A tent at Miller Community Center (Images: CHS)
The ongoing battle between the mayor’s office and business and neighborhood groups on one side and advocates and homelessness service providers on the other has taken new shape in Seattle’s COVID-19 crisis.
A five-hour Seattle City Council meeting Wednesday afternoon couldn’t settle the most recent flare-up as a council committee heard public comment and debated a proposal to more strictly limit when homeless camps can be removed during the ongoing outbreak. Health guidelines have generally called for allowing people to camp and live outside during the pandemic due to concerns around social distancing and sometimes higher-risk shelter environments.
Seattle City Council Insight described Wednesday’s session on the proposed legislation that would prevent city funds from being used to clear camps that don’t represent an “active” health risk as a “marathon” session:
It became clear in today’s conversation that the current lack of acceptable shelter is the core problem — not encampment removals. If the Navigation Team had hotel rooms, tiny homes, and properly distanced enhanced shelter spaces to offer individuals who were in encampments that needed to be removed, most people at today’s meeting seemed to believe that the acceptance rate for offers of shelter would skyrocket. That would largely make the encampment removals uncontroversial; people would have a better place to go, and most would gladly go there. The most vocal objection to encampment removals is the perceived cruelty of continuously pushing homeless people around the city from encampment to encampment since they have nowhere else to go that’s better. Offer something that’s clearly better and meets their needs, and the the objections melt away.
On Capitol Hill, one new hot spot for the worries over camping can be found in the areas around Miller Community Center where multiple tents and camps have been created among the trees and green spaces outside the facility. Residents are speaking out in one neighborhood discussion group. “I walk the track there regularly and noticed that in the last two to three weeks a number of tents have gone up in the perimeter,” one neighbor writes:
What started as one is now four at last count. I contacted the City’s “Find It -Fix It” app to ask them to remove the tents as the park is regularly filled with small children playing and young women working out. The mayor’s office contacted me back and responded that in this time of COVID the City would not do anything and would let it become an encampment.
“Welcome to Seattle,” she concludes.
In March, CHS reported on the city’s transition of the Miller Community Center as a temporary shelter as part of “de-intensifying” efforts to improve social distancing at facilities across Seattle. The new 50-bed facility inside the community center is run by Compass Housing Alliance.
The encampment bill is being debated by the Select Committee on Homelessness Strategy and Investments chaired by first-year council member Andrew Lewis. It would limit removals to situations only when the encampment constitutes “an active health threat other than the transmission of communicable diseases (including COVID) to the occupants or the surrounding neighborhood” and require that “public health resources have already been provided to address the condition.”
The Seattle Times reports the city is not alone in the facing the huge challenge of homelessness during the pandemic:
Seattle is not the only city grappling with how to interpret CDC guidance amid a growth in encampments. Both Portland and San Francisco have turned to what many would consider a radical stopgap: sanctioned tent encampments with hygiene facilities to try and keep people living outside safer during the spread of the virus.
Mayor Jenny Durkan’s office has said it opposes any further restrictions on the city’s ability to clear camps.
Despite the five-hour meeting, no action was taken on the council’s legislation from South Seattle rep Tammy Morales, Central Seattle’s Kshama Sawant, and citywide member Teresa Mosqueda. It will return to the table again June 10th.
PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
Seattle needs to stop listening to the hand-wringers and rabble-rousers, who are a very small, yet very vocal minority, and start implementing proven solutions to reduce or eliminate homelessness, mental illness and drug addiction.
We’re all tired of the homeless problem and want it to be solved. All the NIMBYs do is remind us constantly that there’s a homeless problem and then turn around to delay or prevent actually solving it. It’s like they realize that if we make progress with or solve the homeless problem, people will stop listening to them and they don’t seem to care for that.
I would agree with this sentiment if we can also agree we need to stop listening to the activists who continue to advance the narrative that no harm is being done in keeping these camps intact. The problems/issues are well documented and the harm to the inhabitants and the surrounding communities are also known. Have an honest conversation instead of labeling people and shaming them when they express appropriate concern about the safety of their community. How is calling people NIMBY’s any better than labeling all homeless individuals bums? It only widens the divide and makes getting to a real solution that much harder.
I would agree with this sentiment if we can also agree we need to stop listening to the activists who continue to advance the narrative that no harm is being done in keeping these camps intact.
Until our society has legitimate options for the homeless, removing camps is expensive, an exercise in futility and does nothing to help those that have hit rock bottom, in fact, it’s probably worse that hitting rock bottom.
Nobody wants homeless camps, not one single person, but until we decide to do anything about it, homeless encampments are just a visual reminder how we’ve let our society fail those who have hit rock bottom, whether by their own accord or not.
How is calling people NIMBY’s any better than labeling all homeless individuals bums?
