This really does look like a horrible location for a homeless encampment, even in Ballard. What about the property between Leary and the Fred Meyer? You know, the one where homeless people are living underneath a boat, behind a fence, at this very moment?

I've got nothing against a homeless encampment in Ballard, but it doesn't take a genius to find better locations than this one.
2 more Sloop for me.
My Ballard has always been a buzzing hive of hatred-for-the-poor. Of course, when you have a booming neighborhood enjoying all of the benefits such a boom brings, you figure it always has to be at the expense of someone. I guess it sucks to be reminded of that.
Ugh. I'm really disappointed in The Sloop and will be finding somewhere else to spend my dollars in Ballard.
How selfish can these people be? After years of grueling college or pulling 16 hour days trying to keep a small business afloat they chose not to live among spanging human garbage. The nerve. If you want to talk about parody let's look at Seattle pc leftists who hate nothing more than someone enjoying their responsible decisions in life. Let's dump a human garbage can in their neighborhood so they'll "check their privilege".
This is a good point.
"A campground wouldn’t be accepted in that location, so why a homeless encampment?"
These are the same assholes who've blocked the BGT Missing Link for years. I try to avoid businesses displaying a Ballard Chamber of Commerce sticker.
Meh, pretty much all of these "arguments" can be made for just about any potential site that doesn't involve a concrete-paved industrial area far from transit or essential services. I guess these people living in their million-dollar sound-view mansions don't know much about the working-class history of their own neighborhood; and of course, they're about two stereotypes short of exhibiting out-right bigotry.

As for your "human garbage can" @5 - I lived a couple of blocks away from the rotating homeless encampment that occasionally occupied an open lot at 22nd & E. Olive, a mere two blocks from Garfield High, right behind a pre-school, in a residential neighborhood that, significantly, was primarily lower-middle class and working-class (although gentrifying by the minute), and frankly, considering the reality of their situation they caused far less of a problem than many people living in actual houses around them. They were neat, clean, respectful, quiet, and had a very low tolerance for trouble-makers and those who couldn't comply with their rules. The were self-governing, democratic, and communal; and when they left after their allotted 90 days, the property was in at least as good, if not in better condition than when they arrived.

Personally, I'd take them as neighbors any time, but unfortunately, all the property surrounding my current Ballard residence is being encroached on by 4-on-1 townhouses that will no doubt soon be occupied by the same sort of people who consider those less fortunate than themselves as filthy sub-humans unworthy of basic dignity and respect, so don't bother asking.
Sorry, slight correction: the encampment was at 22nd & E. Cherry, not E. Olive.
Always thought my old neighhor Abandoned Barracks would have appreciated the company. Pity they got rid of them. Although I suppose the Magnolians would then be up-in-arms.
We had Tent City up on Beacon ten years ago without a peep from them. Very good neighbors.

There were something like 150 of those substation parcels at one time, and almost all of them have been decommissioned. I don't know how many of them are left in the inventory, but they were all over town. One of the few remaining functioning ones is Laurelhurst which was totally rebuilt after being destroyed by radicals New Year's Eve 1975.
Trade Ballard businesses, they accept the missing link plan today and they get opted out of homeless camps for three years
@comte I just wrote a similar post on another site about that very spot and I agree with you. Even if that apartment building wasn't going up (or maybe it's up), they would never allow the encampment there any longer. I'm sure the new businesses and changing demographic in the area would flip the eff out about it.
How dare those small business owners desire to protect their livelihoods.
Yeah, fuck Ballard, especially Sloop and anything associated with the chamber of commerce. Will spend approximately $0 in any Ballard businesses. That will show them!

