My Democracy Vouchers went to Ms. Echohawk.

Sweeps are still happening, just now it's WA suburban cities sweeping homeless folks into Seattle

"The fact that the city has remained in a homelessness state of emergency for over five years now is 'unbelievable,' said Colleen Echohawk"
So what would she say concerning the police state of emergency which has gotten worse over the last 9 years of police reform under a federal consent decree?
Echohawk's has served on the Community Police Commission (CPC) for the last 3.5+ yrs., a period which has seen the SPD dispense increasing death and abuse.
Echohawk joined the CPC 2 months after Charleena Lyles murder, and has stood by the "accountability process" as 9 more people were killed by the SPD, 4 of those people in mental health crisis brandishing knives. Why has she never spoken out publicly on the endless murders & abuse? Why does she fail to call for 100% civilianization of the investigations of police abuse, determining policy, & dispensing discipline?

Read Echohawk's plan for policing in Seattle: https://www.echohawkforseattle.com/vision

"Everyone who lives in our city wants it to be safe. And public safety is at the forefront of that work. But policing as we know it in America has its origins in the slave patrols. This is a systemic issue that requires a systemic change in how we view policing."

Great! Just do not dare to propose the slave patrol face any measure of accountability.
In what world, in what profession, do people NOT abuse their power when there is no accountability.

An additional solution that would help keep a lot of people off the street is to bring back low cost SROs. Single room, shared bathroom hotels that cost about $25, or roughly the cost of a hostel. These types of hotels were all but killed off by antipoverty measures of the last century. Not a perfect solution, not the only soution, but a good one for many people to keep them off the street each night. Got to be less hassle and more humane than forcing them to live in the jungle. And its self supporting and does not require sobriety first nor any paperwork first, just $20. Easy to set up city supported voucher system for longer stays similar to what they are currently doing. However, SROs would certainly help house people that cant or dont want to go through the system (which could easily be a majority of people living on the streets).

@7,

So you want to bring back debtor's prisons?

wow.

For someone who cites no data, Ms. Echohawk seems serenely confident she knows her topic.

A few actual facts about Seattle's homeless population:

-- The overwhelming majority (over two-thirds) did not grow up here;
-- A majority most recently became homeless somewhere other than Seattle;
-- A majority reported drug or alcohol use;
-- A majority were unemployed or unemployable;
-- The vast majority -- more than seven out of ten -- said they could not afford $500/month in rent. There has been no apartment rented in Seattle for less than $500/month in the past quarter century(!).

(http://coshumaninterests-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/City-of-Seattle-Report-FINAL-with-4.11.17-additions.pdf)

That is the population she's talking about: chronic drug users, who arrived here already homeless, and with little means to change that. Until we start recognizing the reality of the people we want to help, any money we spend will continue to be wasted.

@11: It's odd how you complain about homeless people coming from out-of-town in one breath, and then praise the leadership that suburbs like Bellevue have shown on the homelessness issue in the next breath. You understand that other towns in Washington just ship their homeless people to Seattle, right? Sometimes they do it passively, by just harassing them until they get the message, sometimes actively by putting them on a bus to Seattle. And then they turn around and brag that they don't have big-city problems like homelessness.

You are somewhat correct that if Seattle is the only place that devotes any resources to helping homeless people then more homeless people from the region will end up here. But then you turn around and praise the "business backgrounds" of leadership in places that are "solving" their homelessness problem by making it Seattle's problem.

BTW, if your solution to this issue involves putting homeless people in jail, you should know that housing a person in jail is probably the most expensive approach of all.

@10: No, anyone who does not want to pay a fine for illegal camping, or accept help, can leave Seattle. (Maybe they can move to, say, north of Atlanta, where the locals can then show us just how easily the homeless problem can be solved.)

@15,

heh, you jest, but Atlanta is actually doing some good work in addressing homelessness. It's not perfect, but better than what Seattle's doing (or more accurately, not doing).

Complaining about druggies, and about mandatory rehab (pro tip: forcing people to do things doesn't work), and simply moving the problem from one city to another, to another, to another, is all a pointless waste of time and resources.

But whatever, you guys in Seattle are the ones paying premium tax dollars in order to do nothing useful about homelessness. Enjoy your homeless filled parks that you pay extra for. It doesn't really surprise me though. Conservatives ALWAYS demand to pay extra in order to keep their attitudes of smug superiority. So go right ahead, keep looking down your nose at the homeless and sniffing your own farts while at the same time throwing a wad of cash in the toilet. It's not my money you're wasting.

@17: No, I'm not kidding. I'm actually all for sending the country's homeless to you, since you have such wonderfully effective (yet totally unspecified) good works going there for them. That you respond to accurate, factual exposition about a problem with hectoring accusations of elitist attitude -- and snide victim-blaming! -- tells us all that we really need to know about what "solutions" you're actually capable of creating.

