Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Hamilton Viewpoint criminal activity
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm #818780
chanceofsunMemberHas anyone noticed how long a criminal has been living in the red-and-gray tent at the bottom of the sledding hill in Hamilton Viewpoint Park? It’s pitched right next to the city’s “No Camping” sign, as if giving a middle finger to the idea that such a thing would be enforced.
I filled out a city service request form at seattle.gov, but I’m pessimistic about that being useful. Any better suggestions on how to report it?
The tent and sign are so close together that they’d make a cute newspaper photo.
November 18, 2015 at 9:38 pm #829040
WSBKeymasterHow do you know the person or persons living there is a criminal?
November 18, 2015 at 9:48 pm #829041
chanceofsunMemberThe camping itself is illegal. That’s enough to earn the label.
And there are no sanitation facilities there. That’s another law they’re choosing to break.
If they hadn’t wanted to break laws, they could have gone to one of the several city-sanctioned tent encampments.
November 18, 2015 at 10:15 pm #829042
HappyOnAlkiParticipantwow
November 18, 2015 at 11:14 pm #829043
skeeterParticipantChance – my advice would be to keep on reporting the illegal camping. I run/bike under the west seattle bridge viaduct pretty regularly. Tents and RVs pop up all the time. The cluster of tents (and garbage) grows and grows. Then one day the city will come in and clear an area out. Of course the next encampment starts the next day, but it starts out smaller. My point though…. The city does have resources to clear out illegal campers and they enforce it from time to time.
November 18, 2015 at 11:36 pm #829044
miwsParticipantWell, if we are going to report “criminal activity”, I better start reporting all of the excessively speeding drivers, the likely literally dozens, I may spot on any given day blatant red light/stop sign runners and those that blast into the crosswalk on their red light to make their precious right turn on red, greatly endangering legally crossing pedestrians, if the driver’s view is blocked by a large truck next to them or the are looking to the left for traffic, as a pedestrian is about to step off the curb to the driver’s right.
Mike
November 19, 2015 at 12:03 am #829045
SueParticipantMaybe it’s just me, but when I see people living in tents, I am filled with gratitude that I have a warm roof over my head, a job and food to eat, and I have compassion for those who do not – for whatever reason.
November 19, 2015 at 12:11 am #829046
miwsParticipantMe too, Sue.
I had to dodge some rain of various degrees on Monday, (but nowhere near as bad—and no wind—-as yesterday) to go to Target and back, via foot and bus.
Yeah, admittedly I grumped maybe a little about the timing, that it had to start back up just as I walked out the door, after a long enough time for the sidewalks to mostly have dried.
Then I remembered where I was four years ago at this time, in probably the very early stages of pneumonia, and things came back into perspective, as I now have a warm dry home to come back to.
Mike
November 19, 2015 at 3:10 am #829047
JanSParticipantI just can’t imagine having to sleep outside in yesterdays weather…wonder how he survived that hailstorm :( And now the weather is turning colder…lows in the 20’s over T-Day weekend. Hope he has warmness in that tent, dry socks, etc. Poor chance, having to look at that …..must be devastating.
There but for the grace of….
November 19, 2015 at 5:05 pm #829048
miwsParticipantNovember 19, 2015 at 6:14 pm #829049
savoirfaireParticipantThanks for that link, miws, and, as always, for the perspective.
Here’s some other food for thought on the topic. Seattle U’s law school recently studied laws that criminalize homelessness and here’s what they found:
“The first statewide analysis of laws criminalizing homelessness finds those laws are expensive, ineffective, and disproportionately impact already marginalized individuals. Those are among the key findings of a series of in-depth policy briefs released today by the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project at Seattle University School of Law that examine the scope and extent of the problem of criminalization in the State of Washington. These briefs are the most extensive of their kind in the nation.
Among the findings:
Washington cities are increasingly criminalizing homelessness. Since 2000, communities have enacted laws that create over 288 new ways to punish visibly poor people for surviving in public space.
