?

Ballard doesn't owe the homeless anything. Why are people so confused about this? Instead of advocating for shelters, they should trying to get jobs and paying their own way.

This is from the website below:

Local or county, the mystery resolved

There has been much mystery over why SHARE refuses to allow Warrant and Sex Offender checks to be run by the police departments of cities they occupy. In a sudden change of position they stopped fighting these checks after every court ordered them run and every city started requiring them in TC 4 permits (TC 3 does not run these checks at all). They now proudly state that they "voluntarily adopted" a policy of running these checks, but only via the King County Sheriffs Department not with local police. This was their stated reason for refusing to use the Bothell permit issued to them.

This left a lot of people puzzled, why the hard line stance against local police running checks that are identical in process and results to what KCSO runs. At last the mystery has been solved. Research has shown there is no evidence at all that SHARE runs anything but token checks with the KCSO. This now makes their hard line stance understandable. With checks run by local police there would be red flags if the city saw a lot of new residents but few if any checks were being run. With the KCSO being so large, covering a county of 1.8 million people, and with cities being out of their jurisdition, it is easy for them to hide the fact they do not run these checks on all who come to stay in the camp.

They say they can be trusted to run these checks because of their history of keeping their word. Of course their word is worthless as they have broken numerous legal contracts and flaunted permitting laws in every city they have moved to.

Case closed on this mystery, SHARE found their way to prevent the checks they have fought so hard to avoid running.

http://www.tentcitysolutions.com/

The homeless are freeloaders and have gotten good at playing the homeless game. They are just skating by with no commitment to the community.

Thanks Nordic Woman for the informative link. (tentcitysolutions). My take away is that SHARE is a sham organization. I don't know what their angle is but they certainly seem to have one. It is clear that they cannot be trusted and thereby should be opposed on all fronts. They are not doing ANYBODY any good - communities or the people they pretend to serve. I can't even understand how the church and SHARE can just decide to setup a shelter without some sort of governmental oversight or sign-off. What SHARE is proposing at the church is a permutation of a tent city. It seems illegal given all the redtape that the tent city needed to go through to be established. Anybody a lawyer out there???

I have looked at websites/blogs in Bothell, Woodinville, Mercer Island, Magnolia and West Seattle about this issue, as well as a good deal of the legal briefs filed by the City of Seattle and King County regarding Share/Wheel.

It would appear that they modus operendi is to hold their proposed locations secret, and wait until the 11th hour to move in, so that neighborhoods/cities have very little recourse to stop them. Part of the problem is that perhaps we in Seattle are not aware of what is happening with Share/Wheel in King County, outside of Seattle.

At the meeting, when a 3 week moratorium was proposed, the answer was "how about a 3-week trial period instead?" I say...no chance.

Ballard is now innundated with homeless/vagrants/drunks/drug addicts. The close proximity of the food bank and the soup kitchen in a residential neighborhood already overburden the residents. Would we be happy with a halfway house for sex offenders in a residential neighborhood, across the street from a daycare center? How about a halfway house for convicted felons? Drug addicts? We don't have any idea WHO Share/Wheel is planning to house in Calvery Lutheran, because they believe they have the right to be anonymous.

CD2

Like I said before it looks like we are going to have some solutions just not in the direction you want them. So do not confuse that with people whining and not coming up with a solution. If you have actually read the posts like you say, people in Ballard will not allow this plan to happen with how incomplete and half-assed it is.

I'm a lawyer. But I think the only way to prevent this shelter from opening is if the zoning codes prevent it since the church building has not been used as a church for quite some time.

Otherwise, we are only talking about trying to impose reasonable conditions on the use of the property, which the church would agree to only as an accommodation to the residents to remove the immediate hostility and controversy. In reality, I think they would quickly disregard all commitments they made to do background checks or other promises, and would throw up road blocks to any effort to verify their continuing compliance.

Yes, this is Share's MO, to drop this into a neighborhood and watch the community explode in emotion. It's what they do. Every so often the TV news shows another neighborhood meeting with upset residents opposing the shelter or the tent city ... just like ours.

That said, I want to point out several things in response to Nordic Woman's most recent post. We apparently already have a Share shelter on 23rd at 65th. It's already here and operating. If we block this new one from coming in, are you going to want to kick out the existing one? I live not far from Trinity and I've personally not had any problems with the existing shelter there. In fact, until Thursday night, I hadn't even known it was there.

