Comments

1
add nauseam
2
Why don't you report on what the agencies that actually serve the homeless, provide shelter beds and case management, etc., think?
3
"Why don't you report on what the agencies that actually serve the homeless, provide shelter beds and case management, etc., think?"

What do they know.
4
yeah, it all comes down to the increase in cop foot patrols actually.

damn those Brownies were good!
5

What I oppose is Passive-Aggressive panhandling, like where they act as if they're your friend and then hit you up for cigarettes and then want matches and stuff.

6
"it all comes down to the increase in cop foot patrols actually."

Yep, and then you're gonna bitch about cops 'harassing' bums.
7
@2: Like Urban Rest Stop and ROOTS? Or Real Change? El Centro? Or the MANY organizations under the Lutheran Public Policy Organization that guides the majority of ELCA church giving and care for the Homeless? Or the Church Council of Seattle's HomeStep program?
8
Mayor's public veto press conference, City Hall, 1:30 on Friday.
9
@7, no, the big ones, that serve large numbers of people, like Solid Ground, Hopelink, Catholic Community Charities, DESC (oh no!)... The ones you mention are for the most part advocacy groups, which is quite a different thing.
10
@9: Urban Rest Stop, ROOTS, El Centro, and HomeStep are service providers. I don't know what you mean by all the "many" organizations under LPPO; LPPO is basically Paul Benz. You should direct him to all those other people and organizations that could help him with his job.

11
@9: Fnarf, they do provide services. Are they not the services you'd like them to provide? Do they need to serve more than a few hundred each to be adequately voiced in your mind? Do ELCA churches, which often mount a lot of giving and direct care programs, not count?

And advocacy is needed just as much as service in most cases. It's difficult to provide services without someone speaking out while you do the work, and in some cases, shelters have problems (like death at YWCA shelters that go unnoticed for weeks), so you need good advocates to help justify continued programs and to help get more money. And these advocates absolutely keep the needs of certain populations in mind. Advocates like, well, you saw the list. Advocacy is often just as important as service.

Your argument is just shifting the goal posts.

@10: Speaking more to ELCA churches following the general directives of their advocates, which they do.
12
In terms of grand solutions, I think a Pike Place Market Levy-sized ballot measure is called for to follow the example of San Antonio's Haven for Hope.
13
In terms of total dollars spent, shelter beds provided, meals served, etc., the great majority of service providers in this city have either come out in favor of Burgess's measure or not been heard from. I'm wondering why Dominic hasn't made any effort to find out what they think? I think it's because he's not interested in hearing from anyone who doesn't further his agenda.

Baconcat will now proceed to claim that I think the Urban Rest Stop is shit, no doubt. They're not; they're fantastic. But they're a drop in the bucket compared to Hopelink or Solid Ground.

You, Baconcat, are the one who is shifting the goalposts by pretending that when I say "service providers are not the same advocates; let's hear from the service providers" I'm really saying "advocacy is stupid", which we both know I'm not. You argue in bad faith, Baconcat.

If you support homeless services in Seattle, you have to support the work of the big agencies, because that's where the services come from. Instead, you have repeatedly cast aspersions upon them, accused them of being bought by business groups, of selling out the people they serve for the sake of increased donations. Your whole argument revolves around "there's no one on the other side of this question -- well, those guys, but they're part of the cop conspiracy against the homeless, so yeah, no one who matters".

But guess what? If a Pike Place Market-sized levy passed, who would run the programs? The big agencies. So, again: what do the big agencies think? I think their opinion is a lot more informed than the Wills in Seattle who attend Democratic district meetings. Why do you object to hearing from them, and why do you dismiss them out of hand when they disagree with you?
14
As for @12, do you mean like the low-income housing levy we passed, which was half again as big as San Antonio's Haven for Hope?

I know it's fun to get all hot and bothered and pretend we're "not doing anything", but that does a disservice to a lot of people and dollars that ARE doing something. But they don't count if they don't agree with you, or even if they MIGHT not agree with you -- God forbid we should try to find out.
15
Fnarf, I don't object to hearing from them, not at all, but you're arguing that a larger organization will have a better idea of how the smallest parts function. Scope is important, and a large organization may provide more beds and more meals but they don't necessarily provide a better idea of the on-the-ground operation. Saying this group with 10,000 beds has more say than this other group with only 400 is completely myopic. Size doesn't imply a better understanding of a problem, it often indicates better funding.

More than that, you have absolutely no idea what Haven for Hope entails and you're unintentionally proving my point that the "solution" offered is only a small part of need. We can go on and on about how most panhandling solutions fail, but the point is this: we need a comprehensive plan. Housing is good, but it needs to stick, so we need treatment. This ordinance mandates treatment in a lot of cases, but do you realize what most treatment entails? It's jail, fnarf. The King County Jail is the second largest mental institution in this state and over half their mental patients are homeless. We need supportive housing as part of our comprehensive plan, but for some odd reason we're almost intentionally limiting the number of beds we provide and going for the big prize of legal action against the population.

