Hmm. The city spent a ton of money to "study the situation" in the Jungle and concluded it was:

full of homeless folks
no hand wash stations (like one would expect one under the freeway somehow)
sanitation was lacking
there was crime and poverty
drug use was prevalent
the study also concluded it was unsafe to send city workers to assist these folks
on a happy note....they did not find any trolls under the bridge

Now there is no money to help them and there is no end game on how to help them.

This is unacceptable.

The only thing that's really changed is that Seattle will hire consultants to do a charrette on the fence, homelessness will be more visible than ever, and the entire operation will cost an extra $1,000,000 for the consultant fees, the temporary outreach workers, and the extra sweeps needed to keep these folks moving along once they hit the streets, on top of the $1,000,000 already budgeted to build the Reuven Carlyle-Ed Murray Memorial Chainlink and Razor Wire Fence. Hopefully someone with an actual heart and and some brain cells in gear will run against Ed Murray next time.

@2: if it's getting built, WSDOT's building the fence. No Seattle Process required.

how come Union Gospel Mission gets this plum assignment?

Max,

Union Gospel get the assignment, because they are compassionate, whereas the City of Seattle it too frightened to send in social workers to help the inhabitants of the jungle.

How's that for a kick in the head! The city will spend our tax dollars to study the problem, but do nothing to solve it.

One need only to look at the history of Seattle's results to permanently remove camp sites from other areas, and from the Jungle itself in past years, to know that this new initiative, and particularly the goal to keep it empty, will be a big challenge to achieve ...

@5: that's the reason the city gave for bringing them in? "we're too scared"? or is that your interpretation?

what a shit show this is going to be.

I say don't remove the hobos but do put up the fences.

Preferably electric with razor wire and no gates and a dead man's zone filled with hungry Rottweiler's that had shitty puppyhoods.

Call it "Containment."

Does the city understand why their shelters aren't useful to some people? What is their plan for that?

Are they seriously committing to this without having an actual plan for keeping people from moving back in afterwards? This is just rousting people in circles. Look, the standard for doing something useful would be that you don't need to keep people from moving back into the Jungle, because they have some option better than living in the Jungle.

Uh yeah, this has been an ongoing disaster for decades and well shit, now there's a 2 week deadline! Totally caught everyone off guard with that!

Pain, is a necessary ingredient for life. Otherwise, we couldn't tell if our fingers were burning when touching fire, right?

So that money will be used to get them people out of the jungle but not put them into anything wow no wonder Seattle is screwed up I was wondering what we're doing with the money heaven forbid we build new shelters or low income housing with the money

@16. You're assuming the people living in the Jungle have any interest in shelters/housing that has rules/oversight. From what I've read in various outlets is that the draw of the Jungle is personal autonomy and freedom.

The homeless campers of Seattle have long become a social and political liability. Many if not most in-migrated elsewhere, notwithstanding unsupported claims that they are from Seattle. Their reasons are but excuses and unacceptable. This is not their property and property matters, whether it belongs to the state, a building owner, or city. If you disagree, open your front lawn.

The mayor knows that this is a political firestorm in process and that he will suffer in the next election if he has not demonstrated record of significant impact on the issue. San Francisco is seeing a joint media focus on the issue and their homeless problems, while worse than Seattle, portend what we will face if we do not act, especially since SF is taking action that could lead many to head north.

Interestingly scarce in the debate is the actual voices of the individuals who live in the jungle and elsewhere. Perhaps because every time one speaks, listeners realize that they are being conned and that these individuals are exercising to a greater or lesser degree, choices to not consider alternatives such as shelters, family, work, sobriety, treatment etc.

I believe a zero tolerance approach to urban camping and squatting is a necessary start and will help define the limits and possibilities. Some will leave, some will return to family, some will accept shelter and/or treatment, some will work, and some will show up in our front yards. But just as the readers of the Stranger likely do not expect other people to solve their problems, it is not realistic or proper to create a quid quo pro that could condition cleaning up our streets and city on solving the problems of the individuals.

Lastly, our city spends billions and employs many smart people. That the need for a ‘consultant’ is always raised when the going gets tough is telling and irritating. We know what needs to be done and I am sure there are many in the city who are willing to take action. We dug this hole for ourselves by years of inaction. Changing the Seattle paradigm will be painful, like pulling off a band-aid. But it needs to be done, and done quickly and incisively.