Millions of dollars could be saved if cities would redirect funds used for enforcement of these laws toward affordable housing.
Homelessness and poverty disproportionately impact people of color, women, LGBTQ youth, individuals with mental illness, and veterans.
The greater the income gap between the rich and the poor, the higher the rates of enforcement of these laws.
Modern anti-homeless ordinances share the same form, phrasing, and function as historical discrimination laws, such as Jim Crow.”
The four reports are:
Washington’s War on the Visibly Poor: A Survey of Criminalizing Ordinances & Their Enforcement
At What Cost: The Minimum Cost of Criminalizing Homelessness in Seattle and Spokane
Discrimination at the Margins: The Intersectionality of Homelessness And Other Marginalized Groups
The Wrong Side of History: A Comparison of Modern and Historical Criminalization Laws
and if you’re interested you’ll find them all linked from here:
https://www.seattleu.edu/news/newsReleaseArticle.aspx?id=153115
Maybe it’s too obvious to mention, but there simply are not enough shelter beds or sanctioned encampment sites for the people who need them. Which would be why “clearing” encampments doesn’t change anything. Also, I’m extremely fortunate not to know from personal experience, but I would imagine one reason encampments come back “smaller at first” is that the people who previously owned a tent and likely not much else, no longer have even that. It’s really not clear to me how this helps anybody.
November 19, 2015 at 7:57 pm #829050
snaParticipantI think it’s fair to ask why Seattle and a handful of other major cities are seeing a huge spike in homelessness while its declined 11% nationally since 2007.
.
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2014-AHAR-Part1.pdf
November 19, 2015 at 8:29 pm #829051
savoirfaireParticipantI’m sure there’s no simple answer to that question, but I think it’s safe to say this is one factor:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/rent-increases-linked-homelessness/nm7dT/
November 19, 2015 at 8:42 pm #829052
JanSParticipantSo…back to the OP. Chance, since this “criminal” behavior bothers you so much, what would you like to see happen to the tent dweller?Moved to another place? Jail time? What is the answer?And, while you’re at Hamilton Viewpoint, do you see any other criminal behavior there. Any drug deals, etc.? I’ve heard that happens there.
November 19, 2015 at 11:42 pm #829053
miwsParticipantsavoirfaire, thank you for sharing that info.
And……
Maybe it’s too obvious to mention, but there simply are not enough shelter beds or sanctioned encampment sites for the people who need them. Which would be why “clearing” encampments doesn’t change anything.
….truth.
Mike
November 20, 2015 at 12:48 am #829054
savoirfaireParticipantThinking about the OP’s language some more, I’m wondering whether there are any lawyers out there who can help us with clarifying the “criminal” label. I tend to think of “criminal” activity as very serious and actively harmful–bodily harm and property damage type of stuff. Sleeping in a park (presumably for lack of other options), while clearly against the parks code, doesn’t seem to me to rise to that level.
I realize this probably sounds pedantic, but I think this is a word we need to be careful and accurate with, because perceptions influence actions–if we think of someone as a criminal or potentially a criminal just because they don’t have a permanent place to live, we’re likely to be punitive when that’s not the right response.
And some more food for thought: “In the past 15 years (1999-2013), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) has documented 1,437 acts of violence against homeless individuals by housed perpetrators. These crimes are believed to have been motivated by the perpetrators’ biases against homeless individuals or by their ability to target homeless people with relative ease.”
http://nationalhomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Hate-Crimes-2013-FINAL.pdf
Just a reminder that already-vulnerable people are perhaps more likely to be victims than perpetrators.
I’m probably over-posting and I apologize for that; this one seems to have hit a nerve with me.
November 20, 2015 at 1:09 am #829055
JanSParticipantsavoirfaire…overpost, it’s OK. Thanks for your last post. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
November 20, 2015 at 1:21 am #829056
miwsParticipantNovember 20, 2015 at 1:52 am #829057
snaParticipantI live near the park and just checked about an hour ago and I didn’t see a tent. However I have noticed a couple of homeless people pushing shopping carts from Met Market and Safeway in the past week or two very close to the park.