A comprehensive plan like Haven for Hope with many services and advocates working together with the help of the city can and does work. It offers non-jail treatment, education, health care, meals, beds and a system that can process more folks instead of just picking and choosing among the "best" homeless and advocating a bill that will get rid of the "worst". This bill that has all this overly-gilded support from some service providers is not going to work, period. It will only churn people in and out of the system without solving the underlying problems with poverty. It will create more poverty pimps. It will do nothing.

I said it, fnarf. This final solution for panhandling will do nothing. The jail will still churn people in and out, shelters and group homes will still pick and choose, people will still be turned away, treatment will be nigh-on non-existent.

Study up on the issue, don't just assume that daddy knows best.
16
@15, You HAVE, repeatedly, said you don't want to hear from them. And when you DID hear from them, you dismissed it out of hand. Not only dismissed it, but smeared Bill Hobson by claiming that he had "murky ties to right-wing media".

That's what pisses me off. Yes, still. Hobson's done more for the most difficult homeless than anyone in the country, and he's never done this picking and choosing you're so upset about. Some agencies do. They have to, for the safety of their staff and other clients. Some homeless are criminals, I'm sorry to say. Some homeless are as near as anyone can tell UNHELPABLE -- and Bill Hobson specializes in helping the unhelpable. He deserves better than your sneering, ignorant dismissal.

Look: I'm not an advocate of the bill. I'm an advocate of truthful debate. There hasn't been any of that in The Stranger's coverage, and there's precious little of it in your commentary here.

The bill, for all its faults, was never by anyone called a final solution (oh, I see what you did there) to anything. It, or something similar to it that's better, is part of a broader solution. Other parts of that solution are underway. More is needed. You're not breaking new ground by pointing that out. (Who is breaking new ground? Solid Ground, out at Sand Point this week).

You're awfully keen on the amazing results at Haven for Hope, considering it isn't even fully open yet (first day of partial services was last week). Any one of the "gilded" agencies I mentioned has brought far more people out of poverty than they have -- yet. It's a good idea -- one modeled in part on Seattle efforts, which you pretty much claim don't exist.

If you want to argue that the revolving door down at the jail isn't solving the problem, fine. If you want to argue that none of the hundreds of millions of dollars this city has spent to date has accomplished anything at all, or that none of the people working in the field are worth a damn, or that it's all a big con to benefit the businesspeople, then you can fuck right off.
17
@16: You're no advocate of truthful debate, you're arguing for distortion. That's what you do.

For example:
If you want to argue that none of the hundreds of millions of dollars this city has spent to date has accomplished anything at all, or that none of the people working in the field are worth a damn, or that it's all a big con to benefit the businesspeople, then you can fuck right off.


Where did I say ANY of that. You're speaking in absolutes and you have no idea what you're saying.

You're also incredibly keen on dismissing other ideas like San Diego, which inspired San Antonio and then turn around and make a dig like "well, San Antonio isn't proof, it barely even opened".

If you're going to cry and whine and stamp your feet because I won't coddle or suckle on someone's teat, then you, sir, can fuck right off. You've been neck-deep into your own ass this entire time screaming how there's no truthful debate and how there's slander and libel and oh, someone's idea isn't getting weighted disproportionately and oh my this group is clearly not as important as that and how dare you suggest someone is fallible.

Boohoo, Fnarf.
18
I only want to add that the occasion of McGinn vetoing this bill would be a perfect time for him to grab the spotlight and announce a substantive proposal to take action on the things where there is broad consensus. Like more foot patrols (and hiring the cops to do it, not shuffle cops around from other beats) and more services. Dominic Holden has argued that the homeless are "intrinsic" to the city and that no law can stop threats and obscenities from mentally ill panhandlers -- so why try? But McGinn does not have to jump on the do-nothing, self-flagellating bandwagon of juvenile, faux radical lefties like Holden.

Leaving aside the disagreement over the $50 civil infraction, McGinn could take the high ground and the common ground by offering something with meat to it.
19
Further fnarf factchecking, since I forgot to post this:

Fnarf said:
@7, no, the big ones, that serve large numbers of people, like Solid Ground, Hopelink, Catholic Community Charities, DESC (oh no!)... The ones you mention are for the most part advocacy groups, which is quite a different thing.


Dom's article from last week included:
"I am concerned the way the law is written is different than the way you characterized it," said Flo Beaumon, associate director of Catholic Community Services, at a hearing before the council. She said it's so broadly worded that it could "get rid of anybody you think is aggressive."

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.