Seattle City Council Votes to Allow 40 Transitional Encampments in Seattle

Comments

1

I’m embarrassed that Pedersen is my councilperson. Fucking Mayor of 35th Ave NE

2

Kudos to Alex Pederson for a voice of reason in our city council.

Compassion requires foresight, good planning, and all considerations to be evaluated so that false expectations for the homeless aren't raised unnecessarily.

3

Except they’re not transitional. It’s political theater for Happy Campers.

4

@1. Same. As soon as I saw the vote count I knew who the dissenter was, the Stepford NIMBY.

5

It's "sleight of hand", actually.

6

You get a favela, and you get a favela, and you get a favela!!!

8

Y’all said a $15 an hour minimum wage would bankrupt the city. It didn’t. If anything, Seattle residents have a higher standard of living than they did when the Fight for 15 was won here.

Y’all said Seattle was dying, and there would be a wave election that would throw all the progressives out of the city council, especially Sawant. You were wrong. The City Council progressives are now stronger than ever before, and Sawant is the longest serving member.

Y’all said she’d lose to Conklin, Banks, and Orion. Y’all said you knew Seattle better than anyone else, better than the people like me who actually live here. You don’t know a fucking thing about Seattle, you just think you do because you masturbate while listening to Dorli Monson and think everything that jackass ever said is biblical truth. Well, if it is, that’s just further proof that atheism is correct.

I know, it’s fun to log in and own the libs, and get the more exotic ones like Urgutha and Auntie Griz to post some stupid bullshit about wanting to stuff people into a gas chamber or recite the unabomber manifesto as if it were a blueprint. But you lose so damn much. You haven’t elected a governor from your side of the aisle since the early 1980’s. You’re lucky if you can get two state level electeds to win in any given election. And if you’re such experts on Seattle, we’ll, why are you so consistently wrong? Like, all the damn time? You can’t predict the outcome of an election here. Every candidate you tell us is a sure thing loses. You can’t predict the results of a policy. Every one of your doom scenarios has turned out to be wrong.

Now, either you’re lying, or you’re just stupid. Or maybe, you’re just full of bullshit. I’d like to believe it’s the former, because of the three that one at least implies some degree of intellect. Then again, does anyone really know about you all?

So, which is it? All you conservative trolls, come on now, tell me- liar, dumbass or bullshit artist- what are you?

9

And you get a favela!

10

Think of it. 40 favelas!

11

The horrors and suffering of being homeless is its greatest deterrence. Meth and heroin make it tolerable, actually preferred by many, and that's the real issue that's killing Seattle.

12

@8,

I often agree with you, but how's about you move here or shut the fuck up with lecturing from a distance those who deal with the current reality of Seattle on a daily basis? I was at a meeting of meal providers yesterday and the longtime Downtown Outdoor Meal Site run by OSL had to close because a significant number of camper/hobo types are in fact violent assholes. (and yes, it's a minority, but if you're serving 1000 people and 50 of them are violent drug-addicted jerks wishing it wasn't so does not obviate that reality).

Oh yeah, and I also found out that one of the clients we used to serve (and tried repeatedly to get housing for, etc) died from a heroin overdose earlier this week. I think he was about 26/27/28 years old. I wish he was still with us, but I can't say that I (and many of my co-workers) didn't see it coming.

13

Oh, and FWIW, restaurant food in Seattle is now pretty much as expensive as it is in Honolulu. I wonder how that could be?

14

"Several tiny house villages started as unsanctioned tent encampments and evolved into the villages they are today."

And that's another reason why it's important to organize your neighbors to drive out any illegal vagrant camps that pop up. Because with this latest shitty council vote, if you let them get established, you might be stuck with a bunch of thieving junkie fucks turning your community into the next Ballard Commons.

15

@14 You'd think that with all the damage done by these hobo tents, real or imagined, at least one neighborhood, somewhere, would respond by pooling their resources to pay rent for a month or two in (sufficiently distant) apartments, and handing the keys to the vagrants.

Why, with all the harm the bums are supposedly doing to property values just by breathing near them, the plan would surely pay for itself, wouldn't it?

16

@15: That is not how renting works at all.

17

What @1 said.

18

@16 That's not a particularly convincing objection.

People fudge rental applications and leases all the time-- at least in the poorer half of America, and we're definitely not talking about rentals at the high end of the market here. Surely the homeowners in a hobo-infested neighborhood would be strongly motivated, willing to risk bending or breaking a rule or two?

19

@15 I happen to know quite a few people who have camps by them. Their property values were significantly lowered and some lost out over six figures in the asking price when they were trying to sell their place. Some of them didn't even want to sell, but they couldn't take the crime and blight anymore. Besides, you give one camper free rent, and two will step in to fill the void. Build it and they will come.

21

@19 I'm a bit skeptical as to how you might determine the outcome without at least trying it a few times, but you're claiming it's like induced demand for highways, yes?

It isn't, though: we're still building roads, even with the knowledge that congestion will return almost immediately.

On the cost side, you seem to agree that the program would pay for itself even if neighbors put quite a lot of money into it. Even stranger, then, that there's not a single neighborhood in America that's given it a try, particularly after so many other attempted solutions have failed, isn't it?

23

@18: Wait, you do not actually believe your joke plan here is feasible do you?

I just assumed you were doing a stupid "gotcha" thing to inflate your ego. Are you actually serious?

24

@23 Tell me more about this 'stupid "gotcha" thing to inflate your ego' phenomenon you refer to, I find the concept intriguing.

25

8.

I said "There will be starving, shit-covered people everywhere", but I'm not conservative, and I'm not a troll.

I'm just what's directly in front of your eyes.

The one camp closure I did catch, the last person out was a woman on a stretcher.

26

great. every neighborhood and then some gets its very own slums. every sanctioned encampment brings crime, drugs, violence issues to the surrounding area. the entire concept was discouraged by an "expert" the city paid for advice on the matter, the record of ACTUALLY transitioning is awful, etc, etc, etc

these are basically taxpayer funded flophouses for junkies at this point. yay. soooo progressive! next step - taxpayer funded free drugs, because being a junkie is totes hard.

27

I suppose managed camps are an improvement over having vagrants set up shop willy-nilly all over the City, but all this will lead to no good end if we don't have our priorities straight:

1) This is mostly a drug problem, not a 'housing affordability' problem, no matter how the Seattle Establishment tries to push the latter narrative. If these new camps do not include the requirement that residents pair with caseworkers and get on a managed program to get free of their addictions and become self-supporting citizens again, all we will have done is create as others here have pointed out, 'Drug Favelas', and will attract all the violence and property crime that comes with it. Remember: few druggies will kick the habit if you just ask them 'Pretty please with Narcan on top'. The drugs have too strong a hold on their minds. They must be compelled to rehabilitate.

2) If these are 'low/no barrier', all we're going to do is put up a big 'Welcome' sign for every transient addict in the region - and beyond. Please remember the Poppe Report concluded that over half our 'homeless' aren't even from Seattle. At what point will Seattle's taxpayers conclude they can no longer afford to be the Region's 'Island of Misfit Toys'?

The new SCC sees their November victories as a mandate, and are clearly 'doubling down' on their previous agenda (or is it a case of 'Doubling Down on the Stupid'?). Will more of the same make a difference? Time will tell. For all our sakes, I wish them luck.

28

Well stated MrB.

29

40 lashes to anyone that uses the word "Y’all".