FOLLOWUP: What Councilmember O’Brien is proposing about ‘vehicular living,’ and he says it’s different from what you’ve heard

One day after a City Council committee was briefed on recommendations by a task force considering “vehicular living,” Councilmember Mike O’Brien has announced his proposal – which he says is different from an early version that was circulated earlier this week. He also says it’s not going to be officially introduced this month, but he’s interested in feedback. Here’s the news release we just received, including links to relevant documents:

Councilmember Mike O’Brien (District 6, Northwest Seattle), Chair of the Council’s Sustainability and Transportation Committee, issued the following statement regarding his proposed legislation intended to help respond to the needs of people living in their vehicles:

“In 2016, City of Seattle funding helped thousands of people exit homelessness and move into permanent housing, and I’m proud that the City continues to build on these efforts. However, the vast majority of the City’s focus is on individuals completely without shelter, while vehicle residents account for more than 40% of the unsheltered homeless population in Seattle. Moreover, during the past seven years, as the number of people unsheltered has increased by over 50%, the number of vehicle residents have more than doubled, from 590 individuals in 2010 to 1,550 in 2017.

“It’s clear what we’re doing hasn’t been working at the scale we need, and the challenges of vehicular living continue to increase without a clear policy direction. We’ve made efforts to help serve that population through our Road to Housing program, and through our previous attempts to provide supervised safe lots and safe zones. But our current approach to vehicular residency elsewhere often leaves vehicle residents with parking tickets, fines, and towing fees that puts them further away from housing, and isolated from services that they need.

“Today I’m putting forward draft proposals that take lessons from these previous efforts and expands on what has worked.

“Firstly, we need more parking options for people living in vehicles. Our previous attempts to provide parking have been unnecessarily expensive, and I intend to work with our Departments to develop a streamlined, more cost-effective parking program for vehicles to move to during their pathway to housing. In addition to identifying City-surplus property, I am confident that prioritizing social service and real estate management can also leverage spaces at faith-based organizations, non-profits, and business properties. It will still require a significant financial investment, and I intend to work with my colleagues and the City Budget Office during the budget review process this fall to identify available funding.

“Further, I’m putting forward a resolution that calls on the City to do additional analysis into recreational vehicle campgrounds, an auto-maintenance training program, and increasing mobile healthcare services for vehicular residents. I also plan to pursue a community needs assessment on the vehicular living population to further inform our policy directions.

“Next, I am putting forward draft legislation that would set up a Vehicular Residences Program in which social service providers would directly connect with people living out of their vehicles. Only when a user or users participate in the program would they be deprioritized for booting and impoundment from Scofflaw eligibility and diverted to an alternative enforcement mechanism through a social service program. People living out of their cars and minivans would be provided amnesty from monetary penalties resulting from parking enforcement, again, only if they’re participating in the program. For people living in RVs or other commercial vehicles, this amnesty would only apply if they are parked in industrial zoned areas. Seattle Police would still have every right to arrest people for breaking laws, including sexual exploitation. Nothing would prevent SPD or a social service provider from asking a vehicle to move and assisting them to move their vehicle.

“To be clear, the legislation I’m announcing today differs from the outdated version that some news media were provided and reported on that I had not intended to advance. The outdated version resulted in several news stories that have inspired constituents to call-in to express their opposition to elements that are not included in the newer version of the bill. I’m glad the public will now have an opportunity to respond to the complete proposal I had intended.

“In currently allowing vehicle residents to continue to accrue parking and impoundment fines, we only exacerbate their challenges in a pathway to housing. If someone is willing to work with a service provider and is committed to stabilizing their living situation, I think we should enthusiastically try to meet that need.

“This legislation is a starting point, and I don’t intend to introduce or consider this bill in August. I’m very receptive to any ideas to improve this legislation or to entirely new solutions. But I know that doing nothing is not an option.”

Emily August 10, 2017 (3:11 pm)

This lefty liberal is getting sick of it. Our public parking lots and city streets should not be a mobile home park or RV lot or dumping ground. Helping people get out of vehicular living who want help is important. What is being proposed is ridiculous and won’t solve that problem.

Seattlite August 10, 2017 (5:08 pm)

Emily — It’s beyond ridiculous…its’ unconscionable. Parts of greater Seattle look like a third world country. Just west of Fourth Ave., under the viaduct, people from the tents walk around like zombies. The proposal is a bandage not a solid solution. Seattle voters need to speak out and make Seattle politicians explain why none of their plans ever work to resolve the street and car homeless problems. The homeless problems have gotten worse, not better. Inslee needs to step in and create facilities for the mentally ill and get them off the streets immediately. That leaves the drug addicts, alcoholics, perpetually unemployed street people, and families who are trying to get back on their feet.
Mike August 11, 2017 (12:56 pm)

Agreed – I’m a new resident who bought in last year. Family w small children – paid a small fortune to move here for quality of life.

