Another try for RV ‘safe lots’? City Council committee considering ‘vehicular living’ policies today

1:22 PM: You might have seen citywide-media reports, starting with this one on KING 5, saying the City Council might soon be considering new policies for “vehicular living.” The City Council’s Human Services and Public Health Committee will be briefed this afternoon on recommendations from the Vehicular Living Work Group (slide deck above), including revisiting the concept of “RV safe lots.” You’ll recall one such lot was proposed for West Seattle in 2016, on a paved area at West Marginal Way SW and Highland Park Way SW – adjacent to the publicly owned site that had housed unsanctioned tent camps over the years – but the city dropped the idea before the lot was ever opened. Earlier this year, a block to the east, an unsanctioned RV camp popped up in May, but was cleared by police within a few weeks – though RV presence subsequently increased on W. Marginal to the south, among other areas. As shown in the slide deck, the work group has other recommendations too, and you can see/hear the briefing live via the Seattle Channel during the committee’s 2 pm meeting. The agenda estimates this item will start around 2:40 pm.

2:54 PM: The first agenda item is running long, and the one about vehicular living hasn’t started yet.

3:12 PM: It’s under way now.

61 Replies to "Another try for RV 'safe lots'? City Council committee considering 'vehicular living' policies today"

  • S August 9, 2017 (1:36 pm)

    No, No, No – I’m sick of these so called leaders of the city making things worse.  We need real leadership and real people fighting for everyday tax paying people.

    • JanS August 9, 2017 (2:09 pm)

      S….do you have suggestions as to  how to manage the homeless persons living in their vehicles?  Or should there just be a do nothing policy….or…run them out of town…or…or…so what might you suggest? Sooner or later it’s all gonna have to be looked at…what they are doing now isn’t working.

      • flimflam August 9, 2017 (4:59 pm)

         right. and how is the current “hands off” approach helping anyone, homeless or innocent folks just trying to live their life? how has the city and its citizens benefited from guys like ryan cox wandering around, free to harass, intimidate, camp where he wants? there are plenty of ticking time bombs just like him…

      • Sna August 9, 2017 (5:32 pm)

        The entire Eastside (Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Newcastle, ect.) has a population roughly have of Seattle’s.  But Seattle has 15 times more unsheltered homeless.  I’m tired of being the region’s dumping ground and this will make it worse.  

        If we only had to deal with homelessness that originated in Seattle, I think we could have effective solutions.  But when the solutions just add more homeless for us to solve we don’t get anywhere. 

      • Anonymous Coward August 10, 2017 (6:15 am)

        Run them out of town seems a pretty good solution for those who are unwilling to obey the law.  (Lock them up is also a good solution, but it’s awfully expensive.)  Or is there some level of wealth at which one no longer has to obey the law; laws like littering?  Do the fish care if the trash bag came from someone living in an RV vs a rich person spending a night in their fancy RV?  Because at the same time that we got rid of plastic grocery bags, we decided let thousands of people just throwing their plastic litter everywhere…  Boy, we’re sure saving the environment here in Seattle!

        • Jort Sandwich August 10, 2017 (12:53 pm)

          This totally makes sense. The homeless were waiting until the plastic bag ban was enacted for rich people … then and only then  did they decide to start throwing plastic bags all over the place! If only those crazy Seattle liberals hadn’t banned the plastic bags, the homeless wouldn’t have had to resort to such drastic measures!!!!

          Truly these people are only breaking the law because there is a void in lawfulness in Seattle, and the homeless clearly feel a deep compulsion for filling that void.

    • jane August 9, 2017 (3:43 pm)


      The situation of people living in temporary or vehicular accommodations is both sad
      and unfortunate. However, the current proposed plans to allow for unlimited
      parking for RV’s is contrary to what a smart, caring city should do. The money
      would better be served to provide permanent homes for people.

      The lack of proper accommodations for our fellow human beings causes many
      “downstream” issues such as:

      – Dumping of human waste onto the public streets, parks, and driveways: most
      RV’s do not use proper waste disposal facilities, and on many occasions, we
      contacted the City to investigate human waste releases from RV’s onto our
      driveways and streets

      – Excessive trash: it’s clear that RV’s and other
      vehicles used as homes produce trash and waste that is sometimes left on the
      sidewalks, streets, and medians.