But seriously, come on Ballard. You guys continue to suck more and more. You used to be cool, man.
@14 "livelihood", lol. How dare the city try to protect the livelihood of, you know, actual human beings.
I have to park along the block of the future Interbay location everyday. This is across the street from my apartment building. In the last year there has been a noticeable significant increase in homeless activity in the neighborhood. They have been using the neighborhood's local park bathroom for shooting up. Three weeks ago, one of them smashed out one of my headlights and left their used heroin needle on my car hood. There is a growing group of druggie homeless that now hangout at the QFC parking lot around the corner day and night, stealing from the store, harassing people for change, and just being all around sketchy assholes. I'm all for providing services for the homeless, but if this is a sign of things to come, I'm gonna lose my shit.
We all have a choice, pay more taxes so the city build more subsidized housing and provide needed social services, or accept the encampments. These are people, they have to live somewhere. Vulcan and developers are buying up land all over town. There's just not that many empty lots around for the city to use any more. We had a homeless group in our neighborhood living on a church property few years back. Bunch of people screamed and predicted all sorts of horrors. Church Pastor stayed firm, homeless people came, lived for several months. Everything was fine.
I find it interesting that some individuals here report having little to no issues with homeless encampments considering how poorly the Tent City near Issaquah is run. With homeless camped across I-90, adjacent to Issaquah Creek (we're talking 25 feet away or less) and using the trailhead there as a personal parking spot for their porta-potties, I would have thought some of these issues would have been present at some of the other locations.
People should read up on what they are complaining about. Here is a link to the city statement on this:… READ IT. This isn't a blanket edict by the city that "anyone homeless can sleep here". It is an organized, supervised encampment for people who need safe, reliable shelter. In order to live there they are pre-screened and have to abide by the rules of the community. The operators of the camp are responsible for security. This is tested method of providing temporary housing for homeless people, not an all night meth party at the park. I lived for a year two blocks from an encampment in the church parking lot right down the street IN BALLARD. It was one of the first. We hardly knew it was there. There was no issue with the people living there. I highly doubt allowing people to live in a vacant lot because they have nowhere else to be will negatively affect these businesses. In fact, I hope it inspires people in Seattle to work harder to get the people who need to live there real places to live other than a tent in a parking lot. People need access to services. *Homeless* people need access to services too - they are PEOPLE. They need to be able to send their kids to school, take showers, have somewhere to store clothing and be with a community of people who understand the circumstances. How are they to crawl out of this abject poverty otherwise? Shame on you Ballard. Know what you are talking about before you sound off.
@21, most if not all of those same safeguards are in place in Issaquah. It doesn't stop the bad behavior. Pot and meth move in and out freely. I have friends who live east of there. I've taken the busses through there. Frequently people so blazed out of their minds they can hardly walk off the bus get on and off at that stop.

It is a tested method. But it far from a success story. I agree with the need, but I've never seen this well policed Straight Edge place where people are just trying to improve their lives I keep hearing about. Some of my friends were involved in Tent City 1, and they freely admit it had severe drug issues.

I'm not trying to sound off, but I know what I'm talking about, both in origin and modern incarnation. I don't see what you do.
Ballard used to be cool because it was working class, then a bunch of self entitled hipsters and yuppiesmoved in and ruined it
There is a big difference between homeless addicts and people living in the homeless camps. They were here on Beacon Hill for at least a year and no significant problems. They police their camp and residents. There will be no increase in drug use, theft, noise or trash coming from the camp. Have a heart and give someone less fortunate a break.
@18: If only new taxes were going to subsidized housing.

Instead they are going to "nice-to-have" items from the wish list of the mayor and city council members for such goodies as bike lanes, parks, and beautification enhancements. That's what the "million-dollar" property owners are complaining about, most of whom are still making 90's wages. So the the homeowners in Ballard or anywhere else in the city are certainly not the selfish ones. Look towards city hall!
a levy specifically to fund subsidized housing won't build enough subsidized housing to cover the need, and the need is growing year by year. Seattle is a magnet for homeless because we have a relatively benign climate and relatively good services.

it takes years to build new housing, if you can finance it in the first place. not to mention the competition for the limited amount of developable land. and who do you want to develop and administer the housing? the SHA? you all hate the SHA. LIHI? Interim? Plymouth?

stopgaps like tent cites are inevitable, as should be a bus-ticket-to-your-mom's-house program.
The Once'ler wants more Truffula Trees to make more thneeds.

Those who are claiming the city will offer case management services need to read the official city decision. They may have contracted with Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI), but last I looked, LIHI was a housing developer not a case management services provider. Their service model is a housing provider. They historically do not perform case management services. And speaking of their housing, the eligibility guidelines for a LIHI apartment generally prohibits most homeless from being eligible because the homeless have evictions, bad credit and criminal backgrounds. The official city statement mentions that at some future date, other services MAY be provided at the sites.

So if you live in Ballard, have a business in Ballard, or just are concerned at the cities continued enabling of tent cities, what you want to lobby the city for and to hold them accountable to is that the encampments not just offer services, but mandate that the campers must be engaged with services that will move them out of the camp ASAP. Because as long as the city designs the encampment services as optional, you will have people settling into their tents and not seeking housing and employment. Demand that services include (and are mandatory for residents): housing search, employment, and relocation assistance if living in another city/state is the best solution. But allowing the camps to exist, even for one year, without the expectation that residents are to move out as quickly as possible, is a tragic failure. It will only prolong homelessness and make it even more intractable the longer the person /family stays homeless.
While we are at it, let's throw this into the conversation.…
Mandatory services drive people with issues out of the camps and into alleys, farther away from help and closer to hurting themselves and others.

