SHARE: Sex offender removed from shelter

A sex offender who has been living at the Calvary Lutheran homeless shelter in Loyal Heights has been removed, SHARE confirmed to My Ballard today.

This weekend a My Ballard reader posted a notice in the forum claiming that a Level III sex offender was living at the church for a few weeks. We spoke with Alan at SHARE this morning, and he confirmed a sex offender moved into the shelter on August 21st. Alan said they discovered the man’s background on Saturday, and SHARE members removed him on Saturday night.

Neighborhood members of the task force set up to monitor the shelter reacted in an email this morning. “We have communicated to [Our Redeemer’s Pastor] Steve Grumm our extreme disappointment, concern, and frankly, anger that this situation was allowed to occur,” they wrote. “We have demanded that rigorous screening for sex offenses be immediately implemented for each prospective shelter resident before he is allowed to use the shelter.”

Despite the neighborhood’s repeated requests, SHARE refused to conduct sex offender checks, even calling them “un-American.” Alan says that the discovery of this sex offender does not change their stance. “We’ve never had a problem,” he said. “It doesn’t change anything.” We spoke with one neighbor who lives near the church. “This is what we were concerned about,” he tells us. “They are no longer welcome in my neighborhood.”

The neighborhood task force said it will be meeting with Pastor Grumm soon to discuss how the screening will be implemented. We have contacted Pastor Grumm for a comment, and will post it as soon as we hear back.
(Thanks Shanedillon for your forum post!)

Geeky Swedes

The founders of My Ballard

85 thoughts to “SHARE: Sex offender removed from shelter”

  1. I don't blame Our Redeemers in any way other than they were perhaps too trusting of SHARE. I just hope this does not happen again.

  2. Where are sex offenders supposed to go then? Seriously. After serving their sentence, where are they supposed to go? Living on the streets is not going to rid our world of sex offenders. If they don't have a place to get back on their feet or receive rehabilitation, you and your loved ones are still never going to be safe.

  3. I don't know where they should go.

    But let's be accurate and name things what they are, like if the shelter is a shelter that will house sex offenders, then say it is. Don't say 'We Don't house sex offenders' when they do.

    I have absolutely nothing wrong with homeless shelters, prisons, or sex offender housing as long as the majority people around it are fine with it. It is not right when the majority rule against something (and in some cases like this shelter) vote against it to go ahead with something.

    It is 'Our Backyard' so it is fine to say 'Not In My Backyard' if you wish.

    One voice, one vote right?

    I hate arguing with a church that is just trying to help people but at the same time have been taught to stand up for my beliefs.

    Just having a roof over your head is not what I would call rehabilitation.


    Why is it “unamerican” for SHARE to run sex offender checks at the Calvary Lutheran site when they have been running them since 2004 at their Tent City 4 on the Eastside? Please, ask yourselves that question? Unless they knew they had something to hide, there is no other explanation.

    This previously written “My Ballard” story mentions and links evidence that SHARE runs outstanding warrant/sex offender checks at their Tent City 4 locations on the Eastside.

    SHARE can run the checks here, they simply refused.

    ” Alan says that the discovery of this sex offender does not change their stance. “We’ve never had a problem,” he said. “It doesn’t change anything.”

    IT CHANGES EVERYTHING! This is a problem. This LEVEL 3 SEX OFFENDER/CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST would have never been removed from Calvary Lutheran were it not for Shane posting this information to the “My Ballard” forum and making it public which then forced SHARE to act.

    Our Redeemers needs to shut this down

  5. As predicted, SHARE lies and puts the community at risk. Level 3 CHILD RAPIST huh? Nice.
    “Oops we didn't know” is not acceptable.

  6. There is no rehabilitation with the SHARE program. It is a self governed oragnization of homeless people. The front man has been “homeless” for 20+ years. There are people to do need a safe warm place to sleep but this group is not really about helping them get back on their feet and they certainly DO NOT care about the neighborhood. I have two girls pre teen and teen. We are only 3 houses away from the shelter. (Interesting that it is no longer even being refered to as a church) One of the stipulations for allowing it to be in the building was active church memebers onsite I have not seen them at all. The fact that a level III sex offender was there means that they do not take precautions prior to letting these men have access. This is just one of them that they found out was an offender. They need to go. It is my “backyard” and my children should not be potentially in danger from SHARE's lack of responsibility to the nieghborhoods that host them. If Steve Grumm and his church still want to help this organization move the shelter to the active church he runs on 85th and 24th.