      – Children: several RV’s and vehicles have children living in them. Why would
      anyone want to perpetuate children living in cars, trucks, and RV’s instead of
      proper homes. A smart city provides homes for its kids

      All eyes and ears are looking to you to make the right decisions, not just the
      easy ones.

       

    • Grant Morris August 9, 2017 (11:41 pm)

      Lisa Herbold is a cosponsor I believe of an ordinance that will cripple our community.

      it is unfair to our citizens and our homeless and aggravates the problem exponentially.

      Alki , Lincoln park .. California ave

      all at risk.

      We have created a council of anarchy.

      Do you vote? To those who suggest we citizens solve the problem ..

      ask why we elect these people?

      get vocal or live with it.

      e mail Lisa at Lisa.herbold@seattle.gov

  • TJ August 9, 2017 (2:10 pm)

    I second S. The city leadership is hopelessly lost on this. Im sorry, I pay tons of taxes and want city leaders to look out for me and the rest who want clean streets without derelict RV’s around

  • Jack August 9, 2017 (2:11 pm)

    Again, the city council is all about the homeless and seems to care little how these decisions affect the average citizen. 

    Myself and my neighbor had to call the police twice last week as there was a homeless person drunk/high out of his mind at Gatewood Elementary scaring kids.

    The city needs to get these people off the street. I would prefer they do this in a humane way by giving these people a place to live, healthcare, dental care, nutritional food and a job. But at this point, the city could throw them all in jail and I would be fine with that. Or a poor farm (like they used to have) or just run them out of town.

    Get the homeless off the streets, or these politicians might not be around long.

  • SureShot August 9, 2017 (2:13 pm)

    Odd timing considering the stabbing incident yesterday involving a transient drifter who has criminal history and mental health issues. 

    This is and should be a firm NO.

    • WSB August 9, 2017 (2:35 pm)

      Ryan Cox is not a “vehicular” resident to our knowledge. Always reported as unsheltered.

      • Diane August 9, 2017 (3:50 pm)

        do you know if Ryan Cox is the homeless person known by the church and community to live in the south alcove of WS Unitarian?   or is that a different homeless person?  we have a weekly meeting at this church with youth, so my concern is for their safety if it is Ryan Cox

  • Rick August 9, 2017 (2:23 pm)

    How about making the entire city a “safe lot” for criminal activity? That way,crime is reduced and you can pat yourselves on the back.

  • Jabba August 9, 2017 (2:29 pm)

    What is Herbold’s stance?

    • olivist August 9, 2017 (3:33 pm)

      well, i think she was involved with putting forth the proposal to allow camping in seattle parks and just co-sponsored new legislation to essentially prohibit landlords from screening prospective tenants based on criminal records.  so i’m guessing she’s for it. 

      maybe west seattle-ites will talk with their votes next election time.   i for one would like to see my tax dollars also work for the people who pay them.   this includes getting people off the streets – along with clean parks, better transit –  but while i keep paying more in taxes i don’t feel i’ve seen  improvements from any program run by either the city or county.  they just keep asking for more money. 

      • Steve August 9, 2017 (10:58 pm)

        Lisa and the council don’t care about the hard working tax payer.  The idiocy of their ordinances and lack of governance is making Seattle a dump.

        • Jort Sandwich August 10, 2017 (12:56 pm)

          Yes, truly, Seattle — one of America’s most successful and booming economies, with hundreds of residents moving here each week, with some of the highest quality of life indicators in the country — is a total and complete dump. I’ve heard people say the city is in “shambles.” Yeah — my 25% property value increase always happens when the city is in shambles.

          Perhaps you should take a visit to the paradise of Billings, Montana — or maybe Detroit if you’d like a big city. 

  • NV August 9, 2017 (3:32 pm)

    I like how every one of the “Problem Identified/Recommendation Proposed” would actually make it *more* attractive for a homeless and unemployed person to come and live in a vehicle in Seattle and maintain their lifestyle.  As much as one would like to think so, this is not compassion.

    Here is the real Problem Identified: The city of Seattle strives to make it easy for individuals to continue to use drugs, stay unemployed, and be homeless. Recommendation Proposed: Elect sane clear-headed city council-members.

  • wscommuter August 9, 2017 (3:38 pm)

    I am firmly opposed to this ordinance on many levels.  

    But I deplore the ignorant ranting above (“poor camps” … “driven them out of town”).  We are a nation of laws and supposedly, a humane culture.  Yes, there are homeless who are addicted and/or behave criminally.  But there are also homeless who are mentally ill (and then also, often addicted) … and there are homeless who are guilty of nothing more than being poor.  

