"Sweeping homeless people into FEMA-style tents? So much for "housing first." This dehumanizing policy would mean forcing people to abandon their belongings against their wishes, all while wasting money on a temporary solution that won't solve the main problem that people have, which is housing."

So wait, living under I5 surrounded by garbage, stolen property, human shit and needles is somehow better than a clean, organized FEMA-style tent with beds, lockers, bathrooms and shower facilities?

Yeah, this is a "housing" crisis" alright, as in, some people are incapable of living in houses.

How is “FEMA-style” housing cruel, and why do they have to get rid of their possessions?

I mean, if you really want to bring that tarp, television, cart, and suitcase you’ve built a shelter out of with you, I don’t think many people are going to gank it if you need a few trips to shuttle it all over to the prospective camp, talking to yourself all the while.

What other possessions are you speaking of? Has this shadowy “FEMA-type” housing group enacted rules disallowing tents and bicycles(you can roll tents up, and if you bind them they’ll stay rolled up, fyi)?

I mean, it would be entirely reasonable to demand clothes and bodies are free of fleas and lice, but if your stance is what it appears to be, aren’t you saying putting people up after national disasters is cruelty?

With that being said, the people pushing this must be the types who go with the all-inclusive resort packages.

All of you.

And, uh, wage theft?

I'm wondering why 'moms' who live in gated enclaves are so exercised over the homeless crisis. Are the homeless camping out on their well-manicured lawns? Is it because they see tents while tooling around in their Lexus SUVs? Maybe they can see tents while dining on Canlis terrace?

@4 Maybe they are some of the 40,000 plus Seattleites who signed the jobs tax repeal petition in a ground breaking two weeks. Probably would have hit double that number if the Council hadn't seen the writing on the wall and repealed the jobs tax itself.

My wife (and she's a mom) walked out of her office at lunchtime to the first signing location the day the petitions appeared. No gates needed.

Tomorrow is going to be glorious. Seattle will be reclaimed by some adults.

"In the meantime, since the Moms have been "revealed," the PAC has raised thousands of more dollars."

Which works out to be, what, 0.005% of the total expenditures in the city council campaign? Yawn.

@4 It's possible that they are concerned about the fact that we spend roughly $1 billion dollars a year on homelessness--nearly $100,000 per homeless person per year--but the problem keeps getting worse.

@7 A billion? Really! Gee that sounds like a lot! Maybe that's because you just pulled it out of your ass?

I don't agree with these mothers, but I kinda get it. If you just look outside and see people camped out doing drugs and stealing bikes*, and then realize it's been going on for the past 15+ years with no visible improvement despite the city proclaiming homelessness crises and spending a lot of money, it looks like nothing's being done. I'm sure there's a lot of good people doing good work with results, but from the outside it just doesn't look like it's making any difference. If anything it's getting worse.

*There is quite a bit of bike theft by people who are homeless, but obviously not all homeless people are bike thieves. The problem is that the perception becomes that anyone sleeping outside is part of this group or up to some other theft to support their habit. This is a big part of why sympathy for the homeless has been declining here.

@8 Nope, from the Puget Sound Business Journal's excellent reporting in 2017.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/11/16/price-of-homelessness-seattle-king-county-costs.html

But I don't imagine you're well informed enough to know hbb's source. You're just a little too hysterical.

@10 Eh, 'the Puget Sound area' is not Seattle (never mind they are mishing and mashing 'public' and 'private' expenditures), and estimates made by the Puget Sound Business Journal when it comes to money spent addressing homelessness should perhaps be taken with a teeny tiny grain of salt.

@9 Can't immediately find data for 15 years ago but here's something:
https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-seattle-rent-trends/
Average rent for a one bedroom in 2011: $925 Average in April 2019: $2040.
Need some help putting two and two together?

"The ideology driving this whole thing is a hatred and disgust of poor people."
Absolutely correct. It really blooms in a wing-nut political atmosphere.
Poverty is created and maintained by the wealthy. They could end it very easily if they wanted.

