I get a strong sense that there's an unspoken personal vendetta being pursued here, presumably against Pedro himself but possibly one of his companions. Otherwise there's no logical reason for this particular encampment to be a sweep priority when there are so many others that are much more publicly visible, much more impactful on neighboring residents, much more of a safety risk, and much less functionally stable -- and whose occupants would for the most part be thrilled to get into a tiny house village. I hope the Stranger's close scrutiny of this sweep has some influence both on how it plays out for this encampment and on how future sweep decisions are made.

@4 The catalyst for this sweep, as is so often the case, was a shooting: https://komonews.com/news/local/city-to-clear-out-homeless-encampment-on-aurora-avenue-in-north-seattle . Nice try on the baseless conspiracy theory though.

@6 That report is about a different encampment.

@7 Is it? Sorry. I guess you can go on assuming this is a city-wide conspiracy against Pedro.

@9 That isn't what I'm "assuming" at all. What I'm inclined to suspect is that somewhere in the labyrinthine bureaucracy that makes these decisions, there's one influential person (maybe more than one, but one would suffice) who personally finds Pedro, and/or the example he sets, intolerable.

Even if you support sweeps in principle, it should be obvious that by prioritizing this one the city is inexplicably adding to its own immediate shelter burden. If anyone can think of a better explanation, I'm listening.

Yep - they are aggressively deleting posts that don't agree with their world view now.

They don't want anyone questioning Hannah's journalistic integrity or the validity of their arguments. How republican.

@12: The city has swept many other large encampments north of the Ship Canal. Sweeping this encampment does not break that pattern.

“Even if you support sweeps in principle, it should be obvious that by prioritizing this one the city is inexplicably adding to its own immediate shelter burden.”

Cuba/Pedro has refused shelter already, so that’s an odd statement to make. Yes, in general, sweeps add to the shelter burden, but the voters and the mayor are clear sweeps should continue.

@16, OK, but again: Why is this inobtrusive campsite being prioritized when there are plenty of others whose neighbors have long been screaming for the city to come deal with? Does that not seem odd to you at all?

@17 -- I think you're making a pretty big assumption that this particular campsite referenced in this post is unobtrusive. The first article on this place referenced repeated thefts at nearby businesses that one of the residents acknowledged were perpetrated by people living at the encampment. This entire process was likely initiated because people living and working nearby got fed up and called demanding removal of people they believed were stealing their stuff.

@17: No, removal of this encampment does not strike me as odd. Several reasons have already been given in this thread, but also the campers have given many indications they intend to stay there permanently. (Recall the original justification for tolerating encampments was the cruel lie about the campers being “victims of capitalism” who just needed a brief chance to recover.) To that end, these campers have built many unpermitted, below-code constructions, which may take the city a long time to remove. So it may make sense to start the removal process sooner for this encampment.

Turns out this encampment was having some pretty major impacts on people living nearby. And it was people scraping by in one of Seattle's last mobile home parks -- not some glittering high rise condo building where everybody's a millionaire. I guess the trailer park residents don't really matter to The Stranger when there's a narrative to maintain.

Apparently now there's no links allowed here now. I'll try this again.

www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/trash-piled-up-at-seattle-mobile-home-park-as-rents-rose-homeless-camp-grew/

The rederal ro the shelters are always available. Is it really difficult to nail dowm how many people live tnere Probably two. The predicament you are in when you live outside is that you are down ro wnat hou have on your back. I mean arleast tne seattle times has corporate sponsers for rhis devisive pointless billshit. They should not give these assholes shit until theu clean up tneir fucking mess They are not suffering it isnt lack of garbage cans. Tney dont give a shit and neiher does this shit rag. Really ...they baricaded tnemsellves behind shopping carts.

This encampments residents were stealing from the mobile home park and home Depot to create their homes and gardens. Other violence went on there also. Residents who pay taxes and follow rules deserve to live in a safe place - it's part of the city charter.

This is great. Knee jerk conservatives complain about being censored/cancelled, in a privately owned forum (what about my free stuff), while demanding the homeless (what about my free stuff) be booted off the streets.

Maybe the usual suspects here can find common cause with the homeless and demand things they have no right to. Ponies are always good.

@39: Yeah, both Seattle, and the Stranger’s readership, are just chock-full of “[k]née jerk conservatives.” Just like Seattle’s District 3 has thousands upon thousands of racist right-wingers, because only persons fitting that description could ever possibly have a problem with CM Sawant’s repeated and intentional abuses of her powers. Seattle itself must be a hot-bed of conservatism, because it elected a Republican to the City Attorney’s office. There simply cannot be other explanations, especially not explanations which involve a chronically liberal and prosperous electorate utterly rejecting your failed radical philosophy. That is doubleplus unpossible, and so you will not consider it. Keep banging on with all of that, and enjoy both more sweeps now, and more Republicans later.

(When one person posts a comment here, it does not displace or deny another’s ability to do so. When campers simply appropriate a public space for their own personal use, they deny it to everyone else. Your analogies form as poorly as have your other beliefs.)