Remember Nickelsville?

Home Forums Open Discussion Remember Nickelsville?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 51 through 75 (of 136 total)
  • Author
  • #774798

    The truth is that the City doesn’t give a sht!



    I’ve been watching/reading this post for the last week now. I’m in a quandary. I have someone that has a bit of cash that wants to donate to NV. After reading all of this – I’m hesitant to recommend doing so as I have some reservations about where the funds will go and IF they will go directly to help the residents of NV. Drugs?!!! Dictatorship Advisors!??? Is NV a real 501 3c??? Thoughts? Would love to speak to someone in private about this – Jan, DBP, Mike……email me please – montanapup at gmail. Thanks!


    Montanapup……Don’t give it personally to Scott Morrow. It will never get to where its supposed to get to..DBP and Genessee Hill are absolutely correct. Look at how shotty the camp is now. Half the time its a lake. Muddy waters and contaminated soil are very unhealthy. Rats thrive in that sht. If the City really cared they wouldn’t have allowed it to get to this point. Running water and a sorce of electricity would have been installed. SHARE/WHEEL is full of bullsht! Its politically driven to use the homeless to curb their agenda’s. And no.. I don’t need to go there and don’t want to go down to Nickelsville.




    Nickelsville is not a 501c3

    they are however the project of a qualified 501c3 Jam for Justice and that organization can provide you with tax verification for a donation

    I became ill and have not attended a central committee meeting since early summer so i can’t tell you if this has changed… but…

    all donations were collected By either Scott Morrow, the Nickelsville adviser or Peggy Hoates who controls the Nickeslville checkbook and bookkeeping.

    they are then deposited in the camp bank account and disbursed for camp expenses… which .. as with any organization… could include expenses you might or might not approve.

    all expenses are supposed to be approved in camp meetings or in the central committee meeting.

    the central committee meeting is open to people who do not currently live at Nickelsville, which is why i attended for nearly a year…

    but the business end of the evening meetings are not and they don’t make any minutes of those meetings available..

    in fact, camp policy is that residents can be barred for revealing details of any decisions made in the evening meeting that are not made public by Scott and/or Peggy.

    Scott and Peggy announced a personal relationship last spring, and at that time it was suggested that they add an independent oversight committee to camp finances.

    i can’t tell you if that ever happened and i have not seen any business statements from Nickelsville since last summer in spite of the stated intention to post them on the Nickelsville Works Group on Facebook.

    I do know that the non-profit, Jam for Justice does what i believe are regularly scheduled audits but no day to day oversight of Nickelsville finances.

    If your friend wants to make a donation that will be used for a specific purpose, they can try writing a check with the purpose in the memo line.

    I do know that Scott has successfully over-ridden that intention in the past by putting it to a camp vote but i also know the camp has refused to give him the vote he asked for on at least one occasion…

    so it’s possible that the check will go for the stated intention if one is posted.

    i am sorry if this seems like a complicated answer

    but in my experience most answers to Nickelsville questions are

    if you or your friend wish to ask me any questions about my personal experience with Nickelsville, please feel free to contact me at joanneatbraydendotorg.

    I am always happy to help people have the most positive experience possible helping those who make their home there.



    I spoke with Deputy Mayor Darryl Smith yesterday. I’ll have an update on the Nickelsville location developments in the next couple of days.



    Thanks DBP.



    in the meantime..

    they are doing camp cleanup this weekend in an attempt to get all tents above the water line..

    they could use volunteers…

    and a load or two of 2x4s



    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.




    Here’s a copy of the proposed tent encampment legislation that’s been sitting on Councilmember Licata’s desk for more than six months . . .

    By the way, I have some thoughts on this proposed legislation, and I’d like to share those with you (my Blog friends), the Mayor and the Council. But before I do that, I’d like to get Mr. Licata’s take on this legislation. Specifically, I’d like to know why he hasn’t taken ANY action on this since June of last year.

    Mr. L owes me a call on this matter, and I’ll be following up with him next week. You betcha.



    thanks, DBP…whereas… (never did understand the use of that in a lot of things…just say what you mean!)



