wiener sales != speech

SHARE != "the homeless". Maybe McGinn hasn't met with them because they're blowhards. Seattle does more for its homeless than any other city in the country, and while we could do more, the way forward to "more" has fuck-all to do with SHARE. The park doesn't belong to SHARE. Their little "whenever" stunt with the application is classic bullshit.

Letting Tom Douglas use it for a day is well within the normal use of the city's resources by its population.

Why can't everyone just get a long? People with and without homes are allowed to use a public park. SHARE can eat a deuce.

Seattle should know that it's public parks are there for the homeless to drink in and go b.m.

As a citizen of our fair city, P&R had every right to reject a permit application without an actual date on it. And they had every right to reject a permit when a permit for the same place/time was already booked.

I've never heard of SHARE before. Based on this, they sound like a bunch of whiners. SHARE, you are in the wrong; get over yourselves.

Are there more details to this story? Does SHARE believe Steinbrueck Park belongs to the homeless and no one else can use it?

There must be some details we're missing. SHARE doesn't normally over-reach like this.

Of course, a cool protest against Tom Douglas would be to give homeless protesters enough money to buy some salmon so they could dine beside the rich tourists.

I'm sorry, but this is flat bullshit. Douglas can hire 100 private security guards, and not a one of them can "chase" the homeless out. The city POLICE can chase people out between 10am-sunrise. The guy from Private Security Firm can't legally do shit except

A) get charged with assault if he touches the homeless
B) call the cops after 10pm to report someone sleeping on a bench or whatever

SHARE's stance on this is sketchy and smells of PR retaliation over the panhandling bill's support from Douglas.

Tom Douglas' plan to have salmon bakes in a park heavily frequented by Native Americans as a way to "reclaim" the park for people who have a place to live is offensive on many levels. It's SHARE's role as homeless individuals, allies and advocates to challenge Douglas.

@9 Explain how private security can "reduce" panhandling. If I were homeless I'd go TO Steinbreuck park if Douglas put a private guard every 20 feet, since it'd be the safest public place to sleep in the city.

In fact, that's what SHARE should do if they're so offended by the idea of private security guards wandering Pike Place Market: ask your dudes to camp out in the park once Douglas makes it safe (which would be far more effective, and ironic, of a protest), and spare us your overblown payback drama.

@ 2 Agreed. SHARE and homeless advocates in general would do much better to spend their time and resources fundraising and educating the public on the need for more homeless services than pulling PETA style stunts which only serve to alienate people that might otherwise be by sympathetic to their cause.

You want a cook-off to solve this problem of homeless human garbage? I've got a two word solution, "Soylent Green".

Battle of the Publicity Hounds.

@15) Another win. You're on a roll.

I agree with 14. I don't like seeing homeless people scare tourists, panhandle, urinate, do drugs, etc. They shouldn't be in the public parks or sitting in the sidewalks. I'd rather the city and other organizations did something to help these people get off the street and onto a better life...

While I disagree with Douglas on his stance on the aggressive panhandling law, I fully support his salmon bake in the park.

Note to SHARE: please understand that most people don't object to the existence of the homeless. We just don't want them shitting in the park, and drunkenly scaring off tourists and otherwise sober people. Most Seattleites are quite sympathetic to the homeless.

Your goals are admirable. Your tactics are abysmal. See also: PETA.

Must my street food purchase support an ideology?

@19, yes, yes it must support some type of ideology. Why? Because in Seattle we're full of it, and I do mean full of it.

@16, my rolls last three days max. I'll be dropping duds left and right by the time the news cycle heats up again Monday.

this is actually not true, the parks does (and has) allowed multiple events to be in the same park.

“It seems that the line between rich and poor has been drawn and that once again, the haves will prevail over the have nots.”

Oh, fuck off. $12/plate does not equal "rich." In fact, where can I buy a ticket to this thing? My middle-class ass is going to enjoy some salmon.