"You have to do this." doesnt play well with any audience, let alone and audience that has the reasonable suspicion that they might not be able too. Addicts usually relapse at least once. If you make that tied to housing, you just wind up kicking them back onto the streets when they are the most vulnerable to going full blown addict again.

The mandatory thing doesn't work that well.
Tent cities managed by the same organization which will be managing the new tent city have been moving around the area for more than 10 years. The majority of their sites have been residential, and in fact police officers have testified at the required public meetings that crime actually goes down during the encampments' visits. Residents of the encampments are forbidden to drink or use drugs in the encampments. The distinguishing characteristic of homeless people is that they don't have homes. Otherwise, they are no more likely to commit crimes than housed people. In fact, they're more likely to have crimes committed against them than housed people. That's evident from the increasing numbers of homeless people for whom Women in Black stand in honor when we are notified of their deaths.

It will take a long time for enough housing to be developed to provide homes for those who need them. Until then, tents provide safety and community -- things housed people take for granted. The very least the larger community can do is treat them with the respect due to any human being.

You see, these Ballardians are just perfectly cool with obscene wealth disparity; to them, it is the natural order of things

Sociopathy is their orthodoxy
I expect that the encampment will be well run, but anyone who has wandered more than 20 feet off the main hipster drags knows that a vast amount of Ballard is occupied with transient housing in the form of barely- or not-at-all-functioning RVs. Interbay too. For the main part, the residents coexist in peace. Are there other neighborhoods in Seattle that have dozens upon dozens of decrepit RVs parked on the streets?
@32 We actually had a lot of RVs parked under I5 here in Greenlake, but then the city put up no parking 2-5am signs, driving them out. The people never caused any problems, but light rail construction started shortly after.
OK, I actually read this article and the links (I was preoccupied yesterday - in Ballard, ironically enough) and see that you are passing judgement on an entire neighborhood based on the comments in a neighborhood blog? That's like passing judgement on The Stranger by quoting comments from Slog.

I have no problem with providing land for homeless encampments. I do have a problem (in principal) with utility land being co-opted for this purpose rather than being sold off and the money put back into the coffers to help pay for needed projects. The city does that way too much, and CL shouldn't be treated as their chew toy/slush fund, but that's the way life is. It is, however, another argument for the utilities being spun off into a PUD, which will happen approximately three minutes after hell freezes over.
I have a feeling this is going to end up being at the proposed site in SE Seattle, because nobody is going to pitch a fit more loudly than fragile white Ballard. Newsflash: Families and children live everywhere else in the city, too, including down here near the Rainier/Othello area. Most of us are too busy working to whine to the mayor about this.

And hey, people without homes are HUMANS, too.
five blocks from an elementary school, and not even a block from apartments. If you have a small child would you like to know if a criminal or sex offender is living in the tent city by your home or school? No one is saying that all homeless are bad. What they are saying is keep our residential neighborhoods safe. Move these tent cities to more industrialized areas.
This is just open, straightforward bigotry; pure and simple. Fuck these assholes.
I still don't get why we don't put all of the homeless encampments and the services down in SoDo by the Port. The value of the land is worthless, it's not zoned to be residential and it alleviates the Port's fear of the area becoming gentrified. It's a win for everyone. If this city really had balls, they'd move the encampments right next to the businesses in Ballard and Westlake that oppose the missing link and the cycletrack. How I miss "East-Coast Style" politics...
It seems the preferred Seattle neighborhood approach to the location of homeless camps is an internment camp style facility in the middle of nowhere.
I am a renter in Ballard (not everyone here is living in mansions with water views) and I have no problem with the idea of putting an encampment here - transit is good, there's an urban rest stop, we already have a pretty large and visible homeless population in the neighborhood. That said, that location right on Market Street does seem a little odd to me. I think there are legitimate questions about that particular spot that are getting drowned out in the "Ballardites are all NIMBYs" shouting. Granted, some Ballardites *are* NIMBYs and don't want it anywhere in their neighborhood, but others of us don't have that issue and just think the exact location is kind of a weird choice.
Seattle City Light has posted a tree removal notice on the proposed Ballard site on July 6th stating that soil replacement is planned to remediate heavy metal and pesticide contamination. Clearly the city has known that this site is contaminated with toxins and yet they still recommended it as a preferred site for a homeless encampment. They are now scrambling to improve the site in advance of public comment and City Council action -- perhaps hoping that the remediation could be done quickly and quietly without the public noticing. The tree removal itself has a 10-day comment period so the tree removal shouldn't occur until after July 16th and the remediation shouldn't start until then.