    We all hate seeing the tent encampments under the viaduct.  I have yet to see a solution(s) short of building a lot more affordable housing.  Yes – O’Brien’s idea is stupid and ill-formed.  But we have to figure out a smarter – and more humane – way to deal with this crisis.  

    • NV August 9, 2017 (4:33 pm)

      I’m sorry, but the “affordable housing” solution is simply a comforting canard.  These people are not working in Seattle and need to be close by to get to work each day.  They are not fast food employees or laborers on minimum wage who can’t find an apartment. They come to this city (from other, more affordable locales) for the services and accommodations it provides. 

      Unfortunately, most of the “humane” solutions this city proposes simply perpetuate the crisis. 

      I think if you want to find a solution, we must think how we would deal with one of these individuals if they were our immediate family member.  You do not help an addict by making it easier for them to get their fix.  That helps yourself. You get to avoid conflict, reduce the likelihood that they might steal from you, etc. You help them by breaking them out of their destructive routines/relationships. Unfortunately, this is the kind of help Seattle seems temperamentally incapable of providing. Instead, we seem to find comfort in providing the means for them to perpetuate this inhuman level of existence.

    • flimflam August 9, 2017 (5:02 pm)

      I generally agree. the big problem here is that we’d assume we are indeed “a nation of laws” but there are undeniably two sets of laws in this city.

  • Wsrez August 9, 2017 (3:55 pm)

    Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Mike O has got to go!

  • Mr E August 9, 2017 (3:56 pm)

    For all the people ready to grab their pitchforks and torches, what are your solutions for dealing with Seattle’s growing homeless population? You all are so quick with the outrage but I have yet to read one idea put forth by any of you.

    You’ve made it clear you’re upset/angry but how do you think the city should deal with homelessness?

    • flimflam August 9, 2017 (8:35 pm)

      start by enforcing the laws – career criminals and the “homeless” shouldn’t be in the same conversation. that is one step. then offer shelter and support to the mentally ill. next would be to get the most likely to succeed into a job and hopefully self sufficiency.

       

      there shouldn’t be an “i just wanna sleep in the park and be left alone to do drugs” option. 

  • Erasmus August 9, 2017 (4:23 pm)

    Seattle is all about unenforcement. We have laws about public camping and they are unenforced. We have laws regarding parking and this bill aims to remove enforcement for a limited class of people. Laws about drinking in public, smoking pot in public, driving in bus lanes and more and all of these, apparently go unenforced.  

    There is no right to a home and it is not a cities responsibility to provide you with one. That is the cold hard truth.

    Meanwhile Seattle continue to happily take tax dollars and not fix roads and repair other infrastructure. Instead we are are now forced to install anti-climbing fences with 2″ treble spikes on top to prevent encampments in these areas. 

  • Mark August 9, 2017 (4:30 pm)

    Street parking regulations need to applied equally to everyone.  Street parking is a limited resource in many areas thus the 72 hour rule.

  • Ryan August 9, 2017 (4:37 pm)

    NoNoNoNoNo….

    will the local government in a seattle ever put the tax payer citizens into their thoughts?????

  • McFail August 9, 2017 (4:43 pm)

     Maybe the Council Members need to post their addresses offering their streets/neighborhoods for RV/Car living… 

    • Nigel August 9, 2017 (9:48 pm)

      Thanks McFail, I love the idea of car/RV living on the council members home streets. Surprisingly I work in Laurelhurst and Madison Park and NEVER see RV/car living or homeless tent camps in these neighborhoods. I wonder why, could it be because enforcement in old-money rich neighborhoods is different than enforcement in SODO and West Seattle?

  • ltfd August 9, 2017 (4:47 pm)

    Heroin overdose right now in an RV parked by the Seattle Joint Training Facility, 9401 Meyers Way SW. Good thing Mike and the Vehicular Slumming Taskforce is working to expand this type of “living”.

  • AlkiWendy August 9, 2017 (4:50 pm)

    Tracy,  

    Thank you for the link to the Seattle Channel.  I watched about 2/3 of the committee meeting.  As usual, they were running behind.  The only committee member who stuck around to hear public comments was Sally  Bagshaw.  Committee members O’Brien, Burgess, and Gonzales were long gone.  This tells me they are not interested in hearing from the citizens and voters of Seattle.  

