09/02/2015 at 4:57 pm #82246
“Then why continue what is demonstrably not an effective approach, SB?” Approach to what?
Ending homelessness? That’s not the point of the tent encampments.
Or are you saying that tent encampments are demonstrably not an effective approach to a safer living environment (versus living say under a bridge of on the street)? Because that’s the point.09/02/2015 at 9:22 pm #82247
If the tramp facility is established, you’ll never get rid of it. Write the Mayor’s office and protest this folly before it’s too late.09/02/2015 at 9:25 pm #82248
The drunk bozos living under the piles of trash will continue to be there because they can’t conform enough to stay in an organized camp or work at a job.09/03/2015 at 6:03 pm #82268
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.09/03/2015 at 6:19 pm #82269
Yes, we need to find a solution to homelessness. The solution to homelessness is a home. Check out what they’ve done in Utah.
But because tent encampments aren’t a cure for homelessness is not a reason to condemn them. We need both a better plan for the homeless and immediate safer places for them to live. Tent encampments provide the latter. And Seattle can do much better at finding an actual solution.09/03/2015 at 8:50 pm #82270
No, the homeless individual needs to find a solution to their own situation. Government isn’t the answer to every problem. We spend too much time and money catering the various churchs’ scams.09/07/2015 at 3:21 pm #82296
CH, bingo. What we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working. People are finally starting to question it, thankfully.
SB, what in the world makes you think that tent encampments will get anyone off the street? The people who are living under bridges are likely not the type of people who will go live in an encapment. Why? Because most of them are probably addicts who won’t play by the rules of an encampment or a shelter.
If you have evidence to show that tent encampments actually help people get off the streets, please feel free to share it. I doubt you will, though, since there’s little if any data about who uses tent encampments, what they achieve or anything else that would warrant supporting them as an appropriate response to homelessness.09/07/2015 at 9:00 pm #82298
So I have a question that floats through my mind as I read about the success for building microhousing for the homeless.
Don’t we and didn’t we have low income or no income housing? And don’t they (or didn’t they) become “the projects”? Even tressa up on 145th & Linden has a bunch of violence and has to have their own security.
there are some people who can be helped. For the others, they will always be to their true nature which, unfortunately, got them to where they are now. Maybe we can shuffle them so they aren’t an eyesore but there will still be a blight. Some are genuinely in need, others really don’t care and will take whatever we will give them and honestly not all deserve help or acceptance. Each time an approved encampment happens, I just want to yell at the city then to cite the illegal ones and move them on. The campers don’t care — not only are they opportunistic in their camp spots, they also trash them. They don’t care. So my feeling is, move them on and get them out. Maybe Sedro Wooley would like them.09/08/2015 at 9:42 am #82305
Yes, the city needs to crack down on the derelicts that are littering, camping illegally, doing drugs, parking illegally, speeding in their automobiles and running stop signs and stop lights.
But really none of that has anything to do with the tent encampment. The tent encampment will provide a safe place for deserving homeless people to live. They have proven to be good neighbors in the places they have been.09/08/2015 at 10:09 am #82309
Tressa Apartments, go to YELP and read the reviews.09/08/2015 at 11:05 am #82310
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.09/08/2015 at 12:16 pm #82311
“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.”
Yes, yes, YES.09/08/2015 at 1:42 pm #82312
“…all homeless people will be tarred with the same brush.” Yes, you see, that is what is happening by those that oppose the tent encampment.
“I expect more, better and NOW. They’ve had 20 years to come up with solutions.” My thoughts exactly.
“One more encampment program is just letting them off the hook from the larger issues at play here.” How is that? The city says the tent encampment isn’t a solution at all.
I wish those that spend so much time and energy opposing this tent encampment would spend that time and energy in keeping the city on the hook for more and better solutions NOW!09/08/2015 at 3:08 pm #82314
Campers, your reputation proceeds you. The city of Hoquiam is in the news today because they have a new tent camp. Since there’s no data and little accountability for such camps the community immediately formed a block watch group. You can hardly accuse people in Grays Harbor of being elitist paranoid yuppies.09/08/2015 at 3:34 pm #82317
There’s a new “congregate residence” of “74 sleeping rooms” in 6 stories planned to replace the two tiny houses at 5611 17th Ave NW. Maybe the city could just rent that for the homeless — no parking is planned, and it’ll be only a block away from the 7-Eleven, Rapidride, and 44 bus lines.09/08/2015 at 4:57 pm #82319
“Maybe the city could just rent that for the homeless ”
at what, $1000 per month, per person?
so the fifty people at the encampment would cost taxpayers $50k per month, or $6 mil per year.
somehow I don’t think the tents cost that much.
that’s one thing that all the ‘housing first’ advocates never broach– the fact that housing here is very expensive (more so than Utah).
those ‘permanent’ solutions would be terribly expensive.09/08/2015 at 8:16 pm #82320
I thought my reference to 7-Eleven being nearby would be enough to show that my post was meant to be sarcasm; I’ll put in tags next time :)09/09/2015 at 8:55 am #82332
I walked by that place yesterday (5611 17th Ave NW). Wow. 74 sleeping rooms on that small property. Wow. And this is in addition to the six story 48 unit apodment at 1717 NW 58th, the one just like it going in at ~175X NW 59th, the ~17 unit building at the small corner lot of NW58th and 17th NW, and the three apodments at 15th & 61/63rd… all with no parking. Mind blowing. It will soon be like cap hill where all those old apartment building are that have no parking. Good stuff. Interestingly, with all this loss of parking/parking problems with all this micro housing development, the city looks the other way at the endemic car “storage” (cars and vans full of crap parked “permanently”) around all this where the city simply do not enforce the 72 hour rules as they should. But god forbid my neighbors car gets too close to a driveway (bam, ticket).09/09/2015 at 12:05 pm #82342
Complaining about the difficulty of street parking because other people are also doing it is the height of hypocrisy. It’s similar to complaining about the traffic you are stuck in while you drive your automobile.
If you need a place to store your automobile, get a place with parking. The city should charge for all street parking. Problems solved. This would also help get the beater vans out of the area. SPD really does need to step up the parking enforcement. I would say I have seen more of an emphasis in some areas of the 72 hour rule, especially with RVs.
If your neighbor is blocking access to driveways, they completely deserve a ticket.09/09/2015 at 12:24 pm #82344
The city should register, tax and license all bikes.09/09/2015 at 12:48 pm #82345
So, SB, the city should charge parking fees to people who live in their vehicles? Should they also charge people a fee for living in tents?09/09/2015 at 2:17 pm #82346
SB, I like your thinking. How about this: Every car should require a city permit sticker (costs $), zoned by neighborhood, and no parking should be allowed from 2am until 5am for non-registered vehicles (trucks and RVs included). You park it, you live there, you pay for it. No more car farming, no businesses using residential neighborhoods to park their fleet (I’m talking to you Frelard) and no living in your vehicle on city streets. Now, since it is not illegal to be homeless in Seattle, then the city uses the parking sticker revenue to host safe places for folks to sleep in their cars or tents which includes community policing costs and access to social services. And tiny homes.09/09/2015 at 2:24 pm #82347
Compass Rose, not charging people to live in their RV per se, but charge them to park it on the street. If you park a tent on the street, yes, you should pay for that too.09/09/2015 at 2:27 pm #82348
The city used to have bicycle registration. They stopped doing that. Anyone that proposes bicycle registration should learn the history of it in Seattle. It was tried, it failed and it was abandoned.09/09/2015 at 2:30 pm #82349
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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.