The issue of contamination at the site raises a number of questions. What exactly are the contaminants? What is the level/severity of the contamination? Will the property be safe for an encampment with or without the remediation? Will removing soil in the dry conditions we are experiencing cause more harm than leaving it in place? Will the removal disperse toxic particulate? Has the city complied with city code and state and Federal laws, potentially including public notice and comment on the remediation and/or an EIS? Where will removed soil be disposed of? What are the costs associated with any further study and remediation?

With so many sites available for consideration why would the city select one that has contamination at a level high enough that it needs to remediate for it to be habitable as an encampment? Why is the city in such a rush (and so determined) to set up an encampment at the Ballard site that it is starting tree removal and soil remediation before public comment or final city council action?
I'm so embarrassed to be a Ballardite.
Another typically kneejerk, slanted, under-reported story by the Stranger. I remember when the Stranger actually had some journalistic credibility. I guess you get what you pay for.

I live in Ballard and am completely opposed to this proposal, and to tent encampments generally. The suggested site on Market is one issue (it's absurd to situate a tent city directly next to a tavern and a liquor store on one side, a convenience store selling cheap beer on the other, and within a block of three bars, not to mention it abutting a high-density residential area). Beyond that, Ballard already accommodates its fair share of the city's homeless population and does not need to attract more homeless people to the area.

But that's not the primary issue.

Tent cities have been around in Seattle since the 1990s, yet the number of homeless has skyrocketed since then. The city and county spend a combined $45 million on homeless services annually - the third highest amount in the country - yet we have one of the worst homeless problems nationally, And according to the city's report on homeless expenditures, a full 70 percent - almost $29 million - is spent on "intervention" services including shelters, hygiene centers and meal programs - in other words, services that do absolutely nothing to solve homelessness. Just 19 percent is spent on permanent housing, and only 11 percent is spent on preventive services. That is not acceptable. As a taxpayer, I'm outraged that the city continues to waste money on band-aid solutions that do nothing to actually reduce homelessness. Tent cities are simply a distraction that let the city off the hook and have not been demonstrated to reduce homelessness in Seattle in any meaningful way.

We need to start collecting data to understand who the chronically homeless are and what their needs are; what kinds of evidence-based services actually are working; and whether we are making progress toward the goal of reducing homelessness. And we need to have the balls to start tying funding to measurable outcomes. Right now we're just throwing money at the problem, without any accountability measures.

Homeless people don't need more tents. They need more effective treatment (Housing First and rapid rehousing) and outreach services. But as long as we continue to waste time, energy and funding on failed policies, we can expect more of the same.

If any of you actually give a shit about homeless people, instead of advocating for tent cities, I encourage you to contact the city and demand that we stop wasting time and resources on the same failed approaches that got us to our current mess.

But it's far easier to smugly trot out the NIMBY label, now, isn't it?

@30, drugs are still rampant in Tent City. Despite the rules forbidding it, pot and meth run rampant in these homeless encampments. It was a known issue in Tent City 1, and it is a known issue at the current Tent City in Issaquah. The method of voluntary policing used at Tent City is simply ineffective.
As for the insistence that tent encampments enforce a strict code of conduct and have no issues with crime or drug use, Tent City 4 previously housed a child rapist and a meth user who claimed to have sold drugs to a dozen camp residents. And when the church hosting the encampment suggested that random background checks be conducted, SHARE, which runs tent cities, refused.

The tent city in Loyal Heights also housed a sex offender (a level 3 one). And despite neighbors' repeated requests, SHARE refused to conduct sex offender checks.

When Nickelsville was located in West Seattle, it was - in the words of its own management committee - "overrun" with meth dealers and violent people.

But hey, tent city residents are just folks who are temporarily down on their luck.
I live in Ballard and have no problem with this. All the NIMBYs and yuppies can go back to Bellevue if they don't want to live in a city.

We already have dozens of homeless people sleeping in vans and old RVs on almost every street. Giving people a place to throw away their trash or grab a shower or access Social Services is not going to put the Sloop out of business. Frankly, I'd rather see them go out of business than block basic human services to people that need it.