  • Double Dub Resident August 9, 2017 (4:55 pm)

    As other cities are now starting to say no to some of these issues, Freeattle will welcome you with open arms and then later wonder why our homeless situation just keeps getting worse and worse

  • Sna August 9, 2017 (5:15 pm)

    16 RVs on Harbor Ave this morning.  Double what it was a few months ago, but no trash outside any of them.

  • wetone August 9, 2017 (5:45 pm)

    Love it,  city is spending over $5mil (our tax dollars) to fence and secure areas through out city where homeless and others were living in camps, motorhomes and cars and now wants to open up other city and residential streets for them to continue…….. Seattle city counsel and government is nuts !  I am going to start buying up cheap motorhomes and flipping them to all those soon to arrive from all over the country. Our tax dollars at work.  Shopping now for nice motorhome to park down at Me-Kwa-Mooks with that nice water view and rent the house out… only way I will be able to live here ;)  

  • Nuupe! August 9, 2017 (6:04 pm)

    My neighbor pays for storage for his pop-up tent camper.  He airs it out (empty) before taking his kids camping by parking it in front of his house on the street- and if it’s there for >72 hours, he gets a ticket like clock work.  Parking isn’t overcrowded, but apparently getting your camper ready for camping is more of a threat to our city than a derelict, unlicensed drug den motorhome that has no sewer hook up.  

    Can these vehicular residents  legally drive their RV?  Are they insured?  Is the RV or the driver licensed?  Where will they dump sewage and gray water?  If we just address the parking, are we looking the other way on all these other things?  

    Healthy communities enforce laws equally and fairly.  No matter your plight or social status.   If we overlook that, we end up with what we have now.  What we have now is homeless chaos.   Spreading chaos over a wider area doesn’t address the chaos.

    • flimflam August 9, 2017 (8:39 pm)

      nobody will address those questions – for a city that wants to appear so progressive and green, there are crickets when asked about the sewage, grey water, emissions, etc

       

      I’ve also noticed that nobody here on this site that defends this lifestyle will answer to the environmental aspects. 

    • R0b0 August 10, 2017 (3:32 am)

      Great point about selective enforcement. I would take that ticket to the judge! 

  • Another neighbor August 9, 2017 (7:20 pm)

    Reading through the ordinance, creation of “safe lots” doesn’t seem an accurate description. This ordinance would basically make every street a sanctioned space for people to live in vehicles without being subject to any of the laws that apply to non residential vehicles. This is not compassionate. Compassionate would be redirecting our poorly managed homelessness spending immediately to build housing. This is just a terrible idea. I hope everyone who thinks so will call or email the entire council!

    • Double Dub Resident August 9, 2017 (8:12 pm)

      The news tonight said just that. Basically they can park basically where they want and will have longer than the 72 hours. Absolutely ridiculous!! Go park in front of these idiotic over paid city council!! 

  • Jack August 9, 2017 (7:23 pm)

    WSCommuter

    Calling my comments ranting is rude.  If you have ideas put them out there, but quit the name calling. 

    There are 4 ideas in my one comment. I don’t see you proposing anything at all.  

  • Morgan August 9, 2017 (9:14 pm)

    I would like to read some local journalism comparing WA state mental health laws to others–like New York, CT, or MA. That would be an illuminating new angle on at least one important subset of the social issues at churn.  I’ve heard our medical system lacks the resources or authority to commit people who are dangers to themselves and others and get them into proper institutional care. Irgnoring this in the name of individualism or some twisted notion of social justice is not compassionate.  we can care for the poor and not just pretend we can unload somewhere else, but we need to respect law and order in public areas and streets to maintain civility and give the public the feeling of safety it requires to make logical investments and changes to the judicial and mental health systems. The alternative is what we see: never ending vortex of controversy, agitprop and dead end non-solutions.

  • Lez August 9, 2017 (10:30 pm)

    My personal solution is simple. I’m out of here. This city is ridiculous! Embrace it boys and girls. You can have it. It’s all yours

  • Mark August 9, 2017 (10:37 pm)

    I too want to park wherever I like, near the Beacon Hill light rail station would be nice.  If one group gets a free pass on parking regulations City resident taxpayers should too.

    Why have rules if you do not apply them uniformly to everyone?  Nothing more frustrating than a double standard!

  • Steve August 9, 2017 (11:01 pm)

    Shouldn’t the council be working on public safety and removing the mayor?

  • dsa August 9, 2017 (11:11 pm)

    Put O’brien out on the street.

