These so - called "encampments" ought not be in industrial areas.

These COMMUNITIES ought to be right smack in residential areas.

These COMMUNITIES ought not be hidden from the rest of Seattle. If residents don't want to see these COMMUNITIES then residents will be willing to put their money where their collective mouth is, and pay a bit higher taxes for permanent low income housing.

What we have going on right now is n I t a solution, it's a bandaid...better than nothing, but we can certainly do better than this in the long term!

@1, please!! Your average low six figure income wage earner at Amazon doesn't give a flying fuck about the homeless. They're too busy checking out the latest hot restaurant being pushed by The Stranger!!!

But I thought the City Council (other than Saint Kshama) was a fascist collection of oppressive developer lickspittles? Wait, I may have to cancel my subscription to Slog.

Good luck getting tent cities in any upscale residential neighborhoods. Remember that time that Seattle voters decided to elect most of the council by neighborhood district? Please name the neighborhood district whose voters will support a council member who votes to put tent cities in their neighborhood. Certainly not the neighborhoods you believe to be filled with residents who "don't give a flying fuck about the homeless".

How about instead of wasting money studying something that will never be politically palatable, we put some money into studying treating mental health- you know, the cause many of the homeless have for being homeless. And then let's create some real housing to offer people more housing so that they're not homeless anymore.

Oh, and please note that people making 6 figures at Amazon don't typically work for wages.

@1 please clarify- which taxes are you talking about? The taxes the people of Seattle have the legal right to actually increase, which we're all reminded disproportionately affect those with low incomes? Or something like income or wealth taxes, which the voters of Seattle typically support more than most of the rest of the state?

@4, tent encampments have been cycling through residential areas for more than 10 years. Churches are most often sited in residential areas, and that's where tent cities have stayed during that period of time. That very point was brought up to the Council as a reason not to restrict new encampments to industrial areas.

I'm all for shelters in residential areas, but I do find it odd those clamoring for encampments in residential areas given that there's a large push among the SLOG comment community (myself included) for more density. Tents, obviously, being the antithesis of that.

I'm among the tech crowd that you so despise, and I would be content to have a shelter across the street from my apartment. There are already many homeless living around the residential areas anyway (including in the parking garages of my building some times) so it would only be an improvement to provide adequate shelter.

The only problem is that I can't vote for my rep because I don't quality (feel free to dislike me for that for another set of reasons).

@5 higher property tax rate for multi-million dollar homes for starters,

I've been working construction in local multi-million dollar homes in the Seattle area for over 12 years....the homeowners aren't hurting one bit. They can afford to pitch in a bit more.

@7 I'm for density...simply saying these Communities ought to be in the line of site of Seattle residents as a reminder that higher income earners ought to be paying a bit more in taxes to make sure every person who needs a roof over their head, and wants one, can have one.

Further the political class worms its way into central control.

- "Solve" the homeless problem, by catering to -- effectively marketing to -- the homeless, with programs and facilities that make Seattle a bum-friendly, piss-stained, crime-laden enclave, and seasonal alternative to Santa Monica and SF. And only more government can solve those problems!!!

- And minimum wage laws: Within a day of going into effect, restaurants announce new higher base wages, coupled with service fees and no-tip policies. As a result, skilled workers make less net income, meals cost more, and service standards fall with little incentive for people and places to distinguish performance. As the cost of this makes Seattle less affordable, I'm sure we'll need rent-control, making all our home-owning limousine liberals even more wealthy, as their rental properties and primary homes soar in value.

Because as a model of this politics, San Francisco is such a clean, friendly, safe, affordable place for everyday people....

I truly wonder if these camps will promote employment, sobriety, and the eventual leaving of the camp, or will actually do the exact opposite. Seems like could be a recipe for wasting away in perpetuity.

I wonder what percentage of the camp residents will actually want to get jobs, sober up, and get out of the camps.

With so much construction and development going on in town, I'm not really sure where these camps will go in residential neighborhoods. If there are any lots they are well on the way to becoming townhouses or apartments.

