Earlier this week, SeattlePI.com reported that Our Redeemer’s Lutheran Church had decided not to host a homeless shelter at Calvary Lutheran Church because SHARE/WHEEL refuses to require sex offender background checks. This was news to us, so we contacted Our Redeemer’s Pastor Steve Grumm for a confirmation. Today he told us that no decision has been made. “We continue to be in process as we carry on conversation with neighbors, SHARE/WHEEL, Our Redeemer’s, etc.,” he wrote us in an email. We’ll keep you updated…
Talks continue for homeless shelter at church
http://www.redmond.gov/cityservices/pdfs/L09006…
Here is a link to the City of Redmond, which just recently issued a permit for St. Jude's Catholic church to host Tent City 4 beginning April 25 for 110 days. NOTE IT REQUIRES WARRANT/SEX OFFENDER CHECKS on page 4 item #10. Tent City 4 is run by SHARE and they do these check for free through the King County Sheriff's offfice.
If SHARE does them for Tent City 4, then they should do them for all their shelters as their is NO COST TO THEM.
Everyone here needs to be aware and very clear on this fact: SHARE currently operates two tent cities. Tent City 3 in the Seattle area and Tent City 4 on the Eastside. Tent City 3 does not conduct i.d/warrant/sex offender checks. Tent City 4 DOES DO WARRANT/I.D./SEX OFFENDER CHECKS. The checks are done FOR FREE BY THE KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
SHARE does not want to do the checks because they know they have sex offenders living in their Seattle shelters.
Feel free to contact the KCSO and verify that they are doing the checks and then ask yourself if they can do them at one of their shelters/tent cities why do they refuse to do them at all of them?
When the City of Shoreline hosted Tent City 3 a few months back, they thought that SHARE was running the checks on that camp, because they knew they were required on the Eastside for Tent City 4. When the Shoreline police found out that Tent City 3 did not do the same checks, they wanted it to be included in the permit that the checks be done . SHARE REFUSED. They said they would not do them.
If there is nothing to hide, then why not just do the checks? What's good for one should be good for all.
There are 80+ police/incident reports related to Tent City 4 on the Eastside. SHARE has plenty they want to hide and conceal from the public and sadly the local main stream media does not pick up and report on this.
SHARE is run by Scott Morrow (although technically he is now just a consultant as a way to get around a legal consent decree he entered and violated with the City of Seattle) He also is the man that started and runs Nickelsville. Residents of all the SHARE shelters/tent city/nickelsville move from camp, to shelters, etc. It's a very tangled web of lies and deceipt that they weave.
In these tough economic times we need our scarce financial resources to go to legitimate organizations with proven track records of helping the homeless.
SHARE is NOT one of those organizations. They are all about refusing to go along with rules in order to further their own agenda. They want our tax dollars without any accountability.
Congratulations to the citizens of Ballard for standing up to these thugs!
This is sad. I can't believe that they are pursuing this, still.
Mr. Grumm, if you aren't going to do the right thing for this community, pack your bags, seriously, do your thing in Somalia.
The city of Redmond is being treated 'way' more equitably than Ballard in this regard, and Mr. Grumm, quit being a 'patsy' for SHARE at Ballard's expense. Please, sir, think about your neighbors, I mean, my neighbors.
btw, you don't want to be caught dead as a transient in Redmond, seriously, not gonna happen…they have the skills, and aren't so ignorant and fuzzy, at all.
My Question. Do the checks become public? When? Long after the court case that would inevitably result?
Answer anyone?
It probably takes ten minutes to check, and ten months for the rest of us to know about it…
btw, I'm concerned deeply about Mr. Grumm's involvement with Scott Morrow.
Sounds like another unbelievable money grab (local, state, federal?). Donate that property to Ballard, let us use it appropriately. Save your soul, sir.
