I'm sorry, are you a reporter, an opinion writer or a community organizer? I lose track.
The problem is that having significantly more pro homeless policy than surrounding communities only leads to a larger influx of homeless.

Every RV in Bellevue, Kent, Renton, etc. will relocate to Seattle. Seattle's own survey from earlier this year noted 51% of Seattle's homeless were from outside the city. And that survey had a very biased methodology, so the real number is likely much higher.

The problem is that the City, County and State government only offer short-term solutions and NEVER implement effective long-term solutions. And most of the short-term solutions that the City Council proposes are run in such a way that the costs are astronomical.

Perhaps the city should make a meaningful effort to learn what is working in other parts of the country and try to duplicate those solutions here????
PREACH Heidi. Thank you for calling b.s. on the Times editorial board, again.

And everyone please take O' Brien's call to action seriously! He is imploring, "Help me help you!"

Calls and emails to Councilmembers and the Mayor take like five minutes, but are critically helpful in encouraging CMs to show backbone, knowing that at least part of the public has their back on an issue. When they only hear from cranky homeowners in Wallingford and Magnolia, that's whose interests they're more likely to serve.
It's 2017 and commenters are still pretending they don't know what blog is. Guess that will always be with us...

Conservatives think life is fair. They think the rich are deserving, and the poor are unworthy. They don't want to help anyone because they don't think they deserve it, and they think it's pointless anyway, because the unworthy will always be wretched no matter what you do for them. It's all their own fault. The more religious they are, the more conservative a denomination they follow, the more they blame the poor for being poor. Honest right wingers will say that dying because you can't afford health care or freezing on the street is exactly what you deserve. They consider these horrible fates as the proper motivation to make something of yourself.

The Times pretends they're too sophisticated for that. They won't admit that they don't want to tax the rich because they think wealth is the just reward for better men, and they won't admit they don't want to help people without houses because they think they don't deserve it. They'd zero out Seattle's whole $50 million homeless budget if they could, and only fund thugs in blue with nightsticks to roust unsightly hobos off the streets so they don't have to look at them.
@2 The 2017 Count showed that 77% of the nearly 900 homeless people surveyed reported that they were last housed in Seattle/King County. Another 15% came from another WA county. The idea that any meager attempt to combat the homelessness crisis will attract even more people experiencing homelessness is largely baseless and completely cruel.…
The same laws need to apply to everyone, end of story.
Yeah, that's what we need a bunch of shitty run down RV's on our streets full of meth heads and heroin junkies to rob us and be awful people. Sounds like a great vision for a "World Class" city....
Oh Where Shall the Homeless Go!
A play in one act

Dramatis Personae:
The Not-Radical: Ana amalgam of: Bruce Harrel, ACLU-WA, Columbia Legal Services
The Public: The People of our fair city
The Stranger: The City's Only Newspaper
The Seattle Times: Reactionary Propagandists

SCENE: A crowded Internet discussion parlor in the Capitol Hill neighborhood (median home price: $606,000). The Stranger is seated at stage left, The Seattle Times at stage right. The Public sits between them. Enter The Not-Radical, stage left.

The Not-Radical I have an ALL-NEW proposal as to Where the Homeless Should Go!
The Seattle Times Is it "into houses," perchance?
The Not-Radical It is an entirely new variant of "Legalize Squatting On Public Land!"
The Stranger Hear Him! Hear Him!
The Public Uh, OK, but we are rather attached to the idea of our public land being, you know, public, and not privately occupied.
The Not-Radical Worry Not! The Squatting will be Temporary!
The Public Oh, OK, that sounds fine! So like what, six weeks or so at a time, and then we get the land back for public use?
The Not-Radical One Year! And here is a long list of conditions that must be met before the squatter can be asked to leave.
The Stranger Hear Him! Hear Him!
The Public Oh my. And this will apply to all public land, will it?
The Not-Radical Oh no, no, nothing like that! It will only apply to a small fraction of public land, certainly not all of it.
The Stranger Hear Him! Hear Him!
The Public Ah, excellent! So which public lands will it apply to, exactly?
The Not-Radical I have urgent business elsewhere
The Stranger I am hung over and can not operate my reporter-telephone
(long pause)
The Seattle Times Hey guys I made a map! Check it out!
The Public We do not like this map, it has too many schools and parks on it, and this does not look at all like "just a little bit" of public land.
The Stranger This map is drawn in crayon. It is a fake!
The Not-Radical I am not available at this time
The Public OK does anyone have a real map, or was this never a real idea, or what
The Stranger The map is a fake!
The Seattle Times Can we talk again about my totally realistic idea to move them into houses, except without any new tax revenue
The Stranger The map is a fake!
The Not-Radical I can't talk to the press right now, I am busy working on an ALL=NEW proposal!
The Public But what of the Homeless?
All but The Stranger WHERE SHALL THEY GO!?
The Stranger The map is a fake!
Damnit, that was supposed to be O'Brien, not Harrell. I shall send a correction request to the printer forthwith.
I live near streets where RVs park, and routinely see drug deals and hear gunshots.


