The 10 year plan was adopted in 2005. Are we there yet?
I know, let's build another Tunnel that costs $20 in tolls and build $2 million condos around that.

That will help with the homeless, right?
Disgraceful. The only value of the encampment came from the public shaming it caused when it was set up in nice neighborhoods. Now, it's located on a parcel of industrial wasteland that only people on their way to the transfer station would see. Freeway overpasses provide more shelter than this location. You'd think uber-progressive Seattle could do better.
Laurelhurst Park seems underutilized.
This is all total passive-aggressivist bullshit.
"The only value of the encampment came from the public shaming it caused"

So you mean it's just a stunt, not an actual solution?

Wow, go figure.
@1, The King County 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness is more than 8 years old, and less than 50% of the units forecasted as needed have been built. That's all of King County. The City of Seattle has been crowing (and the 7 Councilmember signees are still crowing) about the $30 M/year Seattle contributes to ending homelessness. That figure's been trumpeted about for most of those 8 years. The number of those on the street at night in Seattle with no shelter is essentially unchanged.

But 7 Councilmembers think we don't need tent cities, because Seattle's doing just fine.
The City Council supported Nickelsville until they opposed it. The City Council approved installing public toilets until they voted to remove them. The City Council okayed apodments until they opposed. We seem to have a city council that thinks one move at a time and thinks countermanding their own decisions is what needs to be done and progress. We need a system that doesn't reward or encourage groupthink and time wasting.

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

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