Because the first and foremost argument that those opposed to proven solutions have, is quite literally that they don’t want them near where they live.
Is that label mean? Probably. Is it accurate? You betcha. I’m sorry that a descriptive label hurts their feelings, but we have a very solvable, humanitarian crisis on our hands that is partially being perpetuated because of their behavior, so feelings be damned.
I think we have common ground that no one wants homeless encampments and they represent a failure of society but we shouldn’t pretend they are benign settlements either. There have been documented cases of drug and sex trafficking, assault, rape and murder not to mention negative impacts to the environment and the community. Most people don’t hate the homeless nor do they want to see them suffer. They gladly tax themselves every time the city asks and yet the problem continually gets worse. The question is what is a legitimate option? Is it a shelter bed for the night, a tiny house village for a few months or a permanent apartment somewhere in the city? If you are homeless and won’t go to a shelter because you have a dog then is the city obligated to build a dog friendly shelter? Who should qualify for housing? Is it someone who has been in Seattle for a defined period of time or just anyone who shows up on our doorstep? I never hear these questions addressed but if you ask them or question the current path you must just be a NIMBY who is opposed to helping the homeless. Labeling people and groups puts them on the defensive, creates an us vs them mentality and makes people much more rigid in the openness to solutions. So if you want to continue to shame people into your way of thinking rather than talk to them then you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t hear a word you said.
1. Build housing for all walks of homeless life, including yes, those with dogs. Full stop.
2. Establish onsite social workers and therapists to treat mental illness and cure drug addictions.
3. Provide education and employment services to transition homeless back into the work force.
4. Hire social workers to canvas the city and assist people in transitioning to these services.
Once these are in place, we can talk about forcing the renaming people off the street.
And despite what some false narratives might lead you to believe, the number of people that choose to remain on the streets, given a legitimate alternative (read: not dirty, sober shelters that kick you out every morning) is pretty darn close to zero, because living on the streets is not fun (try it sometime!). We can deal with those remaining few when we get to that point.
The problem is that we can’t even get to Step 1 because NIMBYs…sorry, “over concerned people who want the problem to go away but don’t want the solutions anywhere near them” raise a stink every time the issue comes up.
There is no real way to “do something about” the homeless problem in Seattle for two reasons.
1) the vast majority of homeless people live outside by choice, mostly because they live lawless lives. When selling stolen goods, pimping young women and selling drugs is the way you make your living, even the lowest low-barrier housing won’t take you in. And that’s if you even wanted move indoors.
Of the homeless people I’ve known, spoken to, and encountered over the course of the last ten years, I’ve heard one common theme that causes people to choose to live in tents or RVs: they love the freedom, and the lack of rules. Seattle could spend hundreds of millions of more dollars each year, and NOTHING will change that basic, stark reality. You cannot buy somebody’s sense of freedom, and you cannot impose a bunch of rules and regulations on people who live lawless lives.
2) Because civil commitment laws are so weak in Washington State, the drugs people are ingesting and the mental illness that results drive the “decisions” most homeless people are making. If you’ve ever known an addict or mentally ill person, you would also know that we cannot “decide to do something” about their plight until our justice system and public health system can mandate addicts and mentally ill people receive inpatient treatment; as opposed to Seattle’s and Washington’s infamous “free range” approach, which is mostly just a death sentence for vulnerable people. I get the civil libertarian ideologues’ arguments – but when somebody is under the influence of drugs and delusion, they are NOT acting on their own behalf. This notion that a mentally ill addict living on the streets is exercising their freedom of choice, and is capable of making decisions that benefit themselves…. is a total joke.
Civil libertarians on the left and Libertarians on the right have successfully set-up a system where homelessness doesn’t just happen: it’s guaranteed to happen. Drugs physically alter the human brain, so addicts will always pursue and find the path of least resistance. And that path will almost always lead to Seattle, where drugs are essentially legal, and the punishment for property crimes is basically a slap on the wrist.
People need to be arrested for hard drug possession, and then forced into drug rehab jails. It’s not only about social order and the welfare of the group. It is also about the welfare of the drug-addled individual. If the state does not force drug addicts into treatment and actively help them off their addiction, they will never live a decent life.
Drug culture is not ‘freeing’. It is the precise opposite.
I agree completely. There is general agreement that the majority of homeless people are either mentally ill, drug/alcohol addicted, or both. Until we find a way to finance more extensive inpatient treatment programs, and mandate that affected homeless people accept such treatment, the problem will not get better.
Yes, some homeless people accept offers of indoor housing, but most do not. This has been documented by the Navigation Team.
