Anna, is it really fair to paint this as an easy out for the Mayor? You're right in a certain sense, but the implication that he's somehow relieved to relent is unfairly cynical. You speak of political cover, but honestly, what else can/should he do at this point? That's a sincere question.

I'm not happy about this either. But this fucking city council isn't moving. McGinn/O'Brien/Licata made their pitch -- it was flawed, but it was in good faith. I want better answers from everyone. But what can be done?

I too want to hear about these magical solutions. I hope McGinn, O'Brien & Licata can find a way to hold the rest of the council accountable for this. It's just hard to imagine how.

The only way social justice will come to Seattle is by registering the entire homeless population to vote, and driving each and every one of them to the polls on Election Day.

For all the money and attention spent so far, we could have bought them all homes in North Dakota.

Funny in the sense that its the same group of folks who endorsed Occupy Seattle and their actions, who's camp at SCCC was so much worse than Nickelsville.

Someone tell Anna that the server cut off that last paragraph of the post, where she offered to take one of the current residents of Nickelsville into her own home for a few months.

McGinn can basically do nothing else. However, he's ignored N'ville on this site for quite a while, which is appreciated, since Nickels didn't. Instead, Nickels had the City post a cease-and-desist type sign on the door of the church in the U District which sheltered them, assessing the church $$ for their allowing N'ville to be on their (private) parking lot.

Fuck, this is awful. It seems like they just want houseless people to cease existing. The council should definitely have to tear down the encampment themselves if they go that way.