VIDEO & AS-IT-HAPPENED COVERAGE: How the City Council changed the RV ‘safe lot’ order

(UPDATED with meeting video and documents showing what was approved/changed)

(Click above to see Seattle Channel video of this afternoon’s relatively brief meeting)

3:37 PM: Happening now at City Hall – the special meeting of the City Council to consider Mayor Murray‘s emergency order setting up, among other things, two “safe lots” for people living in their RVs and other vehicles – one of them on the paved area adjacent to what for years was an unsanctioned encampment at West Marginal Way SW and Highland Park Way SW in HP. As District 1 City Councilmember Lisa Herbold told the Delridge District Council last night, she and her colleagues have the opportunity to amend the order as they consider it. We’ll be updating live as we monitor it via Seattle Channel.

They’re beginning with public comment; one of the first speakers is an advocate who says she is concerned about the city’s current schedule of “sweeps” at unauthorized encampments – “there’s real harm done to real people” – and says that the schedule does not reflect what councilmembers heard at their briefing about those sweeps back on Tuesday. Another speaker, an Interbay businessperson, says he’s concerned about the RV lots creating an inhospitable atmosphere both for those living in them or those near them. A third speaker is advocating for the city to “stop the (encampment) sweeps. The fourth and final person who signed up to speak says she’s a Magnolia resident concerned about crime that she and her neighbors believe is related to unauthorized encampments.

3:48 PM: Council President Bruce Harrell is saying the council has four options – do nothing, accept the mayor’s order, reject it, or modify it. After asking city staffers for some background, he also notes the council has the authority to revoke an order like this if they don’t feel it’s accomplishing its goal. Right after that, Councilmember Herbold proposes amendments. “The amendments broadly fall into two categories,” she says, adding that they include “reporting-back requirements” regarding demographics of those served, impacts on nearby communities, and what the city will do after the “safe lots” end – “we’ll still have RV camping, and what will the city do then?” And she’s asking to make sure that the lots are not just for “one particular part of the city” but that outreach is done all over the city. (Much of what she’s listed are points that came up at last night’s meeting in Delridge.) Herbold also says her questions include what she’s heard from “(her) community” about whether the Highland Park lot is truly suitable, particularly because of its lack of nearby services.

4:08 PM: After a lot of trying to straighten out fine print, questions ensue. Councilmember Rob Johnson wonders what kind of a dent these two lots with a combined 50 spaces or so will make, when at least 800 people are believed to be living in their vehicles around the city, and will it affect the ability of religious and other institutions to host “car campers”? He is told it won’t affect that ability. They’ve just passed an amended resolution; we don’t have the documents yet but will add them when we get them. Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, joining the meeting by phone, says it’s about knowing who the people are (in the lots/encampments), knowing that they’re safe, and knowing that neighbors are safe. And at 4:13 pm, the meeting’s adjourned.

4:37 PM: Updated – here’s the amended order – scroll to what’s in blue, to see what was added/changed:

You also can see it here as a PDF.

4:56 PM: Here’s the second document, an amended resolution. As with the one above, scroll through to see (in purple) what was added/changed:

And here it is as a PDF if you’d rather read it that way. Again, the lots are supposed to be operational in about a month, so we’ll have more followups about what’s planned, what’s expected, and other related issues/questions.

ADDED 7:30 PM: A statement received from Councilmember Herbold via e-mail:

“Last year in the One Night Count, volunteers found approximately 760 vehicles with people living inside them. I thank the Mayor for acting on the clear need to assist these people and, in doing so, addressing the impacts on people living without access to water, garbage, and bathroom facilities.

“Today, Council amended the Order before it took practical effect. If we hadn’t acted within 48 hours, it would have gone into effect without our changes. Firstly, it was important to explicitly ensure we are collecting demographics on the people served in the safe parking lots. As outreach workers attempt to find solutions to find permanent housing, it’s essential we track the barriers they face. We must also track perceived and actual impacts on communities and the City’s response to those impacts. Looking forward, we also need to hear from Executive departments how the City intends to address vehicle camping after the terms for these particular safe lots end. This was all addressed in the amendments adopted today.

“Secondly, we memorialized operational commitments that were not included in the original Order relating to site management, sanitation, electricity, and potable water, and defining a length of term for the individual lots (six months, with the option for a one-time six month renewal). In addition there is an expectation that these lots will not be reserved for vehicle residents from one particular set of neighborhoods, rather the City will do outreach to all neighborhoods where people are living in their vehicles. The amendments also require the Executive to justify site suitability and name the factors used to justify that selection.

“Moving forward, it’s important that the Seattle community serves their unhoused neighbors in a way that best meets their needs. Choosing a remote location with little access to grocery stores, transportation, social services, showers and laundry facilities simply because it’s the easiest choice helps no one.

