“Nickelsville” camp controversy bound for court this week

The spokesperson for the homeless encampment that calls itself “Nickelsville” — ensconced at Terminal 107 Park in West Seattle (July 24 photo at left by Christopher Boffoli) for two weeks now, after a month and a half at another WS site — sent out a media update last night with several new developments. Key among them: What they say is a new tactic, authorities serving what they describe as “eviction papers” to individual campers, ordering them to appear in King County Superior Court. Read on for the full update:

Revel Smith, spokesperson for “Nickelsville,” wrote:

On July 31st, a random 14 Nickelsville residents, as well as Veterans For Peace Chapter 92, were served eviction papers. A written response is due by Tuesday, August 11. On Thursday, August 13th, each person named and served appear, as individuals, before King County Superior Court Judge, Paris K. Kallas.

The Port’s new strategy targets Nickelsville’s residents individually, not as one encampment. Many residents are working or disabled and saving-up credit check fees and deposits. Even Mayor Nickels’ homeless sweeps don’t directly impact people’s rental history for obtaining future housing. If this landlord/tenant style eviction is allowed, the King County Sheriff removes Nickelsville and eviction citations become part of each person’s rental history. This will severely jeopardize Nickelsville residents chances of getting future housing.

The State has come forward since, denying Port of Seattle’s claims in their July 24th press release. The State Auditor himself directly told the Speaker of the House for the Washington State House of Representatives that nothing in the Audit prohibited the Port from helping Nickelsville at T-107. (see attached)

In a private meeting August 6, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, the Duwamish Tribe, the Lutheran Public Policy Institute of Washington State, Representative Sharon Nelson, the Chief of State for the Speaker of the Washington State House of Representatives and several Nickelodeons met with the Port of Seattle at the Duwamish Longhouse.

The Port was presented with two contracts, one with the Duwamish and one directly with Nickelsville’s financial sponsor – Veterans for Peace Chapter 92. Both contracts have the same format, terms and conditions that were acceptable to both the Port and the State Auditor when used by SHARE and the Port from 2001 to 2005. (see attached)

Port Commissioners meet this Tuesday. Nickelsville is asking everyone to please call the Port of Seattle at (206) 728-3034 and tell our Commissioners to “do what is right and legal by signing the order to let Nickelsville stay.”

Nickelsville thanks House Speaker Chopp, Representative Nelson, Chairperson Hansen of the Duwamish, the Lutheran Public Policy Institute, the Church Council and the people of Seattle for their support.

For additional information go to nickelsvilleseattle.org.

At the bottom of that site’s home page, you’ll find links to the documents referenced in the Nickelsville media release above, as well as other correspondence in the ongoing dispute. The Port of Seattle‘s last posted news release about the situation is dated July 30th (read it here); it also says the Port “would also face City of Seattle property code violations” if the encampment stayed – that is not addressed in this new dispatch from organizers.

ProudPugetRidger August 10, 2009 (7:51 am)

Message to Port of Seattle:

STAND YOUR GROUND! Maintain your longstanding reputation of being a good neighbor, by protecting the encampment’s surrounding residential (and business) neighborhood from these squatters.

JK August 10, 2009 (9:38 am)

I am very frustrated that this is an ongoing issue, wasting our hard earned tax dollars in constant legal struggles fighting this encampment. I’ve lived in several states from east to west coast and I’ve never seen anything like this in any state but Washington.

I don’t know why its so hard to drive home the obvious point that the city of seattle is not a public camp ground.

I’ll not deny that the working poor and homelessness is a badly handled and poorly acknowledge community issue. All I’m saying is that making King County a legal camp ground is not the answer and I’d like to stop fighting this battle over and over with our tax dollars.

MAS August 10, 2009 (9:41 am)

Quick question. Are the Nickelsville folks implying that NOT signing the contract would be illegal? The language “do what is right and legal by signing the order” seems to go there.

Clearly, the Port can legally choose to not sign a contract which incurs considerable liability on their part.

rico August 10, 2009 (9:54 am)

The more obvious point here is that Seattle is a public campground. Look around, where I work in Pioneer Square area there is camping all over the place and no one is telling these people otherwise.

katydid August 10, 2009 (10:23 am)

I just called the Port and asked that the commissioners to sign the contract to let Nickelsville residents stay where they are. Also I checked to see if the Lora Lake Apartments belonged to the Port. I was told “yes”, the ownership REVERTED back to the Port. Therefore, I asked that that property be opened up for use by low income residents.

