We could ship them back to Redmond and Bellevue where they came from ...

Is Roosevelt not "real" enough to be its own neighborhood? I don't get why that specific area is constantly referred to as being "in Ravenna".

Buried lede here is "30 churches deny 60 people the very least amount of shelter they could offer".

How is a tent city a solution? How about giving people in need homes? Utah did that, and it not only helped people, but also it saved money:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86560…

A more permanent solution? How about a few dozen of the thousands of foreclosed empty houses that the city could buy for a song from the banks. Stop perpetuating the fucking problem with these tent cities, Murray. It's bad enough that the amount of perfectly good food that daily goes to waste would be enough to feed all the poor and homeless 10x over - can the city please stop pretending that there's "nowhere" for the homeless to go in a city full of unoccupied buildings instead of trying to come up with useless fucking "attractions" at the waterfront and a billion dollar tunnel that nobody needs.

Ravenna's Tent City 3 today were gearing up for a protest camp-out at Westlake Park and a march on City Hall tomorrow. But the camp has received a last-minute reprieve from Mayor Ed Murray...

What a remarkable coincidence.

@4
If solutions are gleaned on Slog, they come by way of voting for laws and politicians. Look for the solution spew celebrations in November.

@5 where are these empty houses that can be bought for a song?

Hint: they don't exist.

Why don't they let them use the old bomb shelter just north of there under I-5...

The I-5 bomb shelter is full of WSDOT records, the living space inside isn't in any shape to house people.

@9, good idea.

@8 True. "The City could buy for a song". Nice fantasy. @5 So what are you doing about the "problem"? Please list the "unoccupied" buildings where the City could warehouse the homeless. And, are you donating money for it?

It's all a little theoretical, until tent city moves in near you. Then it becomes a practicum in homelessness. Part of Tent City just took over a corner of Northacres Park (about N. 130th and 1st Ave. NE). Where I used to walk the dog and also walked with my family is now fenced off with makeshift black construction fencing. The police and city parks people were up there recently to deal with it, but the mayor's office allegedly told them to back off. Maybe they're nice folks, but when do I get my safe park back? Why do they get to camp out in a public park, against all posted laws?

Evicting the homeless without giving them housing is the stupidest, most ignorant policy a city government can undertake. "We don't know where you should be, but you can't be here," is such a futile injunction. Either provide housing or let the homeless camp on city land. There is simply no alternative.

"But we need assurances from you that efforts to find a safe, sponsored, more permanent site to relocate to are being undertaken."

More permanent? Apparently Kim doesn't know that the City does not allow permanent encampments. That lack of knowledge is a little glaring on behalf of a Deputy Mayor who's the Mayor's spokesperson on things like this.

Such dire possibilities for the homeless under a Democratic President, both Senators Democratic, a Democratic Governor, a Democratic County Executive, and a Democratic Mayor. My oh my.

@14 telling it like it is.

I think the solution is a free improved jail. The SPD scoop homeless up from Gas Works Park, Northacres Park, etc. and instead of a costly legal circus, the police deposit suspect vagrants in Hobo Park -- a new aPodment like structure in an uncomfortable area of SODO.

Don't like modern Seattle hobo jail? Hit the Greyhound or jump a train. This has happened before.

@15 - There is a solution - prison. Setting up encampments on city land is illegal. We should not tolerate this.

A lot of you don't seem to understand what Utah discovered. It's cheaper to give homeless people homes than to lock them up. Just give them homes. It costs less than what we currently do. You don't need to get more money, raise taxes, or anything else. You just need to spend the money we already spend differently. You just need to give homeless people homes, no strings attached, here's a home, and it costs less than what we do right now. Here's the article again: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86560…

I got stuck in traffic today. I was heading to work so I could pay the taxes that are there to assist the homeless. Their protest through downtown only hurt the hard working folks in this city. As far as assistance, there are programs in the state to get people out of homelessness than run a surplus every year since not enough people take advantage of them. The programs come with only catch, an individual has the clean up their lives and stop doing the drugs and the booze. There are also state programs to help with that too. But most on the street enjoy their vices so they continue to spoil the parks and public spaces for the rest of the average folks that work their 8+ hours a day.

Let's give them the former Mars Hill branches that have recently closed.

Vancouver was just doing the same fucking thing last week when I was there. Even though the Supreme Court of Canada found that homeless people were allowed to camp in public parks if there weren't sufficient shelter beds available, and even though the First Nations groups whose land Vancouver sits upon strongly opposed the eviction.