People need to realize they don't live in a bubble.
"We need to start collecting data to understand who the chronically homeless are and what their needs are;"

Homes. Run that by the property owners all over Seattle.
@47, that's what the Housing First and rapid rehousing approaches I mentioned are about. And you're right - homeless people don't need more tent cities. They need permanent housing. Until we start collectively demanding that the city do something different versus throwing away millions of dollars of money annually on band-aid solutions, we can expect the problem to continue increasing.

Utah has reduced homelessness by 90 percent. Seattle implemented a 10-year plan to end homeless in 2005 that has proven to be an abject failure. Yet people insist that the same failed policies are what we should continue pursuing. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Wake up, people.
No solution is going to be perfect, not even a best-of-all-possible-worlds commitment to building safe, secure housing for the current homeless population, because if nothing else it would cost money many seem reluctant to invest in behalf of their fellow human beings. So, what do we do in the meantime? Homeless people aren't going to disappear if we continue to ignore them, and so the options are rather limited. We can either let them all roam around at-random to take care of themselves individually as best they can (and we all know how effective - or not - that is), or we can create at least a minimal amount of structure for them, which in turn provides more oversight, and a more efficient way of allocating scarce resources. It won't eliminate the threat from sexual predators or drug abusers, but KNOWING there's a Level 3 predator in an encampment at least gives someone the chance to keep tabs on them; if they're just running around the streets fending for themselves, even that minimal amount of monitoring is practically impossible, and in my mind, certainly not preferable.

And I don't see how interning them in some remote enclave is itself anything other than an attempt to bury the problem out of sight and hope it goes away on its own, which of course we all know it won't. Aside from the abject inhumanity of the prospect, it does nothing to even remotely address the issue of improving their lives, providing some basic stability so that perhaps some of them could transition upward; not without access to basic services, such as food, hygiene, social and medical care, none of which are going to be located anywhere near some of the places people would seem to prefer to corral the homeless, and for which they also don't seem willing to invest for on-site. So guess what happens? They're just going to wander back to where those things are located anyway, but in a far less structured, less controlled manner - and then people will be bitching about THAT.

But, I guess that's human nature...
Hey the gravy train is non stop to seattle all up and down the coast the non workers are on their way they found out we spend more money that anywhere but LA & NY so here they come. for the free food free tents. hey check out on the east side of the Dravis st Bridge for the piles of Garbage. By the way the homeless have found a great way to make extra money. They sell bikes for the scrap value 300.00-3000.00 bikes stripped and the frames sold for scrap LOL. Oh and little dogs as well . Glad i moved from the shithole Seattle has become.

And we're so very glad you did. Strangely, it seems like less of a shithole with you gone.
You kinda reminded me of the Marketing Executive in the Hichhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
"Sure, we want to make fire, but first we need to know how people RELATE to it, what do they WANT from it..."

We dont need to do surveys to understand the homeless. They are regular people. They dont have places to live. If we give them a place to live, 4/5th of the problem is just gone. And tent cities are good, in the same way that half a loaf is better than no bread.
@51 why thanks its been good to be gone.. I used to come back quite a bit and spend money but even that has waned in the last few years. We did have plans last Christmas to spend a couple days in the city and shop but a bunch of unemployed protesters stopped that idea they they even ruined the christmas tree lighting for 1000s of kids but your useless mayor likes the protesters better than shoppers. I got the message . So i am glad rents are rising and property is going up as well helps me up north. Everything is perfect in your shithole AKA Seattle. Glad there is so much money spent they do not have to raise taxes for anything anymore. keep spend more and more on the homeless as they are on the way from all the places that do not cater to them LOL BUILD IT AND THEY SHALL COME.
@49 - the possibility that "perhaps some [homeless people] could transition upward" is good enough for you? Is that all the evidence you need as a taxpayer for the $45M spent annually on homeless services - a hunch that maybe tent cities help a few people? I want to see the data showing that tent encampments do in fact move people out of homelessness, and how many people they help. If they were effective, the numbers of homeless people in Seattle wouldn't have skyrocketed the way they have. So yeah, let's keep throwing millions of dollars at the same failed policies and hope something changes.
@54 the homeless move here because we give them so much they want to be lazy and do nothing and we help them fulfill their ideal living situation. Its great fun to watch from a distance.

