If Sawant wants this badly enough, let her start in her district and see how that goes for her.
Ha! The single family exclusionists break into hives at the threat of having to leave in proximity to apartment dwellers. I don't expect this plan to go over well, although the self-righteous reactions should be fairly entertaining.
We're not "allowed" to live here for free.
I'm assuming that resulting drop in property values will correlate with lower property taxes as well? Just to be fair of course.
The Ballard camp IS in a residential neighborhood with condo and apartments directly abutting and overlooking the site. So what if is already answered. Tax Payers do not matter. Paying your friends to run camps with zero data or results does..
The map won't enlarge enough to adequately identify the parcels. Can we be linked to a better map, please?
@2, Yes, more specifically white North Seattle single family homeowners will drive their SUV's on to the pavement in front of city hall if such legislation passed:).
the large red swath in the Madison valley is 3 holes of the Broadmoor CC Golf Course. this has to be a joke.

@5 - Exactly. The Ballard encampment is abutted by a high-density residential area, with townhouses and apartments overlooking the site (picture having 50 people camped out in your backyard and you'll get the idea). It's absolutely in a residential area, regardless what the site is zoned as.
We had a tent city on the site of el Centro for awhile a few years back. There were absolutely no problems with it as far as I knew. It's not a big deal.
@9 - You're conflating single-family homeowners, who own property and are thus entitled to more political power in the city than mere apartment dwellers.
@5: What? The new Ballard camp is set up so someone's "friend" can "make money"? how does that work? you mean like the salary of a camp manager?

gather tents + find homeless = PROFIT?

@4: FTW
@11 - oh, that's right. Apartment dwellers and townhouse owners don't count.

@10 - I'm not expecting any big issues with the camp, though it's in a terrible location. I'm much more concerned about the growing problems with trash, illegal encampments, tweakers, mobile meth vans, RV/car dwellers, and car and bike thieves in the neighborhood. If the city had indicated any willingness or interest in addressing those problems, there probably wouldn't have been nearly as much pushback to the camp as there has been.
@4, @14 -- OF course property taxes would drop correspondingly if property values dropped. That's automatic.
Capitalism kind of sucks, admittedly, but you know what also sucks?

The kind of world where there are absolutely no consequences for stupid behavior; a world where the stupid can breed several children and make the more cautious pay for them.

The kind of world where crimes just "happen because of poverty" instead of resulting from deliberate actions by people who should know better, and probably do.

A place where actual victims of crime, and the truly needy, are drowned out and outnumbered by shysters, Twitter activists, and politicians.

A world like this should be called Murraytown.

But I must add that as encampments have their impact and negative consequences, so does unaddressed homelessness on the streets, under the bridges, etc. It all affects everyone one way or another - something to ponder on these wet, cold, and windy nights.
@19: 87 did you say? That's a red flag right there.
Why do Conservatives detest the homeless so? Isn't sleeping on the street the ultimate expression of personal liberty?
Tent City 3 spent two summers in the playground of St. Joseph's School (ie adjacent to St. Joseph's Catholic Church at 19th & Aloha) on Capitol Hill, in 2004 and (a guess) 2005. This location is surrounded by single family homes in a single family zoned neighborhood.…

There were, as I recall, NO problems whatsoever. As I recall, many neighbors turned out for informational meetings in 2003 and 2004 and were generally supportive. Tent City was such a non-event (issues-wise) that attendance at the 2005 informational meetings was noticeably sparse.
OK, so Tent City's 2nd stay at St. Joe's was in 2006:……

(Tent City has also been to St. Marks several times, but that's a much bigger lot that backs onto a steep ravine0
No problems whatsoever? What about that fact that property values of the homes across the … continued to steadily rise along with the rest of Capitol Hill and Seattle home prices?

If you don't see a problem with that then obviously you're not a lunatic paranoid NIMBY spouting unfounded hysteria that the sky is falling.

Just kidding. Facts aren't a problem for them. Who needs facts when you have certainty?
@17: Trust me, sonny boy, you don't want to live in a world where there are serious consequences for stupid behavior.
Hey, as long as I'm here, can you tell me why you accused me of being affiliated with AIPAC? Is it just that I'm Jewish? Or is there some kind of mojo cooking up that only you understand?
U mad, bro?

Maybe we should show your comment history to the poors so they can learn from your example of decency, accountability and personal responsibility. Maybe the homeless wouldn't spend 12 hours a day at the library on the computers if they could see what happens to a man when he gets out there and does something with his life.

Oh, wait...
@27: No seriously, why'd you associate me with AIPAC? Let's hear it, buddy.
@28: I'd love to see an upside down "mad" version of your name like venomlash's.
@9 Compass Rose

(picture having 50 people camped out in your backyard and you'll get the idea)

This mentality is common among single family zoning exclusionists and NIMBY's generally, but it's hard to overstate how bizarre it is. There is, in fact, a meaningful difference between property you own and what you can see if you look out your window. Windows often provide views of land and buildings you don't actually own. It is not reasonable to suggest there's something comparable to people living on your property and people living on nearby property you can see from your window. It's very, very silly (and staggeringly entitled) to pretend otherwise. (Of course, Ballard NIMBYs aren't exactly known for avoiding silliness and an excessive sense of entitlement.)
Since churches are in residential areas and have sometimes expressed an interest in helping I can see that, at least as a temporary encampment. It would be great to have such a group adopt some homeless for a while. I'm hoping we can e flexible.
@30: I can understand how people got that impression, but ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ isn't mad venomlash, just alternate account venomlash. SOSHITE TOKI WA UGOKI DESU.
@31, the encampment isn't just "nearby" those homes, it's directly below it.

