- This topic is empty.
-
Below is a summary of my 1/9/13 phone conversation with Deputy Mayor Darryl Smith.
Please note that this post works the same way as my summary of info from Morgan Barry of the Seattle-King County Public Health (post #48). First, Deputy Mayor Smith and I talked on the phone and I took notes. Then I sent the notes back to Mr. Smith for him to make corrections and additions as necessary . . . which I am now posting pretty much as is.
The result is a document that sounds like a cross between a news story and a press release. It’s not exactly journalism, but it’s better than getting the story wrong. Right?
***************************
¶ Mayor McGinn has been working on Nickelsville since he took office and has pursued strategies to create a more lasting solution. He put together a task force on encampments in the summer of 2009. Late last year, the Mayor and Councilmember Licata met to assess the current situation at Nickelsville and consider options for moving forward. Since then, the Mayor’s and Councilmember Licata’s staff members have kept the conversation going. For example, there have been several meetings about how to ameliorate the current sanitation problems at camp (rain, rats, garbage).
¶ While the Mayor understands that the problem of finding another location is very complicated, he recognizes that the camp is probably not sustainable at the current location under current City laws. The NV staff and residents recognize this as well. Their position has always been: Give us notice, and a place to go, and we’ll leave here and go there.
¶ Sometime last spring, the Mayor asked Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to formulate new legislation that would allow for one or more officially sanctioned camps to be operated throughout the city.
–Included in the final legislation, if this goes forward, would be guidelines about where such camps could be located and criteria of who could qualify to run them. The operator must have two continuous years experience managing and operating shelters, low-income housing, or homeless encampments. The guidelines also specify what types of designated zones a camp could be in (residential? industrial? multi-use?) and what the specific characteristics of the site would need to be, such as how far back it needs to be set from any neighbors.
–Any new camp would require a Transitional Encampment Interim Use Permit. The legislation would also require the Director of the DPD to promulgate a rule on public notification and outreach.
–The camps would be run by non-profits, not the City. SHARE/WHEEL would not necessarily end up continuing to run any camps of the future; that would depend on whether they could meet the criteria as set forth in the legislation (whatever those might be). However, it is the Mayor’s belief that SHARE/WHEEL probably would qualify under the legislation as proposed.
The final plan would have to get Seattle EPA (SEPA) approval before it can become law, but the Mayor’s draft has already passed that hurdle.
¶ Currently the legislation is still at Nick Licata’s office. There has been no movement on it since it was sent there by the Mayor on June 26, 2012. Once the legislation is transmitted to Council by the Mayor, it will be in the hands of the Council; normally a Council Committee would consider the legislation and then it would go for a vote by the entire City Council. If the Council passes the legislation, it will come back to the Mayor for his signature.
¶ What advantage does this proposed new camp permitting approach have?
–It creates a formal process by which new camps could be approved or denied, including a public input period. New camps would be denied only if they did not meet the standards specified in the legislation.
–The legislation is a good companion to encampment legislation on religious facilities proposed by the Mayor in 2011 and adopted by the Council. The proposed legislation would allow encampments on non-religious private and City property.
–The process would be easier to go through than obtaining a Temporary Use Permit.
For the record, please note that Nickelsville is not currently operating with any permit and is not in compliance with existing City code.
Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor Smith. And thanks also to Jerry DeGrieck at the Mayor’s Office!
In my next post, I’ll link to a copy of the Mayor’s draft legislation.
–DBP
Below is the text of an e-mail that Councilmember Nick Licata’s assistant, Lisa Herbold, sent me earlier today (1/14/13).
In this message, Lisa’s answering a question I had asked Mr. Licata back in mid-November regarding what the City is doing about Nickelsville.
Ms. Herbold has put some effort into preparing this info for us, so please be a good citizen and read it.
Dear Mr. Preston,
I’ll ask Nick to give you a call, but in the meantime, allow me to clarify that the legislation in question would have no impact upon Nickelsville. The legislation only creates a new permitting scheme for encampments. The City currently has a permitting scheme for encampments under the Temporary Use Permit, Type 2 process (see attached comparison of proposed legislation and current law). Nickelsville has not used the existing permit process and is unpermitted now. The Department of Planning and Development has taken no legal action against Nicklesville for not having a permit. The existence of a new permitting scheme would not affect Nicklesville’s status.
I have been in frequent contact with HPAC [Highland Park Action Committee] – and Nick met with HPAC in August – about this bill. Again, this meeting with HPAC was in August, you contacted me in November. I assumed (wrongly, I’m sorry) that you already knew about the existence of the proposed legislation from HPAC.
Nick is not “sitting on legislation,” there is simply not the support necessary to pass the bill. He is talking to the Mayor and other Councilmembers in trying to address the poor health conditions in Nicklesville.
In mid-December, after meeting with the Mayor in November about Nickelsville, Councilmember Licata surveyed his Council colleagues with the attached. The majority of Councilmembers surveyed were very concerned about the poor health conditions at Nickelsville and supported the idea of Nickelsville moving, but were uninterested in pursuing new legislation that would make an encampment a semi-permanent legal use. Nickelsville could choose to move and apply for a 6 month permit at a new location for an encampment under the current law. Nickelsville also has the option of moving to a property owned by a religious facility, if invited to do so. In October 2011, Councilmember Licata successfully sought passage of Ordinance 123729. Under this law, Nickelsville would not have to get a permit from the City, nor would they be subject to the 6 month time limit of our current permitting requirements.
With (a) no religious facility coming forward to host Nickelville on a semi-permanent basis, (b) Nickelsville not seeking a permit at another location under the current laws permitting encampments and (c) the Mayor not seeking to evict Nickelsville, things are stalled. The Council didn’t encourage Nickelsville to “squat” in Highland Park and is not likely to encourage Nickelsville to squat at another location.
As you know, Food Lifeline is interested in purchasing the location from the City. They have made a formal request (attached) to have SDOT declare the city’s portion of the site surplus and requested that the City decide by March 31, 2013. If the property is declared surplus and the City seeks to sell the property to Food Lifeline, the City would likely be required by the purchaser to deliver the property clear of all existing uses.
I hope that this helps clarify issues some. Thank you, once again, for your advocacy.
Best,
Lisa Herbold
Legislative Aide to Councilmember Nick Licata
Seattle City Council
206-684-8803
Note: If I post a pic of a City employee, it’s always going to be one from the official Seattle.gov Web site.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.