So, outside of the church parking lots that have hosted them, options in residential area are very scarce to nonexistent. And even the church lots have usually become strained after 6 months. Most church parking lots in Seattle aren't that big.

lseatowner, are you Sally Clark in disguise, or just channeling her?

There's a lot of campable green space at Broadmoor. Plus, there's bus service along Madison, and lake views a short walk away. Seems like a reasonable place to go.

@10 - I don't know. You ever tried to sleep outside in Seattle in a tent? For months? Why don't you go to one of the camps and talk to people there. You know, actually hear what they have to say instead of arguing based on your imagination of what homeless people are like.

Here's a teaser article Welfare promotes entrepreneurs.

Maybe, you know, helping people actually helps people, instead of making everything harder.

@11 - You must not have walked around residential neighborhoods very much. I do this often, and there are considerable numbers of spaces that are not occupied by a house and could easily be turned into an encampment or a P-Patch. Look around, they're more common than you think.

lseatowner, are you Sally Clark in disguise, or just channeling her?

@13, I've done lots of volunteer work with homeless in Pioneer Square. Pains me to say that a great many of them, easily a majority, are drunken, lowlife fucking methchode pricks. True goddamn scumbags. How, exactly, is a permanent speed encampment going to help them get sober and a job? Will there be mandatory drug testing and camp jobs?

I assume you aren't inviting these people into your home, so instead you're throwing them into a camp and patting yourself on the back. You really think it's gonna fucking help in the slightest?

@14
Actually I walk around quite a lot. That and the bus are my primary modes of transport and exercise. But it is pretty much limited to neighborhoods North of the ship canal. Maybe they're more common in your neighborhood. Just from what I'm seeing they're disappearing very quickly. Even the empty spaces along Aurora seem to be in development now.

@10 if they are run by scott morrow share-wheel or his proxy sharon lee lihi,, thats easy no ,,they will as always be political and fund raising tools of scott morrow who treats the homeless so ruthlessly that he is having are hard time finding any church to sponser him now,,,no effort is made to help anyone leave as he gets paid by the body count ,,there is at least a 30% population that never leave steal at will take drugs and serve as the enforcers of share-wheel policy,scotts inner circle,,,,,,do not give this outfit land or money

This is an empty victory. What about a long term plan? What about affordable housing to give these people permanent homes and fresh beginnings? So they can camp on industrial, and probably toxic, land on the outskirts of town - out of sight out of mind. Whoopee!

@18 you could not be more correct about Scott Morrow and SHARE! They do NOT want people to leave their shelters and encampments for 2 reasons: 1. Each person per day is money from the city. 2. That funding is lost when shelters fall below 90% full. That really does't take much. Say if you are a 30 bed shelter if you end up having more than 3 openings you are under 90%.

Scott Morrow and SHARE do all they can to keep their numbers up and that is to keep people in and down and out, functionally homeless if you will. SHARE does absolutely nothing to help those they serve get out of homelessness. That is not their goal. They are nothing more than a mat and a blanket or two, and that is if you are lucky.

They hold so many meetings etc... throughout each week at hours when people should be trying to look for work, apply for different things, go to jobs if they are lucky enough to have one. If meetings are missed punishment can be harsh: being barred from your shelter for periods of time (up to permanent bars) or nights out for the entire shelter. They do not care if you have a job that is not an excuse to miss meetings (only hospital or jail is for some reason). For instance each person can only miss one house meeting per month in order to stay, if that conflicts with work schedule, having a job would not exempt you.

There are people that seem to have been in SHARE forever, and in truth there are many that will tell you they have been in SHARE for a decade or more! And they have!

SHARE is always so desperate for money since they keep loosing so many founders that they even have to resort to extorting the very people they are supposed to be serving! Each year they hold what is called "The Harvest Time Auction" and they require either each shelter (as a whole) to give a $50 gift card twice over 2 consecutive months or each individual in some shelters programs to give a $30 gift card each person twice over 2 months. It would depend on which SHARE shelter, encampment or program you are in. Failure to do so results in punishment of nights out as a whole or individual bars. Give SHARE money or be punished, in other words. That is extortion and they do that to homeless people. Homeless people they are supposed to be serving! Just how much more disgusting could SHARE get?