@7 " the problem keeps getting worse"

like everywhere else on the West coast that doesn't practice the bus ticket out of town policy. Perhaps it's about time you jackasses start talking about the most unequal distribution of wealth in a century, the affordable housing crisis and on. Why the hell do you expect Seattle to fix national problems all by itself? It reeks of opportunism.

@11 "the Business Journal spent six months examining the budgets of dozens of nonprofits that work on the issue; city and county budgets; police and emergency calls to encampments and resource centers; hospital services; permanent and temporary housing; and drug treatment and outreach."

It seems that you are not satisfied with this approach. What information would you like to see regarding expenditures on homelessness? I'm not sure where the goalposts are at the moment, and want to make certain I meet your expectations.

How is this different from the armed militia gangs that used to roam Northern states looking for escaped property and then dragging them back by rope tied to their horses?

Except the "property" wasn't tents.

It was people.

Just like what happened in Oregon at sundown, in that "sundown" state. Which, to be honest, also happened in Seattle if you were Native American and outside at sundown.

@14 "Why the hell do you expect Seattle to fix national problems all by itself?"

Because there is no federal agency tasked with addressing regional homelessness problems. The closest you get to something like that are McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants. So, it's primarily up to local governments to address homelessness.

Believe it or not Will, not all homeless are black, and not everyone black is homeless.

@18 Exactly. It's amazing how racist liberals can be.

Most of the homeless I see are white and most are junkies. They manage to find $2,000 a month for their dope, but not for a one bedroom in Ballard apparently.

Priorities I guess.

no tents / no tarps / no sleeping in public places, cars or RVs is only way to fix this. To enable this type of rule we need comprehensively funded (new taxes on business and wealth) programs that transport and direct currently homeless to viable temporary homeless housing that is centrally located and managed. This needs to be done in humane and safe fashion for all involved and it will be expensive and will likely never go away, but we have to address this problem at the symptom (expanding homelessness) rather than fixing income inequality or some other larger cause that will not likely be addressed.

@15 Well let's see, maybe we could find a source mildly less biased than the Puget Sound Business Journal? Fox News maybe? Come on ace, I can go tally up all sorts of random public and private expenditures, declare them expenditures related to addressing homelessness and give you an impressive number. What the hell, all park maintenance: expenditures related to the homeless crisis because homeless people camp in parks. Quite possible the crisis is not being addressed with a high level of efficiency. Completely idiotic to be exclusively pointing the finger at local governments/non-profits when the cause of the crisis is right in front of your face: the sky rocketing cost of living.

"Average rent for a one bedroom in 2011: $925 Average in April 2019: $2040.
Need some help putting two and two together?"

So you think if the rent back down to $925 a month average all the junkies living in their own shit, shooting up heroin all day under I5 will suddenly be able to find housing?

Plenty of cheap housing in Skyway, Burien, Renton, Everett by the way. And if you're an unemployed junkie, it's not like the work commute will be an issue.

19

What if we found a middle ground and only made the white folks get off of their asses, contribute to society, and pay in to their own retirement fund?

That’d be woke.

Also, Will, unless your sister is literal royalty willing to fill city coffers she likely rented a chapel at the Presidio, not the entire thing.

Which is surprisingly economical.

"When you offered them housing they had control over and that didn't come with a lot of strings, they accepted that readily." --Dan Malone, DESC

Well, DOH! If I could swap smoking meth on a sidewalk with smoking meth in a free apartment, I guess I'd accept housing, too. Malone has built a little empire, and wants to expand it. So sure, let's "meet 'em where they're at," given them a place to shoot or smoke up (but no cigarettes or, Heaven forfend, plastic straws!) and let many if not most of them continue to finance their addictions through theft. Sounds like a winner to our family, which has enjoyed the "lived experience" of two home invasions and multiple car prowls and an attempted car theft, in the past two years. And, as many of my neighbors have been having the same kind of "lived experience," it'll probably sound like a winner too them, too.