SHARE's Tent City 4 previously stayed in Redmond at St. Jude's in 2007. During that 100 day stay, they generated over 24+police/incident reports. There was a sex offender that attempted to check in, but was denied entry because they had run a check on him. Unfortunately, this man was simply allowed to then wander off into the neighborhood, which by the way is across the street from a local elementary school and down the street from a jr. high. This sex offender had committed his crimes in California and had last registered as homeless in Pierce County. He had no ties to the Redmond area and was simply drawn to this residential neighborhood by Tent City 4's presence.
There was another report in which a Tent City 4 at the same location was evicted. He then went across the way to a wooded area next to the Jr. High and made his own “camp.” Five days later, he went on a crime spree burglarizing homes in the neighborhood. He was caught by Redmond Police coming out of the wooded area. At the time of his arrest, he was intoxicated and had a KNIFE AND 22 CALIBER AMMUNITION ON HIM. This man was from Kentucky and had been living in Washington less than 4 months and was noted to have “no ties to the community.” Just previous to the burglaries, he had been arrested for “attempting to elude a pursuing police vehcle and DUI” WHILE DRIVING A STOLEN VEHICLE.
These are only two examples of the police activity that occurred during ONE 90 day stay of Tent City 4 at Redmond. There are over 80+ police reports from various locations throughout the Eastside pertaining to this single Tent City 4 run by SHARE.
THIS is why they are refusing to do the sex offender checks. They don't want transparency.
Where do all these homeless people go during the day? I mean, if you can go to the Ballard Food Bank for groceries, get your lunchtime soup at a nearby church, and then bed down for the night at another neighborhood church, where's the incentive to leave Ballard?
It's one thing to provide food and shelter to someone passing through a homeless stage on their way to supporting themselves. It's another thing altogether to enable a lifestyle that gives nothing back to the community. These are takers, not givers.
They may not want the transparency. But we shall have it. I will be the first to 'unmask' from my shelter in this forum, and call for some heads on a pike, in public. I'd hope that my neighbors see the urgency in my actions. I tend to be pacifistic;-)
Again, Mr. Grumm, study your heart carefully, don't do this, or suffer the fools.
I have an inside source, still, at the city of Redmond. I'll let you know how their campfire 'kum-by-ya' is going.
'we shall over come' yeah, stole it from a favorite of mine….
You want to know where they go??? They move the temp. fencing around the old Denny's on 15th and market and sit in the lot and drink deal drugs and fight all day long. I have had to call SPD a few times to roust them out, and have gone down and talked to them myself. They are out there from 6am to who knows when. I have asked SPD to be more visible and their response is… they (the homeless) are like a puddle of water.. when you move it out of the way they come back. they see it as a non-issue.
And, I don't want the court case issue to be understated. We, as 'taxpayers', have to pay out the nose for all kinds of irresponsible actions of our government. I don't care to be the one who knew this was inevitable and said nothing.
Because, it is inevitable…so, I'm free of guilt for saying something.
thank you for your service…and eyes, and voice.
We will dry up all these puddles…
Gravity dictates they will travel down hill ;-)
I have personally spoken with those in charge at Our Redeemer and provided them with the same information I have provided here. I asked them to ask themselves, WHY, IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, IS SHARE REFUSING TO RUN LEVEL 3 SEX OFFENDER CHECKS?
The woman I spoke with on the phone was surprised to learn that the King County Sheriff's office has been running these checks for FREE at SHARE's Tent City 4. I asked her to ask herself WHY ONE OF SHARE'S REPRESENTATIVES STOOD UP IN A PUBLIC FORUM AND KNOWINGLY LIED WHEN HE STATED THEY COULD NOT RUN THE CHECK BECAUSE OF THE COST INVOLVED TO THEM?
If Our Redeemer is generously offering to help out SHARE and SHARE is refusing to abide by their request to run sex offender checks, then they need to move on and align themselves with a homeless organization that abides by the rules.
SHARE is not such an organization. They want your tax dollars with no accountability and no transparency.