We are very liberal but . . . . what is happening in Seattle is not acceptable. Capitalism is neither good nor bad – it produces winners and losers, and we feel for those who are struggling. BUT NO ONE should have to endure open IV drug use and the threat of assault by criminals or the mentally ill.

We can agree that the “state” needs to address these issues with our tax dollars. But NOTHING is being done to change the day to day reality. We installed cameras to monitor our home, and that does little to ease our worry. Walking after dark can be unsafe, esp. due to lack of adequate street lighting.

The camps and the RVs may just be the unfortunate few hurt by rising cost of living – people like us (who added to the problem) want to help. But they need policing too – they need to live under the standards of society. Police patrols on foot and bike <everywhere> until the petty theft and heroin use and assaults go way down.

If we are going to bleed money to live here, we need to feel safe. Period. Let’s get our fair share of policing on the peninsula.

Blinkyjoe August 10, 2017 (3:19 pm)

I’ll say it again: What about Terminal 5?? It sits empty, has infrastructure, and is near a bus line. Can it be tried just for a quarter or two to see if it works? Its PoS property, right?

Apey August 10, 2017 (7:17 pm)

Yes, yes, yes! I have been suggesting this same thing to my husband for months. It’s such a huge piece of land that could accommodate so many people, and having everyone in the same space would make it so much easier to assess and provide social services. Buses could be rerouted to the terminal to take individuals to appointments, job-training, etc.

Does anyone know if there is a reason this couldn’t happen??
- McFail August 11, 2017 (12:04 am)
  
  The Port has the Council and Mayor wrapped around their finger… see SODO arena. Speaking of which, why don’t we just convert Key Arena into a shelter? The parking garages can also be for car living.

TJ August 10, 2017 (3:20 pm)

There is a huge empty lot down by the Magnolia Bridge. I believe the city uses part of it for training on operating large vehicles. It is out of sight and out of mind. O’Brien better have a big lot ready as more will surely come. It’s one thing if the millions we will spend will help the existing SEATTLE rv homeless residents. But if it only helps 1/3 of the 1550 mentioned, because the rest actually want to stay in derelict rv’s because of drug addiction, drug making, pimping, and another 1550 move in from other areas that SEATTLE tax payers will be guilted into helping, then O”Brien has created a self-feeding cycle that we will never climb out of.

Seattlite August 10, 2017 (3:41 pm)

A bandage, not a resolution. Who are the car people? Are they employable? Are they mentally ill? Are they drug addicts? Are they alcoholics? Are they families who’ve recently lost homes and are actively looking for employment to move out of their car? Is it safe to have people living in cars? Is it sanitary to have people living in cars? Do any decent neighborhoods or business communities want car people parked in their areas? Car and street people are all homeless. Seattle’s hard-working, tax-paying voters are being victimized by KingCounty’s/Seattle’s feckless, ineffective leadership that cannot resolve the homeless problem whether it’s on the streets or in cars.

BV August 10, 2017 (3:52 pm)

Do these people ever think that the massive increases in the homeless population (vehicle or otherwise) is because we’ve made it attractive to come here so it’s become a magnet? “Gosh, the more we spend on homelessness the higher the homeless population grows. How did that happen? Better just spend more..”

And based on the City of Seattle maps Harbor Ave is an industrial zone, so no thanks on the updated proposal.

Give It A Rest August 10, 2017 (4:12 pm)

I’m genuinely curious where the idea that Seattle is an attractive place to be homeless comes from (or even the idea that being homeless is preferable to being sheltered at all).
New York City pays for hotel rooms for the homeless. Are you suggesting sleeping in your car or in a tent on the side of the freeway is more attractive than living in a hotel?
Los Angeles and Honolulu both have warmer climates than Seattle, and fewer days of rain. Are you saying it is preferable to sleep outdoors in a climate that is cold and rainy rather than one that is warm and dry?