  7. Not in a residential neighborhood with parks and day care centers. Plenty of areas, like SODO where these fine folks can be housed. They might even find jobs.

  8. Soo….let me get this straight: A sex offender can rent/buy a house in Ballard, but not be in a homeless shelter?

    That doens't sound right to me.

  9. As a member of the neighborhood that was opposed to this shelter, I take no pride in the fact that our concerns have materialized already. The only reason we learned about this sex offender is because he apparently had his mail forwarded to that location. SHARE's “look you in the eye” screening method obviously didn't work. Of course, that screening method will never work. People worked along side the Green River killer for decades and didn't know what he was doing in his spare time. How many other people in that shelter are sex offenders, who simply have not been discovered because they didn't make the error that this one gentleman did?

    SHARE's approach to protecting the neighborhood is grossly negligent. And Our Redeemers is complicit in that approach. They will both be held legally responsible if something happens to a child in our neighborhood.

  10. 1. Sex offenders of any stripe are not allowed to live near parks or day care centers both of which are near the shelter.

    2. Whether or not they can is not the issue. SHARE promised the community this would not happen and it did.

  11. SHARE is lying.

    They have had problems with sex offenders. The documented cases are endless and are part of the public record that has resulted in Tent City 4 being required to run these checks at every location they go to (however there is no evidence SHARE is running these checks on anything but a token basis).

    An example is the very first location where SHARE put Tent City 4 in Bothell. A sex offender with repeat offender status had been living in Tent City 3 for some time. He was stalking a resident of the camp. That resident moved to Tent City 4 for safety reasons. She was followed there by this sex offender who continued to stalk her. Eventually he caught her alone and raped her.

    When St Brendon's church was contacted to inform them of the rape, and was asked for help for the victim, their response was to send their lawyer down to make sure they were not liable.

    There is nothing “unamerican” about running a sex offender check before allowing someone to be unsupervised in a shelter located in a residential community. In fact it is unamerican to hide this information from people as SHARE does. SHARE instructs Sex Offenders to give their address as homeless and never as their camps or shelters in order to undermine the system that would require notification.

    It is because of this system that the community found out about this repeat offender who preys on children. SHARE knew about it but refused to do anything until it became public knowledge and the media reported on it.

    If the community wants a shelter for unsupervised sex offenders in their community then there is no problem. But you can not treat all homeless the same just like you can't treat all of the population the same. We have laws regarding where sex offenders can and can't live for a reason, and SHARE being an atheist and socialist group doesn't care about those laws and in fact is active in constantly breaking them.

    They do not have a track record of honesty and trustworthiness so no one should EVER take them at their word on anything.

  12. I don't think they can rent or buy if it is near any existing schools or daycares. The shelter issue is a loophole in the law that allows offenders to be close to such places.

    That law needs to change. Churches and Shelters are not sanctuary and offenders aren't The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

  13. you had me until the atheist part, really how does that relate to anything.

    Had they screened for sex offenders and made them notify the neighborhood I would have less of an issue, but by encouraging non-compliance with the reporting rules they have crossed a line. Yes sex-offenders need to go someplace too, but we as a community have a right to know who they are so that we can take appropriate action to avoid becoming their next victom.

  14. 'We've never had a problem.' Well, sir, you've got one now. If you ignore the concerns of the neighbors and something like this happens, said neighbors will cause problems. And rightly so.
    If SHARE is going to behave this way they need to put the shelter further away from schools, daycare, and parks.

  15. sex offenders can't live near parks?

    I've never heard that one before.

    As others have pointed out, they can rent or buy right next door to you and you'd have nothing to say about it.

    Register them, make them list their current address, and keep an eye on them. it's that simple.
    Does getting rid of this one offender really make it safe to allow your pre-teen daughters to run around outside naked?

  16. Washington State court records list 12 separate cases for this Level 3 Sex Offender, Jonathan F. Schoppet.

    In addition, King County Jail look-up records show that Jonathan Schoppet was in jail from 4/20/09 and released on 8/17/09.


