Forum Replies Created
02/10/2017 at 4:33 pm in reply to: Do you think Ballard is worst now than it was 20 years ago? #85090
Well – progress, like beauty, is always in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I wasn’t living there 20 years ago, though my husband was, and I frequently visited an Aunt who lived on the bluff above Shilshole. Everything changes. But, to me, it feels like Ballard lost its soul somewhere along the way. Yes, the issues of rising crime and increased homelessness are deeply troubling, though they are in some ways, inevitable as “town” becomes a “city” as Seattle certainly has in the last 10 years or so. I think it’s more about what gets….”attention” for want of a better word – Edog’s spot on about the “small plates microbrew” impact.
We moved out of Ballard about 6 months ago, and recently visited some old haunts there a few weeks ago. We both looked at each other and looked at what Ballard is now and knew, for us, that we’d made the right decision. I’m the first to admit that we are no longer in the “demographic” of Ballard so I guess it’s probably more of an an “age thing”. I just know I’d never go back to living there – no place is perfect but it’s nice to have people smile at you at the grocery store now and then, as goofy as that sounds ;o)
Apparently they must Gam ;o)
Happy to be out of Ballard frankly – have not seen my husband so relaxed in years! I reluctantly signed up for Next Door where I live now, thinking of this thread – turns out to be very…well, neighborly and sweet. Not perfect, but not what I half-expected after reading this thread –
keep safe and happy trails Ballard
Actually Great Idea – the impacts on 16th are pretty accurate (and no – I’m not part of Next door so wasn’t me posting ;o). The worst place I’ve encountered since the change is the intersection at 83rd & 16th – for some reason, after they put a stop sign at 17th & 83rd, no one thinks they need to pause/look at 16th/83rd anymore. It’s always been a problematic spot (as most similar intersections are) but definitely an uptick in near misses.
The thing I’ve noticed most is people trying to bypass the increased traffic backups on 15th – many more cars flying down 16th, especially in the morning hours – which, given the number of very young children that have recently moved to the area is a disaster waiting to happen.
The more I hear about ND, the more glad I am to have not gotten involved – I’m sure it has it’s usefulness but if I’m going to be snarky, I prefer to do it undercover ;o) – KIDDING!
I too thought this joint had bit the dust – nice to see some action once again
I believe that’s one of the City’s proposed sites for an additional tent city. Or at least it was a while back.10/07/2015 at 2:21 pm in reply to: Welcome to Ballard's newest neighborhood – Tweaker's Junction #82597
Takes a bot to know a bot ;o) Last time I checked, we all get to have our own opinions. The need to constantly belittle someone else’s opinion is rather juvenile. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Wow – that Post office thing is truly backwards – moving the mailbox to the Island would seem logical – but then “logic” and “SDOT” don’t seem to go together very much ;)10/07/2015 at 11:04 am in reply to: Welcome to Ballard's newest neighborhood – Tweaker's Junction #82584
The reddit thread where the KIRO article came from is actually a pretty interesting read – some very reasoned thinking.
Also, this story from the Ballard News Tribune was interesting as well – educated me on what the City can do in terms of the large trash dumping issue
Ballard News Tribune has story re: alternative encampment site proposal
My husband used to be a mental health professional here in Seattle. He tells me that once upon a time, there used to be about 400+ beds in various group homes (that he can remember working with) where people who are now living on the streets, under bridges etc used to be able to live. Each of those 400+ people had individual case managers who checked on them regularly, got them enrolled in various day programs, helped them get hospitalized as needed etc etc. The influx of managed care in the 1990s essentially wiped out all those social assistance programs, along with the evaluation/treatment hospitals that once existed. These group homes existed peacefully in residential neighborhoods for years. But they were torn down for fancy condos and those 400+ people were forced into homelessness as resources dwindled .
If this city/county cared one tiny bit, they would never have let this kind of thing happen. They could have, way back then, stepped in to fill the funding gap and give those that needed extra care the services they were denied by the healthcare system.