But I get it. Anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly embrace having a third-world style shantytown in their residential neighborhood is a NIMBY. Might as well throw "anti-homeless" in there too. Because anyone who doesn't support band-aid measures that have not been demonstrated to actually reduce homelessness, versus simply managing it, and who supports a more humane, effective approach to homelessness, surely hates homeless people.
Below "them," that is.
There is a lot of thrashing around in this thread and on a similar one at myballard. One thing I don't see much of and I am genuinely curious about: what do people including the writers of this publication think should actually be done to combat the problem? Are there ideas or articles posted anywhere? Would love to see links posted to a more constructive conversation?

I'm very alarmed at the rapid change in the Frelard / Ballard area and have had my property broken into many times this year after many years without problems. No one was ever caught so it's not possible to make a firm connection but my mind does want to make the connection to the huge uptick in homeless and tweakers in the neighborhood.

I am more than willing to pay much higher taxes for commiserate social services personally but very curious to see more constructive conversation as mentioned above.
@31, the encampment isn't just "nearby" those homes, it's directly below it.

No, to state the obvious, unless developers have invented the hovering condo, that's not the case. They're on adjacent property. The only thing below their homes is their basement, and below that dirt. I'm not sure who you think you're trying to fool with this absurd semantic game. My neighbor's yard, which I can see from my second story window, is "nearby" not "directly below" me. Good grief.

But I get it. Anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly embrace having a third-world style shantytown in their residential neighborhood is a NIMBY

"Third-world style shantytown"? If you're going to use this kind of loaded, racialized language, you should really stop acting surprised or outraged when people point out the obvious bigotry behind your anti-encampment activism.

band-aid measures that have not been demonstrated to actually reduce homelessness, versus simply managing it

One of the most evergreen tactics of cruelly opposing a policy designed to help the disadvantaged is to pretend to prefer some other, vague, not currently on the table better policy that would solve all our difficult problems instead. Of course, there's currently no direct competition. Homelessness is a social illness, and like many illnesses it demands palliative and curative medicine. We must work harder to get more curative medicine on the agenda, but as much as its convenient to your political agenda, that goal isn't in direct competition with palliative care now.

If you really cared about a cancer patient, you wouldn't prattle on to her about how you really think we should find a cure for her cancer one of these days, while denying her medicine to ease her day. If you talk to residents of these encampments (as I have) they'll tell you they allow for a safer and more dignified life than the alternatives available. You want to deny them dignity and safety, because some condo owners think they're entitled to not see tents when they look out the window. If that's not "anti-homeless" I don't think the word has much meaning.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The anti-encampment candidate you thought might actually win behind this outrage lost by 25 points. Your NIMBY crusade isn't actually that popular with the majority of residents of Ballard, who have actual lives to live and don't have time for this nonsense. You couldn't even slow it down. The Ballard busybody influence over local politics is, happily, finally on the wane, an indication that Seattle is finally growing up as a city. It's a pleasure to watch it happen.
This is like saying we can't help Syrians because of homeless veterans. Or gun loons suddenly acting like the give a shit about mental health care. Great! Let's house those veterans. Let's fund that treatment! We all agree, let's roll.

Don't like band-aid measures? Well exactly what is stopping you from working to put people into permanent housing? Empty out the camps by helping them get into homes. Get over the fact that you lost the battle to make Ballard as special camp-free enclave and move on to the next task: fund that permanent housing.

See, the reason you assholes are called NIMBYs is because you do want the homeless shoved off in some corner, the cheaper the better. You just want that corner to be in somebody else's neighborhood, out of sight out of mind. Nobody in Ballard was whining when the camps were in West Seattle or Capitol Hill. Nobody in Ballard complained that those camps were mere band-aids. Nobody in Ballard was worried that somebody sleeping in doorways on Market Street moved into Nickelsville down by the Duwamish. Like you felt so obligated to care for Ballard's own homeless sons. You were happy to see them go.

Nobody takes you seriously because your disingenuous rhetoric is so transparent. If you want to earn credibility, then take concrete action to get those people out of tents and into apartments. Nickelsville isn't going anywhere now so you might as well either shut up, or get to work.
What we really need is a mechanism to end the hoarding of space by single-family homeowners. We need to allocate it fairly among all people. By some mechanism besides market-prices... which has concentrated all the worlds' investment capital into urban real estate as a "Store of Value". My proposal is a radical increase in Property Tax on holdings greater than 1000 square feet per Occupant. So the typical 6000 square foot lot will have to find five roommates or else pay something like $1000/month in property taxes (to be used for public housing construction and the purchase of Land Trusts in perpetuity. )
Nobody in Ballard was whining when the camps were in West Seattle or Capitol Hill. Nobody in Ballard complained that those camps were mere band-aids. Nobody in Ballard was worried that somebody sleeping in doorways on Market Street moved into Nickelsville down by the Duwamish. Like you felt so obligated to care for Ballard's own homeless sons. You were happy to see them go.

