Tim, maybe it has something to do with his mother.

Why does Conlin hate homeless people? Same reason as everyone else, I would imagine. What's not to hate?

A meaningful question might be 'Is Richard Conlin faltering in presenting a socially mandatory polite pretense of not openly hating homeless people?'

He doesn't hate homeless people, he just doesn't want them riding transit in his Deeply Priveleged Tunnel and bothering his Billionaire and Millionaire friends.

I will vote for anyone running against Conlin, even perrenial loon 'Good Space Guy'.

Seattle quite possibly does more for the homeless, nearly homeless, and under-homed (ie: too many folks in one unit) than any other city in our State, than our county, and most cities in this country. Ask a homeless person where they're from, and oftentimes it's not here. I've heard Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma...

And then asked why they come here? Because they know that Seattle treats the homeless well.

A large part of that is the Council, including Richard Conlin.

So Tim Harris - shut the hell up. As you continue to join the ranks of SHARE/WHEEL and make more enemies than friends, all you will do is hurt your cause. We do a lot in this city for the homeless, but we have to remember - the city has to take care of the rest of the citizens, too.

michaelp, honestly, when are you going to just say what you think about--oh, sorry. Never mind...

@8 lol.

i love class envy by the non-rich who can't be bothered to save and invest 20 percent of their income.

@8 - I'm so confused...I hate the lack of tone on the interwebs...

just imagine us drinking Caparis in Rome while we catcall to you and say the same thing, michael.

"Apparently, relatively insignificant industrial zoning changes require far more diligence in this regard than $4.2 billion transportation projects." = FTW

I wonder if this is political payback by Conlin for you being a part of the groups that is suing to drown his baby, the tunnel. But Conlin would never do that!

@4 - There's no spaces in "Goodspaceguy".

@14 he used em all up.

@13 ;->~

Very odd piece, because it ignores several important facts:
1. The mayor's "panel of experts" included exactly zero representatives from the city council, which would have to approve and fund the plan. This is just one more example of this mayor's inability to deal with the legislative arm of city government. It's a rookie/hamhanded mistake that sets up anyone on the mayor's "panel of experts" to engage in an exercise in futility that delivers a DOA plan. No experienced mayor would start a plan like this, ignoring his/her city council, effectively trying to ram it down their throats.
2. Nickelsville itself does not want the mayor's plan. They have said over and over that they are not interested in the case management and other staffing pieces that the mayor's office wants to force on them with a move to Sunny Jim. Even the Deputy Mayor recognized that in the Seattle Channel panel that included this piece's author.
3. The Sunny Jim site is not on the mayor's own list of preferred sites for Nickelsville. It's off buslines and not near grocery stores. It's a site, but a crummy one. Why insist on something that makes no sense?

Conlin and other council members are just trying to do their jobs as the city's legislative arm. Rather than attack Conlin, who's supported by more or less all of the council members (note human service Nick Licata's absence on this) ask the mayor's office why "the experts" were set up to fail.

Another outreach worker to connect people with services would also be nice.

But God forbid anyone "force" outreach in a homeless encampment. Even a homeless encampment that includes minor children.

Sandman @16 - Not sure what you mean, Nick isn't absent; he is the prime sponsor of this resolution and it will be heard in Nick's committee on 4/27.

And everyone: In the resolution *IS* a commitment to review of the encampment proposal, see #5 below:

The Council's review of alternatives will include but are not limited to: (1) renovating Fire Station 39 as a possible long-term shelter or housing facility; (2) working with faith-based communities to support shelter space in church buildings or parking lots, or on City land leased to churches; (3) purchasing another motel similar to the Aloha Inn to provide transitional housing; (4) providing additional rent assistance vouchers; (5) considering an encampment at a location such as those sites reviewed by the Citizen Review Panel that preferably will not require Comprehensive Plan or land use code amendments; and (6) modifying the City's existing shelter service contracts to address any shortcomings identified in the HSD and Council reviews.

Sandman, the City Councilmembers are not experts on homelessness. That's why they weren't on the panel.

The Sunny Jim site was the site chosen by the Mayor's office. Ask Darryl Smith.

It's interesting that the business community in Sodo, who otherwise have never shown themselves to be interested in what everyday services are available to homeless people anywhere else, are suddenly upset that the Sunny Jim site isn't located near grocery stores. That's very touching.

