“Nickelsville” may stay at Terminal 107 Park at least 3 more weeks

(July 23 photo by Christopher Boffoli, as the encampment moved to T-107 Park)
Just spotted a newly posted news release from the Port of Seattle, which previously had said that they expected they’d complete legal proceedings by tomorrow to evict the homeless encampment that moved to the park a week ago. Here’s the text of what’s posted on the port’s website, dated today:

Update Regarding Nickelsville Encampment on Port Property

Port of Seattle staff members met with Nickelsville representatives earlier this week to discuss the issues facing the encampment, as well as the camp’s need to seek an alternative site. Under Washington state law, and as directed by the State Auditor’s Office, the port cannot accommodate the group’s request to use the property. The port would also face City of Seattle property code violations if housing is allowed at the property.

The necessary legal proceedings that began on July 24th are continuing and documents have been filed with King County Superior Court. These proceedings are expected to conclude by Friday, August 21st.

Port commissioners and staff recognize the serious challenges posed by homelessness to all involved. Staff members will continue to work in good faith with Nickelsville residents as the court process continues.

Given the port’s legal constraints, staff members hope that the Seattle community and Nickelsville advocates will assist the group in finding a new, appropriate location for the encampment.

17 Replies to ""Nickelsville" may stay at Terminal 107 Park at least 3 more weeks"

  • nwcitizen July 30, 2009 (8:18 pm)

    Kudos to the Port for working with the Nickelodeons to find a place. Now, when will the City do the same?

  • proudpugetridger July 30, 2009 (9:14 pm)

    Great, this unauthorized, illegal, collection port for folks who simply refuse to conform to society get to stay in my neighborhood. Wonderful.

    Why didn’t they get that same leeway when they were in the more wealthy neighborhoods around town??

    Why not at least require background checks, which would undoubtedly thin the herd down significantly?


  • Thalia Syracopoulos July 30, 2009 (9:26 pm)

    Thank you, Port of Seattle. Now is the time to start working on the State Legislature to change the Port Charter to allow them to “donate” to charities/non-profits as they did for NW Harvest for so many years until the audit identified this as a breaking of their Charter (Or maybe the correct word is “by-laws” – not so sure)

  • JanS July 30, 2009 (9:33 pm)

    proudpugetridger…I would welcome them in my neighborhood…there’s a park right down the street (hiawatha), with a lot of area. Time for people to learn that those less fortunate than us should not be swept under a rug, or into the trash. They are NOT worthless people, they are priceless, just like you and me…and there but for the grace of whatever god you believe in go I…and you.For goodness sake..if you can’t see them does that mean they don’t exist for you? You just think they’re lazy bums/sex offenders/scofflaws/fill in your own word? I commend the port for being compassionate about giving them a little more time.

  • WSM July 30, 2009 (9:43 pm)

    I wonder if the term “nickelsville” could be construed as a political endorsement of one of the candidates running for mayor?

  • charlabob July 30, 2009 (10:35 pm)

    Good grief, you mean donating to NW Harvest is one of the “charter rules” that the port broke? Thanks for the info, Thalia — and thanks to Jan for, as usual, saying what needed to be said with grace and tact.

    WSM, I suspect Nickelsville comes from “Hooverville — the name given to homeless encampments during the years of Herbert Hoover’s shameful presidency. It’s meant as an anti-endorsement, if anything — though it sounds like some folks here ignoring homeless neglect a positive for hizzoner.

  • ProudPugetRidger July 31, 2009 (7:41 am)

    Thank you for the feedback Jan, I appreciate and respect your insight.

    I have consistently said, for the duration of the encampment regardless of location, that we need to take some simple measures to ensure a safe environment for the camp’s residents and surrounding communities. One example, of many possibilities, is that a level 3 sex offender can live in Nickelsville without any of the neighboring parents having any chance of knowing the imminent risk.

    Yes, we need to reach out to support the folks needing help. However, we need to be wise in the way we implement that help.

    Lastly, I challenge you to realistically consider this question: If the homeless people set up residence in Hiawatha Park and announced defiantly “we’re not moving, regardless of your ‘rules’ “, how would the surrounding community react?

    Somehow the wealthy communities seem to dodge this type of event, while the slightly less affluent regions (mine, for instance!)become a dumping ground.

  • KBear July 31, 2009 (9:04 am)

    ProudPugetRidger, what makes you equate poverty with sex offenders? If there are any sex offenders in Nickelsville, they’re already required to report their whereabouts to the authorities. You say you live in a “less affluent” neighborhood. By your own logic, maybe you and your neighbors should submit yourselves for background checks.

  • ProudPugetRidger July 31, 2009 (9:19 am)


    RSOs are required to register their place of residence. Thus when they’re in my neighborhood, or yours, thier addresses are disclosed at the King County Sheriff’s office website. Parents can proactively research where the danger may be within thier neighborhoods.

    When they fall under the homeless category, there is no accurate method of tracking their whereabouts.
    There is not any roster or other data kept for the residents of Nickelsville. Additionally, folks with outstanding warrants can live in Nickelsville without risk of exposure to law enforcement.

  • KBear July 31, 2009 (9:59 am)

    So we assume the homeless are criminals unless they can prove otherwise? That’s some progressive thinking. These people are down on their luck, living in tents, and you think the most pressing problem is whether they’ve had background checks? With such compassion in our community it’s a mystery why anyone would be homeless.

