Council Shelves SODO Homeless Camp Until Summer or Later


Tim H is correct.
I just want to clarify something, and correct me if I'm wrong -

The Environmental Review that precludes the Council's ability to pass legislation here does so because it's changing zoning, basically, from industrial to residential.

The EIS for the tunnel isn't a zoning change, but for a replacement of a highway.

So, comparing apples to oranges.

I would also point out that the signatories to the letter include Sally Clark, Nick Licata and Sally Bagshaw. I suppose they all hate the homeless, too? Mr. Harris?
Licata signed because the letter allows for the potential for the Council to consider now, without waiting for the land use code changes, the 2nd bill - the funding portion of the plan. If after having a conversation about the 2nd bill, the Council supports moving forward with the plan, the City can do so with a temporary use permit - a non-legislative, administrative action that doesn't require an environmental review.
Is noise being studied under the SEPA review?
@2 You and your facts.

Rule of thumb:

If you're homeless, don't live in the most expensive real estate market in the world.

We could have bought the homeless brand new townhouses in Tumwater by now...
I'm sure everyone who signed onto the letter had their own reasons for doing so #2. And did I say Conlin or anyone else "hates the homeless?" No. I said he won't support Tent Cities and is conservative on this issue, which in this town (and in most places) means being in lockstep with the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness ideology, which says that all those 2,000-3,000 people sleeping outside can continue to do so until we've built them housing. It says that we care SO FUCKING MUCH about them, nothing less is good enough.

This is what Richard and the Sally's will arrogantly argue, despite the unanimous recommendation of the Tent City Panel — which was a who's who of Seattle advocates and shelter providers — that we finally break out of our denial that our inadequate emergency shelter and transitional housing system CANNOT MEET THE NEED, and that our pretense otherwise is a cruel form of neglect.

This really isn't so much an epic clash of Titans — McGinn vs. Conlin — as it is the grassroots voices of homeless people getting run over once again by a Ten Year Plan paradigm that admits no exceptions to its defining logic. The interesting thing will be whether those advocates and providers that made up the Mayor's panel will back up their recommendations with action, or crumble like a rancid feta cheese before the Enforcers of the Holy Plan and Holders of the Pursestrings.
Conlin is a goat fucker not a homeless lover.
Another example of a rookie mayor who didn't do his homework of getting the city council onboard with his priorities. Today is bad news for people who thought they had a deal with the city through McGinn only to discover he can't muster more than one council member to vote with him.

Sadly, the same thing goes for the "who's who" homeless advocates who have failed to make their case with council members. Where are their voices, pulling support for this plan, and how did they fail to make their case? Sorry, Tim, but the fact you're writing about this in Slog and Facebook and Publicola is a sign that the old shoe leather work never got done and you haven't made Politics 101 case to the Council.

I'm guessing that the hardest thing to swallow here is the $1 million sticker for this particular project in comparison with the city's investment in other shelter programs. At $10,000 per resident this has suddenly become a Cadillac-priced shelter while all other shelters in the city are junkyard rescue projects. I'm sure any shelter program in the city would LOVE to get its hands on this much money in this funding climate. What makes this program design suddenly outcompete those programs? Why shouldn't those shelters have a shot at these $s?

To the Council, I suspect, this looks like a proposal by the mayor to pay off some of his cronies with a juicy success in return for their political support. In a friendly political environment this might work. In the poisonous, tunnel-obsessed climate created by McGinn at City Hall there's no incentive for the Council to cave.
@9, that's a perspective you don't hear every day.
Wow, #9. I've noticed something. Those who go on the most about the poisonous atmosphere of City Hall often have a distinctly toxic communication style of their own.

For all of the proposal's flaws, McGinn is at least willing to open a debate. The details of what this could look like are very much open to modification, but Conlin won't even entertain a discussion. Instead, Council will ignore the unanimous recommendations of the homeless advocates in favor of their own better judgment. We're talking, but no one's listening. The myth of a Ten Year Plan that's working drowns everything else out.

Sorry, Tim, you love to blame the TYP but there's no mention of it in Conlin's letter. In fact, the letter supports a potential increase in shelter funding once the mayor substantiates the appropriateness of the investment. A close reading (when and if you cool down enough to study it) shows Conlin's desire for an open dialogue with all options on the table. Whether McGinn has figured it out or not the council has the prerogative to do what it sees fit and it would probably be smarter for you and other advocates to educate council members than throw around words like "arrogant" when they are simply giving this proposal the due diligence it deserves.

I applaud council for asking, as it does in this letter, if a $1 million investment in this effort is the wisest use of such a large amount of money. If other shelter providers can serve more people better with the same $s, than the Sunny Jim proposal makes no sense (other than to please the mayor's cronies, that is). It's pure bullshit to blame this on the Ten Year Plan.
You don't understand a damn thing. The city's leading advocates and providers made a unanimous recommendation, which Conlin chose to ignore and refuse to discuss because it doesn't fit with his notion of how to approach homelessness. He and other members of the Council are on record elsewhere rejecting a solution for campers because, under the 10YP, only housing is considered a legitimate solution. We're in agreement that the Mayor's proposal is too expensive, but the proposal should be discussed and scaled back. Instead, there will be no discussion, because Conlin thinks he knows better than the Citizen's review panel of experts on the subject. You, in fact, are the one who has the narrow, ideologically informed, view of what's going on here. Your narrative of "Corrupt Mayor offering political payback to cronies while Richard Conlin stands up for common sense" leaves no room for anything else, much like the Ten Year Plan leaves no room to admit that we need to do something NOW to assist the 3,000 or so who sleep outside on any given night on King County because the emergency shelter system simply can't keep up.
Your argument would sound a lot more intelligent if you actually read the letter, rather than simply recite your tired and outdated narrative about the Ten Year Plan.

An advocate who actually hoped to succeed in this issue would be knocking on Conlin's door right now, trying to educate and persuade and move this a step closer to a positive decision for homeless people. Slog rants and ad hominem attacks on council members just make the gulf wider and reduce your influence among decision-makers. If you did your homework with the council you"d have the votes for more shelter funding, but unfortunately you've hitched your wagon to the mayor's star and he's taken you the same place he's ended up himself -- nowhere.
Apparently, you have the same PhD in Dismissive Arrogance as Conlin. The letter says no sanctioned encampment, no how, no way, forget it. This isn't a matter of "educating" Conlin. He's had a decade to understand the need for a sanctioned spot for tent campers and is immovably opposed. Period. If you understood the first thing about what this is about, you'd know that creating condition of safety and dignity for urban campers is the point of this effort, and that the offer of additional shelter or transitional housing in Conlin's letter is only there to divide and buy off the "advocates".at Nickelsville's expense. There was some hope that the panel's recommendations would help move the council, but if Richard won't put it on the Council Agenda, then the discussion won't happen unless it's on Conlin's terms, which are, as you recall, no sanctioned encampment, no how, no way, forget it.
Oh, ok. I guess you'd rather call Conlin names than work with him to get a council majority for your proposal. Good luck with that.