  17. I do blame Our Redeemers. It can operate this shelter at that location because it is a religious organization. Our Redeemers feels a moral and social responsibility to helping the homeless. A noble cause. However, Our Redeemers also has a social (and legal) responsibility to protect the people who are affected by the manner in which it chooses to advance its cause. As the owner of the building, and co-venturer in the shelter, Our Redeemers can place any conditions it would like on the use of the facility. However, Our Redeemers has chosen to turn a blind eye to the modest steps that would give the neighborhood additional security.

    The blind eye has become a black eye for Our Redeemers and SHARE. Sadly, I doubt anything will change as a result.

  18. I just call Our Redeemers, the secretary said that “it is not know as fact yet” and she can't help me because she just works there. Ha! She gave me Pastors Grumms voice mail.
    SHARE has made a statement that they removed a sex offender from the shelter this is confirmed right? If so, how can it not be a fact yet for Our Redeemers? They are acting just as I suspected they would, no accountability just denial at this point. If they can't back up their promise to the community around the shelter then they need to get out. I don't care if they own the building they have now brought a sex offender to my home and claim ignorance! How pathetic! Our Redeemers needs to get the shelter out now. They have no excuses anymore. I wonder what kind of incentive they have for hosting them, what tax benefit do they get because they must be getting something for all of the hassle they have gone through to shove this thing down our throats. Time to come clean, admit that is a bad idea to house them in the middle of a neighborhood and tell us just what Our Redeemers gets out of the deal.
    Call and leave him a VM. send an email. Hopefully that will make it no longer worth it to continue to put our neighborhood in danger from irresponsible church organizations and SHARE. FYI the Ballard 1st Luthran church sponsors a soup kitchen and has services for the homeless, they are just down the street. It is not as if I just want the homeless to go away I support this churches efforts. They stand behind what they do and have direct invovlment. Unlike Our Redeemers.

  19. So many red herrings being tossed into all of this.

    If SHARE had nothing to hide, it would conduct background checks prior to providing housing in order to avoid situations such as the one that has arisen.

    If Our Redeemers cared about the ENTIRE community (not just the homeless and parishoners) to which they belong they would move to assure steps were taken to avoid Level III sex offenders being sheltered without notice in our midst.

    It doesn't matter if he was housed for a single night or for a week. We all know it only takes opportunity and a quick moment for something horrible to happen. It's part of the news almost every night.

    It all boils down to SHARE and Our Redeemers asking for compassion, acceptance and support from the community while demonstrating ZERO respect to that same community in not addressing a very real critical issue.

    You have to wonder what the opinions would be within the Our Redeemers congregation if a Level III sex offender was volunteering at their church. It wouldn't happen, because churches run background checks on all volunteers that have the possibility of any contact with children. Why? Liability sure, but mostly because they value the safety and care of those who come to their church. Why not have the same simple concern for the rest of us?

    It's perplexing why the value of services to the homeless via a group like SHARE outweighs the very possible risk to the community which Our Redeemers wouldn't even consider placing upon their own congregation.

  20. Just breaking on the Ballard Tribune site:

    Now I'm guessing that is was Shane who had uncovered this and posted it to the forum here on “My Ballard” and then contacted Our Redeemers that led to SHARE “discovering” that they were housing a Level 3 Sex Offender/Convicted Child Rapist/Predator of mentally challenged boys. Once Shane posted it on the “My Ballard” site the information was public and then SHARE was forced to act. It had nothing at all to do with them “discovering” the sex offender.
    SHARE got caught. They were outed by an alert and concerned citizen and forced to act by removing the rapist.
    This is not the first time SHARE has been caught lying.
    Our Redeemers has an obligation to the community to close this shelter down immediately.

  21. It sounds like this organization lacks professional management. Do the residents receive any kind of counseling or help? Who conducts intake on new residents? Is there a board of directors? Who is responsible for governance? If there is a board, shouldn't there be an at-large member who lives in the immediate community, who can help develop policy and procedures? Without some form of structured discourse and action plan to solve the issue, this situation will only escalate and well-intentioned efforts will be derailed.

    Common sense would seem to indicate that a homeless sex offender is a person with many, many complex problems and should be monitored in some fashion by mental health or law enforcement agencies. I have a great deal of empathy for the neighbors, who are being asked to trust a system that is at best, lacking in sophistication and resources to adequately manage their own operations.