But this city doesn’t really give a damn. If tent encampments are not “a solution” the what the bleep are they, but a weak and feeble attempt to pretend to be doing “something”. Well that’s not enough. That’s not ok. And to blithely accept this type of pretend action is to continually allow the city/county/state to abdicate responsibility for the “less than” among us. Being against a tent encampment does not equal not doing “something else.
It means being against the fake “caring” such a program represents.
SB – here’s where I beg to differ with you (one of many ways, but who’s counting). Until and unless the city DOES DO something about derelict/trash creating homeless situations, all homeless people will be tarred with the same brush. And there will continue to be long-term distrust of things like tent encampments.
I personally maintain there are 2 broad categories – homeless by circumstance and homeless by choice (whether that is due to drugs/alcohol or whatever). I totally support helping the first type, many of who have fallen thru the cracks in social welfare programs like the VA and/or residential mental health programs, like group homes.
The problem is that in most people’s minds, all homeless are the 2nd type. And so, the distrust/dislike/negativity about tent encampments. I’m not condemning encampments per se. But I think this city does a remarkably poor job in this area and so I choose not to give them a free pass on the “easy out” of “oh but look at our encampment program” I expect more, better and NOW. They’ve had 20 years to come up with solutions. One more encampment program is just letting them off the hook from the larger issues at play here. I choose not to do that.
Wait. The tent encampments aren’t intended to help people stop being homeless???!! Because that’s what is needed – a process, other than a temporary stopgap, that gets people from the street into some kind of permanent, sustainable housing situation.
We’ve had 20+ years of stop-gaps and more and more homeless people. So something about this whole scenario isn’t working. Sure, people should have safe places to live. But there needs to be more to it than just a tent on a busy street.
Surely we can do better.
Thx for taking the time to post this VB – very helpful. Sounds like the city has made up its mind on this one. But hopefully the uproar over it might help them make better choices about how to handle the situation next time….ah we can dream eh? ;(
I can’t attend tonight due to a conflict but if someone here does go can you pass along what happens? I don’t expect the front page to do much in the way of reporting anymore – curious what the City’s response might be (though I can guess ;o)
Well, for about twice what that enterprise is asking you can get a whopping 810 sq feet, with a view – according to this place
Since the current median per square foot price for a single family house in Greater Ballard is currently at about $433 -that might be a bargain for some.
The HALA/Mayor’s affordable housing plan is now out. Here’s a link to map showing the areas that developers must either include a percentage of affordable housing in any new development (or pay a fee, I think – haven’t read the whole thing). Pretty much the entirety of Central Ballard and all the way up 15th.
PS – those of us who live in Loyal Heights/Sunset Hill/Crown Hill etc kinda already consider ourselves part of “greater Ballard” ;o)07/09/2015 at 11:19 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81479
Yes. I can read. My issues are that in 25 years no one has managed to develop a “long term strategy.” I might even been ok with this, if perhaps it hadn’t been mishandled in such a way as to antagonize those most directly impacted (site neighbors). That just seems like logic. But then, I’ve given up expecting logical behavior by ANYONE in this godforsaken city. 2016 can’t come soon enough for moi!07/09/2015 at 9:42 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81476
” it’s just a way to make people feel ok about rejecting a very direct way to help the homeless.”
Um. No. Its asking pertinent questions about whether this method real DOES help the homeless. Asking pertinent questions does not necessarily equate to having a negative view of the process.
But hey, call me crazy – I’d kinda like to be sure my tax dollars really ARE helping people get out of homeless situations. I remain unconvinced that after 25 years of this particular solution that fewer people are homeless. That should be the test right? If this was an actual “direct way to help” then it should, theoretically, become an obsolete solution as fewer and fewer people require its services? Isn’t that the end goal we’d all like to see? Less homeless people having to live in such a situation?
That does not appear to be case. I fully admit, I don’t know that for sure, but anecdotal evidence would lead one to believe that because there ARE still tent cities 25 years after the first one in King County, this “very direct way” isn’t helping. It isn’t a solution. Its a stopgap that makes people “feel good”. I’d much prefer the city start really truly DOING something to require the provision of adequate affordable housing. Other cities do this. Why can’t Seattle stop twirling its thumbs in the wind and really truly directly help the homeless?07/07/2015 at 10:46 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81425
there could obviously be better record-keeping on such data, but it makes common sense that this would be true.