Maybe others would like to tack that onto their request so these apartments can be reopened and lived in again. As my 95 y.o. mom said: “So they’re near the 3rd runway…homeless people don’t care if it would mean a roof over their head.”

I agree, especially since there are other apartments and dwellings within 500 feet of the Lora Lake apartments.

katydid August 10, 2009 (10:24 am)

I just called the Port and asked that the commissioners to sign the contract to let Nickelsville residents stay where they are.

Also I checked to see if the Lora Lake Apartments belonged to the Port. I was told “yes”, the ownership REVERTED back to the Port. Therefore, I asked that that property be opened up for use by low income residents.

Maybe others would like to tack that onto their request so these apartments can be reopened and lived in again.

As my 95 y.o. mom said: “So they’re near the 3rd runway…homeless people don’t care if it would mean a roof over their head.”

I agree, especially since there are other apartments and dwellings within 500 feet of the Lora Lake apartments.

katydid August 10, 2009 (10:25 am)

oops, sorry for double posting…maybe the supreme being wanted to emphasize this matter???? :->

WSM August 10, 2009 (10:59 am)

What exactly did Mayor Nickels do to deserve this ongoing media attack? The term Nickelsville is rhetorical. Why does the press continue to do the bidding of these people? It’s a homeless encampment.

I wonder if they called themselves “The West Seattle Blog Sucks”, would the WSB use this name? I doubt it.

WSB August 10, 2009 (11:17 am)

If it were these same circumstances – the widely known and used name of a homeless encampment that has made news by defying government orders to move and happens to be within West Seattle borders with a court order looming – yeah, we would. Meantime, you’ve made this point in comments before. We have answered it in comments before. Have you brought it up with other media outlets? How have they replied? Or the Port, a taxpayer-funded agency, which uses the name, without quote marks, in its news release, as linked above? – TR

Been here a long time August 10, 2009 (11:35 am)

For the people who are angry at the tent city,
Have you ACTUALLY talked to the people?
Have you actually gone there and met the people who DO have jobs but due to the economy can’t get a place to live?
I’m so glad that everyone is so rich that they don’t ever have to worry about loosing their home.
Let a few people gain some ground get some savings and get a place to live when they can. How does that personally hurt you?

ProudPugetRidger August 10, 2009 (11:53 am)

“Been here a long time”-

It would be interesting to see how you would respond if these squatters showed up in your neighborhood park!

And, for the record, I have ACTUALLY talked to the people there.

Chron August 10, 2009 (4:59 pm)

The term “professionally homeless” comes to mind when thinking of what the future holds for the tent city. Why would they still be here if the economy is so bad and they cannot get jobs? They simply like the temperate climate that is hospitable to resisting being productive. Offer them jobs, see how many actually take them.

MaddMaxx August 11, 2009 (12:51 am)

All of the residents of Nickellsville would take the job. If you truley have gone and talked with them you would understand, they don’t want to live in a tent, The idea is to have a safe place to leave your property so you can get a job, save up and get first, last, and security dept. Think about it, if you are homeless you carry every thing with you, try going to a job interview carring your backpack and blankets. The Idea is to be transitional housing. Drugs and alchol are not allowed in the camp. These are people who lost a job and cannot afford rent. Think about this the next time you see the unemploment numbers.

Christopher Cain August 11, 2009 (8:10 am)

There are many people right now who could be on the verge of homelessness due to the economy. Wealthy coastal cities were pricing people out of homes before the great recession, without jobs many have nowhere to go. The Port continuously claims to be a regional asset, and it is, but the benefits aren’t “trickling down to Nicklesville” hey I think there is a song in there somewhere. Anyway, The point is, as the CEO and staff gorge themselves on kippered salmon with cream sauce in every fine dining establishment on the taxpayers dime, the un-fed, unclothed and unwashed scramble for a scrap of grass to pitch a tent. It is becoming clear that the working class folks aren’t getting their share of the ‘regional benefits’ the port pokers claim to be generating for everyone. When rents rise too far new rich people move in and working class folks are kicked to the street. Seattle is becoming Bellevue.

Sorry, comment time is over.