  22. SHARE is run by Scott Morrow, the man currently illegally camping with his latest project “Nickelsville” on Port of Seattle owned park land known as Terminal 107.

    The homeless of SHARE do not receive supportive/transitional services and the homeless run the camps/shelters by themselves.

    The governance is an “executive” committee made up of the homeless themselves. They are self governing with no checks and balances.

    Truly a case of the blind leading the blind.

  23. I've been wondering what Our Redeemer's motivation is to house SHARE, and am speculating there's an economic reason, perhaps.

    This may be incorrect, but perhaps OR is renting to SHARE, and getting a tax free income? A non-profit renting to a non-profit might have special income/tax advantage above & beyond the usual 501 C 3 rules. Not sure, but have to wonder.

    The building was for sale months ago, so I speculate and wonder if this is the way to get income from the building that sat empty for months..?

  24. I think assuring the neighborhood they will not house Level III child predator sex offenders and then finding out one has been living there for 3 weeks without anyone knowing might actually BE a problem. I guess “never having a problem” for SHARE means “never admitting to there being a problem.” Especially when A PROBLEM just happened and they still claim they've never had a problem. Or maybe they mean that “nobody has been raped or sexually assaulted at one of our shelters” by saying they've never had a problem. God knows I hope they aren't waiting for a child to be abused by an offender staying at one of their shelters next to a park and daycare before they admit to their problems.

  25. Our Redeemers agreed that at the FIRST problem they would ask SHARE to leave. Let's see if they stick by their word. If they don't, I think it needs to be made VERY public how irresponsible they are. That won't bode well for Steve since his livelihood rests on getting people into his church.

  26. this is so typical. Scott Morrow is really not helping the homeless, rather using them to support his life style. Tent City asks visitors to sign in and providing id when volunteering, yet they do not want to provide identities of any residents

  27. Churches can rent to other non-profits for tax-free income. Although having done accounting for plenty of churches, all of their income is tax free. SHARE could be paying them, but if you look at SHARE's 990 (non-profit reporting to the IRS) for the last few years you will see that they have no money practically and they certainly do not pay rent to the churches that hold their shelters.

    So, it is not money. I think Steve has a serious case of rich-white-man guilt and he could care less about the normal, responsible people he hurts while trying to build an image of savior around himself to create the delusion of himself in some freaky Lutheran sainthood.

    Regardless, this shelter fiasco needs to end. SHARE dropped the ball and OR swore the first time SHARE dropped the ball they'd kick the shelter out of Calvary.

  28. Committees? Governance? Board of Directors?

    SHARE/WHEEL is all about 'sticking it to the man' thereby living by their own rules, not the rules that 'oppress' vagrants.

    Are you asking that they become the man?

  29. Scott Morrow, the man behind SHARE is currently making threats of illegal activity unless the City of Seattle gives SHARE $50,000. This is not the first time that Scott Morrow has attempted to extort money and/or land.

    The latest threats can be found here:

    At the same time he is making threats and demanding money out of the City of Seattle he is also illegally occupying Port of Seattle park land known as Terminal 107 with his Nickelsville Tent City and has refused to leave for months now. The Port of Seattle has posted yet another eviction notice and plans on taking action by September 30th. You can read about that on the Port of Seattle site here:

  30. Thanks for filling me in on the nuts and bolts of SHARE. Now it is clear that the city could have stepped in ages ago and provided some kind of guidance to the organization before it turned into a truly rogue element in the community. Shame on Morrow for perpetuating this illusion of tribal unity amongst his followers…these folks need help as individuals, and encouraging them to live anonymously in gypsy encampments is not going to get them permanently housed or employed. Coupled with the absence of any true governance or service capabilities, SHARE is a concept going nowhere, fast.

    Feed the homeless, provide access to services, protect the children and don't criminalize poverty in the process – it's not rocket science in theory, but our city sure doesn't get it. No leadership on the issue whatsoever. Nature loves a vacuum, and that's where the crackpots of the world exploit a situation and gain a foothold.

    Be angry at SHARE or Our Redeemers, but save some of your anger for our lame city government. They're too busy reconfiguring intersections and planning the next round of stenciling bike symbols on arterials to recognize the real priorities of city living.