  • wscommuter August 9, 2017 (11:41 pm)

    Jack … there were no “ideas” in your rant.  And yes, it was a rant.  Talking about “jail” and “running people out of town” and “poor farms” would be laughable if it weren’t so sad that a human being in this day and age actually would think such thoughts.  

    Calling you out on your silliness is not rude; simply speaking truth to you.  Get over it.

    I wish I had a solution; I don’t.  But I will not be silent in the face of comments like yours and others who can do no more than spew ignorance and mean-spirited ranting.   You aren’t part of a solution; you’re only being cruel.  

  • Ted August 9, 2017 (11:45 pm)

    is there some sort of groundswell of support from the public to do this?

    It seems like this O’Brien guy just randomly came up with this plan… and now suddenly we may be forced to put up with the garbage rv s all over town with no way to get them out.

    Ismt the city counsel in the service of the people? 

    It seems like seattle politicians get into office and forget that immediately and begin to force their social agendas upon all of us without our support…

    Its a ridiculous plan…if this goes into effect then there should be NO paid parking in seattle…

    • WSB August 9, 2017 (11:55 pm)

      Yes, the City Council is in the service of “the people.” If/when you become unsheltered, you are no less a “person” than someone who is sheltered.

      • Pedro August 10, 2017 (8:44 am)

        “If/when you become unsheltered, you are no less a “person” than someone who is sheltered.”

         

        Agreed.

        However, that is not how the City of Seattle is addressing the problem.

        When you become unsheltered, the City of Seattle views you as incapable of basic activities expected of all citizens in a civilized society. Somehow, apparently, the unsheltered are incapable of following the rules, not dumping  garbage in public, and not dumping sewage in public. They are also apparently incapable of accepting services that come with strings attached.

         

        See, it goes both ways , and many of those who are unsheltered simply aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.   If we are going to have a real conversation on this issue – the foregoing concepts need to be addressed.

        • KT August 10, 2017 (12:16 pm)

          Yes!

  • mark47n August 10, 2017 (5:01 am)

    To those that require that I propose a solution in conjunction with excoriating this proposal. I have a solution; they can all move in with you. Fill you living room and garage. Your yard and basement with the homeless.

    I’m permitted to be furious that a rule change be proposed that would effectively lift all parking restrictions for “residential” vehicles. I’m permitted to be furious that the city doesn’t enforce the rules on the books regarding public camping and the like. It’s my right I’ll exercise it freely and those of you that don’t like it can wring your hands in despair and say that I’m lacking in compassion. 

    My suggestion for the hand wringers is that put their money where their mouths are.

  • Rusty August 10, 2017 (8:12 am)

    Can it possibly be true that not one member of the city council understands simple truths – such as, when you make something easier to do, more people will do it? This is basic human behavior, folks. If we make it easier to be a homeless drug addict (which we’ve done for the past 10 years), you will get more homeless drug addicts. I’m sure it’s not because anyone ‘wants’ to be a homeless drug addict, but that is irrelevant – the result ends up the same.

    Our mental health facilities / options for treating those that are mentally ill are pathetically neglected and insufficient – and our governor has not done much to fix that (even after patients have walked away from western). We need to build more mental health facilities and staff them with trained professionals.

    Our addiction-treatment options are insufficient as well – if a person finally hits ‘rock-bottom’ and decides to change their life from one of addiction, if there’s a 3-6 month wait-list, that opportunity is wasted and a life may be lost. We need more options for treatment in a much more timely manner – but with groups that have some proven success.

    I understand that this will be a large investment – I would start by using every last penny from the homeless levies – cancel the supervised slow-poison injection sites, and use whatever funds they would have used as well. Enforce the law – no public camping, crack down on litter / graffiti. We have several ‘sanctioned’ homeless camps in the area. Anyone who is not running a meth-lab/sex-trade business out of their vehicle should be allowed to temporarily get to one of these lots.

    Compassion is about helping people – making it easier for them to be homeless, warehousing them outdoors and enabling the behavior does not help. We need to address the core issues affecting a majority of the homeless (drug addiction / mental health) so that we have the options to help folks that need it – and continue to offer a hand up to those that are not drug-addicts, but homeless for hard luck / financial issues.

  • Pedro August 10, 2017 (8:16 am)

    Here’s a real easy idea – and for the most part the resources are already in place.