@10, just noting your forthrightness, not trying to act mean, I swear.

@20 - I didn't think so...but the affirmation by Will and all can make the most awesome comments tragic ;-)

True that. It's sometimes hard to remember that he usually hasn't read whatever he's responding to.

At least this time Harris did not call someone's mom and incestual whore!

Of course he still apparently regards even rather minor disagreements as transgressions worthy of vitriol, but hey, its a start!

It was a modest proposal from people who don’t expect much.

You expect a million dollar encampment site with ongoing services to be paid for by everyone else. That doesn't qualify as "much" in your book? That's far more than most people expect the city to do for them.

How about showing a little humility and gratitude when asking to freeload? It would be a welcome change from the self-righteous snark.

@ Lisa - thanks for the correction. As usual, Nick is a great leader. Nick's upcoming resolution begs the question of why Tim Harris is blowing a gasket on this.

@ Sarah - If the panel of experts are so smart, why haven't they solved homelessness? Fact is they need decision-makers on their side, something that was absent in the mayor's brilliant scheme to get them onboard. Yes, the mayor proposed Sunny Jim, which is why it's going nowhere.

As I understand it, Tim Harris was not the author of this over-the-top headline, only the body of the story.

Harris did ask, “You wouldn’t get us around this table just to go through some meaningless bullshit exercise while you pretend to care what we think, would you?”

They wanted his help. Why attack him for agreeing to help as he was asked to do?

@2 - Empathetic much? I guess not. Yeah, let's hate on people who have lost their jobs and their homes -- and often their dignity as well. That'll help the situation. Yep. Let's just leave the growing army of homeless to be beaten regularly & have their property stolen by the police, die in cold weather, and be generally shunned. Yes, this --and only this-- will ensure that the working poor will accept whatever meagre wages we give them, because hey! they might be homeless if they don't accept $7/hr! Lovely, capitalist, flexible labor market. Aaahhh!

Ever since Bill Clinton shredded welfare as we knew it before him, a job Reagan and Bush could never do, our nation has deemed it just fine to let hard working families disintegrate under the stress of a single unpayable hospital bill, or a single loss-of-job due to an industry collapsing (such as GM/Detroit/Middle Michgan's current nightmare). Or a bubble collapsing, a fiasco engineered in speculative-money space by paper-pushers on Wall Street.

Maybe people who end up in these situations can get themselves back out, with a little dignity, a little assistance, and a little less hostility and shunning.

What is best for society? Helping able-bodied people get back under way? Or cutting them out of society, to a certain early death?

What is the correct moral choice here?

In terms of the city --"The City" as the agency of the collective will and desire-- What is the best, most effective AND cost-effective approach?

seandr@24 - just to clarify, the Mayor's proposal is about $300K in reality, because about $300K of the Mayor's proposal is for remediation at the Sunny Jim's site, which will have to be done whether Nickelsville was to move there or not. (note the $#s are really a moving target - so I apologize if people have seen different sums before).

That said, some people think the Mayor's proposal is still too high. Tent City 3 reports a budget of about $6000/month and this pays for their costs including honey buckets, sink, garbage removal, bus tickets, and staffing). They also do a significant amount of their own fundraising.

i read the first few comments and had things to say, but by the time i got to the bottom all i could think was "really? are we still having this same conversation? are people actually still arguing that homeless folks are lazy freeloaders who should be kissing the asses of folks who spend $1.50 on water because they gave them 25 cents?" i heard that same argument in the 80s and 90s and it was assinine then. hearing it now is like being forced to watch reruns of The Nanny.

if you're going insist on spewing such a tired and ridiculous argument, at least be honest about your logic. seems to be something along the lines of: people are homeless because they are lazy. therefore, if you hate people for being lazy or punish them for being lazy, this will solve the problem and end homelessness. well done you. take that panel of experts!

the problem with that logic is that we've been doing that since the reagan era and it hasn't solved the problem. why? because "lazy" is not the problem. turns out blaming the poor for being poor doesn't fix shit. it just helps us folks who have a roof over our heads sleep better at night even though we see people sleeping out on the streets. you know, because we deserve it and they don't.