Also, if you remember, a few years ago we had a fire on 23rd that destroyed a house that was a halfway house, holding about 8 or 10, I think, individuals with questionable (at best) backgrounds. Simply stopping a halfway-organized shelter from moving into an unused church isn't going to protect the neighborhood from new residents with questionable credentials. I'm just pointing this out so we can keep things in perspective.

If all the shelters were shut down that would force transient population to actually do something constructive. Right now they are being trained to stay homeless.

From the posts it seems that SHARE isn't looking to end homelessness or have any accountability because they don't see homelessness as a problem, but a right or a choice. If all they're looking for is a place to crash for the night, they should look elsewhere.

I'm sorry if the homeless are offended that the community wants criminal background checks. Upstanding people don't choose homelessness, but fall into it and we can understand that. The people who do choose homelessness as part of a drug addiction or because they need to drop out of society aren't exactly the most trustworthy and they're not the kind of person we'd welcome to the neighborhood. Simple enough, and again sorry if it hurts your feelings but that's the reality.

Strike;
I posted their legal agreement with King County. Part of the agreement says that they cannot be in, on, or NEAR a park. Anyway that can be used to stop them at Calvery Lutheran?

Also, in the briefs with the city, I was under the impression that they can only have one encampment at a time. It's looking like they will have 3 in Ballard: Calvery Lutheran, St. Lukes, and Trinity Methodist.

Just as an aside, Ballardites: Ballard has probably more churches than ANY other neighborhood in Seattle. That said, we stand the chance of having many more of these encampments. I would urge people who are concerned to get involved in the local churches; after all, it is their congregations/pastors who are agreeing to this.

I think these churches are being paid either by the city or share/wheel. Its worth looking into.
I doubt that"gullible grumm" is all that naive
but needs the money.

There's money changing hands, trust me. YOu just don't and won't see it. If you doubt that, maybe you should head out to Iraq and search for some of them "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Say hi to Haliburton while your in town

Black Helicopter,

Perhaps you are thinking this Seattle homeless influx is similar to the 1980's crack epidemic in LA that was created and funded by the Reagan Administration as part of the Iran Contra affair. They were buying drugs and needed customers.

I just don't see the food chain in this current scenario.....what money is there to be made by housing destitute people in churches that have seen better days? Are they trying to achieve some sort of homeless critical mass? To what end?

Latest news - I walked around the corner to 70th and 23rd this morning and didn't see any activity. When I got home, there was a message from a neighbor who was passing the word that Our Redeemer and SHARE have decided NOT to move in at this time. The word is that they are also going to convene a meeting of interested folks (those who left their names and contact info at the end of the meeting).

This is all I know at this point.

My perspective is that this is good news for the neighborhood as it appears that input from folks who live here will help shape what a shelter at Calvary Lutheran would look like (if any). Many of us aren't saying NO to any shelter, just one that serves and MEN only population and also doesn't feel obliged to do minimal sex offender checks on the residents.

I'm glad that everyone involved has agreed to take a deep breath and work together on this issue.

Nordic Woman -

Those conditions you mentioned were with respect to tent camps. Those are wholly different situations than with a shelter within a church building. Tent camps have no sewer, running water, electricity, etc., and they provided temporary locations for 100 people. I think that as a result, the public entities (City, King County) may have additional leverage over the use of church property and can command more conditions from SHARE.

Here, the circumstances are different. SHARE and the church of smartly limited the numbers in the proposed shelter to 20. There is sewer, water, electricity, fire code compliance, etc. As a result, the public entities likely have less negotiating power with SHARE and the church.

Having said that, if the church manages to overcome the zoning code issues related to the discontinued use of the vacant building, then I think SHARE and the church will be interested in negotiating some type of agreement to appease the neighborhood. I am quite cynical about whether they would follow any agreement long term, but nevertheless, I anticipate that they will be willing to discuss and commit conditions on the use.

Here, to house

The unfortunate thing about trying to fight the church on this matter is that religious organizations are above the rules in so many situations it would make our head spin (one of many reasons they should be taxed). The city will also state that there is not much they can do. The RLUIPA makes it easy for churches to avoid zoning restrictions. SHARE knows the rules as well and their organizing consultant, Scott Morrow, is a real piece of work. He pretty much states that unless money is given to them they will open "Nickelsvilles" (e.g. Tent Cities) all over the city, and they use the churches as their vehicle because of the protection afforded to them.

For those who are interested there might be a chance to fight the zoning since it's a vacant building but other that that I wouldn't be surprised if they could store spent nuclear fuel rods in that building.