    Community officer goes out and offers RV campers shelter (either by personal notice or written notice if there is no response at the vehicle). If the RV camper accepts the offer, great we have another person in a sanctioned shelter (presumptively on the path to supporting themselves) and they have the choice of finding a lawful place to park their RV, selling it, or having it impounded. 

     If the RV camper refuses the offer of shelter (which many do because of rules attendant to staying in some of the shelters), ticket and impound the vehicle. 

     Its that easy folks. Accept the help being offered and all the strings that come with it (which we, as the citizens paying for it should demand)- or move along.

     

     

  • Marty2 August 10, 2017 (8:31 am)

    I recommend the City start with a Pilot Program before they implement this Citywide. They should first designate the block in front of each Councilmembers’ and the Mayor’s residence as an initial location where RV’s and Vehicles can park without getting towed or ticketed.  After about six months, our elected officials can let us know firsthand how effective this new policy is in helping the homeless.

  • Dave Virnig August 10, 2017 (8:51 am)

     There have been 2 city sanctioned studies on the homeless issue both concluded the money being spent was wasted on relocating and cleaning up after the homeless. Perhaps the new city ordinance should read ” no person shall be allowed the live in any type of dwelling that is not connected to all city services. Those who can not afford this housing will be provided shelter, food and medical services at a city certified facility. ” Let’s put our resources to revamping empty city building into shelters and then enforcing the laws of the city. When the Jungle was evacuated all residents were offered shelter or assistance. 76% refused because they don’t want to follow rules set out by the shelters or city. EVERYONE SHOULD OBEY THE LAW!!!!!

  • PangolinPie August 10, 2017 (9:12 am)

    I encourage everyone to email Lisa Herbold and/or other city council members. They represent us; we are responsible for telling them what we think.

    And as for solutions; I’m not at all an expert on these matters, but during the great depression, the government founded the WPA, which provided mostly unskilled jobs for millions of people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

    It would of course take an initial investment, but what if we could require that homeless people accept jobs that they’re capable of: labor, construction, bringing in crops…yes, there are people who are mentally ill and unsuited for work of any kind, but I believe that there must be plenty who could and would work given a chance. But who knows? I’m no expert. All I know is that I don’t want people RV camping in Seattle neighborhoods. I’d even be fine with another Nickelsville situation; I lived not far from the last one and never had any trouble with those folks. But just letting RVs stay wherever they stop, for unlimited time…please, no.

  • Concerned Citizen August 10, 2017 (9:17 am)

    Let’s face facts – Seattle has some 7000+ homeless and the
    city declared an emergency over a year ago yet the situation continues to deteriorate.   Making
    it easier for people to live in their vehicles is not the answer.

    Do you believe the city would suggest we move under bridges
    or live in our cars if a major natural disaster displaced 7000 people who lost
    their homes?  A more likely scenario
    would be action from the Governor, Mayor, Public Health and the National Guard
    to set up temporary sites that would provide sanitation, shelter, food and
    health care to treat those in need.  I believe
    this is the course of action that is needed for our city.  Enforce the laws, give people the option of
    returning to family or friends.  Those
    that choose not to or don’t have that option would be moved to a FEMA type shelter
    where care is provided.  It is not an
    option to remain “on the street” in hundreds of locations making it
    logistically impossible to provide needed services.  If the political powers to be can’t make that
    decision, it should be decided by our Public Health Dept.  It is only a matter of time before there is
    some type of 3rd world outbreak such as cholera.  Seattle is a world class city and our
    citizens deserve better.

  • Earnest WS Native August 10, 2017 (12:35 pm)

    I watched yesterday’s presentation, with its mix of testimony during the presentation and public comments afterwards.

    During the advocate presentation an older woman, a case worked for the group, testified about her recent experience where a “vehicle resident” (aside,  I can’t believe this labeling is being used because it implies legitimacy) had their vehicle unexpectedly impounded and one of its secondary, who was already very sick at the time, died a few days later (in the hospital I presume). She testified tearfully that the sick woman had “given up hope” and told her “what’s the use” before her demise. During this testimony she made a minor comment near the end that she did not think her death was a result of the impound, but it was implied as the cause or contributor throughout her testimony.

    Advocates made repeated complimentary statements about the compassion of the police and courts in identifying and addressing homelessness. They were vague on specifics but I assumed it was due to outreach, a relaxation of vehicle tickets and impound, and perhaps a delay, reduction, or dismissal of fines by the court. I got the impression that from an outreach, ticketing, and court view, the advocates felt that things were being done well within the present system, yet it seems that is not good enough and they want more. With all the good faith going on, I personally find it difficult to believe that the RV owner mentioned in the woman’s testimony had no clue their rig was to be impounded.