1. Build housing for all walks of homeless life, including yes, those with dogs. Full stop.
So this is the challenge. How do you do this knowing you do not have unlimited resources? I would add a few corollaries to your points:
1. All people deserve to be housed however people do not deserve to be housed in a specific location.
2. Society should support those in need but those who are asking society to support them should also be expected to contribute something in exchange for this support.
3. Society should not be expected to enable self destructive behavior.
4. People need more than homes and resources to function long term. Priority should be made to help those in need reestablish ties to their social network of family and friends to get the support they will need to reclaim their life.
5. There should be a sliding scale of benefits based on your roots in this region. If you have never held a residence, had a job in our region and paid taxes we will put you up in a temporary shelter, help you locate family and give you a bus ticket back home. If you have lived here a number of years and lost your residence due to unforeseen circumstances then you will receive more benefits.
In this way if you actually begin to define the problem you are trying to solve you will find that those NIMBY’s who are so resistant may actually engage with you and work on these solutions. If we continue down the path we are on where all homeowners are to be despised and those in the homeless community have zero accountability or expectation placed upon them then this problem will continue to metastasize and will only get worse as the city faces the inevitable budget cuts that are coming due to the Covid health crisis.
Seems like a less Dense residential area may be a better bet ? I thought the city was planning on using land they owned in SODO to give these people a reasonable place to shelter.
Right or wrong, the city appears to be quite intentional in directing homeless encampments to certain neighborhoods. They have cleared encampments and removed sanitary options in some residential neighborhoods (north of the cut), while increasing services and choosing to not remove camps around the Miller Park and Meany Middle School. Would be a bigger issue if the school was open, but either way that park is packed with kids.
In an ideal world you could have a safety presence that would allow the kids to play while also no hassling the unhoused. But it seems like instead you get an either/or situation.
Of course in an even more ideal world we would have increased housing options like more tiny home villages (of which there are several about a mile south of Miller Park.)
most of the tents around Miller are neat and tidy, and consist of nothing more than a tent, a chair, a bike and a cooler. Some of the occupants are house-proud, and can be seen tidying and sweeping their immediate area.
The encampment behind the backstop in the SE corner of the park is, however, different: it’s sprawling, messy and seems to be accumulating more and more junk (bent bike wheels, etc).
Given the homelessness crisis, how can we accommodate and support the small, tidy camps and also get the untidy one to clean up its act? I fear that the accumulation of junk etc will attract rats.
And, given that the outdoor bathrooms at Miller are closed overnight, there are more and more people crapping in the park. (Have we forgotten John Snow?)
The playfield is being used by multiple small groups of socially distancing people to exercise in small, well-separated groups. Better regulation of the campsites would support and encourage that.
Maybe the guys in the neat tents should have a conversation with the hoarder slob behind the backstop? Perhaps they can get him to clean up his act for the good of the (their) neighborhood.
I’d thought of suggesting that to them. Maybe you could do so also.
The solution would have been to roll back the clock about 5 or so years and with the first tent, or derelict vehicle on public right of way or property, the police show up and give them 4 hours to dismantle it before it is removed by the authorities and the possessions removed. Concurrently have high barrier shelters that provide an option, for those who claim no shelter available. We do not owe people a place where they can live with their partner, pets, and shoot up or drink. There is zero right to live where it is not legal.
Had enforcement took place from the start, we would not be as a community blessed with individuals, few of whom were born or raised within 50 miles of where they are camping, who have traveled from where they were not tolerated, to where they are. The street vagrants are rational people and go where the living is permitted on their terms, which means the enabling west coast. For a future glimpse of Seattle, look no further than San Francisco and LA.
The social service agencies of Seattle have sadly enabled this debacle, including the city, many non-profits and the United Way who seems to have gone silent on their 10 year costly plan to end homelessness in King County that was initiated somewhere around 15 years ago. Every dollar spent on acceptance with no limits or enforcement is a dollar making the situation worse. We have shelter. It may not be nice, or tolerate a number of activities, but it give cover to those who claim they want to be on the streets. We need so sweep, sweep and repeat, with shelters for some, jail for some, bus tickets to others, drug treatment for some, mental health treatment for some, and housing assistance for those who will genuinely use these services to get off the streets and will respect what they have been given. For those who disagree, kindly provide your address so that these individuals may be directed to your backyards, lawns and parking strips. Not in mine and not in my parks, playgrounds and highway right of ways. And where do you think those bikes and shopping carts came from? An honest job and money paid, or stolen like much else? Does personal responsibility only apply to some of us?
Unfortunatly half of Seattle voters do not agree with you, but I agree with you 100%!
Given the mental health and substance abuse challenges that some of the campers seem to suffer from, the big empty lot at 17th and Howell, next to Sound Mental Health (https://www.sound.health) would seem a logical place for an encampment.
(Sound Health speedily demolished a lovely old building they had used, on that site, and promptly did nothing, other than fence the site)