Neighbors: Make changes at homeless shelter

More than a hundred neighbors who live near the Calvary Lutheran homeless shelter say they want sex offender background checks or the shelter must be relocated or shut down, according to newly-released minutes of a meeting held with SHARE and Our Redeemer’s Church last week.

Last month, neighbors were alerted by the Sheriff’s Department that a Level 3 sex offender was staying at the shelter. After learning the news from the neighborhood, SHARE promptly removed the man, who had been previously convicted of child rape. At last week’s meeting, SHARE said the Department of Corrections was supposed to notify them whenever a sex offender registered with an address that matched a shelter. But a neighbor said she spoke with DOC and discovered the process only works when sex offenders notify the DOC that their new residence is a homeless shelter, as they’re required to do. SHARE said it plans to meet with DOC and the Sheriff’s Department to discuss the breakdown in communications and to establish a better system.

In the meantime, SHARE says it’s not accepting any new residents at the Calvary Lutheran homeless shelter until a “new screening protocol” can be put into place. SHARE also said the screener who questioned the sex offender is no longer working with the organization.

According to the meeting minutes, 146 neighbors in Loyal Heights signed a petition that asked that SHARE begin screening for sex offenders or the shelter should be shut down or relocated. A survey of 78 neighbors found that 96% want a sex offender check. SHARE has refused to conduct sex offender checks as part of the new resident screening — relying instead on the DOC notifications — but they left open the possibility of revisiting the idea.

Neighbors said they want to hear back from SHARE and Our Redeemers by October 8th, but both said that date was too early to come to an agreement on a new entry screening protocol. We’ll keep you updated.

Earlier: “(We’re) more than deeply saddened,” said Our Redeemers

20 comments on “Neighbors: Make changes at homeless shelter”

  1. > See upcoming events in our Ballard calendar <

  2. “Corrections was supposed to notify them whenever a sex offender registered with an address that matched a shelter. But a neighbor said she spoke with DOC and discovered the process only works when sex offenders notify the DOC that their new residence is a homeless shelter, as they’re required to do.”

    A loop hole SHARE knows is big enough to drive a truck full of child rapists through.

    “new screening protocol”

    There's already one available, it's online and the food bank has offered to pay for it.

  3. I will state this once again, SHARE has been running sex offend checks and outstanding warrant checks since 2004 at their Tent City 4 location. THE CHECKS ARE RUN FOR FREE BY THE KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AS PART OF AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE SINCE 2004. SHARE simply checks in a potential new resident, verifies i.d. and places the call to the King County Sheriff's office who then immediately run the name.
    If SHARE is running them and has been at their Tent City 4, then there is absolutely no reason to delay any further running them here in Ballard.
    The powers that be should be ashamed of themselves for playing russian roulette with this neighborhood.

  4. Yeah, screen them first to see if they're sex offenders.

    Then, LET THEM STAY, as if they bought the place.

    That way we'd know who they were and everyone would be happy. Right?

  5. Who could have possibly imagined such a thing – that a fine, honest organization like SHARE that values input from residents of the neighborhoods they invade – could have somehow missed a bad guy? What a shock!

  6. SHARE is simply a parasite that has absorbed the values of its users. Losing no funding during this time of duress, SHARE's hostile tactics last week revealed the terroristic intent of the organization -to take from society whatever and whenever they can. And when they don't get a raise, they intimidate like a bully.

    They are unwilling to work for anything less than $10/hr. Not a crime, but considering they are HOMELESS, one should wonder what they are doing with their spare time that is worth more than $10/hr. I question the character of these sponges after learning SHARE kicks out anyone who does not partake in their “Direct Actions”.

  7. sounds like tent city 4 needs to check for sex offenders!

    it's a slimy, spineless organization that has no place in residential neighborhoods.

  8. our redeemer's has a huge responsibility in this and now's the time for their parishioners to come forward. they need to take a stand and get simple majority of their congregation to get a real picture of how the congregants feel about this. how about on christmas eve? or easter? when everyone is there. to late though for this situation.

  9. “That way we'd know who they were and everyone would be happy. Right?”

    No, that way Our REdeemers can see if they have enough insurance to run a Level 3 sex offender home in the middle of a residential neighborhood, near parks and schools. Something tells me the parishioners might be a little less open to that idea…

  10. I love when someone tells me how to run my church.

    Tell me kim, what church do you belong to?

    I have some ideas for you and your parishioners….what do you say?

    yeah, let's wait until a big holiday, too so all the chreasters come out of the woodwork. great idea.

  11. take the church thing out of it. insert any charitable organization. now make you statement again.

  12. I remember reading a lot about the opposition to this shelter and it wasn’t only about the sex offender issue. Seems like this motel/business doesn’t belong in a residential neighborhood.

  13. I'm unsure why you suggest that I should have to go to church to be interested in my child's safety. I'm also unsure why a church would choose philanthropy for the poor in lieu of safety for their children. If you are interested in helping the innocent, it seems entirely unproductive. I wonder how far these parishioners drive to to Holy Redeemer each week to cast their vote.

