The tent city under I-5 in Roosevelt should have been allowed through spring anyway.
bring back flophouses. i'm serious.
@2, if by "flophouse" you mean the old SROs (single-occupant residency) where very low-income people could live, yes, but where would they be located? The former SRO sites are now occupied by high-market-rate condos and apartment houses.
Yes, the city should definitely allow tent cities, and stop sending the police to trash homeless people's tents & materials, it puts them at risk of death.

The city should also provide Porta-potties for sanitation, and perhaps also clean water.

Also, free P.O. boxes so people have a stable 'address' to use.

@2 - flophouses are a good idea too.

We already have a bunch. I've volunteered for subsidized housing that amounted to not much more than a single room (maybe with a kitchenette) for each resident. All of them had to share communal bathrooms.

If you're talking about bringing back flophouses owned by the private sector, that's never going to happen. Real estate is way too expensive in this city to make it profitable to rent single rooms to poor people.
Until the city council and mayor stop sucking the head cheese coated cocks of every single developer Tent City is their ONLY solution for the homeless problem in Seattle.
So The Stranger's preferred solution to homelessness in Seattle is "Legalize shantytowns, and build more of them"?

I mean, you could have spent the bulk of the post on any of the other proposals, but it looks like you've got a clear favorite.

I guess I can't fault the logic; both the newsroom and the bean-counters must be salivating at the prospect of more column-inches on Seattle shantytowns, but nobody wants to write (or read) about poor people living in boring old "up to code and fire-inspected" housing.

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.