I will never understand this idea that someone would choose to be homeless or addicted to begin with. And I can only assume that those who say Seattle is somehow an “attractive” place to be homeless know nothing of the conditions the homeless live in, or the policies of other cities.
- BV August 10, 2017 (4:58 pm)
  
  What I’m saying is that because the city allows people to camp almost anywhere and park their dilapidated trailers all over town with no consequence, homeless people from all over the NW migrate here to take advantage and to use other services. If that weren’t the case, you’d see similar scenes to what you see in Seattle and other local cities. But instead what is happening is that the citizens of Seattle are footing the bill for many of our neighboring cities, and making it easier to camp here will onl exacerbate the problem. How the hell is a homeless person from Kent going to get to Hawaii? They can’t, but they can easily make it to Seattle and become our problem.
  - BV August 10, 2017 (5:05 pm)
    
    And while you’re accusing others of knowing nothing, go back and review what happened when the Jungle was shut down – many turned down beds and services (because they don’t allow drinking/drugs) and preferred to camp.
    - dsa August 10, 2017 (7:35 pm)
      
      Trust me BV you also do not want someone on meth camping near your front door. Been there done that.
  - Tim August 11, 2017 (6:21 am)
    
    Agreed BV, you are correct…
- run_dmc August 10, 2017 (5:26 pm)
  
  Having worked with – for many years – homeless and/or addicted people and experienced it with personal repercussions from family members who were homeless because of addiction or mental health issues, let me address some of your questions. (If they were posed in a sincere attempt to better understand).
  
  Within a certain climate range, people who are homeless are attracted to places that are more welcoming for the homeless and more easily accessible. Places like Honolulu are not easily accessible. Seattle actually has an ideal climate to live outdoors for the most part. It’s very temperate. It doesn’t get too hot (which is more dangerous than being somewhat cold) and take it from someone who’s lived on the east coast and in the Midwest – it’s almost never very cold. When it does rain, the rain is mild – very rarely a downpour like in some hotter, tropical climates. That said, there is also a welcoming political and cultural environment. People aren’t going to get chased away, told to move to a shelter, picked up for vagrancy, etc. here in Seattle – for the most part. So, on balance, yes – it is a welcoming environment both culturally and climate-wise.
  
  Then, with respect to living in a tent (or more particularly an RV which is what this article is about) outside rather than some kind of “formal” shelter – more homeless people than I can count would rather sleep on the street than in a government provided shelter for so many reasons. A few of them: 1. Often, people feel less safe in those hotels or shelters than on the street where they can gravitate to people they know and/or there are others around who can provide support if they are attacked rather than being in a room by themselves or with someone they don’t know. 2. People (like my dad) who are mentally ill and end up on the street, do not want to have anyone tracking their movements or spying on them which they think might happen in a hotel or shelter. They feel safer outdoors. 3. For the addicted, you can’t just toke up in a hotel room – and certainly not in a shelter – with the freedom you can in an RV or tent on the street where you answer to pretty much no one but yourself. 4. For others (including the addicted), you can’t easily engage in any kind of prostitution in a city/local government provided shelter or hotel room. And, believe me, that’s a lot of what’s going on in these RVs. Not all of the RV “dwellers” are even homeless. They just need a place to engage in illegal activity that they’re not allowed (or easily allowed) to do in hotels.
  
  I say all of this not to argue one way or another on this proposal. Although I do have a POV. But, it always bugs me when people just assume that “of course” all the homeless would much rather be in a formal shelter. Families often do want to – whether a shelter or housing – but the story with individual homeless people is way more complicated.
- Joel August 10, 2017 (7:14 pm)
  
  When Nickelsville part two was off of West Marginal it was at the time the main homeless camp and in the media often. Whenever I saw interviews with ‘resident’s’ of Nicksville on the news it was always with people from out of town who had heard of the camp and traveled a great distance to live there.
  
  When you give free needles…places to shoot up illegal drugs….let people live anywhere….when the city does not follow their own zoning laws and when the city sets up housing and allows drugs and alcohol (or else they say no one will live there as they don’t follow rules)….then heck YES let’s go be homeless in Seattle.

Jort August 10, 2017 (3:55 pm)

Do you mean to tell me that — in the midst of a variety of political election campaigns — that somebody leaked an incendiary draft copy of unfinished legislation in an attempt to rile people up?

That well-established NIMBY groups like the Neighborhood Safety Alliance opportunistically seized on that unfinished document in order to incite rage?

That somebody was trying to do something — anything — to help manage our homelessness crisis, but the draft was leaked so that public opinion could be formed around a plan before it was even complete?

NO WAY. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

This kind of manufactured outrage is a chief reason why this subject remains so untouchable by our politicians.

I grimace when I see the comments from people about “locking up” the homeless or putting them in a “poor house” until they’re rich enough to escape, and even saying that people suffering from drug addiction should literally be left to die in back alleys, out of public view. I’d like to think that my neighbors wouldn’t be so casually cruel about some of their fellow citizens. But, apparently, the politics of homelessness brings out the absolute worst in some of us. What a shame.

