Comments on: Controversial Ballard homeless shelter to close

By: Jules

Jules — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:58:25 +0000

The very definition of a level III sex offender is “most likely to reoffend.” And there about 400 homelss level III sex offenders in Seattle- I see no reason to house a child rapist across the street from a daycare.

Actually there are some sex offenders still in prison who have “served their time” because they pose such a threat to the community.

By: candices

candices — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:47:15 +0000

wouldn't you rather know where the level 3 s.o. lives rather than him/her being homeless and therefore 'anywhere' in your neighborhood? also, this person served his/her time – if you think ppl who are sex offenders should be indef detained, write your congress-person.

By: ethel

ethel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:07:42 +0000

I live around the corner from the food bank, and I think they're doing a great job. I have no complaints about them at all. In the whole time I've lived in this area (over a decade), the only real problem I've ever had related to their presence was once when one food bank visitor parked in front of my driveway, which was hardly their fault. The vast majority of the people who go there are utterly unremarkable in appearance and behavior, and of the few who are acting oddly the vast majority seem quite harmless.

By: giz

giz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:43:49 +0000

There are too many SHARE residents who have lived there for years and have no plans of leaving. One man, Bruce Thomas, was quoted as saying he is a "street musician" and living in a tent fits his "lifestyle." He has been living in a tent for 9+ yrs. He is but one of many who is a "lifer" at SHARE.

And it does not cost money to provide transitional services. All it takes is the ability to connect the homeless with providers and services that they may need. There is no fee in that.

Congregations for the Homeless provides life coaching to the men they serve. These coaches are volunteers.

SHARE is a political group whose mission is not to break the cycle of homelessness, but to instead perpetuate it.

By: Teddie

Teddie — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:01:11 +0000

Lie # 1:

"SHARE and WHEEL are self-organized, democratic, grassroots organizations of homeless and formally homeless individuals."

TRUTH:

SHARE Clients Say They Were Forced to Participate in Protest

http://publicola.net/?p=16115

By: darnative

darnative — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:23:58 +0000

PS- We all know the history and policies of SHARE. I used to be behind SHARE 150%. After this fiasco at Calvary, I am thinking the model needs to be re-invented and I have to say I for one no longer support SHARE.

By: darnative

darnative — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:18:26 +0000

My point EXACTLY…They are not doing ANYTHING to eradicate homelessness. In fact, many people are looking at SHARE as a bit of a joke because they seem to perpetuate homelessness. No end in site…just camp forever in our shelters.
Giving referrals to agencies in the community that would help their residents move onward and upward doesn't cost SHARE a dime and in my opinion would gain them some respect in the community.

By: darnative

darnative — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:12:58 +0000

sex offender status is opposite of most crimes. while 3rd degree anything else in the penal code is usually a less severe offense, in the sex offender status, level 3 is the worst and most likely to re-offend.

By: kqx

kqx — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:32:55 +0000

Scozafazo, you are completely right. I work in public health, and have had several of my patients who are living in SHARE shelters (healthy, white males, btw) tell me exactly that. “It's my lifestyle choice.”

By: scozafazo

scozafazo — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:12:58 +0000

Why does SHARE do more to assist those staying in their shelters to break the cycle of homelessness by providing services? That's easy.

They don't *want* to break the cycle of homelessness. Ask them – they'll tell you straight out that living in their tent encampments is a lifestyle choice, and their right.

This is not a some hidden agenda that they're subtle about – they're quite open about it. They demand that the public financially support their lifestyle choice.

By: nwcitizen

nwcitizen — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:10:17 +0000

The extra services you mention cost money which SHARE does not have.

Many people on this blog talk about homeless people as less than human and needing to be repaired in some way. This is a very demeaning attitude IMO.

The SHARE model is very different from that of many other non-profit organizations. I encourage you to read about it so that you can understand the decision making process. It is important to note that paid staff do not have a vote in this process including Scott Morrow.
http://www.sharewheel.org/aboutus

"SHARE and WHEEL are self-organized, democratic, grassroots organizations of homeless and formally homeless individuals. SHARE was founded in 1990 and WHEEL was founded in 1993. For 15 years we have been working to eradicate homelessness, educate the community, and empower homeless people. "

"We practice self-management because it acknowledges and promotes the innate dignity of each person. All major decisions are made organizing meetings that all members are encouraged to attend, participate, and vote in."

By: nwcitizen

nwcitizen — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:53:27 +0000

Freddie – Did you take part in the negotiations?

By: darnative

darnative — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:26:04 +0000

While I agree some of what SHARE does is commendable, the thing that mystifies me is why SHARE doesn't do more to assist those staying in their shelters to break the cycle of homelessness by providing services such as permanent housing solutions,vocational assistance and substance abuse services or at least be actively collaborating with agencies that provide these services. I've heard some people have stayed in their shelters for years.
It seems SHARE would gain a ton more respect and support from the community if they were making more an effort to to encourage and support those staying in their shelters to become more self-sufficient.

By: giz

giz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:09:24 +0000

He was a convicted Level 3 child rapist that had multiple convictions, one for a second attempt at going after a young boy. He had just been released from jail for 3 days when he checked into the SHARE shelter in Ballard.

By: pants

pants — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:33:54 +0000

Apparently, James doesn't understand the sex offender level listing…

http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/sheriff/SOSear...