The other best way to fight this is to keep hammering Our Redeemer and Pastor Steve Grumm. Maybe some signs need to go up around the church like the ones for "Nickelstown". That tactic is often effective; Nickels hates having his name associated with that. Instead of referring to it as the shelter, or the church from now on, what about, "Grummsville", "Grumm's Slum", or "Grumm Town" The first has relevance, the second has a nice ring, but the third is also catchy. If it's found out that Our Redeemer is getting payment for this shelter Pastor Steve could be referred to as "Grummdog Millionaire". Ha, ha.

Many of SHARE's shelters have been in operation at the same locales for over ten years. I grew up in North Seattle and didn't realize until this year that two SHARE shelters of 20 people each have been in continuous operation five minutes from where I lived for over 15 years each. I had no idea.

This is because SHARE shelters have really strict policies in place about the host site and the surrounding neighborhoods. Most of the shelters are required to arrive on the same bus at the same time and leave on the same bus at the same time in the morning. No loitering within a 15 block radius (at the minimum) of the shelter is allowed. If it's found, through neighborhood reporting, host reporting, or other shelter residents that a resident was found in the neighborhood, they're barred from that shelter. If someone is asked to leave a shelter for violating policy, the residents walk them to the bus stop and wait until the barred individual gets on that bus back down town. The reason SHARE has been able to operate under a self-management model for 19 years now is because SHARE hasn't had any major incidents at any of its indoor shelter sites during this time.

People staying in these shelters don't stay in the neighborhoods where they sleep because the resources aren't in those neighborhoods. Usually, neither are the jobs. Because of the self management model and system of accountability, people staying at SHARE shelters are pretty high functioning and self-sufficient. A person staying there must be able to complete tasks and chores to the benefit of the house (kitchen clean-up, vacuuming, paperwork such as sign in rosters, etc) and also attend meetings for the benefit of the greater SHARE community, such as a grant-writing meeting every week or the weekly all-site meeting where major policy decisions are made.

SHARE shelters are not just a place to crash. They provide a stable, safe, clean environment so folks can stop worrying about basic survival issues (Where will I sleep tonight? Will I be safe?) and focus on making and keeping appointments, getting work, and once again becoming functioning members of the status quo that every one in Ballard seems so concerned with.

Also, I'd like to point out that SHARE employs organizers. Similar to what people might be familiar with in a Labor setting. Organizers never speak for a community, they facilitate the structure in place. The more and more a person becomes familiar with homelessness, the more I'd hope one would become familiar with ideas like autonomy and dignity. Given the chance, homeless folks are just as capable as a housed person to make sound decisions about their living arrangements and lives. Recognizing this empowers an individual and creates mutually beneficial relationships across the board.

I encourage people with concerns here to make a decision to stop stigmatizing the homeless and making them scapegoats to what is a systemic problem and instead to take a little time (it doesn't take much) to get to know the people you're vilifying. The same old reactions such as NIMBYism and litigation aren't solving the complaints, so why not take a different tack? I imagine it'd take less stress and might actually take steps towards what each side wants.

Don't forget, as you have treated the least of my brethren so too have you treated me. And donating $50 bucks a year to the Salvation Army doesn't count.

Thanks for listening.

"as you have treated the least of my brethren so too have you treated me." Yeah

We're NOT nimby. We already have a Share shelter for 20, a soup kitchen for 150 on weekdays, another Saturday soup kitchen, and a food bank -- all of them within two blocks of each other. And we've hosted Tent City twice. HOW is that construed as not-in-my-backyard? It's already IN our backyards, and has been for years.

Besides, most folks here are not saying NO to a new shelter for another 20. Some are saying let's do it, but let's do it right. Others are saying, we're already doing enough with all the programs listed above and we're saturated. AND we're zoned for single-family residential use.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised the "enough is enough" cry hasn't happened sooner. I think that shows us as a pretty accepting, caring community.

Maria...PULEEZE..go away....

Jo-
Well said...and you're right we have been gracious and it is time to say "enough is enough" and I think that message is loud and clear.

I've been away this week. Did I miss anything of importance in Ballard? A new sushi or pizza place perhaps?

Just curious; doesn't this use of a church constitute a hostel or hotel? Zoneing laws?

I'm glad to see that they have postponed moving in...I second the motion, enough is enough.

Glasses is obviously near-sighted.

Nordic Woman - Religious organizations are exempt from a lot of rules, we'd be subjected to.