Concerned Citizen August 10, 2017 (4:03 pm)

Let’s face facts – Seattle has some 7000+ homeless and the
city declared an emergency over a year ago yet the situation continues to deteriorate. Making
it easier for people to live in their vehicles is not the answer.

Do you believe the city would suggest we move under bridges
or live in our cars if a major natural disaster displaced thousands of people who lost
their homes? A more likely scenario
would be action from the Governor, Mayor, Public Health and the National Guard
to set up temporary sites that would provide sanitation, shelter, food and
health care to treat those in need. I believe
this is the course of action that is needed for our city. Enforce the laws, give people the option of
returning to family or friends. Those
that choose not to or don’t have that option would be moved to a FEMA type shelter location where care is provided. It is not an
option to remain “on the street” in hundreds of locations making it
logistically impossible to provide needed services. If the political powers to be can’t make that
decision it should fall to our Public Health Dept. It is only a matter of time before there is
some outbreak such as cholera. Seattle is a world class city and our
citizens deserve better.

Emily August 10, 2017 (9:59 pm)

Could NOT have said it better if I tried…

seeking middle ground August 10, 2017 (4:47 pm)

I understand and agree with the motivation behind the revised proposal but worry that like many well intentioned programs it will fail to make things better. There is a real danger that people will “agree to participate”, be exempted from parking tickets and fines, and then remain parked illegally for months or even years.

A common sense middle ground would be to allow participants to park without tickets for a period of no more than six weeks. If knowing they are facing that deadline, and with six weeks of assistance, they are still unable to find a better alternative they should be ticked and towed. We have to strike a balance between the needs of these individuals and needs of the residents of West Seattle.

flimflam August 10, 2017 (5:06 pm)

despite his comments, he is not at all interested in feedback unless its gushing support of this weird idea. regardless of ability to pay a ticket, etc, a crime is a crime is a crime.

wetone August 10, 2017 (5:11 pm)

Interesting how Seattle government has no problem relaxing laws for their agendas in so many ways, whether bicycle programs, building codes or homeless (just a few) but will not relax or change laws that could help convert warehouse or other space into hostel type spaces for accommodating the homeless. There is no reason to build new space for this type of accommodations as most the people (tax payers) themselves don’t live in new accommodations. But then city gave most all rights and zoning changes to urban farming….. Until city starts addressing #1 mental health, #2 putting real roofs over the homeless and #3 addressing the serious hard drug problem in Seattle, nothing will change. For those that don’t want help, roof or if needed some type of commitment to help them, then they need to follow and be treated the same as any Seattle resident.

Mr. J August 10, 2017 (5:14 pm)

Again, where do these people go? I keep seeing comments to “enforce the law” but no solutions do we put these RV owners in prison or fine them even though they can’t pay the fine or bail themselves out of jail for illegal parking? The City is trying , but any attempt they make to help or at the very least move the needle the angry comments start. Rather than complain and call the council socialist and anyone that disagrees leftist etc etc give the council your concerns and listen to what they have to say and maybe work towards a goal that’s not armchair pundantry.

Canton August 11, 2017 (11:06 pm)

If they can’t pay the fines that they accrue, they can pay it back through community service. If they can gather and collect garbage, they can certainly collect and dispose of it. The parks system is backlogged with work. Are they able to help clean invasive vegetation in parks? Saw a sign in East magnolia park today, warning people of hypodermics in woods nearby. Could they help clean that as part of service? The point is, that the campers that refuse help, refuse to be part of society. Even juveniles that shoplift or whatever, get steered in right direction through community service.

Gene August 10, 2017 (5:26 pm)

Use city / county ( yes- work together)surplus property- not parking lots. Set property up as RV lot- have waste dumping facilities &/or porta- pottys. Then by all means- bring in health & job services.– school bus stops etc. Will be great for those that truly want help & interesting to see how many don’t – or at least don’t want help if it means abiding by rules.

Tired of seeing our streets used as RV parks- (where is the waste from them being dumped )& obviously there’s little chance of those folks getting services like health care- job counseling when they’re living all over the place.

PW August 10, 2017 (6:00 pm)

This is simply a lack of leaders who have no idea how to govern in a City. Nor do these politicians have any ability how to lead and make decisions other than their own agenda. They Mayor Ed, Lisa and the Council need to be removed, and leaders assigned who can govern. The tax payers should not pay for these leaders lack of governing ability and having us to pay for it. Our neighborhoods are now gone. Look at your tax bill, gas tax, retail tax, and license tabs. can someone to the math here?