(But then again, we've already seen the ugly results of your opinions colliding with documented reality on this topic, haven't we?)

It's a warm Spring afternoon, so I'm going outside now, to enjoy a nice, clean waterfront park -- right here in Seattle! (How do I manage that? Sorry, not telling!)

@18,

You're saying that the residents are the victims and not the homeless?
Spoken like a true fascist.

And again, your "solution" to homelessness is to send them to Georgia.
I'm sure that'd solve the problem champ.

Oh wait a minute, you don't have a homeless problem there in Seattle. After all, you're out at your nice, clean waterfront park. So what are you complaining about again?

@13,

"-- The overwhelming majority (over two-thirds) did not grow up here;
-- A majority most recently became homeless somewhere other than Seattle;
-- A majority reported drug or alcohol use;
...
That is the population she's talking about: chronic drug users, who arrived here already homeless"

From your own report:
39% have lived in Seattle 10 years or longer
15% have lived in Seattle 5-9 years
So, 54% have lived in Seattle a minimum of 5 years
Only 15% have been in Seattle less than a year

70% became homeless in Seattle or King County
Only 15% became homeless outside of Washington State

The "Drug Use" question is a difficult one. They don't give the actual question they used. Was it "What drugs do you chronically use?" or simply "What drugs have you used?"
Regardless, I keep hearing complaints of "junkies shooting up in parks." Ok, so, heroin.
12% said they use heroin.
17% said meth
5.5% said crack
The rest are either drinking or, likely, smoking pot.

I know you guys all desperately want the homeless to be heroin junkies who come in from all over the country. The worst and most extreme examples. You desperately want that to be true because then it makes you feel better about yourselves. Safer. Like, this can only happen to THOSE people, it can't happen to me. But you're fooling yourselves. Most homeless are not hopeless heroin junkies always on the run. Most of them used to be you. And you are so close to being one of them you'd shit your pants if you realized just how tenuous your status is.

In any case, don't lie about the data. Don't magnify outliers to try to sell your story. Yes, some homeless are heroin junkies. Yes, some of them came to Seattle from far, far away. The majority though, are neither of those. They came from Seattle or Seattle suburbs, they've been in Seattle for a long time, and the worst drugs they use are pot and beer.

@21: If we want to make grisly blood sport from the deaths of homeless persons, we needn't do anything "next," as we've been there for quite awhile. Travis Berge allegedly beat Lisa Vach until she was mortally wounded, left her to her subsequent death, and then he died in a vat of bleach -- all without leaving Cal Anderson Park, where they had both illegally camped. We paid $100M last year for that outcome -- which we could have had for free. Do tell us all about how great our current system is.

Meanwhile, could you please tell The Stranger, our City Council, Ms. Echohawk, and the other folks The Stranger likes that "tax increases to pay for all that drug treatment" will actually be necessary? Because collectively, they have yet even to admit drugs are involved.

@24,
I don't argue that they're all suffering from mental illness and addition disorders. Most of them simply can't afford housing. That's it.

Provide affordable housing within reasonable distance to employment opportunities (increasing the minimum wage to $25 would also help) and a gigantic chunk of the homeless problem is solved.

But hey, if everyone thinks they're homeless because of mental problems and/or drug problems and wants them locked up under 24 hour medical care for the rest of their lives? Well, ok, but I'd sit down before looking at the bill for that.

Though I do agree with you that simply ignoring them while they hang out on sidewalks and parks is one of the worst plans.

@19: Seattle's residents did something to deserve tents in our parks? Seattle's children did something to deserve dirty needles on their playgrounds? Please do tell us what our crimes were. Otherwise, yes, we are victims. As you have yourself sneered, we're spending lots of money, ostensibly to help the people who shit on our sidewalks, and getting nothing for it. So yes, we are victims.

Are many of the drug users victims as well? Yes, according to a federal court, where the remains of Purdue Pharma admitted to pushing opiates on people for no good medical reasons. Some or many of Seattle's homeless being victims of this predatory practice seems like an easy conclusion to draw, as we've seen an influx of drug users since Purdue Pharma first started pushing drugs on persons vulnerable to addictions.

Look, I get it: name-calling is your go-to when you lose. So I accept the compliment; thank you. But calling me a fascist doesn't actually change anything, any more than your once calling me a liar changed the composition of Seattle's homeless population.

'And again, your "solution" to homelessness is to send them to Georgia.'

From what I recently read here, you guys are really much much better at helping the homeless than are we in Seattle. So, I proposed the obvious solution. If you have a problem with that, take it to the person who bragged about Atlanta's superior response. (Don't be surprised if he calls you a "big fat poopiehead," or something equally classy. You can't say I haven't warned you.)