If Our Redeemer wants to help the homeless, they should look into an organization like Congregations for the Homeless. This group of 30 men moves every 30 days to various church sites. They are screened for outstanding warrants/sex offender status. They are partnered with a volunteer life coach, that helps them to break the cycle of homelessness. Unlike SHARE, they are a HAND-UP NOT A HAND-OUT.
Giz, I'll add you to my list of 'likey'. Thanks for your info, good Q.'s…bad answers.
Still, more must be done. Has Mr. Grumm secured passage to Somalia?
I'd put Scott Morrow in Federal prison…but I'm old fashioned…
oh, and I would add, Habitat for Humanity, worthwhile as a rule…it's a long term solution, and every dollar that I've ever invested, is in no need of a bail out. Every hour, and day, those investments fuel neighborhoods today.
And I'm not recommending Ballard for this, but Seattle could use a sharp kick in the a** about that…imo.
“Congratulations to the citizens of Ballard for standing up to these thugs!”
Please, please stop with the personal attacks and incendiary language. We all want the best for our community. Ad hominem attacks on individuals will only polarize the situation further.
And that's exactly where I figured they go. Denny's, behind Stone Gardens, along the wall in front of Carnegie's, Bergen Park, the library, Golden City, 7-11, etc., etc., etc. and I'm sick and tired of it.
I would be happy if the food bank disappeared and the churches were exactly that, gathering places for their congregations, who could go out and perform charity if they wanted, but people should not be sheltered there.
shoot, that wasn't my line…this time…but what can I say?
“thugs” is the only thing that can be categorized as….
“Please, please stop with the personal attacks and incendiary language. We all want the best for our community. Ad hominem attacks on individuals will only polarize the situation further. “
Let me say, that is not a personal attack, but a general one. 'Thugs” exist everywhere, and are at work as you type. Yeah, as I type…
Secondly, the words 'citizens' and 'Ballard' do not imply an attack, they simply are a Bastian from the rest of you…(look it up if you care to)…
Thanks for your time, mine is done.
See BNT front page for just posted response by the men of the SHARE shelter.
SHARE's Calvary Lutheran shelter responds to Ballard church dis-invitation
ballardnewstribune(dot)com
As we said, don't let the door hit you in the ** on the way out of Ballard. Apparently the folks at share have 'fallen on hard times'. Folks like SHARE ;leader Leo Rhodes, homeless for 20 years. Yes, 20 years. That's not falling on hard times, that's a full time job.
So let the SHARE hysterics start:
Dear Editor,
We, the men of Calvary Lutheran, wish to set the straight about our community. The Seattle PI wrote about our shelter losing a future site and said it was because SHARE was stubborn and wouldn't check for sex offenders in shelters.
Sorry, but that's not what happened.
We were there. Our shelter was invited to the Ballard Calvary Lutheran church based on our existing track record and rules. Some neighbors became hysterical and threatened the church if they let us come. This hysteria was based on fear. The fear was based on ignorance and – as we call it – homelessphobia.
So the church asked us to change our screening process and begin checking for sex offenders in our screening. Why?
Our shelters have operated for 18 years in Seattle. We have 14 of them now. The two oldest have daycares and music schools. How many times have we had a problem with a sex offender at a SHARE shelter?
NEVER. NOT ONCE.
That's a fact.
So what's really happening here? This is discrimination against homeless people, pure and simple. The church that dis-invited us doesn't do sex offender checks on everyone who goes to their church service or their other programs. We have simply been targeted because we are homeless and some neighbors are fearful.
It's also un-American. This nation was founded on principles like due process, privacy, presumption of innocence and equality under the law. Discriminations, invasion of privacy and presumption of guilt are un-American.
We know there is a church, temple or mosque out there who walks their talk. One whose priority is compassion, justice, fairness and treating others the way you would want to be treated. We'll be all right.
The real losers in all this are the Ballard neighbors who are trapped in their fears and ignorance. Now they will never know what the great majority of neighbors of the 14 other SHARE shelters have learned: we are good neighbors and benefit our hosts' neighborhoods.
