Living in a car definitely beats living in a tent.
Until people have actual homes, don't punish them for finding the best available shelter they can obtain.

If the Seattle Times wants homes for the homeless, then perhaps they should mount a campaign to secure said housing, instead of taking pot shots at proposals that come from a place of realism and have a modicum of human dignity.

@1, thank you. It's unfortunately unusual to see a comment that shows kindness toward vehicle residents.

The hardest part about living in your car; is if you don't own it. It can be re-possessed if your behind on payments and then suddenly the small roof over your head is gone.

Having been homeless; having lived in a homeless shelter for over a month I can tell you we need to do something. I don't have a real problem with people in their car living on the street; the problem is it's going to lead to parking problems. That's where people will get angry and start the not in my backyard crap

So give these people a place to put their vehicle and let them know it will be there tomorrow when they get off work. This is one of the most important thing you can do for another human being.

Lastly; yes there are those that will game the system to do criminal activity. That's where our police department actually needs to do their job (Does Seattle PD ever do their job? Maybe I live in a bad area but they never clean shit up) so when we call it needs to take less than 3-9hours for a response.

The city should adhere to democracy and put this on November's ballot and let the people decide.

Asking the Times editorial board to live in a car and shelter reminds me of those who suggest every Councilperson voting in support of O'Brien's proposal should host an RV in their front yard. Whatevz.

@2 - From what I can tell, parking issues are not the driving factor for critics of O'Brien's idea. It's the potential for human waste, garbage, generator noise, used needles and addiction-fueled property crimes. More of a neighborhood safety/quality thing.