  31. To be fair, I think the motivation was partly in line with the mission of a congregation–to provide services to those less fortunate than others. However, a distinct part of the decision was to provide “night watchman” duties for a vacant church building in order to prevent vandalism, break-ins, etc.

  32. pretty crazy.

    i wasn't really opposed to this shelter, but certainly thought it strange that they would outright refuse to check for sex offenders….and this is what they get.

    i wonder if SHARE would have found this out on their own. i don't see how they would have. i have to wonder if they didn't know all along, yet only did something because the public was aware.

    they are not making many friends here.

    i think a simple sceen for sex offenders is not a lot to ask.

    the church IS also fully responsible for this. they are the ones working with this group – the church knew fully that SHARE wasn't screening…

    booooo on both the church and share.

  33. The more I think about it, the more I see how SHARE got to where it is. It seems their guiding principle is not to judge. It's ok to be homeless for decades, we don't judge. It's ok to be a sex offender, we don't judge.
    It all works out to be a perfect fit for Seattle government…we don't judge, just do your thing no matter how harmful and we won't get in the way because we're more afraid of getting stern lectures from the most lenient citizens than actually being called to account for not doing our jobs.

  34. Woah, there's a lot of allegations being thrown out here but I see very little facts. Lets take a look at what we know:

    The offender in question is named JONATHAN FREDRICK SCHOPPET & his criminal details are here:…

    His age is listed as 25 and it says he was convicted in 2005 so he would have been around 21 at the time.

    The offense he was listed for is “9A.44.079 – Rape of a child in the third degree.,” which is described at… as:

    “(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is *at least fourteen years old* but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

    (2) Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony.”

    So, from the facts on the ground, this Johnathan Schoppert is a 21 year old guy who had sex with someone who was between 14 and 16 years old. There's nothing in there about it being forcible sex, nothing about other offenses.

    A 21 year old guy having sex with a 14 or 15 year old might be a little skeevy to some of you but I don't think it at all warrants the degree of reactions that have been seen in this thread.

    If anyone else has more INFORMATION, I would welcome you to share it but I think the reaction to this should be based on an accurate assessment of the situation rather than hysterical fear mongering.

  35. Instead of “I told you so” I think we all need to thank Shane for being alert and reporting on this forum that a Level 3 sex offender was staying at Calvary Lutheran. Shane did the job that Our Redeemers failed to do by keeping a watchful eye out and being alert to potential issues regarding this SHARE shelter.

    Thank you, Shane. Thank you for reporting your findings on this forum and for notifying Our Redeemers. It is only because of you that this Level 3 Sex offender/child rapist is no longer at Calvary Lutheran. Your discovery forced SHARE to act and remove this criminal.

  36. I guess you missed the other charges he has:

    According to King County court records, he was convicted 2/1/05 for rape of a child and was then required to register as a Level 3 Sex offender. Upon release from jail, he was sentenced to COMMUNITY CUSTODY, but “escaped” and a WARRANT was issued for his arrest on 11/22/06. Also during this 2006 time, this CONVICTED RAPIST/LEVEL 3 SEX OFFENDER then targeted and went after a 14 YEAR OLD BOY, who according to the Probable Cause documents had “diminished capacity to understand cause and effect”. This CRIMINAL was 22 posing as a 17 year old at the time he “GROOMED” this BOY with sexual intentions. The documents state that 'HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE MINOR SHOWING CLASSIC SIGNS OF GROOMING, WHICH IS A COMMON PRACTICE OF SEX OFFENDERS.” It goes on to say that this CRIMINAL “took advantage of the victim having vulnerabilities.”