By: Freddie

Freddie — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:21:41 +0000

They already did explain what happened, can't you read. SHARE refused to do the checks and the church, wisely, probably realized it didn't have the liability or the stomach to risk busing in child rapists into a quiet, residential neighborhood.

By: nwcitizen

nwcitizen — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:47:11 +0000

Now that the negotiations are over, will those who actually participated in those negotiations step up and tell us what actually happened and why the church and SHARE could not come to an agreement?

We all need a reality check here.

By: kim

kim — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:00:53 +0000

it doesn't take a rocket scientist here folks. this was apparent from the beginning.

By: kim

kim — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:55:03 +0000

first of all, i'm not using liberal as a political term.

it's a free for all. no stringent guidelines or boundaries. this is my OPINION.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:26:29 +0000

Which is why I have no guilt about my position in life.

By: DCM

DCM — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:12:00 +0000

seems to be when their were 100 plus comments on this in the begining..they all expressed the same concern. I was the Pastor of the church who overrode the concern and sided with SHARE…that is my huge concern..now it closes, so between SHARE and the Pastor they basically set it up to fail, when it could have been organized to be more successful and had the potential of communtity support…doing things half assed never works..and this is why…exposing families to risks that could have been mitigated is unexcusable!

By: Ballardmom

Ballardmom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:27:17 +0000

P.S. – I do totally agree with the “rich white man's guilt” thing. SHARE totally plays on that. It really pisses me off!

By: Ballardmom

Ballardmom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:24:21 +0000

I take offense at your bashing of the Ballard Food Bank. Have you been there? Have you met and talked to many of the people who are clients there? They are not “street drunks” in most cases. No one is allowed to come into the food bank if they are intoxicated in any way and will be banned if it continues to happen. Their food program at Calvary was a fiasco and they will readily admit it. The rest of their program is NOT a fiasco. In the two years I volunteered there I saw plenty of struggling families with children. Now days there are families with young children whose primary bread winner was laid off and they can't afford their mortgage, student loans, etc. and food all at the same time with no job. Some of these people could be your neighbors and you don't realize it because they are too embarrassed to tell you. Many of the clients are also elderly and very sick and homebound and can not buy food because Medicare and social security do not cover all of their medical bills and they give up food to pay for things like their heart medicine and the like.

Don't lump SHARE's self-righteous, messed-up agenda in with everyone who reaches out a hand to help when someone is hurt or struggling. SHARE is a bunch of whiny jokers but there are a lot of people who actually want to help – want to be a “hand-up” and not a “hand-out” and the Ballard Food Bank is one of them.

I hope that if you are ever in trouble – have cancer and can't work or afford to pay all your medical bills because of it, or get severely injured and can't work again, or develop health problems such as Alzheimers when you're elderly – that there will be less people with your attitude around you and more people who are willing to help you.

By: Ballardmom

Ballardmom — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:12:21 +0000

You know, the facts do point to that and I've been hesitant to say that they were doing all of this to willingly let men with warrants and previous sex offenses stay there – but when they decided to stick these men back out on the street instead of implementing background checks the same way they do at other shelters, what else could be their reason?

My mom used to regularly donate to them, as did many of her rich friends. After this fiasco they are all horrified and will not be donating to SHARE ever again. In the end, it is the people who are homeless and struggling who will suffer. How an organization that claims to help the homeless can screw them over like this and have absolutely no remorse is really really sad.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:17:30 +0000

Level 3 is the most dangerous, not the least, which is what SHARE was hiding at the shelter. How many more they had in there? No one knows. Plus the one they caught was NOT registered, he was caught by the system because he was an idiot and got his mail forwarded to that address. He was not in compliance.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:13:20 +0000

“Not living in that neighborhood”

Ohhhhhh, I see! The shelter has ZERO impact on you, your home, your kids, your family, your neighborhood.

By: Theravadist

Theravadist — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:08:41 +0000

Facts…such ugly things.

By: sdrake1958

sdrake1958 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:53:26 +0000

WHy can't the fedw concerned simply take these fine folks into their own homes? Much like the silly “affordable housing” BS that again got shoved down MY throat, I wish these lefties would lead by example, and show the way. But no, we'll all be confiscated more of our $$. And then there's the food bank. I call this “enabling”. Imagine keeping more or what YOU make each and every Friday? Doing what YOU want with YOUR $$ to keep these schlubs on the street and in our faces, day after day after day. I feel bad for the genuine “needy”, I really do. Is it a hand-up or a hand-out? Safety net or hammock? There is nothing “progressive” about any of this crap. Guilty white Ballard on further display. I hope what some call dissent is still patriotic!

By: motorrad

motorrad — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:45:37 +0000

There seem to be some facts agreed upon by both sides.

1: That at some share run tent cities, they DO warrant checks and sex offender checks. The KC sheriffs dept. does this for free.
2: At the ballard share run shelter they do NOT run these checks. Reasons are really irrelevant but have been cost prohibitive and un-american.

So that means Share has set up a system where offenders know they will be housed with no checks at the ballard site and to avoid the other camps where checks are known to take place. Facts point to Share willingly and purposefully setting up this discrepancy to house offenders and those with outstanding warrants. Plain truth given the facts.

By: Jules

Jules — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:10:00 +0000

Level three is the highest on the list, not the lowest. Level III means that they are likely 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. "

My sister prosecuted these creeps for three years. Her take? That they don't want to stop BECAUSE THEY LIKE WHAT THEY ARE DOING. Most will only stop when they are dead.

This, across the street fro a daycare and a block from a park.

Good riddance.