(Image: OpenStreetMap)
Seattle officials gave a resounding “no” this week to a Seattle state Senator’s $1 million plan to build a barbed wire fence around a sprawling encampment along I-5.
Sen. Reuven Carlyle now says he was partially misunderstood, though his broadly worded plan to make the corridor safer could still include “limited, targeted” fencing. Carlyle’s funding could also be put to use to addressing safety and clean-up at I-5 encampments along the base of Capitol Hill and First Hill where even more homeless people would likely end up if The Jungle were fenced off.
“This is a fraction of the broader investment in homeless services and programs,” Carlyle told CHS. “But the state has a liability here.”
At the request of Mayor Ed Murray’s office, the 36th District Democrat said he introduced the $1 million into a supplemental budget (PDF) last week to address safety concerns along an I-5 greenbelt known as The Jungle — the area where two people were shot to death in January and a Seattle Fire and SPD assessment found “tragic, unsanitary conditions.” However, the plan to box in the encampment with 8,000 feet of 6-foot high fencing sounded more like designs for a prison yard, including “heavy gauge metal with razor wire wrapped around three strands of barbed wire.”
During a public organizing event on Saturday, District 3 Council member Kshama Sawant called the plan “a complete waste of $1 million” and out of touch with reality. In a Monday morning briefing, Council member Debora Juarez said, “A million dollars to put up a fence that people are either going to climb over, cut, or dig under is ridiculous.”
After the sharp rejection of his plan, Carlyle partially walked back his original statements on Tuesday, saying he “failed to accurately and fully explain my views.” Due to the source of the funds, the $1 million is constitutionally required to be spent on highway improvements, though Carlyle said that could include a wide range of clean-up and safety projects.
State lawmakers started negotiating the transportation budget this week ahead of the session’s end on March 10th. Carlyle said the funds would not be put to use for 6 to 9 months as the State and City develop a plan for what can be done to improve safety at The Jungle.
The City’s practice of clearing and cleaning homeless encampments recently sparked a heated debate between City Council members and City officials. CHS previously wrote about the many homeless encampments along Capitol Hill’s I-5 shores, how they’re affecting some residents on First Hill, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars the state spends to clear the camps only to have campers return hours later.
It’s only a prison yard if there are people inside. This would be keeping the people out of there. Remove a blight from our landscape – clean that mess up a little.
It wouldn’t keep people out for more than a week. As Juarez points out, they’ll climb it, cut it or dig under. Happens every time the encampment at the James St. ramp is swept.
1mm towards clearing encampments is a total waste of money. Whenever they conduct a clearing exercise, the encampments surface the very next day.
Spend the money to help address the root of the issue.
I agree that just cleaning The Jungle is useless, because the problem will just recur in short order. Fencing is the only long-term solution, and I would think this could be done in a way that would keep people out permanently.
According to Danny Westneat’s recent column in the Seattle Times (Feb 24th), homeless people in the Jungle are completely uninterested in social service help. He interviewed Tim Rockey of the Salvation Army, who said his outreach team contacted 80 people there, with an offer of a free six-month stay in their shelter, food and clothes included, if they would work to get sober and volunteer in their thrift-store operation. Not one person accepted this offer. Mr. Rockey also debunked the myth that shelters are always full….he says that his 100-bed shelter is never full, even on the coldest nights, and that it averages 60-70% occupancy.
Well, it’s hardly surprising that folks turned down the Salvation Army’s offer. Asking people to make that many changes at once rarely works. Just think about how many people in stable, safe living and economic situations can’t even keep their own New Year’s Resolutions. It’s already known that people don’t change any kind of habit overnight, and the known will always feel safer than the unknown. Maybe if this experiment (which seems like it was set up to fail) had offered, say, a week of lodging, instead of six months, there would have been more takers. What a lot of folks, and I include myself in this, don’t understand, is that homeless people arerarely living randomly; they typically have well-planned schedules and routines just like the rest of us. In my opinion, offering services without recognizing this fact is disrespectful and dehumanizing.
Not speaking specifically to the circumstances of The Jungle, but there are several reasons homeless people might not want to stay in a shelter: families and couples might be separated by gender; they can’t take their pets if they have them; they’re teens and/or LGBTQ and are afraid of staying in a mixed-age shelter. Shelters also tend to have regulated schedules that may make picking up day work or similar very difficult, not great if you’re trying to cover expenses or get into housing.
So it’s a big stretch to frame it as “completely uninterested” there are other unknown factors at play.
Salvation Army’s offer has strings attached, Bob. Likely 0-tolerance. Don’t believe the hype.