  37. Your information is not complete.

    Washington court records have 12 cases involving Jonathan Schoppet. After the rape conviction in 2005, there were additional crimes. In addition King County jail records show that Schoppet was recently in jail from April 20, 2009 through August 17, 2009. Four days later (according to this story) he was living in the Calvary Lutheran shelter. At this time, it is not known what the reason is for the most recent jail stay but it looks like it could be another parole violation. A call to King County Dpt of Corrections has not been returned, so once I know the facts, I will report them here. Until then you can read what was posted earlier to this forum:

    Let me tell you a little bit about this scum bag, JONATHAN FREDRICK SCHOPPET, who is being housed at this location.
    According to King County court records, he was convicted 2/1/05 for rape of a child and was then required to register as a Level 3 Sex offender. Upon release from jail, he was sentenced to COMMUNITY CUSTODY, but “escaped” and a WARRANT was issued for his arrest on 11/22/06. Also during this 2006 time, this CONVICTED RAPIST/LEVEL 3 SEX OFFENDER then targeted and went after a 14 YEAR OLD BOY, who according to the Probable Cause documents had “diminished capacity to understand cause and effect”. This CRIMINAL was 22 posing as a 17 year old at the time he “GROOMED” this BOY with sexual intentions. The documents state that 'HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE MINOR SHOWING CLASSIC SIGNS OF GROOMING, WHICH IS A COMMON PRACTICE OF SEX OFFENDERS.” It goes on to say that this CRIMINAL “took advantage of the victim having vulnerabilities.”
    Thank you to Our Redeemers for putting such a CRIMINAL amongst our neighborhood and near our daycares, schools, and children.
    Feel free to look at the documents yourself. The case number for the above mentioned case in 2007 is 07-1-00281-9SEA.

  38. There are levels of sex offense: I, II and III. You can read more about it here:

    A 21 year old whose boyfriend/girlfriernd is 14 years old can get convicted of statuatory rape if the parents find out and get angry. But that does not give them a Level III status. So, the status itself reveals that this person is dangerous and highly likely to “re-offend” actual victims – not just a 14 year old who has a crush on a 21 year old and doesn't consider him/herself a victim. Saying people are fear-mongering over a dangerous sex offender who is likely to re-offend is like saying, “Sure, there is a giant bear in front of you growling at you in the middle of the woods, but maybe he's just CGI.” It's very naive and unrealistic.

  39. He did re-offend. He was convicted a second time for going after another boy age 14. This boy had “diminished capacity” as noted in the earlier comments. Meaning this sicko went after a mentally challenged 14 year old boy.

    In addition, his most recent King County jail stay was from April 20, 2009 through August 17, 2009. Not sure yet what that was related to, but I have a call into the Dpt. of Corrections and will report here once I know.

  40. Yes, you can go to Washington State Court records and put in the criminals name, Jonathan Schoppett. There you will find 12 court cases. The case I mentioned above is 07-1-00281-9 SEA.

    King County has an online site called “ECR online.” You can either sign up to view reports there for a fee, or you can go down in person to the King County Superior Court and view the records there for no charge. Either way, you enter the case number and view all court records pertaining to that case.

    Also you can go to the King County Jail look up and view the most recent stays for Jonathan Schoppet by entering his name. Limited information is also available there as to the nature of the charges.

  41. So the meeting on the 1st October is not open to the public and only to the 'Task Force'. Who is on the Task Force and how do I get on it?

  42. I know the task force is made up of a small group of immediate neighbors of Our Redeemers. I do applaud them for the attempts they have made to try and get SHARE and Our Redeemers to take the concerns of the neighborhood seriously. Unfortunately, both the church and SHARE have continued to make decisions without concern for the “real” neighbors who have made a conscious decision to live in this neighborhood. I predict this pattern of negligence and contempt will continue. And all of this with the financial backing of the city of Seattle. As SHARE stated, “this changes nothing.” It does indeed, change nothing.

  43. We were told by SHARE and Our Redeemer's:

    1. SHARE does not house sex offenders.
    2. The screening process was adequate to catch sex offenders.
    3. If there were any problems, the shelter would be gone the next day.

    It turns out none of it was true.

    It seems like Our Redeemer's will only acknowledge the problem with this shelter if there is a victim. That is too late.

  44. Well we have a mayoral and city council election coming up soon. Seems like pulling the plug on SHARE's funding would be a good issue to ask candidates about. I mean really, they harbor sexual predators, they are belligerent and go out of their way to cause major headaches (with real financial costs) for the city and port, they refuse to follow the law, and when push comes to shove it all ends up in court, with taxpayers paying for both sets of lawyers!

    If there was ever a better example of how Seattle needs to grow up (and “grow a pair” for that matter), this sure looks like it. How many taxpayer dollars are being pissed away by simultaneously both propping up and at the same time fighting this bunch of professional bums?

