Followup: Encampment proposal gets first City Council airing

(Screengrab from Seattle Channel webcast of committee meeting; we’ll substitute SC video when available)
Just wrapped up at the City Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee meeting: The first discussion of the new encampment proposal that emerged from Mayor Murray‘s office.

As mentioned here last Friday, the proposal specifies commercial and industrial areas of the city as possible locations for encampments; there would be a limit of three (not counting any hosted by religious institutions) in the city at any one time, no closer to each other than a mile, no closer to a residentially zoned site than 25 feet, with each encampment having gone through an official permitting process and occupied by no more than 100 people. (See the full list of toplines in the slide-deck PDF.)

The team that briefed councilmembers today was led by Deputy Mayor Hyeok Kim and Department of Planning and Development director Diane Sugimura. Deputy Mayor Kim reiterated multiple times that the intent was not to “aggressively recruit” new encampments/sites, but to find a temporary way to get at least a few hundred more people off the streets. She mentioned the “alarming increase … in unsheltered homeless people on (Seattle’s) streets,” as most recently documented in the One-Night Count.

The briefing team said that within a month of the ordinance’s passage, they expect to have a list of city-owned sites that could be considered by groups interested in managing encampments. While, as shown on the zoning map, private sites could be proposed, the city briefers said there was no intent to “recruit” them. Sugimura said DPD would have a “streamlined” permit process so that encampment proposals did not get hung up in endless reviews.

In the public comment period that preceded the committee discussion, many of those commenting identified themselves as affiliated with current encampments and unhappy that the proposal excludes residential-zoned areas from consideration.

The committee didn’t vote; chair Mike O’Brien decided the measure would be discussed again when they next meet on February 20th, which will be less than a week before the 5:30 pm February 26th public hearing devoted exclusively to the proposal. That is expected to be followed by a March 3rd committee vote, with full Council consideration after that.

JN February 3, 2015 (4:03 pm)

I find it interesting that the Mayor’s Office considers living in one of these encampments “off the streets”. That seems like a really low bar.

sophista-tiki February 3, 2015 (4:55 pm)

As one of my friend pointed out about this. Its interesting that Seattle home to REI camping specialists finds new ways for homeless people to camp.

Eddie February 3, 2015 (6:44 pm)

Make sure they don’t let them “encamp” within 1000 feet of a legal recreational marijuana outlet.

Jim P. February 3, 2015 (7:23 pm)

“no closer to a residentially zoned site than 25 feet”

Missing a couple of zeroes on the end of that number. 25 feet is effectively in your living room and I doubt very much these are quiet, sober neighbors.

Person February 4, 2015 (5:52 am)

This should only go into effect if the encampments are in close proximity to each city counsel members home and the mayors…
What I mean is this is an indiotic idea…
Opening the doors for homeless encampments is inviting even more homeless to our city creating an even greater need and hassle on the citizens who work every miserable day to pay bills so they don’t have to live on the streets.

anonyme February 4, 2015 (6:27 am)

Jim, I thought the same thing. Quite a buffer, that. Not to mention sanitation, fires, smoking – the list goes on. The “streamlined” permitting process is a worry as well; don’t want to let those pesky neighbors have a say.

A couple of empty buildings would not only provide better shelter, but prevent further damage to neighborhoods.

fitz February 5, 2015 (3:51 pm)

Let’s admit the obvious… this city has a solid unemployment rate with a high minimum wage, yet we have an obscene amount of “homeless.” The homeless aren’t all in one bucket but there is a sizable percentage who have no interest in getting to work and getting off the streets. Does this city have to get “new york circa 1978” before the city council and police department send a different message to this blight? What I’m saying only sounds harsh because this small problem from 10 years ago is now a bigger problem and there is no reason to believe it’s going to get anything but bigger.

Sorry, comment time is over.