For the record, I'm myself not inherently opposed to the new shelter. I do think the addition of it is too much for our little neighborhood to absorb, however, given all the other programs we've already got operating here.

What I heard last week was a lot of complaints over the operation of the soup kitchen and I think that's fueling a lot of anger over this new shelter. I heard that many people have been experiencing direct problems in relation to the soup kitchen. Personally, I'd rather have the Share shelter in that space than the soup kitchen.

I propose a trade. I wonder if we can ask the organizers of the soup kitchen to move operations of that to another neighborhood ... perhaps to Our Redeemer's location at 24th and 85th? That would lessen the daily impact on our neighborhood, and, being at the corner of two arterials with multiple bus routes, possibly even better serve the clients of the soup kitchen. The zoning issues may even be more conducive to a soup kitchen at that location.

If the application process to live in your neighborhood included a review of each individual’s comments above - which people do you think would pass the test?

Ouch PhinneyLiving...but good point.

Glasses -

Despite your level-headed plea, your position still equals a suspect group of strangers moving into a neighborhood that was not consulted and needs a voice as much as the homeless you so eloquently describe and advocate. You seem to be suggesting that the homeowners in the neighborhood suck it up and go with the plan. The neighborhood residents who attended the meeting asked specifically about the limits you so confidently described in your posting and none of the SHARE representatives or Pastor Grumm had answers. You seem to have all the answers. Why weren't you at the meeting and speaking on behalf of SHARE and the church? Sounds like they could've used your clear headed responses.

What about all the comments of people who have had contrary experiences with similiar shelters and situations? Are they lying?

I'm -pretty sure the people in Olympic Manor and Sunset Hill would not be entirely receptive to the idea of a soup kitchen at Our Redeemers.

I live a block away from this church. How come now I have only just heard about the meeting?

Where was it advertised?

I am really annoyed, I have a lot to say.

What are the actual laws about shelters? How can communities stop this happening? If I wanted to build a garage on my property on land that I own, I would still have to get planning permission from the city.

How can this all happen so quickly and how can Steve Grumm say he has the community behind him when clearly most of the community is against the idea, especially with the limited checks they perform.

Shane-
It's not as much about the rules of shelters (they're really aren't any), it's more about the extraordinary laws that were put into place that protect religous organizations to the point that they can pretty much do as they please. They best way to attack this would probably be to get some prick like Tim Eymann to get a proposition stating that organizations that contract with King County and Seattle need to follow certain guidleines in order to recive the funds. The city does not run any shelters. They say it's because they can contract it our for cheaper and to someone who has the skills to operate it, but that srings hollow because most of the city services could fall under that assumption. I think it's becasue they don't want the liability and leagl costs associated.

Just a 2 cents from an ol'snapper-whipper!
I have been watching and acting out here in Bollard(sic)for a while.
Seems,most of you folks on the street still think it's the 19th.century.
Murricans evolved in-to an nation after the frontier closed in 1912,when Arizona Territory became a state.
U.S.Fed.Marshalls ended.
The new Amerika became an empire before the great war,ww.1.
The industrialists formed a war economy.
War needs cheap peasants.
War needs unemployment,right-to--work(for nothing)states.
Thus,the wEvil wEmpire must be fueled with elite generals glued to desks at mount weather.
The rest of us must be aknowleged as,disposable.
Policies of the elites guarantee drugging:
Morphine="soldier's Joy",civil war.
Tranks=Housewives="mother's little helpers".
Amphetamines were used every combat since WW2.
Now,the A.F,Army drugs their elite killer goons.
used-up soldiers with brains fried on drugs make up a big part of the indigents.
Alchohol=firewater.{No-Body Loves A Drunken Indian"}(Or any-one Else,for that matter!).
Und,ZO:
The Doctors,Lawyers,Indian Chiefs,Poo-Bahs,Pandits,Captains of Industry,Etc. Create this Empire.
They have to breathe Air,Drink water,just like us peasants.
Why do they hide behind their fortified pill-boxes,let the pettittes-bourgeoise blame others for the sins of Empire??
Why don't we go to the level of the power elites(see:C.Wright Mills'book:"The Power Elites")
And CHALLENGE THEM TO FIX WHAT THEY BROKE???
My E-Mail:
[RandiO088(at)aim.com]

I have nothing against helping people at all. I just think people should have the right to choose exactly who they choose. I don't mind helping the homeless at all, but people that have made very bad choices in life I don't really want to help. I don't think everybody deserves a second chance. Why should a murderer, rapist, or child molester get any help? If some person has been unlucky, lost their job, and needs a place then they should be helped, if they just got out of jail for some terrible crime and are on fire, I wouldn't pee on them to be frank.

