@1 - but they're
the Patriots! who
hate America! and
Americans but still

'But
yeah
the sleeping
on park benches
really is the public nuisance here
not the concentrated wealth allowing people to flaunt the law.'

and as it continues to Concentrate
as the Scofflaws grab evermore
of the finite & proverbial Pie
those park benches will
be seen as Essential to
those needing a good
night's rest yet will
be Off Limits to
those without
ample Means

the Harvesting
of the Citizenry
continues apace
& Despair flourishes

but by Gawd
DON'T DO DRUGS.
you'll only get into Trouble

'less you Do 'em
in your Yacht
then that's
Perfectly
Okay.

Burien becomes the latest local city to attempt to force Seattle to deal with the entire homeless problem.

Fuck you, assholes.

"Davison argued for local autonomy, but obviously not so much local autonomy that an individual would actually get to decide how to use a public space."

Why should any individual get to decide how to use a public space? It's for the public and should not be co-opted by someone rendering it useless for everyone else.

"Burien wins the Heartless Policy award this week."

You may want to pay attention to what is happening in San Franc. The mayor there just had the court affirm the city's right to remove campers who refuse shelter/services because it is not to their liking. We are done "meeting people where they are at", either you get with the program or you can pack up and move on.

https://sfstandard.com/2023/09/25/san-francisco-to-resume-enforcing-laws-against-homeless-people-who-refuse-shelter-mayor/

@8 - the problem with what Burien is doing is that it is clearly calculated to get the homeless to leave town and move along. And guess where everyone knows they'll move to? It's way past goddamned time that Seattle stopped being responsible for the entire region's problem. This is a regional/national problem, and if every community kicks in it might be possible to address it. But putting it all on a few large cities is not fair or sensible.

"Why do you care about this thing when this other thing happened?" is the laziest derailing tactic. Yes, it's galling that rich folks can put on a private un-permitted fireworks display and just pay the resulting fines, if any, without batting an eye. What does this have to do with the policy debates surrounding the vast and growing un-housed population across the water in Seattle?

Not a goddamn thing.

@11 I sympathize with your position but at the same time it’s also unfair to expect other communities to wait for Seattle to take a leadership role in this crises. Seattle leadership long ago abrogated any type of leadership in favor of a free for all. Waiting on Seattle clearly isn’t going to work so you must do what’s in the best interest of your own community and if/when Seattle is ready to create a true regional partnership I’m sure other communities would be more than willing to listen. This is a big part of why the regional homeless authority fell apart. No one trusts Seattle to actually help.

@15 Seconded

@11 so you want all of the neighboring communities to bear the brunt of the solution to the problem that Seattle's policies have caused? We all know that the people camping out in the open/in the middle of a public park aren't the people that are homeless due to the housing crisis - they're the drug addicts with mental issues that refuse help even when it's offered or the weirdos that have decided playing by society's rules aren't for them. Bravo to Burien and Kent (and Auburn?) for passing these no camping ordinances.

@15 addressing this issue should not fall on Seattle (nor King county) - this should either be addressed at the State level (ideal as it’s a good balance of funding to local oversight / understanding of challenges) or the Federal level (not ideal as the Feds have their own problems, probably just want them to send funding).

Unfortunately too many folks want to politicize the issue instead of taking a technocratic approach to addressing challenges of drug addiction, housing, etc. We should be beyond moralizing but I fear it’s just too effective an issue for folks to address meaningful change. Example, should we be adopting direct financial support for many folks (obviously not talking about addicts) who today have to deal with vouchers, food stamps, etc. freeing up resources to focus on those with more need? Most studies about basic income tend to show we (society) gets better results with simply giving folks money but paternalistic tendencies keep that from happening across the board (this is just one of many things we could try differently).

@11 dvs99, you're in a tie with Morty for the highest comment batting avg around here, but your comments today don't make sense.

What D13R and others said - spot on.

Until this is addressed at a federal level, Seattle, KC, the state of WA, will NEVER EVER have enough money to address homelessness on their own. That's my tax money being thrown away on this region's homeless industrial complex. Under current policies, nothing is getting better, and everything is getting worse. In the meantime, I'd like to be able to use the public spaces my tax money pays for.

The homeless is tragic and, there but for the grace of god go I. But I don't have unlimited patiences or empathy. It this point, all I see is Seattle making the problem worse.

@18 - they may be drug addicts with mental health issues, but a good number of them are Burien's, Mercer Island's, or Renton's drug addicts with mental health issues. And those places can damn well start doing some of the work of taking care of them instead of pushing them all into Seattle. We have enough of our own.

@15- why should the other cities in the County be waiting for Seattle to take a leadership role? They are perfectly capable of opening shelters, setting up drug treatment facilities, etc. They are just too cheap and lazy to do anything at all other than push people out. Fuck them for not taking their share of the responsibility.

