Forum Replies Created
Yes, it’s been built in stages. The old “pre-hump” street is still visible under the hump (where people now park – and camp). Good memory, Mondo!
I think I read somewhere where there is talk of upgrading the bridge. Just talk at this stage, I think. Anyone know more?06/30/2015 at 9:55 am in reply to: Mayor Murray puts 2 out of 3 new homeless encampments in Ballard/Interbay #81264
Joining the chorus: WTF?
When I talk about taking a measured approach to improving the camps rather than carte blanche eliminating them, this is NOT what I envision!!!
On the other hand, I do believe in supporting local business, so “Go Sloop!, Go Mini-Mart!”
I had someone from CenturyLink show up at my door last night wanting to talk about their new high speed cabling. I only talked with them as long as I did because I thought it was going to be about their trucks blocking the street some more. Presumably they will be mailing out some printed advertising in my phone bill that lays it all out, because I’d be interested to hear about it.
I’ve donated to shelters before. DAWN (Domestic Abuse Women’s Network) is a good place to start. As has been discussed elsewhere here, not all shelters are created equal.
Ah, CR, my point exactly.05/23/2015 at 8:59 am in reply to: Golden Gardens relocates fire pits to north end of beach #80848
I attended a wedding in the bathhouse once. I wonder if they’re trying to make that more of a rental facility and want to seperate the throngs from that? That’s a stretch, and I agree this is an odd approach.
I’ll run down there and leave them a note to not have the fires at that end.
I don’t leave notes to tell people off, or to scold. I’ve left requests.
Phrases like “panties in a twist” overstate things, and are more inflamatory than any of my notes. I’ll allow that other note writers may be more reactionary.
Are we fortunate enough to not have bigger problems to deal with? Perhaps. Though that’s irrelevant, I think. Nice, but irrelevant.
If someone can’t share with others, I just don’t see the problem with asking them to do so. Generally the ones who object are the ones that aren’t so strong in the sharing department in the first place. They may go on about nanny states and the like as a deflective defensive response. That’s fine, since they also usually park better going forward.
There’s only room for four cars between the driveways so it’s pretty hard to be forced into straddling two spots in front of my house. But it’s the repeat offenders I would ask to knock it off. Not the one-offs.
Naturally there will be some overlap between people who aren’t considerate in their parking with people who don’t give a rat’s arse what other people have to say to them.
But, setting aside extreme examples like Vi (who had ample opportunity to communicate more directly, which is always preferable), I fail to see people’s resistance to communcation in whatever way possible. I like to hope it’s not just control issues (eg “I’m going to park however I like, screw everyone else and I can’t hear you”). I do find that often the people protesting loudest about others being controlling are they, themselves attempting to control the situation. That irony is usually lost on them, alas.
Me? I speak my mind so that me and my neighbors all have a chance to park. And I always sign my notes, so that if I’M the one missing the point, I can be set straight. That’s is, when I’ve had to leave a note. It’s been years. We’ve got a considerate block, bless it.
I’ve left (signed) notes on cars straddling both spaces in front of my house asking them to leave one for somone else. I’ve never said they can’t park there (since they of course can). And when I’ve caught folks in the act, I’ve spoken to them directly. They are usually self absorbed, but once it’s pointed out are willing to share.
With absolutely no data to back this up (’cause that’s how we roll on the internet, amirite?), I can’t help but wonder if these increased calls, by virtue of them being placed by trained staff, are often being placed before circumstances are truly out of control.
That is, I wonder if these greater number of calls cost less in the long run because they are for less serious, albeit more frequent, occurances? That is the theory behind this sort of housing after all.
I agree, it’s surprising this approach hasn’t been embraced more in our area. Is this the fabled entrenched interests at work, blocking other approaches? That very “conspiracy theorist” to suggest, of course.
I agree that we will pay one way or another. If putting them in housing first saves money, what’s not to like?
I’m am always open to a better solution. Until it comes along, this approach seems pretty smart.
I wonder if one of the places that rents them out would be willing to buy yours to add to their stock?