i read the first few comments and had things to say, but by the time i got to the bottom all i could think was "really? are we still having this same conversation? are people actually still arguing that homeless folks are lazy freeloaders who should be kissing the asses of folks who spend $1.50 on water because they gave them 25 cents?" i heard that same argument in the 80s and 90s and it was assinine then. hearing it now is like being forced to watch reruns of The Nanny.

if you're going insist on spewing such a tired and ridiculous argument, at least be honest about your logic. seems to be something along the lines of: people are homeless because they are lazy. therefore, if you hate people for being lazy or punish them for being lazy, this will solve the problem and end homelessness. well done you. take that panel of experts!

the problem with that logic is that we've been doing that since the reagan era and it hasn't solved the problem. why? because "lazy" is not the problem. turns out blaming the poor for being poor doesn't fix shit. it just helps us folks who have a roof over our heads sleep better at night even though we see people sleeping out on the streets. you know, because we deserve it and they don't.

I was at Nickelsville today. Around 5-6pm all the employed folks rush back from their jobs to make the evening meeting. It's held at 6pm every night, and the "external" part of the meeting is open to visitors. I would encourage this: that anyone with strong enough opinions on this subject to angrily object via Slog take an hour out of their lives to go down and meet the campers there. They have all been really friendly and welcoming to me, and the one thing I've noticed about them during my recent visits is that they are a highly motivated, community-minded, politically active, passionate group of people. They work tirelessly to meet the needs of their community AND those people currently beyond any community's reach.

If you don't want to support the needs of Seattle's growing unhoused population, that's your prerogative. But don't go around bashing a hundred people you've never met, calling them names like "lazy" and "freeloaders". For one thing, that's asinine behavior for supposedly educated people. But also, you just couldn't be more wrong.

Harris writes, "We also agreed that the city should recognize that the unmet need is much larger than what one or two or even ten Nickelsvilles can manage. The shelters don’t come close to meeting the need and won’t anytime soon. Seattle should therefore create zones where unsheltered homeless people can be free of harassment and maybe even find a little support."

I've been told more than once by people working in city hall that there ARE enough shelter spaces to accommodate homeless people, but many people avoid shelters because they don't want to abide by the rules (i.e. no getting drunk, using, etc.) If that's truly the case, I don't think the city has any obligation to fund what will become a permanent homeless ghetto. Instead, the city should - and does - devote resources to providing TEMPORARY housing and services that help homeless people get back on their feet and into permanent housing. It's not the city's responsibility to help pay for homelesness as a lifestyle choice, which is what the SHARE/WHEEL folks seem to think homeless people are entitled to.
As another poster pointed out, this city does a great deal for the homeless, much more than in many cities around the country.

@ 32: of course city hall says there's enough shelters to meet the need. Otherwise they'd have to change something. Also, the phrase "permanent homeless ghetto" entirely misses the point; if these citizens have a permanent shelter, they aren't homeless anymore. All they are asking for is a place to set up dwellings (since there is a complete lack of affordable housing available to the homeless, who are required to live on bus lines within city limits, in order to have access to work) that won't be bulldozed by the city or raided by the police. They are asking for the right to set up shelter on unused public spaces, since they are indeed the public, so they might find refuge from the elements, the violent public, and the law.
I'm just flummoxed by how many people are angered by the thought of caring for the less fortunate/able among us. I can't imagine wanting to live in a society like that.

This just goes to show that our city government isn't as smart as you think. Instead of supporting low cost shelters (like those of SHARE/WHEEL), they continue to dump money into the Roy Street Shelter. The difference in bed-night cost is something like $8!! (operating costs per bed provided, per night) The proposal for the Sunny Jim site is just as ridiculous-the folks at Nickelsville just want a piece of land, not "life coaches" at $120,000 a pop.

#33, and living in a tent preserves one's dignity? If the shelters are so bad, why don't you work with city hall to improve them instead of focusing your energy on establishing ghettoized encampments? Why not direct your attention to connecting homeless people with services to help get them stablized instead of simply advocating for the homeless lifestyle?
Again, I challenge your assertion that the all of the city's shelters are full.
#34, it's naive and patently incorrect to suggest that city hall has no interest in addressing the homeless problem; on the contrary, the city has invested considerable time and money to address homelessness.
I'm not "angered by the thought of caring for the less fortunate among us." I just believe connecting people with homeless services that can help them get stabilized is the prefereable route and leads to better outcomes in the long run, versus simply establishing homeless ghettos and encouraging people to remain homeless.