Exactly. Ballard NIMBYs like Compass Rose are so transparent. The whole theory of 'no, encampments aren't the right policy, we should do these other things instead' was developed on the fly after the Ballard site was announced. I don't know who they think they're fooling.

You started to make sense but then you speak out from your high horse to decry "you assholes".

Look in the mirror, my young friend.

Once again: winning a flamewar on some comment thread gets you assholes nowhere. You dumbfucks lost the debate over where to put Nickelsville, you lost the city council election, and you're losing your idiotic battle to shut down and move the Ballard camp in the middle of fucking November.

See, you think you can go on Slog or and rack up "FTWs" and score some points that way, and then ??? and then profit.

I'm here to remind you that you're an impotent keyboard warrior. You're some kind of shut-in with too much time on your hands yet too lazy to get out of the house and go make a difference. City Hall is on the move and they've picked a direction to go in, and they have a plan. You dumb motherfuckers play no role in any of that.

It's not me you have to convince, nor any of the readers of this shit here. You need to get up and do something, and get people who matter to listen. But you can't because your ideas are bullshit, and everyone knows it.

Suggestion: start with being honest for once.
"single family zoning exclusionists"- laughable twaddle. @39- go fuck yourself.
Why are the people who are concerned about this always seen as the "enemy"? Property crime in seattle is horrible (…)

Every day another car window gets smashed and shit gets stolen. What the fuck are the cops doing? Why are there 30 cops watching 5 protestors on the hill and yet they cant seem to catch any of these thief's?

This has made people feel unsafe in this city. FULL STOP. This is where the protest against the homeless camps are coming from. People worry that the already high property crime rate will increase, and the cops will do jack shit about it.

But we need to do something about the homeless situation. I don't know if camps are the right thing, but at least it's something. This city's getting so every park/space is a homeless camp that's littered and unusable. This isn't fair to the people who live in the neighborhood and it isn't a human solution to the homeless problem. Go to Vancouver, a city that also has a large number of homeless people, yet people seem to walk in their parks after dark and their parks seem clean. What are they doing (hint more taxes, more services), and why can't we do the same. The "rich" people complaining about these homeless camps need to see that they're part of the cause by voting for the shitty tax system we have and voting against every damn thing that doesn't "benefit" them.

The cops and city hall need to take this fucking property crime issue seriously and they need to take homeliness seriously. The rich assholes in this city need to start paying taxes for more human services. Our tax system is fucked, and our city is starting to become fucked and it seems like no one really gives a fuck, we all just want to point fingers and blame the other side. Fuck....

Sorry for the rant, I'm just tired of people pointing fingers and nothing actually being done. The camps are a good start, but until we get more money and until the cops catch actual criminals (hint white people stealing shit from cars), then nothings going to change.

Also fuck these right wing assholes showing up on slog these days. The comments used to be some what readable, now it's just fucking right wing troll douche tards. Can we just either ignore/report theses asshats until they all go away?
Being frustrated with crime is perfectly reasonable. Demanding we treat the homeless as nastily as possible, denying them a relatively safe place to sleep, because we're mad about crime, is not reasonable. (And yes, yes, we should do more and better things, but *not allowing encampments* won't make that happen, and makes the problem worse in the meantime.) This is true for several reasons, all of which seem so obvious it would really be an insult to your intelligence to spell them out.
@45 agreed, and thats why I said the camps are a good start. But people should realize theres real frustration behind the opposition of these camps. @36 said it best. It would be easier to support these camps if they came with a real plan to deal with the homeless problem and the property crime problem, but city council chicken out and did a band aid solution. But I really have given up hope that this "progressive" city will actually be progressive. Instead we'll just put band aid solutions.

Should people be taking out their frustration on the camp and the residents, no. But the stranger shouldn't write off this frustration as nimbyism.
@46, you're just making excuses for bad behavior. 'Real frustration' is no excuse for lashing out in unrelated ways. If I'm frustrated because my boss is mistreating me at work, that's no excuse to come home and kick the dog. These are presumably people with a functioning frontal cortex; let's treat them like they're capable of modulating their responses to frustration in non-bigoted ways.

And in Ballard in particular, of course it's NIMBYism. I know enough about Ballard to know that many of the same anti-encampment characters also fight new housing in their neighborhood, and pushed for the shameful downzone to LR zones last year (which, of course, makes the housing shortage worse, which contributes to homelessness...). Maybe the source of their desire to keep new people out of their neighborhood is frustration with property crime, and maybe it isn't, but whatever the cause, it's reactionary nonsense, and deserves to be called out as such. Being frustrated about crime isn't a sort of free-floating license to be a jerk in unrelated ways.

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.