Children and families need assistance, meth dealers and drug addicts do not deserve any of my tax money. And the fact the City and many in the voter community think this is a good idea then pave your driveway and let a sewage meth lab RV park in your house.

Help the families and children. Ed I am not sorry to see you go.

Elizabeth August 10, 2017 (7:09 pm)

Yes, you are right!
Jort August 11, 2017 (12:18 am)

“Our neighborhoods are now gone.”

WHAT?!?!?!?! I just walked through my neighborhood this evening and it was still there. Do you mean to tell me that it’s just GONE now?!?!?! OH MY GOD!!! WHAT HAPPENED?!?!?!?!

JeffK August 10, 2017 (6:14 pm)

Crisis $ help = yes

Lifestyle $ help = no

Elizabeth August 10, 2017 (7:06 pm)

RUN_DMC

great post!…

I am not afraid to say I don’t want the homeless here. I don’t wish them Ill-will. I don’t wish them to be hurt, or scared. But I don’t want them in my neighborhood. I paid a lot of money to move here, ( and my house is so small!) many people have paid a lot of money to live here. Our government, our city council doesn’t know what to do the problem and it is only getting worse with the homeless. Letting people stay on the streets will ruin this city. Letting people park on the streets will ruin our city too. The garbage, the unsightly RV’s, this is not what we want. This place will turn into a District 9! ( movie reference )

If the city continues being “homeless friendly” we will be overrun. We will be a city that America will look at and say ‘ what happened?’

Businesses will move out. People will move out.

We have to get a handle on this. Tell our elected officials that we want answers. Not just more ideas that let people park here, or move in under the West Seattle Bridge. We need shelters, more rehabs, and we need not to be so welcoming to our homeless population. We should treat the people we have here with empathy, and compassion. Not invite more.

If we do not do anything, and our elected officials do nothing, ( except letting people park here, and having safe shoot up places, letting them stay under bridges, or on 509), the city will regret this .

Emily August 10, 2017 (10:40 pm)

Elizabeth

I agree with you. I am a true Washington native raised in Everett; then Olympia (parents in Public Health for 30+ years) and settled as an adult in Seattle for college and graduate school. I have lived with my husband in Virginia & Oklahoma for a small number of years but this area was always home. I fear for my beloved city and for the children. For as “liberal and welcoming” Seattle is today; it is not a “nice place” many a day.

RUN_DMC

I have been to Salt Lake and spoken with their “homeless guru”; I have seen how Miami and Los Angeles deal with their homeless; Phoenix does not have a big problem due as my BIL says: “The neighbors handle that problem right away”…I believe he means they chase them away….not necessarily harming them–put the welcome mat is NOT out. San Francisco and San Jose are a mess just like Seattle but without so much rain. Texas–even Austin does not have the problem we have with RVs. Denver…pretty mild 75% of the year…not the same issues–no RV parking; tents not allowed. Kansas City–no problems=no tents, no RVs… St. Louis & Chicago different issues. Something is wrong with how our “leadership” and city is dealing with its problems. IMHO this starts with values of self-responsibility. Recognizing early in life you need take care of yourself: get an education, stay off drugs and alcohol, eat properly, show up for work, pay your bills, do not steal, be honest and earnest, do not think life on the street is glamorous, do not disturb the peace and safety of others and if absolutely necessary ask your family or friends for help.

When I listened to a man speak at the Sally Bagshaw’s Council committee meeting say that he lives in an RV because he could only find an apartment he could afford in Bremerton or Monroe and he did not like that idea–so he went and bought an old RV to park in Seattle and live in. It really turned my stomach because in 1979 I rented an apartment in Bremerton and commuted to Boeing by ferry or drove around when I missed the ferry for a year until I found a basement apartment in a widow’s house. (No he did not want to work that hard to live indoors and pay rent so he “got himself an old RV that he said he moves around the city and “empties the toilet properly” –I want to see that on video).

I wondered aloud to myself if I could do this trick in Manhattan a city–I have always wanted to live in if even for just one year. I dearly doubt it.