One Ballard neighbor suggested a three-week trial period. We accepted the challenge and offered to leave on 24-hours notice if there was a problem. If they'd accepted this proposal, they'd have seen how well we run our shelter. But, our offer wasn't taken up – the real goal of the homelessphobics was simply to keep us out.
Many of us have skills, intelligence, compassion and understanding. We've just fallen on hard times. By dis-inviting us, the church has let these neighbors think that fear has won. If we had gone in with sex offender checks, they would think that the only reason we were okay was because of those checks.
Sex offenders are not welcome in SHARE church shelters. We don't need a sex offender check during screening to move them on. The proof is in our well-run shelters and the complete lack of neighborhood problems where we stay.
Good riddance. We don't have a phobia of the homeless, we have several well run homeless groups in Ballard that treat their neighbors with respect and we support.
What we don't like is SHARE and their lack of transparency (as noted by their total unwillingness to answer questions at the church meeting), their lack of respect for our concerns and general rudeness, as this letter demonstrates.
Good bye and good riddance. Take your entitlement attitude and don't come back.
Just exactly how do they “benefit our hosts' neighborhoods.” Are they out picking up garbage during the day? Do they weed the flowerbeds in neighborhood parks? Do they perform a free dog walking service? Are they walking around painting over graffiti? Just wondering…
“That's a fact.”
Really? Facts can be proven with evidence. Show us the report on this case. Names, dates, locations. No doubt you called the police to report the unregistered sex offender?
“Prevention is better than a cure”
Just because something has never happened, it doesn't mean it won't, or you shouldn't protect yourself against it.
I applaud the fact you have had no incidences, but it is like russian roulette, eventually there will be an incident. I don't think it is asking that much for a level 3 sex offender check.
You are right anyone could walk into the church on sunday without a check, but that is only for a few hours a week, not overnight for a period of time.
If the majority of people supported the shelter, and I didn't, I would accept that. But the majority had some reservations, so the minority should respect that.
Eventually people will start creating and moving in to 'gated communities' like in Johannesberg to feel safe, that in my opinion is sad.
And really, if SHARE and the church said they would screen and exclude sex offenders and serious felony records, very very few would still have objected.
it is NOT the fact that people are homeless. It is the fact that someone somewhere needs to take RESPONSIBILITY for these peoples actions, since many of them can't or choose not to.
It is like my post weeks ago said, if there is nothing to hide than there is no problem with checks of any kind, especially FREE. if there are things to hide, than these “checks” will intimidate folks.
It is what it is.
conform to the checks, get to laze around and get taken care of. Don't conform to the “checks”, move onto another neighborhood that is not as concerned about it.
We do have a say here in Ballard and looks like someone has finally, hopefully, heard us!
Btw, how does someone exist homeless for 20 years and who in their right mind would want to? “right mind” being the operative word here.
oh, Jules, we are heard!…
Shane, they wouldn't screen any 'newcomers', that is the issue, in addition to those currently 'in the program', the public (and I mean 'us') wouldn't be notified 0f any violations discovered in their screening (Like in Redmond).
Tired, yes, I feel you…
To have no concern for the welfare of this neighborhood called Ballard, is sick.
Yeah, I know, for some unconscionable reason…I speak for Seattle as well…
Still, I call for help from my neighbors, don't let the red carpet return, please…
oh, and Millipeed, thank you. I wouldn't have seen that…and shook my head >(
SHARE says:
“So the church asked us to change our screening process and begin checking for sex offenders in our screening. Why?
Our shelters have operated for 18 years in Seattle. We have 14 of them now. The two oldest have daycares and music schools. How many times have we had a problem with a sex offender at a SHARE shelter?
NEVER. NOT ONCE.
That's a fact
[ ]
It's also un-American. This nation was founded on principles like due process, privacy, presumption of innocence and equality under the law. Discriminations, invasion of privacy and presumption of guilt are un-American.”