“Further, these lots cannot be opened to simply serve people living in RVs in Magnolia. There are vehicle campers all over the city, including Delridge and South Park. If we are to continue this model I want to see the City use a race and social justice lens to fully analyze the properties available citywide and identify choices that are best for those whom we wish to serve, as well as the surrounding community.

“Lastly, I’d like to thank my fellow Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Debora Juarez, and Lorena González for working with me to develop amending language to the Mayor’s Order of Civil Emergency. I’m pleased with our vote today, and we intend to continue our efforts to find housing for people who need it most.”

The mayor also has issued a statement: ““Thanks to the Council for the quick approval of emergency order that will provide a safer, cleaner environment for some of those who are homeless. By organizing better sanitation and centralizing the delivery of human services for those in need, we will work to move them to permanent housing as quickly as possible. While these aren’t long-term solutions, they do allow us to respond to more of the impacts of unpermitted parking and tents in neighborhoods around the city.”

12 Replies to "VIDEO & AS-IT-HAPPENED COVERAGE: How the City Council changed the RV 'safe lot' order"

  • Paul January 21, 2016 (6:59 pm)

    Thanks for listening Lisa. At the very least, the simple reporting requirements give better insight into the success or failure of the program. On the flips side I am very disappointed that the order was not amended with prescriptions for logistical administration  and security of these sites.

  • chemist January 21, 2016 (8:08 pm)

    West Marginal Way and Highland Park Way means the nearest real grocery store is Westwood Villiage QFC, right ?

  • Sue January 21, 2016 (8:37 pm)

    Thanks Lisa!

  • outofdodge January 21, 2016 (9:50 pm)

    Yes, QFC and the bodegas in White Center are both about 2.25 miles or so from the lot – .75 mil of that is uphill through Highland Park .  They walk.  And have a high propensity toward literring, historically.  You will be able to identify how they get to and from the stores by the litter trails.  I am not kidding.  They walk, historically, because they don’t seem to have bus fair generally.   That’s a lot of money when you don’t have any.  But maybe they can get help with the fair for the #131.  That’s the most direct shot up the hill to grocery stores in White Center.    ……It’s so disheartening. Who thinks this program which addresses 50 vehicles out of 750 is worth a damn.  Not me.  Too little too late – we are all to blame for this.  Nobody gets angry about the injustice  of it and demands change. It is such a battle to fight it.  How did we get here?  It is nation wide. This isn’t discussed nationally, but it should be approached in the elections.   It seems most people are  just resigned and relieved that the “emergency program”  spin buys the perception of ‘handling it”.    Absurd and shameful..  The Mayor’s people should have put the filters/amendments in before they released the Order.  Good of the council members to write the amendments, but that is what they know how to do.  Push the ball.  But this isn’t a solution and what a waste of time,  from the Big Picture view point.  I am so damned ashamed of this city.  I don’t recognize it anymore.  

    • Jon January 22, 2016 (4:45 pm)

      You’re right, it is widespread. I think the problem is too big for the city to solve.  Admittedly, I don’t know that much about it, but at the moment I think we need to demand the State get involved and provide a more structured solution like the Dutch model. If the same programs are available all over the state, many of those whose desire to achieve stability is greater than their desire to remain in Seattle will gravitate towards cheaper places to live. Of course, many people just want to live in Seattle. So much so that they’re willing to live in an RV to do so.

  • Neighbor January 22, 2016 (6:56 am)

    I agree that these sites should be in close proximity to needed services and not one where it can be “out of sight, out of mind”, especially to make the richer more comfortable and keep their property values up. That sort of planning is self-serving and does not help anyone. I would like to see all neighborhoods host people in need  and that no community can demand/litigate/buy their way out of hosting  

  • JoB January 22, 2016 (8:11 am)

    We need safe parking lots of all kinds  with services especially for those who are transitioning into homelessness …  better yet, we need programs that will keep people in their homes.

  • Kathryn Carte January 22, 2016 (11:49 am)

    That does not seem to be in the Delridge neighborhood to me. It’s a long trek up that hill and down to Delridge. The owner of the business next door who complained has moved. I used to go that way often and left many useful items with them. I attended an open house catered by a restaurant in Ballard, took a tour with others and felt welcomed and safe. 