KBear August 10, 2017 (8:27 pm)

You all know that the vast majority of Seattle’s homeless lived here BEFORE they became homeless, right? The whole “Freattle” thing is largely a myth propagated by empathy-lacking tax scolds. There’s no solution to homelessness that doesn’t involve providing people homes.

pjmanley August 11, 2017 (2:53 pm)

48.9% were Seattle residents before becoming homeless. Not a vast majority. Furthermore, asking the question “Did you reside in Seattle or King County before you became homeless(?)” ignores those who became homeless shortly after moving here. To me “from here” means residing here in the community for a couple of years at least. That’s not the case for more than half the 1050 homeless surveyed. While the Stranger did it’s best to spin the story to make homeless critics look bad (as usual), the fact remains that people come to Seattle because Seattle is more hospitable to the homeless than surrounding cities, and it’s a sad fact that criminals hide within these groups and behind the “homeless” label to exploit other homeless, burglarize our homes, and decrease our safety and quality of life.
Emily August 11, 2017 (3:29 pm)

Yup…
pjmanley August 11, 2017 (4:21 pm)

Not true. The survey you’re relying on said 48.9% were from Seattle (not a vast majority) and the rest were from outside Seattle, with many coming from neighboring jurisdictions. Approx 13.5% said they came here specifically for the homeless services, so that’s no myth, either.

Jeannie August 10, 2017 (8:42 pm)

In this case, this liberal is proud to be a NIMBY. I don’t want some addict’s dilapidated RV parked outside our house. I am also familiar with mental illness, and I have genuine sympathy for those suffering from this horrible condition. I just can’t feel much compassion for the RV/methlab dwellers.

The “vehicular housing” euphemism sounds positively Orwellian double-speak.

If you truly care about the homeless, I suggest you support a wonderful organization like Mary’s Place http://www.marysplaceseattle.org/. They can’t solve the homelessness problem alone, but they’re doing great work for women, kids, and families. Oh, and since O’Brien is asking for feedback, I, for one, will give it to him.

Heather August 10, 2017 (8:46 pm)

The RV inhabitants who cycle through my neighborhood (2 different huge RV’s) are drug dealers. I see people drive up, get out of their cars and stand figiting on the street corner. Within a short period of time one of the RV pulls up a half block away, drops off bags of trash on someone’s parking strip, the person waiting runs up, gets into the RV, comes out a few minutes later and drives away in their car. Yes, we’ve reported it. Yes, they’re still here. I’ve pretty much had it with being harassed, the drug proliferation, and blatant illegal behavior I’ve experienced with homeless people.

pjmanley August 11, 2017 (2:56 pm)

Thank you, Heather. We need to report these facts as they happen so people can get a full picture of what’s going on.

Canton August 10, 2017 (10:45 pm)

There is a reason the homeless prefer city living. Not sure if it’s resources, or common bond and help from other homeless to skirt the system. If I were homeless I’d head to the hills (cascades), and live off the land. If Seattle would just enforce the current laws, and require community service (a job) to pay fines ,maybe they could WORK themselves out of their situation. O’Brien, with the “still require significant investment”?!?! Haven’t we paid enough already for conditions that keep increasing the problem? The city rents a dock in Ballard for RVs because it’s industrial, and complains about cost?? They could use all the taxes we’re currently paying for this, and renovate all the boarded up buildings in discovery park to build mental health- transitional housing. Would really like to see O’Brien’s resources on the thousands already helped, thousands sounds a lot better than hundreds.

Alki Rez August 10, 2017 (11:31 pm)

I think we should designate some property on the top of Queen Anne, Laurelhurst and the outskirts of Broadmoor for the RVs to park. I would be interested to see if the proposals change….

JanS August 10, 2017 (11:45 pm)

interesting conversation, considering I am one or 2 steps away from being homeless myself. I have lived in West Seattle for 43 years…I am not a drug addict, I don’t make meth, I am not mentally ill (I suppose that’s a matter of opinion), I don’t prostitute myself (haha…70 and disabled here, with multiple health problems that being homeless would exacerbate). It’s a damned scary proposition. And , if it happened, my first place of residence would be my car. Where would yours be? Will it happen? I would try damned hard to not have it happen…and I damned sure wouldn’t want to park my car near most of the posters here…that’s scary , too, with your opinions. Never thought I would be this close to it, not in all my life. I am playing the games of applying for senior housing. Three years to now, waitlisted, going thru their multiple steps, fill this out, then waitlisted for the next step. I’m about 3 steps in now…no vacancies. People become homeless for various reasons, and it’s not always drugs, and it’s not always laziness, or mental illness. I was once told that I should pack up and move to a state that would be cheaper to live in. My only family is here, as is the medical care I need. Why would I do that to myself? So think about those people out there, and think about what you would do if it happened to you. I hope you all know that you have no idea what the future holds for you…you plan and plan…and the bottom falls through when you least expect it…I shake my head in wonder at some of the people I call neighbors, and their attitudes towards their fellow human beings. It really is a “ME” world still, isn’t it?