Their agreement with Redmond says:
“10) Tent City 4 shall obtain warrant and sex offender checks from the appropriate agency for all new
prospective encampment residents. Tent City 4 shall report any positive results of sex offenders
or warrant checks to the Redmond Police Department.”
So apparently the folks at SHARE think such checks are ok. But then here they say they are not ok.
Which one is it guys? Can't you keep your stories straight?
SHARE made public claims in this community and in print that “we” have their “word.” SHARE claims to have a code of conduct which they claim to follow.
LIES.
During a 90 day stay of Tent City 4 on Mercer Island a Mercer Island neighborhood group discovered numerous indivduals that had committed crimes while living in Tent City 4. Of those individuals 3 of them were found to be there at the Mercer Island Tent City 4 with OUTSTANDING WARRANTS. The list of names was turned over to the Mercer Island Police department, who verified that it was indeed accurate and it resulted in the ARREST of two of the three individuals ( one person was tipped off annd gone before the police arrived) Of the two arrests, one was arrested for ESCAPE FROM COMMUNITY CUSTODY. Both were sent to jail.
There are 80+ police/incident reports involving Tent City 4 residents over a years period of time. These have gone unreported by the main stream media and were only uncovered due to the work of concerned neighbors that had Tent City 4 forced upon them, much like what they are attempting to do here.
SHARE has much to hide and that is why they are refusing the sex offender checks.
Take a look through the online sex offender registry of King County. A huge percentage of sex offenders report no address and are simply listed as “homeless.”
Want to know more about how SHARE fails to abide by their own code of conduct?
Superior Court of Washington: Case # 07-1-0474-8 SEA
*Crimes took place during a period of time between June 1, 2006 through January 19, 2007
*Crime occurred during Tent City 4 stays at multiple locations as noted by above dates
*Subject was charged with FORGERY
*Subject was a Tent City 4 resident that had been hired by and elderly woman who was a member of a church involved in hosting Tent City 4. The elderly woman hired her to do cleaning and chores in the house and yard. The Subject stole checks and credit cards from the woman
*Subject had prior criminal history that includes FELONIES for forgery and theft.
*Subject wrote the stolen checks to her boyfriend, who was also a Tent City 4 resident.
*Subject was convicted of the crime and sentenced to jail.
*Subject was a resident of Tent City 4 for a period of 2 1/2 yrs. (before/during/after she committed the crime) She lived in Tent City 4 until she went to jail for her crime and immediately after being released returned to Tent City 4. Her boyfriend, who was not charged, also lived in Tent City 4 during this time . He remained there while she was in jail.
When the Mercer Island neighbors discovered that this woman had been committing crimes all the while living in Tent City4, her name was turned over to the police . SHARE claimed they knew nothing about this and that they were unaware she had left their camp only to serve jail time and then return. Only after neighbors did the work of digging this up and confronting SHARE with this in a public forum ( a Mercer Island City Council meeting) did SHARE throw this woman out.
The fact is that they knew and they turned a blind eye to it, as they do with all such incidents . This was a clear violation of their so called “code of conduct” which is as worthless as the paper it was written on.
Thanks for the research Giz. These are actual facts, something SHARE has been totally unwilling and unable to provide.
Exactly, we find out 'after the fact', not when we could be aware of it..
I rest my case…show SHARE the door people…
Mr. Grumm…do you need more? Pack 'em up sir.
no, a lie is too hard to remember;-) and yes…we do,,,did,,,or whatever…shut up!
We just had those transients, the guy and fat girl with the pitbull try to burn down Starbucks. The man lit his underwear on fire and threatened two woman workers. We could have lost that entire building to fire. Of course, no arson arrest was made and the pair of the toast of the town still because they have a cute dog.
Then, we had a transient swinging a box cutter inside two Ballard ave bars. Cops used a stun gun to subdue him. We had one try to attack another bar owner with with a hammer. They sell drugs in Bergen Park and The Chai House phone and mock this site on the library computers.
