Tonight our partners at the Seattle Times report that the mayor’s made his choice for the site of a permanent homeless camp, and it’s not either of the West Seattle sites that were on the list revealed last month. The Times quotes Deputy Mayor Darryl Smith as saying the choice is the former Sunny Jim peanut-butter plant site on Airport Way (map) that was gutted in a September fire; the site’s been owned by the city since the early ’90s.
Wouldn’t it be great if the homeless got together/did the labor to bring the plant into operation then creating jobs/incomes for themselves?
A feeling of self accomplishment would apply here.
Um, Gary, the building burned down. They’re not gonna be fixing it.
Great choice, Mayor McGinn!
Easy walking distance to the “Jungle”, the new 4th Ave. Liquor Store, the sports stadiums, the railroad tracks and the fast food restaurant with highest number of police calls/responses in the city. Georgetown residents rejoice!
Downtown beckons from afar and McGinn’s Greenwood far, far away…unless he democratically distributes FREE BIKES for the HOMELESS!
@Gary
The truth is that many folks who live in “Nickelsville” or Tent Cities are already employed. These are often the working poor, who don’t make enough to qualify for first, last and security deposit on a market-rate apartment. I for one am saddened, and a bit ashamed, that we as a community in West Seattle couldn’t have a more positive and open dialogue about the siting of this type of housing. Instead we largely resorted to the tired assumptions about the homeless – crack addicts and criminals – in the last blog post here about the possibility of the tents coming to WS. In this economy we should all be wondering what it would be like to lose our job(s) and wind up living in a tent.
Are there data out there? What percentage of Nickelsville etc residents were employed? What percentage were drug addicts? What percentage had criminal records? I’m not necessarily implying that they are any of these things…I’m just asking if there are hard data out there.
Why has the city owned this site since the early 90’s? If Seattle is as broke as it apears I would think selling the space for much-needed cash would be a no-brainer.
Why don’t some of these people qualify for low income housing and/or welfare?
@marty, because with examples like CA out there, who really cares about fiscal responsibility nowadays?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/07/state/n100503S24.DTL#ixzz14jkea2Ny
Kinda’ reminds me of “Hooverville” (down by stadiums during the depression) centralized place, others around for protection and company. I’m glad there is a place for people stay that doesn’t have to move every other month! They have enough problems as it is! The bus service is pretty good there too.
Hopefully the “covered dining area” and bathroom facilities will be in the plans like stated in the paper!!!
Tent cities are crappy, fairly unsanitary, eyesore-ish non-solutions to the very complex problem of homelessless, in my humble opinion. But hey, any solution beyond “personal responsibility” gets labeled as “socialism” these days and doesn’t stand much of a chance.
.
I hope they find a better solution, but this is at least better than hearing the NIMBY wails every few months.
Sorry, comment time is over.
| 14 COMMENTS