Again…if you’re serious about helping, go to http://www.facinghomelessness.org. Read about Rex Hohlbein and what he is doing for homeless people here in Seattle. Put your money where your mouths are…sign up…$5/mo, automatic withdrawal…not a great expenditure for any of you, skip tomorrow’s Starbucks. Stop bitching, and start working with those who want very much to end homelessness in this city. Have a good weekend, everyone.

pjmanley August 11, 2017 (3:03 pm)

JanS: You’re the person I want to help and what I’m happy to pay taxes for, because you’re right, anyone could lose it all in a second. I believe in safety nets, 100%. I’m opposed, however, to able bodied criminals, drug addicts and derelicts who take advantage of the system to steal resources away from people like yourself who genuinely need them. We cannot end homelessness by enabling and fertilizing it.
Emily August 11, 2017 (3:33 pm)

Why not live with family? I offered to take my parents in but they did not “need” financially could have used the company but they were “depression era” people who got an education and squeezed money so tightly it nearly yelped–so they only needed companionship which they had with neighbors the rest they could handle. But my sibs and I did offer.

Steve August 11, 2017 (12:30 am)

Why should anyone take Mikey seriously? He and the rest of the council continues to demonstrate they are way out of their league in managing a city. Look at their accomplishments regarding crime, homelessness, HALA, utility billing software, ten year plan, pronto, traffic, rental ordinances, tax increases, supporting mayor Eddie, city infrastructure and so many other “accomplishments.” They are definetlty earning that high six digit salary!

momosmom August 11, 2017 (5:12 am)

@JanS for the most part I enjoy and agree with what you write on the Blog but I’m curious at what % do you think these people living in RV’s and tents are truly homeless because of the reason you say may happen to you?

I think I can say for most of us, we are tired of seeing these junk RV’s and all the trash they leave scattered all over the City.

And yes I thank my lucky stars every day.

JVP August 11, 2017 (7:28 am)

I’m another liberal who’s also sick of this. All we’re doing is enabling the illness that got many of these people there. You want addicts or the mentally ill to die quickly? Keep doing what we’re doing. It’s a cruel form of being an enabler.

We need mental health and addiction services, not these bandaids that trash our city. If you’re on the street you should be required to get at least one of three things, in many cases all three: employment services, addiction treatment or mental health treatment. I’m talking in-patient care on these things. It won’t be cheap, but it’s the only way to actually deal with the problem.

Us libs need to toughen up. Trying to be so nice all the time is killing people and ruining our city. It’s helping no one, especially the people living in our streets.

WSB August 11, 2017 (8:03 am)

Inpatient care would have to be funded, built, and staffed, because what relatively little there is, has long been out of room.

http://crosscut.com/2016/07/how-washington-is-failing-the-mentally-ill/
http://jaapl.org/content/43/2/218
among other references.
Choices August 11, 2017 (7:21 pm)

JVP I agree! I’m a lib that is so sick of all of this. How can it be that we ban plastic bags for the sake of environment, yet we give out millions of needles per year. Where do they end up? In our rivers and parks. Why? To keep enabling bad behavior. I’m fed up, too! This is not the liberal Seattle I love – it’s gone too far.

Chris August 11, 2017 (7:43 am)

We knew a gentleman who had to live in his car. He was adamant about always paying his child support, held down several jobs to do so. He worked caring for those in hospitals and nursing homes. The stories he told us on how he survived are amazing. He finally was able to get a very small place in someone’s basement. He fought hard for what he believed in. Unfortunately he lost the battle and passed away. We have been helping another gentleman who received a 20 day eviction notice and no where to go. We finally found him a place in someone’s basement. He has been on a waiting list since Sept.2015 for senior housing. He was ready to get a sleeping bag and sleep under the stars as he did not know what else to do. There are many hurting out there that are homeless because of situations that have happened to them in some form or the other. We need to remember that not all homeless people are bad people looking to make trouble. They are just down on their luck for a time. Most will make their way back by hard work, some may not make it and give up. Some are very young, some are our seniors. Our system for help is choked with people needing that help. We wish there was a quick answer, Unfortunately with rents increasing, there may be more. Just talked to a senior couple and a senior lady all not knowing what they are going to do. We know several families that moved out of the area just for that reason. What the answer is….we do not know. We are just individuals helping others as we can……

Another neighbor August 11, 2017 (8:54 am)

To Chris’ point, and to Jan’s, I don’t think you’d find a person here who isn’t compassionate towards individuals whose circumstances have left them with no options. There are a number of vehicles in my neighborhood that probably fall into that category. They move to a new block once a week or so, are very respectful, and don’t leave garbage in their wake. They’re not an issue for me or my neighbors.