  • ProudPugetRidger July 31, 2009 (11:05 am)

    For an infinite number of reasons, every resident in this city is required to provide at least some personal information before they can assume occupancy. In fact, a large percentage of the conventional dwellers go through a background check before they are granted residency. In the case of Nickelsville (and homeless folks in general), there is NO record of who’s there. Consequently, the encampment is an attractive option for people who need to avoid detection. Condensing/concentrating folk in a small areas does magnify the risk to nearby residents, simply by virtue of the number of people.
    In addition to the safety concerns, think about the risks the Port of Seattle and City of Seattle are taking, as they’ll be held partially accountable for the actions of the residence who are allowed to remain on their property.
    We have zoning restrictions, building codes, and health standards that we all need to abide by…except the “special” residents of Nickelsville.

  • katydid July 31, 2009 (11:09 am)

    Do any of you remember the Lora Lake apartments out by the airport? Aren’t they Port property? Supposedly low income residents were evicted so the Port could develop the property with City of Burien input. (or do I have it wrong…maybe it’s owned by COB). Anyway, those apartments are still vacant and have been for over a year. Why couldn’t tent city move into there for a stay until more permanent arrangements could be found? Just a thought, but why keep empty apartments when someone could use them. Probably would have to turn on the water and lights, but what the hey, that isn’t so bad, is it for providing a safe haven for needy people.

    BTW, I worked a bit with some tent city residents a number of years ago…even shared sleeping space in front of the county city building with them as a member of the Raging Grannies (I am now retired) and found them to be gracious and grateful hosts of our sleep-in.

  • Breezingthough July 31, 2009 (5:26 pm)

    I have no idea what ProudPudgetRidger is concerned about. He obviously has not visited Nickelsville at T107 or he would know that the camp is not located in a residential area. Would he rather have these people sleep on his front porch?
    I am glad that the Nickeledeons have a grace period and I urge all of you to contact the Port Authority and express your support of the encampment
    CEO Tay Yoshitani tay.yoshitani@portseattle.org (206) 728-3000

    Commissioner Bill Bryant bill.bryant@portseattle.org 206-728-3034

    Commissioner John Creighton john.creighton@portseattle.org

    Commissioner Patricia Davis patricia.davis@portseattle.org

    Commissioner Lloyd Hara lloyd.hara@portseattle.org 206-728-3034

    Commissioner Gael Tarleton gael.tarleton@portseattle.org 206-728-3034

    Web contact form: http://www.portseattle.org/about/contact/

  • proudpugetridger August 1, 2009 (7:44 am)

    Hey Breezinthrough, is there not a house across the street (SW Hudson & West Marginal) from the encampment? Scheesh, not only do some of you folks seem to think you can make up your own rules, but you also cannot even be honest with the people you’re trying to silence.
    I did talk to the port at length again yesterday and am confident they’ll successfully reclaim their property soon. I suggest the next place the Nickelsville squatters move it smack-dab in the middle of Hiwatha park.
    This is getting frustrating.

  • the oldest codger August 2, 2009 (11:02 am)

    To the ones who are really upset about the presence of Nicholsville…..
    Have you been to the actual encampment and talked to the people who are there? Just wondering.
    When I walk my dog around the area I have gotten a chance to meet the folks there. I have met some who HAVE jobs. They can’t afford a place to live. I have seen no drugs.
    I have seen no alcohol. They do clean up after themselves. The place is NOT trashed. There is sanitation. So what HEALTH RISK do these people pose?
    Theory about compressing population…. Well, the trend is rip down a single family house and put 8-10 cheep made condos on the same foot print. We are all going to be living a little closer to everyone as time goes on.
    The Sex offender argument? Well, I’m really old but I actually think it would be harder to hide in a tent city.
    Everyone is usually on high alert when homeless people are around. Even the soccer mommy liberals go a little nuts.
    But…. I do go to the park.
    The Police are at the encampment once in a while. I’ve seen them checking in and keeping an eye out.
    Since I LOVE to be silly and over the top…
    I have say, Our Seattle once raised a good clean cut, all American boy who held a job and worked on Queen Anne…
    His name was Ted Bundy. I know, over the top. But true.
    I’m not sure how homelessness equals imminent disaster.
    Sometimes if people just mind their own business, look after themselves; Maybe keep their nose on their own side of the fence…. take responsibility for their own safety…. It all works out Ok.
    It just some people trying to live. Talk to them. You will find some of them have plans. When they CAN get some money ahead…. Some of the ones I’ve talked to do plan on getting a place. Or… Going to a shelter as soon as space opens up…
    Just an old man asking a dumb question here….
    If the people in the tent city aren’t stopping you from getting on with your day, aren’t harming your family, your house, your car, not even bothering your dog… then what is the BIG deal?
    If you are worried, go talk to them. Actually talk to the people who are living there.

  • M1ghty mosnaR August 2, 2009 (7:33 pm)

    Just giving a homeless person a sleeping bag and a place to sleep and food isnt necessarily a bad thing. but it in no way motivates them to start working. im sure theres some people there who don’t have a plan to get back on their feet. but say they did something like, pick up litter on the side of the road or something. THEN they get a place to sleep and all that good stuff.
    I suppose it would mildly resemble community service, except in return they would get a sleeping bag and food and such.

    what do you think?

  • Chris August 2, 2009 (9:19 pm)

    Stay out of my neighborhood and away from my children. Thanks to all more generous than I to bear the burden of sheltering these folks that just cant get it together.

Sorry, comment time is over.