will it get better if we dont have tent cities? These are real people's lives and all you know.
In my mind, the last thing the City needs to do is spend money on administrative overhead, studies, and academic solutions to a completely obvious problem that has been solved in many places, all using largely the same tactics. Give the homeless people housing. Then add service and job training. Boom.
I see it as a bit like paying a committee to research and figure out the exact best way to put out a house-fire when your house is actually on fire. Just put out the fire.
@54 - it will only get better if we stop wasting energy and resources on failed solutions and demand that the city instead pursue measures that are proven to actually be effective in reducing homelessness.
The Ballard News Tribune reported today that the city is going to spend $150,000 to remove contaminated soil at the Ballard site in addition to the other costs of establishing and running the encampment. The soil at the substation property, it turns out, is significantly contaminated with toxic heavy metals and pesticide residue (dieldrin at levels significantly higher than state standards for clean up and plus cadmium and lead at levels above the model toxics control act standards for cleanup). They are also going to remove a healthy mature tree because it is growing in said soil but SCL says there will be no cost for that because the removal will be conducted by SCL employees. The city also notes that there is asbestos in the concrete pad at the site but it is unclear whether that will be removed.

Unfortunately the SCL remediation plan doesn't go far enough. Importantly the city has not addressed potential risks from the remediation itself which involves removing 18" of soil from the property. Given the extremely dry conditions that we are currently experiencing it seems that there could be a risk of disturbing the toxins in the soil and creating toxic particulate. A basic search of literature shows that the excavation and disturbance of contaminated soils during construction and cleanup projects can result in the liberation and migration of toxic dust.

I find it extremely distressing that the city may be willing to accept risks to the health of people in the encampment, and local residents and visitors in the rush to complete the permitting of this facility so the Mayor won't lose face or suffer a perceived "defeat" over the issue. The city admits that there are numerous other potentially suitable sites and they have stated that they don't even expect to have to test for toxins where alternative sites didn't have similar prior uses.

@42, 46 and anyone else who supports doing their fair share.

Ballard is part of Seattle, which is part of the U.S. (even if I wish it were the Republic of Cascadia) and the larger global community. Can't wish problems away or put our heads in the sand and just hope to push ugly things out-of-sight and mind "for the sake of the children" or property values.

I disagree with this Mayor on a lot of stuff and usually don't appreciate his approach on much, but I hope he doesn't back down on this one.
@43 - What you're suggesting is stopping spending on the things that make being homeless not utterly abysmal and near life threatening and instead spending on..... what exactly? "Prevention?" Sounds nice, and really, really non-specific.

If you prevent and treat homelessness for one family at the cost of making homelessness even more desperate and worse for another 5 families, that's not progress. Though it may increase the ROI on tax dollars. Some actual things in the real world need doing. If you can prevent homelessness all over the city, then you need to at least keep the incidence of disease and starvation lower. That's just a thing that needs doing. What are we going to say to hungry people who get infections because the hygiene centers closed? "We'll get to you next budget cycle... in the meantime... you know... try not to exist."

Prevention and permanent housing costs money. Stopping spending on hygiene centers won't manufacture the prevention and permanent solutions for those people using the hygiene centers. It WILL increase the amount of communicable diseases and other maladies for those using the hygiene centers.

At a certain point "there's gotta be a better way," isn't a real suggestion, it's used as an excuse to stop doing something that needs doing.
"A campground wouldn't be accepted at that location, so why a homeless encampment?" Two reasons: 1. Dozens of homeless people die on the streets every year in Seattle; regulated encampments are better than a poke in the eye. 2. Our politicians--with rare exceptions--will not get on board with Housing First; stopgaps are better than nothing. Give he homeless homes!…
Also, what @3 said. I wonder how many of them are fake Christians?
I guess the fact that I don't like finding dirty needles in my yard and seeing drunks and druggies fighting or peeing at the park makes me a person who hates the poor? I'm an out of touch Ballard yuppie? Mayor Murray took a big crap on our neighborhood and people are pissed off about it. They have legitimate complaints. But it's so much easier to point a self-righteous PC finger at the people who actually live here than to listen to the community. There isn't a single family that eats at the soup kitchen down the street from me. It's all men, most drug addicts and petty criminals. They then spend the day at the park using and dealing. There is a core group that sells pills right on my corner. They sleep in vans and leave their garbage on our street. I don't want them here and neither do my neighbors. Label me all you want. That's the truth. Or if you'd like to give someone your driveway to camp in, please contact me and I'll let them know. They are right outside my door and I'm happy to teach you the safe way to clean up dirty needles.

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.