@17 ?????? the federal government used to build public housing. Republicans (Nixon) and following neoliberals changed that. The federal government used to fund public mental health. Reagan and his successors changed that. Corporations and the wealthy used to pay taxes so that we could afford such programs. Republicans and neoliberals imposed austerity that severely crippled our ability to finance social programs that prevent homelessness. If conservatives don't want the homeless in their street perhaps they should stop voting for anti-governance ghouls.

"transport and direct currently homeless to viable temporary homeless housing that is centrally located and managed."

The last sweep in The Jungle in 2016 only 24% of the junkies ... sorry "homeless"... contacted accepted housing and services. Seattle';s navigation team re[oprts similar numbers on encampments today.

What's your plan for people who refuse housing?

"First, the numbers: Of 357 folks counted living in The Jungle last spring, all were contacted multiple times with offers of temporary shelter, legal help, alcohol or drug rehab (which typically includes housing) or financial assistance to reunite with family. They were given choices of going to a faith-based shelter like Union Gospel, and some secular options.

In the end, 87 accepted — 24 percent. They went into housing or were moved to a sanctioned encampment, such as Othello Village run by the Low Income Housing Institute."

26 well that is the key, you don't get to refuse. Sure this "criminalizes" homelessness in the minds of some, but really you can't fix the problem of seattle turning into a homeless garbage dump without making that part of it against the rules.

@25 Federal spending as a share of the US economy has gone from 15% of the economy in 1950 to about 23% in 2010. That's "up" if you're not good with numbers.

Slight dip after that, rising again.

But blame Reagan yadi yadi yadi.....

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/federal-spending-and-revenue-share-us-economy-1930-2016/

It's not like these "activists" vote.

So why should we care what they think?

Let's rezone their streets to pedestrian only and change all their arterial streets to bus/bike only. The extra exercise will help.

The desperation by the hobo activist class is very elevated this election cycle. Perhaps they sense the gravy train is coming to an end. Look folks, there is only one clear beneficiary from this sleep on streets and under bridges and do whatever you want (i.e. heroin and meth) policy, and that is ensuring a constant stream of income to local drug dealing gangs in Seattle/King County. Dollars to doughnuts, there are some in political positions getting paid off, counterbalanced with threats, and the rest are just dumb SJW types who think they are saving the world. The gangs are meanwhile laughing all the way to the bank. Look to the ones who are most desperately pushing back, especially "unpaid consultants" and "activists" and follow the money.

Orange tree ground banana orangutan sky rocket

@21 "Completely idiotic to be exclusively pointing the finger at local governments/non-profits when the cause of the crisis is right in front of your face: the sky rocketing cost of living."

Idiotic? Studies commissioned by local governments and non-profits themselves recognize that the regional response to homelessness has been deeply flawed and ineffective:

"Multiple experts found the governance structure of the homeless response system is too weak to drive change, but this problem has not been resolved. In 2015, the United Way of King County, the City of Seattle, and King County commissioned an analysis of the regional homeless response system. The consultant identified the system’s governance and leadership structure, vis-à-vis All Home and local funders, as a general weakness in rapidly responding to the region’s growing homeless crisis. Concurrently, the City of Seattle commissioned its own consultant, who also recognized the need to reform the regional governance structure to improve homeless response. All Home has restructured its coordinating board, but programmatic decisions remain siloed in the city, county, and other funders."

https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/auditor/new-web-docs/2018/homeless-2018/2018-homeless-rpt.ashx?la=en

Why are you unwilling to accept that as a community, we suck at addressing homelessness, and that is why we have such a troubling homelessness problem?