  14. Really? So we can't challenge churches? Mars Church? Jerry Falwell's old church?

  15. I cannot believe that people are shocked about this. The neighbors around Our Redeemer's abandoned Church went to the meetings and voiced their concerns, only to be told we should just give them a chance. They also said that the other homeless people were the ones that screen the other homeless. How can that person be fired from SHARE staff if that is the case? This should not be happening in a close neighborhood with Childcare businesses and schools close by. That area is already saturated with the Food Bank, the soup kitchen, and 3 other SHARE homeless projects within a few blocks. The new Ballard! Go get em and bring them over, in the name of the churches. Why don't they educate the homeless and get them jobs? What ever happened to “Give them a fish and they will eat for a night; teach them to fish and they will eat for a life time”? Yes, there are the special circumstances in certain homeless victims but for the majority of them, quit giving away so many handouts and bleeding heart charities and educate them to do it on their own!

  16. “Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll buy a funny hat. Talk to a hungry man about fish, and you're a consultant.”

    Sorry – couldn't resist!

    Seriously though – I agree. Homeless is a complex problem, different for each individual. But giving hand-outs is not a solution. Helping people overcome the problems that caused the problem (read: homelessness) is the solution and SHARE seems not very concerned about actually creating a solution.

    I saw a commercial once for Union Gospel Mission (I saw it once and never saw it again which is a bummer because it was a powerful message). It showed a man sitting on the street corner with a sign asking for money, and people kept walking up and putting little tiny band-aids on him. Then they showed the shelter and said something like “Stop treating the symptoms, look for help for the real problem. Union Gospel Mission doesn't just put a band-aid on the issue, we strive for real growth and change”. I know that's not the wording of what they said, but that is the gist of it.

  17. So now SHARE is foisting Nicklesville a 5 minute walk from my home here in wallingford. I wonder if the church they’re coming to bothered to ask it’s neighbors what they think about a bunch of unscreened individuals coming into where they live with their families. Or do they even give a damn. People should BOYCOTT that church. And are there any lawyers out there who know if the current host property of Nicklesville has any legal liability for the actions of it’s squatters, and for that matter, SHARE for inflicting this BS on unsuspecting neighborhoods. If there’s any liablity, the neighborhood should band together and sue the pants off of them. That will discourage future Nicklesvilles.
    And someone please tell me why we can’t house these guys in spartan, concrete, military-style barracks in the industrial areas of the city? The facilities could have 3 hots and a cot, and hot showers so (gasp) they could wash themselves so they don’t offend the rest of us with their stench. If it’s good enough for our troops, it’s good enough for them.
    It’s bad enough to have to deal with them making us miss the light at the offramp so they can scrape together more money for 40’s. And I know we’re all supposed to wear our hearts on our sleeves for the bums and tolerate all their disgusting abuses of civilized behavior. But this is a positive for Wallingford how?
    People have the right to be homeless. But they don’t have the right to make the rest of us suffer for it.

  18. Isn't in interesting that O.R. (and the local church synod) turned down an offer to rent or buy the Calvary property – from a local immigrant community church (that currently shares space at St. Lukes in downtown Ballard). So instead of having a neighbor that holds services on Sundays and meetings during the week – we instead get a completely different set of issues (and problems) to deal with. What was the problem with the church offer, Our Redeemer, that they were African, or Pentecostal? Or don't you want the competition?

  19. “Neighbors said they want to hear back from SHARE and Our Redeemers by October 8th, but both said that date was too early to come to an agreement on a new entry screening protocol.”

    WHY exactly is October 8th “too early to come to an agreement?” More than a month has passed since the Level 3 sex offender/child rapist issue. Why should this drag on any further?

    Our Redeemers tried ignoring the valid concerns of the neighbors when they first extended an invitation to SHARE to move into the vacant building without running sex offender checks. SHARE failed miserably and I don't for one second believe it was by accident. The only responsible thing for Our Redeemers to do is to tell SHARE that if they wish to continue using the vacant building they have to run sex offender checks. Period.

    There is nothing at all complicated about this. If Our Redeemers demanded they run those checks or move, SHARE could begin running them immediately, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN RUNNING THEM SINCE 2004 AT THEIR TENT CITY 4 LOCATIONS. Upon checking into the shelter, a prospective resident would provide a form of i.d. and the person in charge would use the cell phone they have on location and call the King County Sheriff's office with the name which would then immediately be checked in the sex offender data base FOR FREE.
    The only people making this complicated are the leaders at Our Redeemer who are trying to sweep this under the carpet and SHARE.

  20. Our Redeemers abandoned the church where the SHARE homeless are living now. Pastor Grumm moved his congregation to the 85th/24th location. THOSE are the people that voted that this abandoned church was a great place for these homeless. They don't have to deal with these issues so, of course, it was a great idea! Ask Pastor Grumm next time you make a visit to the new Our Redeemers and make sure you ask him what arrangement he has made, and who is monitoring the abandoned church/shelter now?? BTW, he was not able to answer any of the questions at our meetings. He kept stalling and hiding behind the loud church goers who defended the actions. As for they person asking about the Wallingford location and finding a lawyer, it seems that no one wants to touch this issue. Good luck though. Again, if the churches really want to do anything worthwhile, they should educate these people to work and become independant, like the rest of us.

Login or register (optional)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *