- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by JoB.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 13, 2016 at 7:49 am #860807
JoBParticipantThis legislation is too important to let soundbites and self serving arguments determine your decisions.. Wading through these posts will take some time.. but in the end you will have a much better understanding of the issues…
Tim Burgess and Mike O’Brien discuss this issue on KUOW
http://kuow.org/post/should-seattle-allow-camping-public-land
the latest draft of the legislation
http://council.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/101016EncampmentDraft.pdf
and last, but not least..
this includes the argument for the legislation as well as a form letter supporting it…http://seattlish.com/post/151724785261/here-is-a-form-letter-to-send-to-city-council-in
- This topic was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by JoB.
October 13, 2016 at 1:10 pm #860829
skeeterParticipantThe kuow discussion is excellent. thank you for posting.
October 14, 2016 at 11:53 am #860945
captainDaveParticipantI read through much of the ordinance and see some tremendous opportunities for attorneys to make lots of money off tax payers through arguing the many subjective statements in the document. Considering how many lawyers work in Seattle, I can see why the homeless are being lured here with freebies and used as political pawns to fleece tax payers.
Largely, this proposal is a joke because urban campers will simply move their tents around faster than the City can legally act.
We already have laws that forbid urban “homesteading”. I think the idea of urban homesteading on public land is in direct opposition of private property rights since this legislation builds towards creating a protected class that can sue with impunity for stuff they never had exclusive rights to.
Perhaps the city can lease some of the vast open stretches of port property and let private non-profits manage urban camp sites–where individuals are assigned a specific space at a nominal cost. Urban camping rules, of course, to include no drugs, no alcohol, no crap piles, etc. –Violators get immediately evicted just like any camp ground around the state.
Lets just enforce the law and empower some private non-profits with designated space not currently used or enjoyed by the public.
October 14, 2016 at 12:46 pm #860953
acemotelParticipantAn important statement in this morning’s discussion is that every human being has a right to exist. If someone is homeless, they have to “be” somewhere. I very strongly disagree with the proposals, based on the ACLU and Columbia Legal Service’s understanding of a recent court case, that urban camping on park properties is appropriate (and legal). Park properties are not the place to warehouse human beings. However, there is an obligation to provide shelter. Otherwise, what kind of society are we? IF there are people who are not ready to clean up, they also need to be sheltered. What has come of these discussions is an understanding that this issue is not going to go away. The council needs to sit down, roll up their sleeves, and do some serious thinking about solutions that really work. As mentioned this morning, the Jungle has been ignored, mostly, for the last decade. City government has failed us, and the organizations that purport to serve the homeless have failed us. Time to start from scratch and focus on some humane solutions.
October 14, 2016 at 3:12 pm #860979
JoBParticipantacemotel..
some of the organizations that purport to serve the homeless have definitely failed not only us but the homeless individuals they serve.. but if you look around you will find a lot of very good effective programs that struggle to keep their doors open and their services available.October 16, 2016 at 1:11 pm #861192
GinaParticipantI read Danny Westneat’s column in today’s Seattle Times. Confuses the issue more than ever. There are more than enough beds for those that follow rules, but those that don’t want to follow rules are left on the streets? But the won’t follow the rules people will be free to lose themselves in parks? http://www.seattletimes.com/author/danny-westneat/
October 16, 2016 at 5:11 pm #861223
JoBParticipantThere are currently beds for about 20% of the people who are on our streets…
most of those beds are for single individuals with substance abuse problemshousing for couples, families and individuals with pets is sadly lacking.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.