Wow the tinfoils hats are blazing today

@34 I am unwilling to accept that whether we 'suck at addressing homelessness' or not, it is not the primary cause of this crisis. It is a housing affordability issue. It is glaringly obvious that the homeless population here ballooned in almost perfect sync with the ballooning cost of housing. And even the Puget Sound Business Journal appears to recognize that getting the homeless into permanent housing drastically reduces public expenditures in this area. Does this mean the reactionaries support more public housing? Yo reactionaries! In truth I suspect we have one or two reactionaries here tirelessly dedicated to creating ever more accounts. I'm guessing they are more into squirting out verbal diarrhea (and apparently euthanasia for non-conformists?) than rational solutions.

One of the “moms” said on Facebook “ blah, blah, blah, this is how it’s done.”

Yes, this is how RICH people approach elections. With sneaky PACs.

@38 Excellent idea Ken! We're the country with the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world so we're already the very best! Doesn't mean that the freedom loving Chinese or Russians couldn't at some point catch up. Better make sure and stay well ahead of them!

@40 The war on crime has done an amazing job at lowering crime rates in the past 25 years.

So it seems to help when you put criminals in jail.

Maybe you'd prefer we return to the 1980s?

Shortly before the french revolution queen Antoinette said “Let them eat cake”. Tired of being hungry and poor, all hell broke loose because it was one insult too many.
Your fascist campaign of maligning people who are facing problems of poverty, addiction, mental illness, unemployment and no where to live can blow up in your faces. Many work at jobs but not enough to pay the bills. Your hatred of these people is truly disgusting and dehumanizing yet you helped and help create these problems. Most of the people in this city do not agree with you. You haters are in the minority but you have platforms and money which most of us do not have.

Thank you Rich for an excellent article. It is appreciated.

Hoarded wealth is a machine for poverty. Low wages creates poverty. Your greed and selfishness creates poverty. Your tax benefits create poverty. And so much more. It was not until the 1980s that we began to see the rise of homelessness due to the attacks on labor and the benefits that had been won for ordinary working class people. Bit by bit you work to take away benefits that have been won by people who fought back. This is a system that needs poverty to work. We know what your game is.

Since you blame the people you have denigrated we will remember and we will do everything to change this situation (and it is temporary) for the better for the people on the bottom.

So, Ken you want a police state. By your comments you should seek professional help.

@45:

Methinks @43 may actually - for once - have been speaking facetiously, if not ironically...

If you want to provide housing in a government-run camp, and you're not going to allow the homeless to refuse that housing, then your camp is going to have a lot in common with a prison. A sort of prison/camp, if you will.

What crime are you asking judges to convict people of, if the sentence is going to be involuntary housing in a prison/camp? Will the sentence have a fixed term, or are you thinking of something more like a life sentence?

Or do we just dispense with the judiciary, and have the police handle everything directly?

@47: "Or do we just dispense with the judiciary, and have the police handle everything directly?"

No, but there are creative solutions and incentives that could help. Like health check-ups if they live in such camps.

Creative, grass roots thinking is what we need.

God Bless the Moms For Seattle.

It sounds like you are against treatments such as buprenorphine to reduce the bad feelings from opioid withdrawals as was suggested in the Seattle Is Dying newscast and is being tried in King County Jails with some success. I think we need to try this.

Also, that you think homeless should be allowed to live in homes provided by taxpayers with no strings or rules attached. We saw that that doesn't work in our Navigation Center where residents were carrying weapons and letting drug dealers into the place. I think our housing for the homeless should go so far as to have a no guns allowed policy with metal detectors if needed. We need to keep the people living there safe. And they need to have security that prevents people like drug dealers from entering. Maybe then more of the homeless would feel that the housing provided by the city was a safe place for them to live.

@33 I agree with you that Seattle should not provide housing for all the homeless in King County. There are much cheaper places to build this type of housing farther from the Center of Seattle and we could house more people if we could build it cheaply. Seattle taxpayers should not be on the hook for everyone.

And we do need to make sure the housing is not enabling people to stay addicted forever. That there are incentives to get into rehab and get a job and get back into society.