I tend to agree that more office space, to support all of the residential that’s been added, seems like a good thing. The more people that can walk to work, the better. And I’m sure there’s increased demand for professional services such as accountants, headhunters, advisors, attorneys, etc. And that’s just off the top of my head.
It’s hard for me to shed a tear for what we’re losing, even taking into account Gracie’s point. We have no shortage of coffee shops and such to gather in.
I think we mostly agree. The problems are there. Some are overstated, but they are there.
I’m just saying that rather than walk away, we should work to fix the problems. Because abandoning these people puts it on us.
I tried to be clear I think many folks on both sides are leaving context out when it suits them, not just you. There was a follow up post that clarified some of the crime problems you had noted. One that springs to mind is the woman’s murder happened in an unregulated camp, so is not relevant to what we’re discussing could come to Ballard.
My point is that we should not be blocking tent cities. Then we’re just counter productive NIMBYs. We should be working to ensure that camps that are in our neighborhood (and beyoond, frankly) are run well and that neighbors have effective recourses.
That’s a tall order. And I agree those standards are often not met. But that’s all the more reason to work towards acheiving them.
And at the same time we should absolutely be working to make sure the camps aren’t necesarry. Because while we need them now, they are not a solution.
I don’t recall hearing anyone calling a tent city the solution to the homeless problem. Perhaps I missed that, though. Tent cities are certainly an intermediary step that keeps people safe. This whole either/or approach of we can’t solve the short term problems while working on the long term problems eludes me. I’ve always supported solving the whole problem, not just parts of it.
Tent cities are by no means perfect. Improving them seems such a better (and more humane) approach than adandoing or shunning them.
Thanks to those who clarified that some of the examples of tent city problems have been reported out of context. It seems like both sides of this issue are gifted at leaving out context, which does no one any favors.
It’s not really an either/or thing, though, is it? Yes, we need more permanent infrastructure to help the homeless (affordable housing, support programs, the works). Nowhere in that should it be implied that emergency help is not also needed. Arguing against tent camps in favor of longer term solutions abandons the people in crisis now.
We can – should – do both.
If there are problems with the camps, the solution is not to disband/prevent/block the camps. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. The solution is to fix the problems.
It’s easy to just say no. But it doesn’t seem very compassionate.
Don’t get me wrong: I would love to see no more camps. But because they’re not needed, not because they’re not wanted.
Of course, the fact that people may overreact to one’s dog is just another arqument for keeping the dang thing leashed.
If a dog may be charging me, I react accordingly. If the owners want me to take into account that it may not be charging me, they can tie it up so I have the time and distance needed to make a nuanced assessment.
I don’t want to see a dog sprayed any more than the next person, but I have a hard time feeling sympathetic to owners that put people in a place where they have to make that call.
The dogs? Yeah, I feel sorry for them if they get sprayed because of their owner’s bad behavior. I think I’m already on record for that, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat it.
Uh-oh. Are we busted again?
I see there’s now a “captcha” when I log in. Is that working for everyone?
Yes, I was walking down the sidewalk at the far end of my block.
Here’s the thing. It was dark. I was walking at my usual brisk clip. I probably startled a dog that is normally more laid bag. By the time I realized it wasn’t leashed, it was too late. Which is why
(wait for it)
the d*mn thing should have been leashed.
Well, that and the law. And common courtesy, too.
“I don’t see any hate. I see compassion mixed with a desire for personal safety.”
…and safety for the dogs!
Calling someone out on bad behavior is not hate.
CR, you will be receiving a request for a formal apology from the sub-humans anti-defamation league.
And, yes, Teigyr, that sucks. Well played, though!
Sadly, I think it is that people simply don’t care about the other people around them anymore. Most aren’t aware of it, of course. These people’s ability to threaten you with arrest for assault is so divorced from the fact that their breaking the law is the catalyst of the situation speaks volumes.
It sounds to me like Teigyr has found a great solution. I agree with CR: it’s not the dog’s fault. But once it starts to attack me, that quickly matters very little.
And, yes, ideally we would be spraying the owners. That should clear everything up!