drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Columbia Legal Services, and others

Who are those "others," Heidi? You've explicitly named a dozen groups and individuals opposed to the new law in your reporting over the past few weeks, but the proponents somehow remain almost completely anonymous. Are ACLU-WA and CLS the only real backers of the proposed legislation?

The "Director of Security" of the City was turning people away from entering the anteroom to the Council Chambers today, so people couldn't sign up to speak. He contended that the Fire Marshall had determined there were too many people in the Chambers. That was obviously BS; I've seern many, many more people already in the Chambers on other occasion with no turnaways. Anywhere from 60-75 people got in from Chinatown/ID, who had previously been meeting with Rob Johnson, who according to their representative who spoke opposed the legislation. I wonder -- I don't wonder, I'm pretty certain -- that Murray (who has clearly told all his Department heads to publicly oppose the legislation, as was seen in the Times) set up the whole "security" thing. I've never before seen a Mayor try so hard to turn people against a piece of legislation that hadn't even been accepted by the Council yet.

Well played, chambers of commerce. Pack your membership with Crossift Gyms and tourist traps that I've never heard of. What am I going to do? Boycott them? Well played.

Sarah91-

The limited space is by design. The old Council chambers had more seats and testimonies would drag on. Moreover, the City and Council often draft people to speak in support of their motions. This gives the impression that the people are with them.

Zander, I'm not talking about the "old" Council chambers. That was before I've attended Council meetings. The current chambers have been packed, with standing-only people, with absolutely no Security or Fire people controlling the crowd.

The Mayor did not draft people to speak in support of his motion; he drafted people (and his City department heads) to speak and write in opposition to legislation that hadn't been introduced yet. That's an entirely different situation from that you spoke of.

"Safety risk or prevent the public use of public land" seems pretty subjective criteria.

Of course I guess some people are sanguine about permanent camps in public parks.

@7: that's been my thought for awhile - convert the warehouses to "cage hotels" quickly.

no to turning over parks to campers. this is a large city that needs park space.

The proposed legislation (which of course can be amended during the Council process) does not create any right to camp in parks or on sidewalks (or on playfields or in any of the other high-value public spaces that have been invoked by opponents). No encampments would be permitted in locations that are objectively unsafe (more specifically unsafe that it is just to be living outside), or that are unsuitable, that is, where encampments would interfere with significant public use. How exactly public use should best be defined has been the subject of a lot of good discussion, but in our view, neighborhoods should have substantial freedom to specify the places where it just wouldn't work for people to be living -- so long as ample alternative locations are available in each neighborhood.

Sometimes, it may be that some parks areas and some sidewalk areas actually are good places for encampments, so long as people have to live outside, which is why those are not ruled out per se. But in general, those would not be suitable locations.

No one should be living outside. We should devote 95% of our energy on this topic to making it possible to end that state of affairs. But anyone attached to reality can see that for the time being, some people WILL be living outside -- and making that situation more orderly and less chaotic serves both neighborhoods and people who are living outside because for the time being, we have nowhere better for them to go.

This is absolutely stupid. Camps with more than 5 tents the city will be forced to provide garbage and sanitation services and a 30 day requirement to move? So the city will spend money to locate groups of five tents to provide these services, kick them out after 30 days, and when they move to a new location they must provide services again? Aghhhhhh are we on a crazy train?

@5- maybe after the absolute shit show that was the meeting regarding the north precinct they decided to step up security? The crazy screaming British woman was priceless.