I didn't like the aggressive panhandling law, but I don't exactly enjoy seeing all the bums at Victor Steinbrueck Park (my collegues and I refer to it as "hobo park"). Not that they don't have a right to be there- as long as they aren't actually causing trouble.

If Douglass wants to sell salmon there to raise money for his own security detail, that's fine by me (as long as the security detail sticks to protecting people- and honestly I've never seen anyone accosted there, at least not during the day).

Though to be honest, I'd rather someone raise some money to finish putting in seats for all the tables there. The fact that some only have 2 or 3 concrete stools is retarded.

People care more about the "environment" than about human beings in their own city.

What have we come to?

Let them eat wieners!

No offense to SHARE, but we once tried to host a weekly, afternoon FREE comedy show in that public park. Most of the time, when we weren't hosing the shit, piss, broken glass, vomit and occasional semen off the concrete, we were having to deal with a lot of aggressive homeless people who were pissed that we were in THEIR park. Some of them were really grateful for entertainment, but most of them were not. So, I guess what I'm saying is, it's a public park not a homeless park. There are definitely safety and sanitation issues. Maybe instead of attacking Tom Douglas for using the park in order to raise money to provide safety and oversight to everyone who wants to use it, you should pick a battle that would raise awareness of the ACTUAL homeless problem. A lack of available shelters, substance abuse programs and job placement solutions would be a good place to start.

I'll support SHARE if they come up with some healthy food options. Maybe a dish of grilled asparagus and red potatoes to complement the salmon?

I'm in agreement, more or less, with some of the comments on this board. I think Seattle Parks not allowing a second event is kind of stupid.

But more than anything, I'm just disappointed in SHARE's horrible framing. Stuff like "this is just another case of poor people having no voice to speak against rich people" might ring true and accurately express their frustration, but it won't help them get what they want.

The city needs to address the problem of homelessness together--with people like Tim Douglas and SHARE both at the table. Engaging in divisive "class war" rhetoric is a guaranteed path to making sure the homeless stay out in the cold longer.

Sadly, the conditions of society as it is (and will continue to be) do require SHARE to work with people of diverse economic backgrounds--wealthy, as well as impoverished--to achieve their ends. You don't do that by assuming everyone "against the homeless" is wealthy and then telling them that they can go fuck themselves.

Also, @28 is right. Not caring for the environment hurts everyone--the homeless and the Bill Gateses alike. And not caring for the environment hurts the poor the hardest, always. So social justice is a part of environmentalism, not in opposition to it.

The argument otherwise is almost as stupid as "which matters more: the environment, or jobs?" Actually, it's exactly that stupid.

@9 earwig is right.

It is a slap in the face of the (predominantly?) Native homeless population that hangs in that park to SELL FREAKING salmon. Oh, unless Tom Douglas is trying to be ironic. Dear Tom Douglas, have your picnic, but sell something else unless you want to seem ignorant (at a minimum) or racist (got my vote).

Tom Douglas is hosting The Alley at Bite of Seattle, and proceeds support the hunger relief organization Food Lifeline. I don't think this event is a message against homeless people peacefully sharing our public areas, but against that volatile minority that endangers our community and its guests. I am an advocate of homeless support, but I have also been assaulted by an aggressive panhandler in a poorly secured public place, and I have witnessed a violent assault in this area in broad daylight, so I obviously also advocate improved security in our parks.

If I pass by, I'll buy both the salmon and the hot dogs. They both support worthy causes.

As a neighbor who finds this her closest park, I'm baffled that an organization would consider it an illegitimate use to stage an event I might actually want to attend. It's very interesting to live in a neighborhood where my spouse and I grabbing a to-go dinner and sitting with a view results in surveillance by people for whom I seem to be interrupting an evening of anticipated business dealings, yet a community event is castigated as being anti-social-welfare. What about the welfare of the housed? What about building a community where I might meet and learn to care about neighbors and bond over how we might together make a positive contribution? (in fact, make one by paying for dinner at a charitable event!) I guess I'll be grateful that my iconclast leanings overruled my humanity when I felt tempted to contribute to SHARE's recently reported shortfall.