Mayor Durkan Proposes Using Money from City Property Sales to Fund Homeless Programs


I wonder how many years we'll have to go before they land on a place to build any of those tiny houses, assuming there's any money left after all the inevitable lawsuits and hand-wringing. Maybe by the time the next mayor is elected?
Can't wait until news of the 1000 tiny homes and 350 units in Ft Lawton attracts additional thousands of homeless from other counties and states.
@1: tiny houses are going up right now.
@2: so, your solution is don't build more housing and the homeless population won't grow? good plan.
@3 Yes, exactly. The homeless are attracted to the place that gives them the most handouts. Stop giving and they will go elsewhere.
hey, throwing money at the bum junkies problem has worked out so well so far, lets keep doing it! WAIT A MINUTE!!!! i thought we already had a 10 YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS????? what happened? it didn't work? oh. so lets keep doing the same shit and expect a new result!!! the majority of these "campers" just want drugs and no rules, there is nothing you can do for them except give them buckets of drugs, a free apartment (if they'll take it), and food, clothes and money until they die...
The heartless assholes are out in force today. Fuck the poor, amiright!

I do think we need to do a better job finding solutions for homelessness. And almost anything we do to help will inevitably cost money. But this is a terrible idea.

The city should not be selling off property for this. They'd get a one time chunk of cash to spend, but then the money is gone. It isn't sustainable. You can't go back and get more because you've sold off the land. Worse, if the city needs land for anything else in the future, they'll have to buy it at future inflated prices, completely negating the money made on this proposed sale.

If the city can consider blowing $160 million on a goddammed police station remodel without selling off city property, then the city can come up with $11 million dollars to help homeless people without selling off city property.

TL; DR, kudos to Durkan for wanting to help the homeless, but failing grade for a shitty funding plan.
@7, i don't know how long you have lived here, but the city of seattle voted for taxes for a TEN YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS several years ago. guess what? it didn't work.

i think the city is depending on all the newcomers to accept that its "always been like this" - under he ballard bridge, in front of city hall, etc. - nope. not true at all. the bum junkie influx is a relatively new situation. the new folks think, "omg, how sad, lets vote "yes"" to whatever tripe is presented to them.

fact is, the city is scummier, bummier, junky-er, bike stealing chop shopier than ever, at any point.

What are you blathering about? For all of its many and manifest failings, the 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness was never a thing on a ballot that you can pretend to be mad about your so-called vote being wasted on because you NEVER voted on a specific tax increase for it. Yup, not a one. But, yeah, it didn't go so well.
@7 That was alsonmy thought. Why the hell are we selling city property and to whom? This seems backwards.

Is there a law that says Seattle can’t become a developer and build its own affordable housing project?
@7: "Fuck the poor?"
If you're spending several hundred dollars a day on a drug habit, you're not poor. You're just making bad choices. People that who choose to steal from innocent civilians to fund their habit are not victims, and they shouldn't be treated as such.
@11: there are many types of homeless. they're not all junkie bike thieves.

there are homeless children, homeless families. should we punish them? be careful, if you show compassion to one group, it's a slippery slope to showing compassion to all.
How in the world are "tiny houses" a solution? People still need to cook, eat, bathe, poop, get rid of thier garbage. If one is crapping in the street now, one still will be as a resident of a "tiny house". I am already disappointed in Mayor Durkan. One part of the problem is the elimination of very low cost housing options over the last decades by zoning codes, building codes, and increased land values. Where did the boarding houses, SRO's, basement rooms rented out, bootlegged in apartments, flop houses and cage hotels (Google it) go? Of course. none of those would be of any use to the people debilitated by mental illness and / or drug addiction. This old grey-haired never-say-die lefty thinks that those who are helpless because of illness / addiction (same-same) probably need a more authoritarian approach, such as a sheltered facility with quite paternalistic oversight. Homeless camping in the city will never be a solution. Actually sheltering and treating the mentally ill is of course a totally crazy and unrealistic idea.
@12: nice try, but # 7's comment was directed at previous commenters who were specifically talking about junkies, not homeless children. After all, it's the addicts who are the ones causing the problems we're talking about.

And by the way, I think it's an outrage that homeless children are allowed to be living on the streets and in filthy, dangerous illegal encampments with those dirtbags. They should be immediately removed from that environment and put into a safe, secure shelter, whether their parents want to come with them or not.