This is absurd. There has been two fist fights in the last two weeks in Bergen Park among transients in broad daylight… the list is endless.
Get the hell out of here!
Thank you for sharing info about Congregations for the Homeless
Remember, if that fire had spread, it would have burned down Romanza, The Ballard News Tribune, Lombardis and many other businesses in that building.
Yet, we still have business owners falling all over themselves to run out and pet the dog and shower the fat girl and dangerous guy with food and cash. I have seen it first hand, many many times…. One actually heats up their dinner in a coffee shop microwave for them.
The business owners practically get giddy when they see them coming and always say “Hi, How are you??”
Who cares how they are? They are dangerous crackheads. Wake up and grow up business owners!
If you lose your business to arson by a transient, blame yourselves.
I'm confused, chopper. Are you hoping to dry them up, or that they will migrate to southern neighborhoods?
Either way, it seems you've some learning to do re both the laws of nature and those of social responsibility.
Here's hoping you manage to tackle both areas of education in this lifetime.
How adorably optimistic, if not frighteningly Pollyanna, of the masses to believe that background checks will keep a neighborhood safe from harm.
I agree that sex offender stats serve the basic function of identifying those reckless criminals the lazy judicial system has been lucky enough to catch in the act of committing crimes against, more often than not, the perpetrator's own family. However, identifying these offenders does not keep a community safe. Sadly, the sicko most likely to harm your loved ones is a trusted authority figure, such as the local pastor, preschool teacher, or soccer coach. And, more often than not, these degenerates do not come pre-tagged with warning labels. Check your stats. Education and awareness are the most reliable tools you can use to keep your famly safe.
Oh, chopper. You have opened yourself up to all sorts of karmic retribution by posting this. Heaven forbid you should find yourself without a roof over your head in this financial climate . . . And, what, praytell, would we learn, should we run a background check on you?
:)
I'm assuming you are picking up our garbage, weeding our gardens, walking our dogs, and painting over the graffiti, then, “Tired of always giving?” Oh no! Did I just make an ass of you and me?
My apologies.
I hate to break it to those of you who insist on whining about this topic, but . . . you live in Seattle. That's right, despite the plasticine appearances, Ballard is really just another neighborhood in the culturally and economically diverse city known as . . . wait for it . . . Seattle.
I understand how some of you could have been fooled by the condos, the mcmansions, and the overinflated price tags, but Ballard is actually just another neighborhood in an urban city, and not, as some of you seem to believe, a suburb. Like Edmonds, or even Mountlake Terrace, for example.
Now that we've straightened that out, can we all just move on? Pretty please?
Obviously, the Ballard neighbors don’t need or want the shelter on their block. What’s so hard to figure out about that? Anything that brings more traffic to a neighborhood should be questioned.
BallardBlah, that was a nonsensical response. First of all, I pay taxes, huge taxes, that help support a society we all appreciate. I definitely pick up garbage, I most certainly weed gardens, I've painted over lots of graffiti, and yes, I also walk dogs. I also hold a responsible job, pay a mortgage, put absolutely no burden on the police or fire departments, and do not require the services of a church to put a roof over my head. Yes, you just made an ass of yourself.
Blah, Seattle has become a completely unacceptable joke. Ballard is better, still, and though there seems to be a concerted effort to screw it up too, I won't be idle, and watch as idiots pretend that nothing can be done. We've only just started to wake our sorry asses up, some of us anyway, the rest of you will benefit, despite all the 'poo pooing' drivel, as well. If you think that public safety is ok? As you see more and more folks shutter themselves inside, you'll see an absolutely unacceptable level of thugs and crime here too. Take some pride for your neighborhood, get out and keep those elements out of town, unless you're really too afraid, Shut up and let us do it.
Check out this story about what can go wrong.
This happened yesterday:-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews…
Ya, the UD is a problem area and the street people are annoying. Lots of violence all over town.
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2009/04/20/ne…
The tangled web of lies SHARE weaves are now being revealed! The Ballard Tribune has picked up on the link that was provided in this forum regarding the fact SHARE is running the sex offender checks for their Tent City 4 on the Eastside.