We need real, evidence-based solutions to this. Not just eviction and then.... ???

"But we need assurances from you that efforts to find a safe, sponsored, more permanent site to relocate to are being undertaken." -- Deputy Mayor Hyeok Kim

Uh, that should be easy since TC3 has been trying for months now to find a congregation that will host them until Seattle Pacific University can take them in January.

That said, when is the City going to acknowledge that it cannot continue to rely just on religious organizations to do its work for them and open up public spaces for these encampments as well. TC3 has been operating well for years with no reason to think that cannot continue IF they have a place to set down their tents.

@23 Yes, Utah is doing a good thing by committing to house people who are CHRONICALLY homeless. "In 2005, Utah adopted a 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness." When people talk about articles like the one in the Deseret News they leave out the word "chronic". Utah is not solving the problem of homelessness but it is doing a good thing for a portion of their citizens who are chronically homeless.

That said, Seattle has been a model for other cities as well with the "1811 Eastlake project" begun in 2005. The project houses people who are formerly homeless, chronic inebriates. The savings in dollars to the City can be measured in the millions and the benefit to human lives is huge.
http://www.desc.org/1811.html

I'm all for spending the money to house those who want help, which I suspect is a solid majority of the homeless. But, what do we do with the minority that don't have an interest in anchoring their lives, and would probably choose to keep camping even when given an alternative?

@30, what we do is concentrate on housing those who want housing, and after we've done that, we'll see how many don't want housing. I'd bet they will be in the tiny minority, possibly down to zero.

@5,

Are you suggesting we round the homeless up and ship them to Detroit? Because there are no livable foreclosed homes in this area that can be purchased for a "song".

@23,

It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that it's cheaper to give homeless people homes than let them stay on the street, but it's also worth noting that housing in Utah is much cheaper than it is here.

Housing is the cheapest solution. If the City is going to treat 7 units with one kitchen as one apartment, it should be to home the homeless.



I notice the pictures and links are to Interbay and U-District. The tent city under I-5 is really clean and organized. It'd be hard to complain, but there was a school lockdown today that will cause people to start looking for bogeymen.

I support tent city. There is need for that safety, especially for women. However, the family with the small children, as linked, are perfect examples of homeless by choice. They set up their tents on University Ave to be available for drug deals. They quit their jobs in favor of doing and selling drugs. Yes, I know them. A very popular life-style choice for street kids in that neighborhood.

It is time that City Hall step up and say no to Share/Wheel. Their carefully orchestrated marches, protests, sleep-ins etc. are just a way for them to extort money out of City Hall ....money that could actually be used to fund solutions to the homeless crisis instead of perpetuating it.

Where is the nearest public campground?

Too bad Scott Morrow didn't tell the press that Haller Lake United Methodist voted to extend the time that Tent City could stay there... but SHARE refused to accept their offer. Scott prefers to go for publicity and playing political games with elected officials.

Couldn't Stranger readers each house one of them?

A roof over every head?

Tent City is a sham. These people are not homeless; they are choosing to camp in the city in high-end tents with lots of free food from the food bank, an electric generator running, smoking pot (activities I personally witnessed in the camp) and saving money as part of a "press event" designed to generate sympathy and donations to Share/Wheel. They are breaking the law. They are taking advantage of our kindness. And the Mayor is letting them do it, in fear of their "protest camp at Westlake and march on City Hall." Ansel, I wish you would have gone to this tent city and taken a late evening tour, like I did, instead of quoting a guy who lied to you about how many people are there.. more like "20-24 residents" is the estimated population there now, shared with me by an actual resident who has lived with this tent city for 2 years. But, he told me, "they are trying to get more, because that will make it look better and get Share/Wheel more donations." No kidding. The resident "in charge" that night also told me "we don't want to camp in legal places outside of Seattle because other cities and the county sheriff will kick us out, but Seattle's mayor is more worried about his reputation, so he will let us stay." From today's action, it looks like he knew exactly what was going on. @37 from Lake United Methodist Church reports that Share REFUSED the church's offer to stay there. Share/Wheel should be fined for every single day that they moved their press conference to this illegal space. Why not put the funds into the city's homeless shelters? Now THAT would be a smart solution.

by the way, the photo posted with this story bears no resemblance whatsoever to Tent City 3, just .5 mile from Greenlake. The high-end, 8 person tents, the 8 foot high tarp walls, the electric generators, the bike racks, the racks of food, and so much more are the reality.