It's a shame Toby doesn't remember a certain French restaurant kerfuffle with Newsome

@21 but the problem is Seattle's policies and programs BRING them into Seattle. There should be two types of help available: drug treatment programs and shelters for those that aren't on drugs but have fallen on hard times and need help getting back on their feet. I wish there were more options for people with pets that want to keep them, because I've heard several stories of people wanting to get off the streets but they'd have to give up their dogs. Animals are a huge help in the recovery process and alleviate PTSD, anxiety, etc. Taking them away is just going to cause more trauma on top of whatever they've already got going on.

I can't remember the exact number, but something like 20% of the people on the streets in King county are from other states entirely, not just other areas in Washington. That's what I'm pointing out here - the surrounding communities are bearing the brunt of Seattle' stupid programs/policies. How can we forget the infamous couple from West Virginia who built an entire house on the sidewalk in SLU (I think? Can't remember exactly where but I know you know exactly who I'm talking about) who straight up said they came here because they heard it was easier to live on the streets, the monetary help was easier to access, and nobody would bother them? THOSE are the kind of people I have zero sympathy or empathy for. Go back to where you came from and figure your shit out there. We have enough problems to deal with as it is.

@21, @24 is correct. It's not like these cities are actively bussing people into Seattle. They all have shelters and services. Look around at Bellevue, Burien, Kent and they all have services. Some of them have the King County homeless hotels and others have their own services. The Burien ordinance doesn't say send everyone to Seattle it just says you can't do whatever you want so all things being equal people are going to matriculate where there are lower barriers which is why they all end up in Seattle including those from outside KC and the state of WA as @24 also noted (IIRC they set up shop across the street from the Space Needle). So until Seattle starts enforcing some rules on their own (including drug enforcement which is another reason why everyone is downtown) there isn't much neighboring communities can really do. You can't force people to stay. As for Seattle taking a leadership role, unfortunately for the other cities (with maybe Bellevue being the exception) Seattle is the hub. They have the most resources and drive the conversation.

No, Burien is not "heartless". They are doing what they have to do to from a public health and community standpoint for the citizens.

If anyone is "heartless", it's the collective we - all of us in the United States - who allow the status quo.

"If anyone is "heartless", it's
the collective we - all of us in the
United States - who allow the status quo."

dammit
Mrs. Vel Du-Ray
Mr. Vel Du-Ray is gd Lucky

as are WE.

thank
YOU.

@20; @24 - I completely agree that this is a national problem. There are a whole lot of people who need help (be it shelter, treatment, both, something else). And a whole lot of places (Burien in my initial comment, West Virginia in yours) that are perfectly happy to criminalize needing help knowing full well that people will migrate to where they can still get some. Until EVERY place in the country steps up and pitches in, Seattle, Portland, LA, etc. are going to get stuck with the brunt of the problem.

I would submit that almost any place can deal with a few addicts or mentally ill persons, but no place can handle the entire national/regional load. I'm thinking of Edmonds, who banned camping and then said that there was shelter available in other parts of the county or in King County to weasel out of their responsibility to their community. I was told by someone I know in Anacortes that the police up there just boot the homeless directly out of town and make them someone else's problem. That is going on way too many places.

And I don't like way too much of our tax money being used to support homeless people from other places either. You're correct that more drug enforcement here would give addicts less incentive to come to Seattle. But that has to be paired with other places also supporting people instead of just letting a few big cities do it for everyone.

@28 dvs99, we agree on all of that... and we can be "mad" all we want at the rest of this state and all the other states in this nation for instituting draconian measures, but the reality is that if Seattle doesn't also, we'll just take on the burden from everywhere else. That's just the reality. We can yell and scream at other cities for doing the wrong thing, but that's just the reality. And I can no longer blame them. So instead of trying to fix a national problem ourselves, we as a city, as a state, need to send a message to D.C. that they need to step in on a federal level and distribute tax dollars for homeless based on where the homeless are.

And in the meantime, this city, this state needs to get tough. Because if Democrats won't, voters will vote in Republicans. Even in Seattle. And then all these left-wing dingbats here that whine about liberal democrats being meanies will really have something to complain about. If people think it can't happen here, they're foolishly mistaken.

(FTR, I support helping homeless people, I vote for the social services, I've volunteered at soup kitchens - it's a national disgrace that we as a nation let this happen)

@29, Catalina@26 showed up for work today, helping make the City of Seattle a better place (or at least better served by your electric utility). As a former colleague, I can attest that she is not the “city employee” some wish to laud and others vilify. She does her job, does it well, and keeps trying to make the City of Seattle a better place.

Thank you for the kind words, Hydronerd dear.

Raindrop, I know it's difficult for you people to take personal responsibility for anything, so we'll let that remark pass. Chalk it up to Reagan poisoning, which is almost as bad as exposure to lead or mercury.