Agenda out for Wednesday discussion of ‘Nickelsville’ site’s future

The agenda is out for next Wednesday’s meeting of the City Council’s Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee – and, as first reported here last week, it includes a discussion about the future of the site that currently houses the “Nickelsville” encampment – as described on the agenda:

Options Related to Future Use of the “Glassyard” property located south of Highland Park Way Southwest between 2nd Avenue Southwest and South Myrtle Street

The two ordinances listed for discussion are CB 117791, Councilmember Nick Licata‘s proposal to expand the types of sites citywide that could host encampments – which is still moving toward a formal public hearing June 25th – and CB 117792, Mayor McGinn’s proposed alternative (if the Licata bill is not passed) that would appropriate money for an environmental study of making the “Nickelsville” site semi-permanent. The Wednesday (June 12) committee meeting is at 2 pm at City Hall and starts with a public comment session that can pertain to this or any other item on the agenda, and will be live on Seattle Channel (cable 21 or online) if you can’t be there.

HPRez June 7, 2013 (12:50 pm)

As long as there is a tent-city site less than a mile from Mr. Licata’s home (hill or not, it’s that close to me), I’m willing to hear his side. Otherwise, he can go pound sand.

And no, it’s not an issue of ‘I don’t want ‘those people’ living by me.’ It’s an issue of ‘if we’re all responsible, we’re ALL responsible’ for supporting the homeless community.

I feel that many of Seattle’s wealthier communities have an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality on solving this problem, and if they see it as much as I do, maybe things would move a little faster through city council to make things better.

West Seattle Hipster June 7, 2013 (2:13 pm)

Is there still a chance Food Lifeline will buy this site?

WSB June 7, 2013 (3:21 pm)

I just verified with FLL before spouting off my *belief* that’s still the case. I also asked if they have a deadline. The reply, from spokesperson Amy Lee Derenthal:
.
“We’re still working in good faith with the city towards a resolution where we would get the opportunity to purchase the land. While its true that we’re working on a challenging timeline, as of today we’re continuing our efforts with the city.”

JoB June 7, 2013 (4:45 pm)

HPRez…
Nick Licata’s proposal would not permit homeless encampments in residential areas..

Good Luck West Seattle June 7, 2013 (5:14 pm)

Apparently, the city council would love to dump the dump that calls itself Nickelsville on West Seattle. Permanently.

k d June 7, 2013 (6:31 pm)

Re: encampments & residential areas —

The ordinance states the encampment be on “property that is zoned Industrial…” and “The property is at least 25 feet from a residentially-zoned lot” My take is that an encampment could be at the edge of a residential area.I’m getting this info from the ordinance language posted at the city’s website.

Also, I have read the comments from the last several posts regarding Nickelsville and it’s effect on the Highland Park neighborhood, including comments implying that the greenbelt campers in the area are related to Nickelsville. I see no evidence that Nickelsville is attracting greenbelt campers. The (non-Nickelsville) greenbelt campers have always been there and will continue to be there after Nickelsville leaves. I have lived in WS for 30+ years and have taken tromps thru the greenbelts and you occasionally come across campers. The number of illegal greenbelt campers is going to depend on the overall economy. When times are bad, you’re going to have folks living out in the greenbelt.

Del Martini June 7, 2013 (10:53 pm)

@ k d — Where in WS have you resided for those 30+ years? WS is a large land mass.
Unless you live in very close proximity to any of the greenbelts near the Duwamish River or Long Fellow Creek, an occasional romp or tromp is hardly enough to base any kind of realistic opinion of what transpires 365/24/7 in those areas.
=
NC2 and NC3 zoning includes housing along with commercial enterprise so it is not as if the legislation proposal from Licata is preventing tent camps from being in areas of the city with normal housing. And the 25′ requirement is full of many exceptions and variables so as to seem rather melba toast as far as I am concerned.