Do authorized tent cities have more safety/security measures in place over non-authorized ones?

I mean, I can see the benefit of those sweet wooden pallets to keep the tents out of the wet mud, but when it comes to claiming they are safer, are there actual reasons why, like police presence or a regular civilian patrol or something?

If we just give somebody more upzones it will all get better one week from never.

We, you and I, will have to do what the invisible handjob of capitalism never will do: provide something where profit doesn't exist.
Basic healthcare
Basic shelter
Basic education
Basic basics

I'm glad we're paying someone $80,000 to tell us to consider giving homeless people homes.

I think everyone should be sensitive to the fact that the encampments are a stopgap solution and that there is a good chance that once they're up and running, Seattle will go back to the status quo of a few years ago - out of sight, out of mind. There's actually an impressive amount of political momentum behind doing something to combat homelessness in this city right now, a few cranky Ballard NIMBYs and KIRO Radio aside. It would be a shame if all that energy went towards a band-aid of a solution that is more about the city's optics than it is the welfare of those living on the streets.

That said, I have a hard time understanding how this supposed homelessness expert can throw the baby out with the bathwater on encampments. Finding more bed space is hard to do in one of the hottest real estate markets in the country. It's a multi-year process once the funding becomes available. Encampments and little houses are better than the status quo of people dying under freeways, providing more opportunity for interactions with social workers and keeping people safer from predators.

No, porta-potties ARE the right conversation to have.
AND tent encampments.
AND actual housing.

@3 - I very definitely agree. Capitalism won't address problems from which no profit is possible. Ever.

A consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is, breaks your watch, tells you the wrong time (though it's right twice a day), and sends you a big fat bill.

Housing First enacted in Salt Lake City is very successful, it provides people with homes - decent homes and social services in a humane and socially just way. It is humanitarian and cost effective (due from savings from medical and law enforcement expenses being eliminated that are from homeless peoples emergencies). It is less expensive and a vast improvement than what the city is doing now. It could be put in place in Seattle if that was the city’s will. Money could come from developers and corporate fees since those entities are benefiting so much from this city.

I suspect that they don’t want to do it because of payoffs, are ok with people dying who are stricken with poverty who cannot afford decent housing, and want to continue to drive poor people out of the city and out of sight when they can’t make any money off of them. The poor are in their way and they desire to continue to provide a glitzy, immaculate, yet soulless city for the rich.