To recap, SHARE refused to run the checks here and claimed that the expense of running sex offender checks was part of the reason. THEY LIED. There is no expense to them as the checks are currently run for Tent City 4 by the King County Sheriff's office for FREE and it's been that way since 2004. In addition, Tent City4 is preparing to move to St. Jude's in Redmond, where as part of the permit, they are required to do outstanding warrant/sex offender checks.
That permit can be viewed here:
http://www.redmond.gov/cityservices/pdfs/L09006…
The truth will set you free! (or in SHARE's case come back to haunt you)
Eventually, the lies will catch up with them as they did here.
Thanks for your concern. It's certainly no concern of mine, especially in 'this economy'. To have a concern about 'background checks', as you should well know, some of us have had to go through several, it's common place for many areas of employment, housing, financial opportunities, etc.
If you'd care to see mine, that'll cost ya ;-)
Sorry confused, social responsibility is too important to talk about, it's something that you do, or do not. Laws, yes, because I'm no expert, I hope to keep learning, and thanks for your support, but I do plan on many many more years to nail that one down too.
So, you want to 'make an example' of me, fine, but there are more pressing issues, imho.
Ever built homes all over the country for homeless folks? Ever worked in the soup kitchens downtown? Ever volunteered at the local school as a reading and math tutor? Ever been a mentor, or big brother? (All of which required background checks, btw)
Let's get back to what should be done, instead of this joke of an organization that won't help the homeless, or the neighborhood.
There is a lot of distortions surrounding the running of warrant and sex offender checks. As mentioned by a previous poster SHARE does not run checks on residents of Tent City 3 which tours the Seattle area. SHARE violently opposes the running of these checks which has proven itself to be successful in protecting the community AND the residents of Tent Cities.
When SHARE split off TC3 to create TC4 in 2004 the City of Bothell went to court and obtained a court order requiring all residents to have checks run for sex offender status and outstanding warrants. This resulted in large numbers of arrests of individuals with all kinds of legal issues including federal warrants and escaped convicts.
For the next few moves SHARE moved into churches illegally forcing the cities to go to court in order to get their legal rights upheld. In EVERY case the courts ordered these same checks which SHARE fought and resisted in every case.
When the courts finally forced SHARE to get permits before re-locating a camp they applied for a permit to move to Bothell and when one of the requirements was these warrant and sex offender checks SHARE refused to accept the permit and relocated elsewhere leaving the Church with a $5000 bill for the permit that they never used.
In Redmond they changed their tactics and started to claim they would run these checks on a “volunteer” basis as long as they were not required in the permits. Redmond instead required the city police to run the checks (which is the same process the KCSO uses) and SHARE refused insisting that KCSO run the checks. Initially this was a puzzling development until it was discovered that SHARE does just token checks of some new residents and never runs checks on anyone who had been in camp before even though there is extensive documentation that many campers have warrants issued for crimes committed while staying at Tent City and are allowed back even though SHARE claims they do not allow campers to return who commit crimes.
Since local police departments are smaller and can respond quickly in case of issues many criminals who are hiding in Tent Cities were being arrested. The KCSO supports all of King Counties 1.8 million residents and does not have the resources to be on top of every issue so when SHARE refuses to run these checks with local police and uses KCSO instead that gives those with issues time to disappear into the community before local police can get notice and take action to protect the community.
What needs to be clear is that there is no violation of an individuals rights by running these checks. Churches are private property and the property owner (as well as the local government) have the right to set conditions and refuse access to anyone at anytime. This is no different than asking for ID to buy cigarettes, go into a bar, or to enter an R rated movie.
This information is public record and anyone can run these checks on friends, neighbors, or visitors if they so desire.
I'll go into detail why SHARE doesn't run these checks, despite claiming they do, in my next post.
The undeniable evidence, a community works when it works together. For those who feel for these people who are down and out, there are options, that many of us have and will continue to support. Do something productive.