Why shouldn't we be allowed to say who we are supporting in our neighborhood?

I get upset when the church here says that they have consulted the neighbors.

We all have the right to a choice, and a right to vote if they should come here or not.

If there are 200 houses in the surrounding area and 101 say they do not want them here then the church has no right to go ahead with this.

Where and when is the next meeting, I shall be there and will do my best to make sure someone from the media is with me.

Wow! Is that Phantom Blunt? Because I have no idea what you're smoking.

"I propose a trade. "

Are you kidding? You folks gave an inch (soup kitchen etc.), so these people are going to take a mile. They know suckers when they see them.

Luckily here in East Ballard there are fewer hippies and people are smart enough not to give an inch.

david t. I have never smoked anything in my life.

I thought this is a democratic country where everyone gets a vote and a choice.

My choice is to help those who 'I feel' deserve help. I choose not to help sex offenders, thieves, rapists, or murderers.

Why is SHARE so unwilling to do checks and let people know exactly who they are helping?

I also feel that mentally ill people deserve professional help, not just a bed a night in an old church.

I am not saying that all (or even most) homeless people are mentally ill, rapists, murderers, or even sex offenders. But the facts are some have pretty horrendous records.

I am not a hippy, I own my own business in Seattle, I am definitely not afraid to speak my mind, and over the years have had to deal with some very 'unsavory' people.

'Crazy' people do crazy things, last year one homeless guy killed another in Ballard, the excuse, he was off his meds! I don't want my kids exposed to any risk at all.

Better a NIMBY than a YIMBY.

Ever wonder why some parts of town are sh*tholes?

Shane-I'm not sure why you thought I was talking to you. I was spoofing Phantom Blut's response (see 275).

I apologise David t. I had a few weird emails. Glad you are on the same page as me some what.

I have to respond to Ballard Guy's post #9 with the rest of this story. This message was posted soon after the SHARE shelter (that is proposing moving to Ballard) moved into the West Seattle church (note posting is Feb 2008). The woman and neighbors had indeed had all of those experiences when the church was serving as a temporary place (3 months) for shelters in between "permanent" homes. One of these four temporary groups was a problem and this woman got the brunt of it. She was therefore a very vocal opponent of the current SHARE shelter moving in for a year. She is now one of their greatest supporters, along with several others who I talked with a week ago in that West Seattle church neighborhood.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/12/sex.offende...

One reason why SHARE MUST screen for sex offenders.

Here are some free resources to begin your Washington background search.
The official Washington state site is at http://access.wa.gov/. Their site lists all the government, agencies and department of Washington that will be of use to you in your Washington background search.
The Attorney General’s website is at http://www.atg.wa.gov.
Vital records are attainable through the Washington State Department of Health at http://www.doh.wa.gov.
Contact the Washington State Department of Licensing for driving records, vehicle and boat ownership along with business licensing records. They have a website for your convenience at http://www.dol.wa.gov.
You can get a nationwide background search at http://backgroundsearch.com . However, a background check may have little practical value, because many homeless people have criminal records. Often, they are homeless because they were in jail for extended periods, lost everything, and have nothing.

Criminal records are important for most Washington background checks. Find them through the Washington State Patrol website at www.wsp.wa.gov.

The fact is that SHARE currently operates both Tent City 3 and Tent City 4. TC3 is in the Seattle area and TC4 operates on the Eastside. Tent City 4 DOES OUTSTANDING WARRANT, I.D. and sex offender checks. Tent City 3 DOES NOT. These sex offender checks are done for FREE by King County.
SHARE is a shame and they are lying. The DON'T WANT TO DO THE CHECKS because they know that they have sex offenders in many of their shelters.

Isaiah 58:7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from "thine own flesh"? (Your flesh and blood family & your fellow man)

What does God say? He says take them into your home. He means what he says. This is not some idle "maybe you should do this" idea. It is supposed to be the way we live.

The poor that are cast out (evicted/rejected by society) are to be helped by us personally. We are not supposed to be hiding our eyes from looking into theirs. Homelessness or chemical depression is not catching., but many of us avert our eyes from them, just as many of us do to people in wheelchairs, or any other disability for that matter.

Face them - do not fear them. They are people just like you and I.