    Oh, and get this: One parting recommendation/proposal by the advocates was a program to maintain and/or repair the RVs! Incredible stuff. They had no input as to how that would be funded, however.

    Then the group proposed leveraging police license tracking systems to create a list of vehicles to track who would be part of the program. Burgess and González correctly suspected that this could be a violation of privacy and an improper use of public systems to profile a group. I could tell the advocates had not thought this through because they sheepishly responded that it would only be used to track license plates but then fell into the conclusion that license plates are obviously connected to the vehicle owner. Duh.

    After the presentation concluded the team split, with O’Brien in tow. They did not stay behind for public comment. Once scheduled items were addressed, the floor was opened for public comment. There were a few takeaways from handful of comments:

    Observation: Those that came forward to complain about the homeless situation like to go out of their way to first say “I understand what’s going on, but…” or “I really feel for their plight, but…” before continuing with opposing comments. Typical humans have some empathy for one another but that does not require you to preface each negative experience with a passive-aggressive preamble. Just state what you have experienced for the record so your comments can be heard!

    Conversely, I did not hear anything similar from the advocates or the homeless during open comments about homeless’ impact on the greater public/society: squalor, needles, garbage, theft, human waste, or public negativity. Maybe they do not care, are numb, or they are better communicators than those on the opposing side.

    One standout was a homeless man that holds a job and is in deep debt from education loans. I think I heard he continues to take college courses while homeless. He states that he follows the 72 hour rule and that he takes his septic tank to the dump to empty every week. It’s his business why he’s living out of his RV but at least he follows the law, his rig is mobile, and he cleans up after himself.

    The 72 hour limit is THE ONLY TOOL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE that helps ensure the homeless actually move occasionally, other than expired tabs or parking violations.

    As I type this missive, a homeless person is parked outside my house. He graces our curb with about once a week for an overnight stay. He shows up at around 12am and sleeps until whenever then moves his car and continues his day. His vehicle has current tabs. He frequents a network of familiar spots in West Seattle every few days so he is not noticed much. We’ve talked once and he has a low paying job somewhere in West Seattle but lives out of his vehicle.

    I am convinced that the 72 hour law is key to ensuring he cannot permanently reside in the same spot for days on end. Removing the law encourages lengthier layovers (really without end) and the negative effects that will bring.

    An interesting side-note: Check out any homeless vehicle and you will find their tabs are current. Either they come up with the hard-earned cash to keep current or an advocacy group funds it. Regardless, this is done to stop the vehicle from being ticketed or towed. This is all good because once again, the law is being followed in that sense. But now with Sound Transit’s higher tax, renewing tabs will be much more expensive for whoever is funding it: http://www.dol.wa.gov/vehicleregistration/rta.html

    Maybe the tax increase is what’s “driving” the focus on vehicles?

  • Mike August 11, 2017 (7:22 am)

    The city council has no plan to help people in need.  There needs to be incentives to get people who are capable into jobs where they won’t be living in RV’s or in a tent on the streets and sidewalks.  It costs far less to live in Eastern Washington and there’s a huge demand for labor there that’s not being filled.  Is it that a lot of people living in RV’s and tents are just lazier than migrant workers in Eastern Washington and they feel above the labor where job openings are in demand over in the orchards and fields?  I guess I’m confused, it would be a lot cheaper for the city, state and county to bus people to Eastern Wa and set them up with jobs there than continually spending millions in cleanup and relocation every few weeks.  How much was spent to clear under the bridge only to have it become a dumping zone full of RV’s again a few weeks later?

    My daughters have been exposed to people along I5 having sex outside their tents, people shooting up drugs along sidewalks and multiple people swearing and fighting outside tents.  I watched a guy light a fire at the RV camp under the bridge and walk away.  When is enough enough?  Why is that activity allowed if you’re living in an RV or tent?  It’s NOT okay.

    I’ve yet to see or read any proposal from our political leadership (lack of) with a viable plan to actually help people.  By the time anything would be put in place, these politicians have moved up the chain to the next role and are hands off from any issues or costs.  Smiles for the camera and feel good words with no intention of follow through.  That’s the definition of politician.  Worthless sacks of … 

Sorry, comment time is over.