Unfortunately, the city’s current and proposed policies lump all “non recreational campers” together. And that’s a problem, because we’re all aware that some of them are straight up criminals who are taking full advantage of our compassion.

I don’t have all the answers. I’m not sure if I have any of them. But I would start by converting empty buildings to housing. Not to corral the homeless or get them out of neighborhoods, but to be able to provide basic sanitation services that simply can’t be done for people scattered everywhere. And yes, the laws that apply to us would also apply to people living there, because otherwise it’s impossible to separate the truly-need-our-help homeless from the criminals taking advantage. These are two very different populations who need very different approaches to solve.

me on 28th Ave SW August 11, 2017 (12:23 pm)

So many thoughts. I do not want to live in a place where humans are looked upon less than animals. In Seattle, if a dog was running loose in the junction, multiple citizens would step in, catch the dog to keep it safe and look for the owner. It is not lost on me that I will sometimes walk right by a homeless person and not make eye contact. I’m not proud of this.

I, and all of you, pay a lot to live here. Real estate taxes, tabs, bus fare, rent, electric, water…it’s all going up. It’s hard to work all day and then still spend spend 90 minutes of my day traveling the 8 miles from Lake Union to my house in West Seattle (if no truck carrying salmon tips over). The frustation of years on end of construction, whether new buildings or arterials being reduced wears on a person.

I have empathy for people who have been priced out of this city. We need workers of ALL kinds to keep this city running.

I think the city SHOULD build safe rooms for homeless to live in. Make it concrete heated through hot water pipes/radiant heating. Make it durable and easy to clean. Provide a place for person items to be safely locked up during the day. It shouldn’t be fancy, but make it accessible but with rules. Have onsite management and access to help. Have community kitchen areas/shower access/It will be a lot cheaper than what the city currently pays for bandaid ideas.

Make panhandling illegal. Enforce littering/public urination laws (I know, good luck on that). If someone doesn’t have rent to pay in their 100SQ room, they don’t need to beg for money. I’d rather donate to a soup kitchen, or have someone get SNAP, or go to a foodbank. I think we’ve established that the average Seattleite wants to help people, but they don’t want to see them.

A glance of Craigslist will show you how desperate people are for housing. Gone are the days people would be looking for a house; now they are literally begging to rent A ROOM for between $600-1100/month. This is insanity.

I think the city should also have a law they run a monthly census on the occupation rate on ANY apartment within city limits over a certain unit size. Especially all these units popping up that were given allowances for high density living (eg: no parking, shared kitchens, etc). You know, the 400SF pod for $1100/mo? Or the 600SF until for $1700, plus $200 for a monthly parking spot? If their occupancy rate is less than 60%, they should HAVE to reduce their rental rates. These developers are gaming the system and can afford to wait out for years.

RVs being used for drug manufacturing/dealing/prostitution should be impounded and destroyed. No warning. Set up an area where RVs can legally park, make sure they aren’t dumping human waste, have a dumpster and help them get out of the RV on a timeline.

The city should run a program where pre-screened people down on there luck can be matched with willing homeowners for temporary or long term housing. Let a RV safely park in a backyard or driveway with electric and water hookup. Provide access to showers on a schedule etc. Give the homeowners a break on their property tax in return.

I don’t know the answers, these are just ideas I’ve thought long and hard about as this situation has spun out of control. As they say, freedom isn’t free. There has to be some kind of accountability. This situation just cannot continue like this. It breaks my liberal heart and I understand the frustration on all sides.

Frank August 11, 2017 (3:02 pm)

Compassion…people keep referring to that word. One can have great compassion and be completely horrified with what the City Council is doing to our great city…especially O’Brien. Mike is overcrowding us with DADU’s in neighboring backyards (and lessening the restrictions) AND then allowing broken down, oil and excrement leaching, RVs to set up shop in our front yards/ (neighborhood streets) Homelessness is an issue affecting a very small segment of the population but it’s something they are forcing on everyone. We’ve worked super-hard for what we have, and the safety net we’ve provided our children/family/friends and now we have people that are supposed to be our leaders that are trying to take it away…that is at the crux of all of this…control. It’s all trying to be taken away for a small amount of the population. My liberal neighborhood has had enough.

Mr E August 11, 2017 (3:10 pm)

For all the “I’m liberal but forget this nonsense” commenters, what you truly are is entitled.

Frank August 11, 2017 (4:04 pm)

Ah, I was blind and now I see…

Don August 11, 2017 (7:33 pm)

With the full disclaimer that I haven’t read through all the comments, so someone may have already raised this point, but didn’t council Member O’Brien also advocate for camping in park that didn’t pan out last year?

Sorry, comment time is over.