.
As to the larger question, i’m not suggesting criminalization but I do wonder what happens when a city like Seattle allows homeless people to mostly camp wherever while other cities take a hard line again such thing. Do we end up with the situation where the homeless are attracted to Seattle because they know they will be left alone much more than in other areas?
.
Let’s face it, other cities are not doing their share when it comes to helping the homeless. We cannot solve the homeless problems of the entire region or even more. I have a hard time seeing Seattle effectively address its homeless problem while so many other cities around the state and country do very little. Some cities have enacted rules that limit homeless services to those who are residents of the city. That may be something Seattle needs to consider.
.
There are no easy answers.
November 20, 2015 at 4:42 am #829058
miwsParticipantNovember 20, 2015 at 8:44 am #829059
JanSParticipantMike, thank you….I had read that earlier. Rex Hohlbein..a truly wonderful, gentle man, who lives his life helping others at Homeless in Seattle. Dear sna…what would you want the city to withold? Food? A place to feel safe while trying to get a bit of sleep? Do we give them a ticket out of town? Not let them sit down anywhere in the downtown corridor? More questions? Do you have a roof over your head, a warm bed, food to eat? Imagine losing all that…and then having someone suggest that some services, etc. should be withheld. One thing you’re right about…there are no easy answers.
November 20, 2015 at 8:44 pm #829060
savoirfaireParticipantNo easy answers indeed, and I appreciate your continuing the conversation, sna.
I’m wondering: do you know any specifics of cities that have restricted services to residents? I’d be curious to know how they implement it (how long you have to have a been a resident to qualify, how they actually move you on etc.), and how well it works (both for the cities and for the people they send away). It seems to me like it would be really difficult to administer in any consistent way.
I’ve often heard the speculation that people come to Seattle essentially to freeload because we’re known to be a place with good services, though I’ve never seen it documented. Even if people do come here because the safety net is rumored to be solid (which it isn’t really, except in comparison to other places), I can’t really fault anyone for wanting to have a chance at a decent life. Also, I do know that as an LGBTQ-friendly city Seattle can be a draw for young people who are threatened/abused/kicked out of the place they’re from; I can’t imagine deliberately sending someone in that situation back into known danger.
I guess that’s part of why the “housing first” approach works well – without housing, people can’t get stable, and without stability, people don’t stand any chance of addressing their barriers, whatever those might be. And incidentally, Salt Lake City is doing a much better job than we are on that front, so if people are gravitating anywhere for services, that’s probably a much better bet!
November 20, 2015 at 9:09 pm #829061
datamuseParticipantA lot of those other cities will do things like imprison someone for vagrancy. Seems to me that that does effectively make it a crime to be homeless. It’s also quite expensive to imprison someone.
I have a number of friends who have been homeless anywhere from a few days to several years. How they got there varies–one struggled with addiction, another fled a horrific family situation, another lost the ability to do regular work and has not yet been able to get disability (what I hear from people who’ve gone through that process is that it’s the norm to get denied the first time you apply, and even getting THAT far takes a year). One couple I know only still has housing because the Okanagan Complex stopped 100 feet from their door.
I don’t know the answer but declaring these people criminals does not strike me as helpful. The housing-first strategy seems more likely to work than other things that have been tried. Certainly it’s cheaper than jail.
November 21, 2015 at 4:49 am #829062
miwsParticipantNovember 21, 2015 at 9:46 pm #829063
JanSParticipantMike, thanks for that post. I read about Ann getting housing just a week ago or so. And I heard they had found a woman’s body under the bridge. How sad this is that it was her…that it was anyone who died alone that way. We have to be better at how we treat homeless persons. They are human beings, with stories, just like the rest of us. Rex and his wife are such wonderful people to actually live what many of us would like to do. I’m so sorry for this :(
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.