Wow really GI? I think if the city is going to spend millions on something like this, then maybe, just maybe, there should be something better than “common sense” to go on.
I don’t object to helping people get out of homelessness in the slightest and in fact donate to several organizations that work with at-risk populations. However, I remain unconvinced that this particular approach works, because if it did, then, shouldn’t there be an decrease in need for encampments? Because there is a directly correlated decrease in homeless due to the program’s success? I honestly don’t know the answer to that, but “it makes common sense this would be true” ;o)07/06/2015 at 11:05 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81394
We saw that yesterday as well – it’s actually a small encampment in the traffic triangle there. Its been there quite while now, though it seems to have gotten bigger. My husband noted the camper over by the PO facility with a huge stack of pallets – he used to have client back in the day who sold them back to the pallet yard for $2 each to fund a drug habit. No idea of thats the intent, or if firewood was the impetus.
As to issues with Nickelsville – any community is going to have problems – heck, there’s a fair amount of citizens that would like to kick our leadership out with a no-confidence vote :) I don’t think thats a valid reason for preventing encampments. Nor do I object to encampments per se. I just think the city did a lousy job of managing this particular situation (as do the nearby businesses, based on today’s front page story).07/02/2015 at 4:42 pm in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81334
Recieved response from the Mayor’s office today – it part it says:
I understand the concerns raised by communities surrounding potential encampment sites, particularly regarding public input and notification.
The identification of City-owned sites for encampments was only the first step in the process. Based on the strict parameters set forth in the ordinance, City staff identified City-owned locations that fit within those parameters and identified seven locations that seem to best fit the complex requirements. However, none of the seven proposed locations are final.
The City Council will now review the locations identified, take public comment, and determine the final three City-owned sites to be available for tent encampments.
So I guess this is the opening salvo in what should be a interesting time07/02/2015 at 8:32 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81309
@GreatIdeas – my apologies. I had read the interbay one as a slightly different address, though PlantLover makes an excellent point – close enough. And yes, I was including the one on 15th – (which, full disclosure, happens to be very very close to my house, so perhaps I’m a little more concerned, despite it only being “proposed”.)
Again, though I don’t think this type of project really solves anything in terms of adequate housing supply, I just think it would be spiffy if perhaps the “for sure” list included some other parts of the city, for balance. We can agree to disagree on where that should be. I would love to see Seattle really DO something – like require affordable housing be including in any new development project, or at the very least, institute some kind of impact fee system that funds low income housing (not to mention, roads, schools, transit etc etc).07/02/2015 at 7:10 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81304
My husband and I have been talking about this alot in the last day. I guess for me, it boils down to – why 3 encampments in Ballard? I don’t object to the concept itself. I just don’t think Ballard should necessarily have to shoulder the burden disproportionately. I received info from someone at the City, in reply to an email, that any operating entity has to apply for a “permit” from DPD and that Per ordinance, the operator must meet with the community prior to applying for the permit. They are also required to form an on-going Community Advisory Committee, which will allow the community to raise operational issues and work with DPD, HSD, and the encampment operator to address concerns during the presence of an encampment in a neighborhood
I wish I felt like this concept would truly help people become “unhomeless”. I feel like the city could do so much differently. This is an interesting concept.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/06/30/2015 at 12:05 pm in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81267
Yes, so thrilled about the potential one on 15th – WHAT THE BLEEP ARE THEY THINKING!!!! there. now I feel better. Have already written the contact person – the thinking behind this is locating them in “commercial and/or industrial locations” – well the spot on 15th is directly next to 2 new Apodment complexes and less than a block in any direction from residential areas. The thin veneer of commercial on 15th does not really qualify it as “commercial” in my book. I have nothing against helping homeless people achieve transitional housing, but this is not the answer.