    • WSB January 22, 2016 (12:00 pm)

      Hi, Kathryn. It’s in what the city considers the “Delridge district” – pretty much all of eastern West Seattle – but definitely is not in the Delridge neighborhood, and that’s why the city’s constant reference to this being “in Delridge,” which then is parroted by regional media, is confusing at the very least. – Tracy

  • Alan January 22, 2016 (1:03 pm)

    There are multiple observations of what it was like with Nicklesville (NV) which seem to be in conflict when I do not think they are. Most of the people that spent time in NV seem to have felt safe and welcomed. There were times of conflict within the camp when that was obviously not true, but I’m willing to believe it was true most of the time.  There are people living close by that never had an issue and I do not doubt that was true for many. Then there are many that did have negative experiences and for those, the fear is not of misunderstanding but of experience. Then like the men in the parable of the blind men and an elephant we try to convince each other that our experience is the real one.

    Besides the times that the camp was dysfunctional, I think the primary issues were the ones outside of its boundaries and this is the biggest concern I have now. There were many suburbs of NV, which likely had varied causes. Maybe people wanted to be close by until they could get in, maybe they had friends in NV or maybe they were rejected for cause and saw the greenbelt as their best option. These suburbs were and now are again my biggest concern. I am not nearly so concerned about the people in the parking area and how they are managed as I am about how the suburbs are going to be prevented from happening again. I believe that many of my neighbor’s negative experiences were a result of the suburbs.

    • Jon January 22, 2016 (4:26 pm)

      Alan, I think that’s a great point that contributes a lot of light without heat. You do have a lot of different people who are all very passionate about why they believe what they believe.

      From the various events of my life, I conceit myself that I have a comparatively hi fidelity understanding of SOME of the various dynamics that can cause vulnerable people to become homeless. I think that the reasons are LEGION and almost universally tragic. I believe the reasons one becomes homeless are often different from the reasons one stays homeless.  I believe that becoming homeless can be highly traumatic. Damaging even. 

      I also believe that among the homeless population the voice that speaks the loudest – the voice that creates the stereotype, belongs to a very malignant contingent of people who are addicts, or have a particularly malignant mental illness or both. Some are just run-of-the-mill “people of extremely low character” mixed in.  Criminals.  I don’t think its possible to rationally deny that this exists.  I don’t think many people do deny this. 

      I can speak from 40 years of experience that when you have someone with, say a borderline personality disorder (a condition which fills the prisons) and is an addict or becomes an addict, that person requires EXTREMELY firm boundaries or they will cause a great amount of harm to both themselves and others. 

      There are people who exist who cause such a degree of harm that they can well be described as social cancers. This does not apply to all the homeless, all the addicted, or all the mentally ill.  It is, however, common for these people to be homeless. It’s possible, even probable, that the longer one is homeless, the more likely they become this way. 

      The “shanty town solution” places the “vulnerable innocent” among these who are social antigens. Undefended. That has GOT to be a recipe for psychological trauma and continued homelessness. 

      And then you have the various taxpayers of Seattle. 

      People who have had no really bad experiences with the homeless, or have witnessed someone become homeless from a sympathetic standpoint, will view those who HAVE HAD traumatic experiences with the homeless as lacking in compassion and angry.  Rabid even.   

      People who have been the victim of crime or simply had repeated bad experiences will view the compassionate group as naive.  This group is also fueled by frustration and impatience. Thus “rabid.”

      Everybody screams and nobody listens.  Nobody want’s to be the one bearing the cost. We fight amongst ourselves. 

      Just as I don’t think it’s moral to abandon those who truly just need a little help, I don’t think it’s moral to disproportionally subject a working class neighborhood to the negative side-effects of a homeless encampment. I don’t think it’s just to do it to the people of Ballard or Magnolia either.  

      It’s not greed for working class families to want to protect what is usually their largest or only investment. The danger of being underwater on a house is not something I would wish on many people, and our housing market conditions combined with a possible looming recession make that a danger to MANY vulnerable people. Underwater houses get abandoned. Those families lives are thrown into chaos. I don’t want that for my community and I don’t want that for ANY of Seattle’s neighborhoods. Homeless encampments are obviously part of the equation here. 

      Highland park is one of the last remaining refuges for working class families in the city that is both a nice place to live and is affordable for our Fireighters, our ER nurses, Our seawall welders, Our port workers etc. If caring about that community makes one a NIMBY, then I’m beginning to feel like that’s not such bad a slur to wear. 

      I’m so worried my city that I love is about to fall on it’s sword for fear of appearing uncompassionate.  On the other hand…maybe our density issues will soon be solved.  Maybe soon we’ll be seeing billboards that say “Will the last person leaving Seattle, pick up the needles.”

  • M January 22, 2016 (1:37 pm)

    Does anyone else think that this is just a stupid idea?  The crack heads use these things as a mobile crime unit.  They break into your house while you are at work, steal your bikes, etc.  They dump their refuse and sewage on the pavement.

Sorry, comment time is over.