    This should be a litmus test issue for all candidates this fall – stop funding this band of criminals!

  45. Sex offenders belong in downtown shelters–about as far from high concentrations of kids and potential victims as they can get while still receiving services. Human decency says you don't offer an alcoholic a drink; in that same vein you keep the predator away from prey. Especially as victims of sexual predation are victims for life.

  46. I sincerely hope that they don't just wait until something bad happens.

    I personally think that the best thing that Our Redeemers could do is take control of the shelter themselves (yes that means being responsible and libel for it) and house 'select' homeless people.

    There are probably homeless that don't have a criminal record or have done anything wrong or have drug/alcohol problems. How about we help those ones first?

    I am doing my best at keeping in contact with Steve Grumm (I have faith he will return my calls and emails) and will try to get on the task force meeting on the 1st October.

    I am sure nobody would object to a shelter strictly for people that have kept a clean sheet, and just don't have a place to stay.

  47. You sound like a very nice person and I agree with your idea that it makes complete sense to screen homeless residents in a residential neighborhood for ones who are truly trying and don't have any violent/sex offenses in their past, but unfortunately with my extensive dealing years ago with both Steve Grumm and SHARE I can guarantee you that their strange and unreasonable agendas are much stronger than reason or concern about others. :(

  48. If that is the case then it is only fair they make those agendas public. But lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing.

  49. Every neighborhood that hosts tent city has to fight this battle with SHARE. On Mercer Island last year, SHARE assured us they would competently handle the warrant and sex offender checks, then SHARE grandfathered 90 of the 100 tc residents with no checks at all. The neighbors did some checking and found several with warrants and a couple with sex offender status.
    During their 3 month stay, our neighborhood was littered with emply beer cans and bottles, intoxicated residents walking around late at night, men lurking in the bushes in the parks, and 2nd hand smoke drifting downwind into our homes.
    SHARE should get some acreage outside of town, away from our family neighborhoods, near a bus line, setup their tents and have at it – without putting our children at risk.

  50. Absolutely agree! Waiting until something bad happens is not an option. They, both SHARE and Our Redeemers have given the community just cause for pulling the plug at this point. They had an obligation to make sure that no violent or sex offenders were housed in the shelter. That is what Grumm stood up and said at the public meeting. But they did not keep that promise the positive side of this is that a good citizen WAS paying attention and called this out BEFORE something bad happened.
    SHARE and Our Redeemers have failed to keep a promise of not housing potentially dangerous people in the shelter. They show a serious lack of concern for the community that lives directly around the shelter. My family should not have to worry that another offender is living a houses away from us that just has not been discovered. This is not just about sex offenders living in our midst because that is a real possibility anyway, that is why we are careful and lock our doors etc. It is about an organization funneling in people that have a higher than average probability of being criminals hiding amongst the homeless anonymously and there being no screening and accountability from the people who claim to be in charge.

  51. unamerican to screen for sex offenders? Then that must be true for companies who require a drug test before being considred for employment, or for parents to be drug free in custody cases…a sex offender is a huge deal, especially when they are being housed in a community so close to children and other neighbors…and Strike I agree with you.. Our Redeemer can place any requirements or restrictions on the facility while still reaching out to help the homeless…and anon..where should they live? I am not sure..perhaps in a less dense community…? It's intertesting that I have to pass a background check and a drug test to be empoyed..and in turn my tax dollars go to pay for individuals who do not have to pass any background or drug tests to collects assistance…where is the sense inthat? Safety shoudl be our numberone concern…I's like to know how SHARE discovered the individual…makes you wonder doesn't it?

  52. “…I's like to know how SHARE discovered the individual…makes you wonder doesn't it?”

    They didn't “discover” them. Your community did. SHARE has a history of hiding Sex Offenders in their camps. As you can see from their rhetoric they try and play the “Woe is me” card whenever they get caught.

    This guy was released from yet another stint in jail and went directly to this shelter. He reported his location (as required by law) and that is how he was discovered. SHARE tries to prevent them from being discovered by telling those that shouldn't be in there to register as homeless so they can't be tracked to SHARE. This guy obviously needed to comply with the conditions of his release to avoid going back to jail so he didn't care about SHARE's agenda. You owe a big debt to those who have been working to keep communities safe from SHARE for years. They are following every move they make and this is not a rare occurance, this is how they operate.