Why are the homeowners routinely shat upon in Seattle?
@6. Seattle did a similar survey and found only 49% of homeless were from Seattle


That survey has three flaws that suggest the real impact of migration into the city is even higher:

1) The phrasing of the question says "last time" you became homeless. So if you were in jail (8% were) or a motel (7%) for a short time in thr city, the survey counts you as "from Seattle."

2) Self reported surveys generally have bias when there is an answer that is more socially acceptable (like being from here).

3) it doesn't break out sheltered vs unsheltered homeless.

And if migration isn't happening why was Seattle's homeless population up 30% last year while other parts of King County were almost flat?

nobody's addressing the fact there are different sets of homeless populations. People who are living out of their cars because they lost a job and haven't gotten a new one yet are one thing. Those people look for and accept help to get back on their feet and *stop being homeless*.

People who have been homeless for years and years because they are fucked up in the head, addicted to whatever, or just real losers at the game of life are only going to continue to be trash-and-piss-everywhere homeless wherever you put them. Seattle has always had way way more people in column B than column A. Giving them a nicer place to slowly ruin is not how you solve the problem, it's how you get more of them.

Eugene is not permissive to campers like Portland is. You call the cops, those people are gone. And guess what? So is the trash, smoking while sitting in the middle of the sidewalk mean-mugging people who actually live there, etc. The people in RVs are all pieces of shit who need to go out and fuck up a rest stop instead of residential neighborhoods and stoops of businesses.

Opening your arms to the homeless as a city is about as stupid as that adage a lot of us heard in church when we were kids - you know, inviting them into your home for dinner? I was only 9 or 10 when I first heard that but I had seen and smelled enough to know that was about the dumbest fucking thing you could do in this town with a homeless person. Still is. Offer services for those looking to get on their feet - do not offer spaces for them to set up their bindles and carts of trash-belongings or rolling Winnebago Transfer Stations. Those people are f-u-c-k-e-d fuct and can fuck right out of any community you want to keep clean and safe. Put them in the warehouses by the rail yard, not fucking neighborhoods.
Let's shove all the homeless into warehouses in SoDo and locate our "safe" injection sites in the same area.

It really could be win win for everyone!
@14 SODO ain't going to be the dumping ground for long, look at the rents there, too, Plus when the Viaduct is toast, SODO's proximity to everything cool in Pioneer Square up becomes choice. Nope. gotta find another dumping ground, SODO is gentrifying in it own weird way,,,
And Jesus said, help not the needy at your feet, for that only encourages them. What do you want every loser in Galilee moving into your neighborhood, saith the LORD.

Sure, but you're going to have to work pretty hard to find a Christian in Seattle you can preach to with that.

The people chasing this issue in endless circles in this city are largely heathens; you'll have to convert them before you spit scripture at them.

Of course the City of Eugene isn't actually solving anything with that policy, they're just passing the burden off onto some other municipality. That's the problem with your "anywhere but MY neighborhood/town" strategy; it just sweeps the problem under the proverbial rug instead of addressing the deeper issues that contribute to homelessness in the first place.

"...they're just passing the burden off onto some other municipality..."

Hang on a minute there, didn't we all just agree that homeless people aren't migrating into Seattle from other municipalities, and that's just a scare tactic used by tightfisted jerks to justify their mean-spirited opposition to adding more services and shelter for the needy?
Everyone who actually read that report knows that they set the questions up to make it seem like most of the homeless are locals. The last place you were sheltered... yeah, couch surfing or paying for a hostel counts as being a local. I get why they did it, because people are less generous when they realize that the homeless are coming here because services are better and they are tolerated more by the police.

Er, I think you may be talking past my point a bit, there, it's more a "both of these things can't be entirely true at the same time" type of observation.

I think all we might reasonably hope for in One Night's methodology is a uniform approach across all municipalities covered, and I haven't heard anything to suggest otherwise.

I do realize that the scrupulously scientifically-minded would be much happier with the data collected if One Night were stapling numbered tags to the ears of The Homeless and fitting them with radio collars, but for whatever reason that level of experimental rigor has yet to be achieved in this particular field of research.
The city council has a lot of opinions about how to solve problems, and then legislates based on those opinions. They would legislate how a carpenter uses a hammer and proclaim its not the councils job to know what the hammer is for.
Are we building a new 6 story MFH apartment building in Seattle every single day?

If not, rental prices will rise and more will become homeless.

All else is posturing.

The answer to your question is "yes."

And it's been true for a while now, too: for the past three years, Seattle has built 9000+ new units per year-- that's over 24 per day. The projected total for 2017 is 11,660 units, or 32 units per day. 2018? 14,293, or almost 40 units added every day.

