09/09/2015 at 2:34 pm #82350
Well, SB, tents wouldn’t be on “the street” under the city’s current encampment plan, but they would be on public property. I can’t imagine anyone would agree to charging homeless people a fee to park their tent on public property.09/09/2015 at 4:11 pm #82351
Crownhiller, I’m all with you, the city has totally dropped the ball, so many of these people on the street need much care. The clock can’t be rolled back to the 1990s, the current city government must do a much better job of providing care for those that need it and enforcing laws the laws for littering and illegal parking.
But the tent cities are also needed. There are many that need a safer place to live right now. The city acknowledges that the tent cities are not a solution to anything except to provide temporary safe housing. The city in the past thought they were a solution to homelessness, but this has proven not to be the case, and they realize this. Nonetheless, the tent encampments are still needed. They are not a pretend action, they are not a distraction, and they are not a sidetrack.09/09/2015 at 4:11 pm #82352
Compass Rose, what in the world are you talking about? Charging people in tents?09/09/2015 at 6:41 pm #82353
Haven’t read the story yet, but the current Seattle Weekly has a neat cover illustration on the un-housed situation.09/10/2015 at 1:01 pm #82363
Just following your own inconsistent logic, SB. If you think people living in their vehicles should be charged to park them, how is that different from charging people to live in tents on public property?09/10/2015 at 1:43 pm #82364
I just read the Weekly story. It’s pretty good, though it doesn’t get into the issue of homelessness and related problems being pushed out of downtown and to Ballard and other neighborhoods.
Key quotes from Bill Hobson, the longtime former director of DESC:
“In this town, it’s difficult to get the political community interested in anything but homeless families, homeless veterans, and homeless children. They got plans for all them, but there’s never been one to end chronic homelessness.”
“This town I think is pretty progressive, but in the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, we ignored federal policy. We didn’t do a thing about the chronically homeless, and that’s been a big mistake. Study after study has shown that leaving the chronically homeless on the street is a lot more expensive than building affordable housing. It is an investment against greater downstream costs.
“For every 100 low-income households in King County, there are 15 apartments that are affordable. We got rid of all the flophouses and SRO’s [single-room occupancy units] decades ago, and they are now all high-end condos. I don’t fault building a more livable, attractive city, but we didn’t realize the cost of displacement. Until we turn this around and invest heavily in affordable, permanent housing for the homeless, we’ll never make any dramatic impact on people sleeping in the streets, living in shelters, in tents.”
Yup. If anyone understands this issue, he does.09/10/2015 at 5:29 pm #82368
What a great article!
“In the last 18 months, it has really exploded,” observes Daniel Malone, the new director of the Downtown Emergency Services Center, “and we are not keeping pace by increasing the number of shelter beds”
You see, this is why the city is in a hurry to get some tent encampments set up.
This quote from Utah kind of says it all: “We are collaborative, caring, and very compassionate.” Disruptive, uncaring and uncompassionate characterize the opposition to the tent encampments here.09/10/2015 at 5:35 pm #82369
CR: “Just following your own inconsistent logic, SB. If you think people living in their vehicles should be charged to park them, how is that different from charging people to live in tents on public property?”
Um, yeah. That’s logical. OK.09/11/2015 at 9:06 am #82379
The person profiled in story seems typical–a loser with no skills or goals looking for a free ride. I’d have to skim that story again, but didn’t it say Utah only had 2,000 transients statewide and Seattle/King Co has many thousands more? And who paid for their new Utah housing? Seattle taxpayers are already paying too much and I believe we’re 3rd place behind much larger cities. What’s our goal, to be the number one in bum services?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.