Chopper out.
So why would SHARE refuse to run these checks that protect the Church, local community AND the residents of Tent City? Extensive research has answered that question.
In the early days it appeared that the crime problem that followed Tent City everywhere it moved was not residents but those “followers” that moved from place to place with the camp but because of various issues would live in the surrounding community (wooded areas, parks, etc) and get food and other support from those that were allowed in camp. Drug dealers and others would follow the camp and “do business” with the campers.
Communities cited these crime problems when asking cities to impose reasonable safeguards to be included in the permits. SHARE objects to all of these protections.
Now that the camp has existed for 5 years there is a track record to go by. As it turns out not only is there a crime problem from those that follow the camp but a huge crime problem inside the camp.
It turns out that the claim that campers only stay a few weeks and then move on is not true. The “core group” of residents are really squatters who have chosen this as their lifestyle. Many churches were shocked to see the same people in camp that were there when they came to their church before, often years before. Some won't have them back again because they have seen the light that this isn't about the homeless but about an alternative lifestyle.
Many of these squatters have been caught committing crimes, been tried, convicted, done their time, and returned to Tent City and in some cases committed more crimes after returning.
This shines the light of day on why they refuse to run these checks and will do everything they can to keep them from being run reliably. If the public ever really knew the truth about who is in camp and what goes on it would spell the end of SHARE.
People want to do the right thing and help the homeless but it is very clear now that SHARE actually abuses the homeless to support their lifestyle.
This church needs to be praised for saying no, but they also need to back it up with action to support programs that actually help to solve the problem rather than continue to be conned by this criminal group.
So let’s say they run sex offender checks and a few are listed. They STILL have the right to stay at a shelter just as they have the right to buy the house next to yours. It’s really not rocket science folks. Sex offenders have rights unless they are wanted. Same with other folks with criminal records. A murderer who get out of prison has the right to stay at a shelter and they also have the right to buy the house next to yours. So what is it you all plan to do with this valuable information?
This is all such silly hysteria. When a person is convicted of a crime and they do their time they still have rights.
get a clue, there are certainly restrictions to where they can live, with good reason.
What are those restrictions and are they true in every case?
look them up, you could use some research time, imho.
btw, anwsered q? me 100% you, nadda…thanks, and no thanks.
Sorry Rose but you are wrong.
Sex Offenders have restrictions as to where they can live. Since Tent Cities are located on Church property it is most likely that there is also a school on that property and in most cases there are schools right nearby.
All Sex Offenders much register where they live (and there is public access to that database) and there are restrictions on where they can live based on the level of offender. With Tent City not only refusing to run these checks, but hiding these offenders from the system, they put the local community at risk. Any offender living in that camp is in violation of their terms of release no matter how you slice it.
Shelters are normally located in more industrial areas (with good reason) and as such those who have the “right” you claim to live in a shelter are doing so within the law and the system know their location.
The problem comes from the fact that legitimate shelters are fun by groups that know how to deal with homeless issues and how to identify and assist with the needs of the homeless. SHARE is the mouse guarding the cheese. They not only are not professionals at providing homeless services they actually prevent those in camp from getting the help they need.
HUD and the Committee to End Homelessness both condem the concept to start with and SHARE has a track record of abuse of the homeless and of criminal activity that would have any other group shut down but this region doesn't have the spine to do the right thing and shut them down. The homeless deserve better.
Sorry Truth Detector – but your version of the Truth is wrong.
But it is easy to spread misinformation in the name of Truth, anonymously.
p.s. legitimate shelters are never fun.
Classic SHARE spin doctoring.
Claim someone is wrong but don't even make a token attempt to back it up.
Here is a clue for you. My “truth” is based on documented facts which you made no attempt to refute.
Guess who wins on credibility? Not you.
And yes, shelters are no fun. No one said that being homeless should be fun. In fact the easier we make it to be homeless the more people accept that as a way of life.