Sounds like she has a plan, the same plan people have been putting-out for years (more housing of various types) ; but falls short of any plan to fund her ideas. "Work with the Biden administration..." to obtain funding for this is not a plan, it's a hope that the federal government will bail out decades of failed local leadership. It could have as much or as little success as buying a lotto ticket every day in the hopes you will win and be able to fund housing for the homeless.
Nonetheless, she seems a more capable candidate than Gonzales; do we really need more affluent attorneys in city government? Echohawk seems real, like I could have been shopping next to her at Goodwill at some point.

@22: You must really hate that data, to mangle it so eagerly and so often. Little wonder you immediately called me a liar for supplying it (at your request!).

"70% became homeless in Seattle or King County
Only 15% became homeless outside of Washington State"

The data supports neither statement. The data was titled, "WHERE RESPONDENTS WERE LIVING AT THE TIME THEY MOST RECENTLY BECAME HOMELESS". Note "recently," not "first." A minority responded with "Seattle." A person who drifted across the country, couch-surfed for a week in Seattle, and then wound up on the streets here, could have truthfully responded "Seattle." The same goes for King County and Washington state. The conclusions you have drawn are not justified by the data you cited.

Now consider: over two-thirds of respondents also said they were not originally from Seattle. Yet still you claim our homeless are mostly locals.

"12% said they use heroin.
17% said meth
5.5% said crack "

As those activities are illegal, we should consider those numbers to be absolute minimums. Yet, a majority still reported drug use.

"...the worst drugs they use are pot and beer."

Crack, heroin, and meth' are worse "drugs than pot and beer"?

Furthermore, the survey did not ask about "beer," but "alcohol," with 29.4% who said they used it. Not merely "beer." You pulled that straight our of your ass. A population which must hand-carry (or push in a cart) everything they own chose a bulky beverage which needs refrigeration, over rot-gut booze? You really do know nothing about this topic.

Your CrackerJack psychiatry failed even worse. @13, I clearly stated why this data is important: "Until we start recognizing the reality of the people we want to help, any money we spend will continue to be wasted."

(You're also not much for critical reading. I told you I reside in a part of Seattle without homeless problems, and, writing from as class-ridden a part of our country as the South, you concluded I was one whatever from being homeless. Read harder next time.)

@25: "I don't argue that they're all suffering from mental illness and addition disorders. Most of them simply can't afford housing. That's it."

"I don't argue that it's night-time; it's just hard to see right now, for some reason I just can't figure out. That's it."

One-third of Seattle's homeless admitted to using heroin, crack, or meth'. Perhaps that's the reason they "simply can't afford housing"?

"increasing the minimum wage to $25 would also help"

I'm sure that would do wonders for the 39% who said they were unemployed.

Here's a cheaper idea: we send them all to north of Atlanta, which (I'm told) does better for the homeless than does Seattle, even though Georgia's minimum wage is $5.15/hour.

Refreshing to see a Native American mayoral candidate who knows what it means to be a displaced or indigent person, at least from a collective or hereditary standpoint, and has a cogent strategy to address the homeless crisis. Safe injection sights, free housing in motels purchased by the city, RV accommodations, whatever it takes, Ms. Echohawk is your choice for Mayor. Nice to have a bona fide progressive who isn’t resistant to change, like Durkan, who fizzled, throwing her hat in the ring.

This homelessness debate is a fiery issue due to the element of fear—many of us know deep down that we are one or two missed paychecks from becoming homeless ourselves, hence the vitriol directed towards these humble people who are clinging to survival all around us. True, these people may be drug-involved or suffer from poor life-skills, nevertheless we must show compassion, and Ms. Echohawk has some compelling policy offerings. A progressive homeless business tax to fund city provided housing would be a good starting point. We have many prosperous employers here in Seattle with beaucoup bucks who should pitch-in to address this dangerous social dilemma for our fair city.

@32: Seattle spends $100,000,000 each year, failing to house ~10,000 homeless persons. Rather than fear, it's revulsion at our colossal waste of money, just to see poverty and misery still in our streets, parks, and green belts. We want to help these people, we pay to help these people, yet the problem persists and worsens.

And no, most people are not one small event away from living in a tent and shooting up. People who get priced out, move out. People who lose jobs get new jobs. The serious disease of addiction is the root cause of many a homeless person's situation, and until we recognize that, we will continue to waste money looking at misery.

"Safe injection sights [sic], free housing in motels purchased by the city, RV accommodations,"

These have all been tried, and have all failed. Trying them again will merely get us more failure. Ms. Echohawk's own failure to recognize these points suggests any programs she undertakes will continue to waste our money. I hope we will do better.