Sounds like you’d prefer they just wither and die. Good man. Commend you sir. Glad to call you neighbor. Asshole.
” Fencing is the only long-term solution”
I’m not sure how you could type that phrase and keep a straight face.
Congratulations! You found an article supporting your repeatedly stated assumption that the homeless are homeless because it’s a rockin’ lifestyle choice.
In addition to what others have noted, The Salvation Army is also a Christian organization, and they typically prosthelytize. Maybe you’d be fine with being forced to go to church; not everyone is.
I would not have been surprised if many of those contacted turned down the offer, but I am surprised that no one took them up on it.
Haha, I have to agree with Sawant here. Thinking that a fence is going to keep homeless people out is laughable. Those things aren’t hard to cut, or like she said, dig under or throw a rug over the top and climb.
Place boulders and rock to make the sites uncampable. This has worked well under the light rail in Portland
Any obstacle you throw at them, people will find a way around if they really want or need to. If people can sail 90 miles from Cuba to Florida, or get from Syria to Greece, or walk from Central America or Mexico into Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, they can surely find a way to scale or breach an undefended chain-link fence. Trying to fence out the problem is a total down-the-toilet waste of money. We need to address peoples’ real issues and needs, not the symptoms.
Steve,
First of all, Bob has a right to express himself in a reasonable manner here. You have a right to read, ignore, and/or respond in a reasonable way. Your last comment was not appropriate and should get you tossed from this blog.
Bob was quoting from a Danny Westneat article, who offered his assessment of the homeless situation recently. Maybe Bob agreed with the article, which is his right, and maybe he thought some of the points were worth mentioning in this context, also his right.
I happen to think many of the people do not accept the Salvation Army because of the points mentioned, you have to stop doing drugs and alcohol, you have to follow their rules, and you have to commit to something. Maybe that approach is not for all, but it should work for some.
I am struck by the tendency of people to make excuses for those suffering from this issue. Undoubtedly they have many problems, poverty, substance abuse, childhood issues, you name it, but at some point they will have to take some responsibility for themselves if they ever expect to escape their predicament.
I think the fence is a decent idea to discourage people from residing in the jungle. Is it a total solution? No, and it should be paired with some of the things others have mentioned on this and other venues (increased treatment availablity, mental health counseling, temporary housing, and in some cases, incarceration for outstanding warrants,trespassing, or whatever other charge might get someone into the system, where treatment and supplementary services should be offered from day one.
Obviously, I don’t have all the answers, but I am willing to consider any reasonable idea to address this problem. And I will not denigrate people who, like me, are offering potential solutions, whether I agree with them or not.
Thank you, Glenn. Steve has a history on this blog of making indignant, self-righteous replies….often accompanied by name-calling…and I too am surprised he has not been banned.
Another point against clearing encampments. When the city throws away the only means of shelter and belongings these folks have, they then have to go out to replace them.
Homeless certainly are not out shopping at tents at REI. They have to resort to finding them where they find them. That means they often have to trespass and steal what they can to provide shelter and clothing for themselves. I recently found a homeless youth in my common garage looking through neighbors bins. I felt bad for the guy as he’s trying what he can to eke out an existence.
I get tired of hearing how people ‘just won’t accept services’. I’ve known people who had to avail themselves of shelters, and their experience was one where they were constantly fearful due to theft and violence that often takes place in many of them. Meanwhile, good old Utah has reduced their homeless problem by 91% since 2010. Guess how they did it? They figured out that actually housing everyone gave them the safe space they needed to stay off the streets, access social services, and in many cases (obviously not all) return to being a productive member of society. And, here’s the kicker…in Utah they call it ‘the Seattle model’!!! That’s right, folks, they got the idea from us! So, I’d sure like to understand why our politicians can’t get it together. What Utah found was actually giving people homes where social workers can regularly visit them (and in many cases are on staff right where the people live) is far cheaper overall than leaving people on the streets. They saved money on police, outreach, hospital visits and more. Personally, I hate to be so crass as boil the issue down to dollars, but, hey, whatever works. Meanwhile, here in Seattle, we do absolutely nothing that’s effective, including failing to implement our own ideas.
There is one major difference between Salt Lake City’s and Seattle’s homeless policy. Salt Lake City provides housing and services AND enforces civility laws such as no loitering, camping in parks, shitting in the bushes, panhandling and shooting up heroin on city streets. Seattle provides housing and services but doesn’t close off alternatives such as the jungle that are bad for the homeless and bad for the community. Seattle’s carrot and no-stick approach is a disaster. As a result we import homeless drug addicts from places like Salt Lake City.
So our council members just want to continue allowing people to move back into the jungle where the problems will start again. Boy that’s really smart.