    Courts have ruled time and again that it is ok for private property and business owners to set conditions by which those that come on to their property must abide by.

    Movie theaters check ID for 17 year olds.
    Bars check ID for 21 years olds.
    Rental car agencies require ID.
    Hotels check ID before renting a room.

    The list is endless.

    The law is clear, we need to know where sex offenders are living because we have to keep them away from our youth. This church is close to schools and daycares and they shouldn't have any sex offenders there, especially a level 3 that just re-offended.

    The question shouldn't be “how did they know?” it should be “how many more are there?”.

    You can be sure SHARE won't tell you so you have to figure it out for yourself.

  53. i sent a polite yet to the point e-mail to the church yesterday. i wasn't rude and didn't use any foul language or anything, just expressed my opinion on the matter and the genisis of the whole SHARE situation…

    haven't heard anything back, but it was only yesterday that i sent it.

  54. While I can understand the concerns, I also know that people get too uptight about these issues. The purpose of a church is to change a person's heart into one that is repentant and of use to the Lord. People can change. Paul killed members of the early church but changed when Christ challenged him.

    If you are unable to gave a person the chance to change then you are not of Christ nor do you deserve the benefit of the atonement.

  55. Yet, we don't ask for papers of illegals and it is illegal in some areas to ask for identification at election polls. At least SHARE tries to help. I'm sure that you may not be willing to help anyone. Also, if the sex offender registry is so good then why not have a DWI registry, because I would like to know who my children are getting rides with. And perhaps, a murder registry, even though murders recidivate at about the same level as sex offenders.

    I speak as a father who had two daughter molested by their grandfather. I know what I speak about and the law is flawed, as many states are finding out. Yes, this guy needs tracking but also he needs a job and an opportunity if you expect him not to re-offend.

  56. The CHURCH is doing nothing, and has no presence at the shelter, Mr. Morrison. Thanks for the update on who is of Christ and who isn't, I'm glad you are a capable judge.

  57. There is the best question of the day. SHARE may have removed him from the shelter but because they actually have a policy of protecting these people it will be like pulling teeth to get them to tell you what they did. If they did just kick him out then he is likely to be living somewhere in your community.

  58. Yep, can't stop them from owning property. But owning property means they're invested in the community.

    And, they've got a legit address to report if they have to register. That means parents and people concerned can check out the registry, see their photos and be informed.

    I'm concerned about those offenders required to register who are:
    a) not (as) invested in my neighborhood–no roots and therefore likely to just walk away after wreaking havoc with someone's life
    b) not truthful about their address–giving their general daytime location instead of their nighttime location (effectively loopholing out of the registry for those diligent folks checking to see which offenders are in their neighborhood, and loopholing out of the requirement that they stay far from schools/parks/daycare).

    Some have intonated “See, the system works. An offender was found to be in the SHARE shelter and isn't there anymore.” Well, that sure sounds gullible to me.

    SHARE didn't determine this repeat offender's status–even after three weeks of daily interactions. And I'd place a hefty bet that the next offender offered shelter with SHARE will be a tad smarter about registering his general daytime location instead of his nighttime one.

    So the system won't work and I'll feel even less secure. Cripes. Just do the Sexual Offender checks. I'm not asking for background checks. Homeless folks have backgrounds that led to their homelessness–I'll let them take a respite from their ghosts until they can figure out that their current lifestyle isn't tenable (preferably with social services, training, counseling).

    *But* if this homeless person has been deemed by the judicial system in our society–the society which funds SHARE–as a Sexual Offender likely to repeat, they need to be in a shelter with services and counseling that will help him (or her) stay rehabilitated.

    An unsupervised SHARE shelter in the middle of a kid dense neighborhood where one inclined can sink back into the devious behaviors that got them Level III status in the first place ain't that place.

  59. I fully support your statement that if SHARE group can somehow manage to run sex offender checks at another location then why do they refuse to run them at all locations? Don't they want to keep our community safe at all!

    Can you imagine being a homeless person and being stuck in a shelter with a rapist. Dear God what are these people thinking when it comes to what they are doing to our community and to their fellow homeless people.

Leave a Reply