No reduction in homelessness so far, though-- in fact, the counts have been going up, not down.
It's almost as if it's a problem that we can't just build our way out of via the private sector?
@23 Seattle's homeless aren't the lower wage workers in Seattle who have to live in Auburn or Algona and commute in, Seattle's homeless are drug addicts and criminals,,,sure they're minor exceptions, always are, but facts is facts. why are we doing cartwheels for a bunch of lowlifes?
@11, hear hear, what about the people who pay rents and mortgages and taxes and try to do the right things, why are Seattle's good citizens having to jump through hoops to coddle drug addicts and crooks? Are we an city of addicts and crooks, or decent folk?
We live in a country that adheres to a system and part of that system is capital and property based wrapped in personal rights and the ability to vote coupled with the obligation to pay taxes and be lawful. I do believe we as a state spend millions and allocate massive resources to the homeless problem. It is a problem every city/state/country has and it cannot be solved in any simple way. Lets stick to our laws, rules and the things that make Seattle so livable and lovable. We need accountability for the dollars that are spent, visibility into the experiments needed to provide for those that want housing to move in that direction and we need to allow our parks, streets and nighborhoods to be the rewards and dividends we taxpayers and workers and system players deserve to enjoy and have access to without threat or breakdown. It is very dis-heartening for me at Green Lake to see that the benches are not usable because the homeless are sleeping on them and have set up their tents and spread their trash; all without any contribution or appreciation for the systems and way of life that we work so hard to provide and to protect. There is no easy answer, I travel the world and I can tell you this is not just a Seattle issue. But we also must do much to protect our way of life and what makes Seattle special while asking our systems and the accountability of those systems to deliver. I agree, RVs parked endlessly and delivering havoc which they will is no answer for anybody.
Yeah, because Dori Monson listeners and the Neighborhood Safety Alliance are really the voices driving this town, Mike.

Why don't you get all the RV squatters to email the council? Oh yeah, because they don't give a rat's ass. Just like they don't care about stealing your bike or dumping their feces or cooking drugs.
We need some Tweaker Cams put up here in Seattle. Like the one up in Everett. Then people can see what goes on. And judge for themselves. The people of Seattle will not see drug use, drug sales, or prostitution, assaults, stolen property, etc.

And those who are for RV'rs being exempt from city laws. Go to the city council and say to that esteemed panel that you will accept them on your street. To park in front of your house. To park in your driveway. Park in the lot of your apartment building, because you care. If you don't, then you're a NIMBY by default.
@18 people who are already doing well have priority over those who are not. Out of my community. Not "here is a dumpster and a porta-potty so you can sustain your leeching on people who know how to play the game of life better than you."
Neither Boston nor New York would put up with this and they deal much better with their home than Seattle. Why should Seattle put up with this? The city authorized and completed two studies from respected homeless consultants on how to address our homeless issues. Opening up the city to beater RVs wasn't on the to-do list. In fact it was on the "Not to-do" list.

For O'Brien this isn't about finding a solution. It's about the politics of division so he can appear to be the "Savior. Give me a break!
The Stranger may as well be called "Keep Seattle crappy and despotic" with biased pieces of crap like this. This was the same gang that thought legalizing homelessness would solve the problem. Funny, it had the opposite effect. And now the RV redistribution policy with no consideration for the community.
Another one-sided, biased and non-data based solution from a Councilman bent on making life for the homeless better and fuck everyone else.
The Seattle Times is clueless, as always. "Rapid" rehousing is a failure. As soon as the subsidies are withdrawn, people are out on the street again. But the City counts those temporarily housed as a success. For many years, I've volunteered at organizations serving the homeless and I strongly support Mike O'Brien's plan to allow people to live in their vehicles.
@32 - If you haven't already done it.... google and read Barbara Poppe's recommendations for the city. Interesting read. If it can work in other cities then why not here, eh?
@18: It is neither the job nor the responsibility of Eugene to solve the nation's homeless problem. Nor is it Seattle's. If Seattle were to finally get the backbone to tell homeless activists to pound sand and tell these junkies and miscreants to either accept the help they've been offered multiple times or get the fuck out of town, I would be all for it. We should even offer them free one-way bus tickets to go become someone else's problem. After all other cities like Portland, Vegas and LA have deliberately sent many of their homeless our way.

Seattle's responsibility is not to welcome and provide for the nation's homeless, it's responsibility is to the citizens of Seattle, period.
Simple, really. Homelessness is a BUSINESS for many people - most all have ties to City Hall. Let this sink in - people are **profiting** from the homeless crisis. What then is the motivation to solve the issue?

Take 10 minutes and read through this blog piece. If you are not steaming mad by the end of it, I'd be highly surprised:…

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.