    From a confidential source who has been following Food Lifeline’s negotiations with the authorities to buy the Nickelsville property:

    I’ve met with Food Lifeline, they have a March deadline. If the landowners don’t get it together by then they’ll start looking for another site. She said it’s the state’s portion of the property that’s the hold up right now.

    Bear in mind that if the Food Lifeline deal falls through because city leaders couldn’t get their act together on the Nickelsville problem, there will be political ramifications.



    I’ve heard back from Lisa Herbold, Nick Licata’s assistant. I’ll quote you her full response in the next post. In this post, I want to share some documents she e-mailed me.


    1) Letter from Food Lifeline to SDOT dated January 3, 2012. This letter expresses Food Lifeline’s to purchase the property on which Nickelsville currently resides.


    2) Undated table comparing current City law with the proposed legislation for encampments. (This is a companion to the draft legislation document I posted in #59 above.)


    3) Brief memo from Nick Licata to Councilmembers dated December 14, 2012. Among other things, Mr. Licata is requesting the Council’s thoughts on the future of Nickelsville. Note that he does not address the question of the proposed encampment legislation sent to him by the Mayor in late June of last year. However, his assistant, Ms. Herbold, speaks to that in her e-mail to me, which I’ll post next.


    4) Flowchart from Mr. Licata to Council (attached to memo in #3).



    Thanks for posting the chart from Licata’s office that showed the difference between current regulation and the mayor’s office’s proposed regulations…

    you saved me a lot of trouble.

    as you can easily see, they would be much more restrictive than the current regulations and would effectively rule anyone who hasn’t been in the business of sheltering the homeless for the past two years out for hosting encampments.

    this is not what i would call progress



    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.


    Lisa Herbold

    Legislative Aide to Councilmember Nick Licata

    Seattle City Council



    Note: If I post a pic of a City employee, it’s always going to be one from the official Web site.



    Here’s my thought, my question: If and when the city gives Food Lifeline permission to purchase the land that NV is now on, will the city help in any way to relocated the people who live there, or will they simply give them a 2 week notice, and dump them out on the streets? (Sadly, if that happens, some may migrate up the hill to the greenbelt, even closer to Highland Park – guess HPAC will have to live with that)

    I hope all this info is being shared with the powers that be in NV…they have a lot to think about, looks like to me…




    this is being shared with Nickelodeans..

    but the sad truth is that when the bus comes to cart them off to their next location they are as unlikely to know where they are going as they were when they landed back in that containment pond.



    The options for Nickelsville as I see them:


    1) No one buys the Marginal Way property and Nickelsville is allowed to stay where it is indefinitely.

    2) Nickelsville moves after applying for, and being granted, a 6-month permit at another location under the current laws permitting encampments.

    3) Nickelsville moves to another spot without permission.

    4) A religious facility comes forward to host Nickelville on a semi-permanent basis, under Ordinance 123729.

    5) Someone buys the land (or someone sues the City) and the City forcibly removes the camp.




    Evaluation of the options


    1) Nickelsville stays where it’s at.

    This is certainly possible. But it should be noted that the problems caused by Nickelsville are not diminishing; they are increasing. As I said in another post, the longer the City delays taking action, the higher the likelihood that the matter will be taken out of its hands.


    2) Nickelsville moves, legally.

    The likelihood of this happening seems small. According to Deputy Mayor Smith, there are very few places within city limits that are good candidates for permitting a tent camp under current regulations, and the fact that Nickelsville staff haven’t proposed any alternative sites or applied for any permits says a lot. If these folks were interested in relocating the camp on their own initiative, they would have taken some kind of action on that by now. But of course they haven’t done that. What they HAVE done is to tell the City: “You find us a place and we’ll move.”


    3) Nickelsville moves, illegally.

    Yeah. It could happen. There’s been talk in camp of doing this. It wouldn’t let the City off the hook for its failure to address the problem, though. And it’s no guarantee of even a short-term solution for Nickelsville. The West Marginal Way site was probably the best location SHARE could have found in terms of neighborhood tolerance and support for a group of homeless people this size. Other prospects don’t look nearly so good.


    4) Everyone moves to a church-run site

    To understand why this is not going to happen, you have to have some knowledge of the camp’s history. I won’t go into details, but I will say that many of the folks at Nickelsville are there because they couldn’t, or wouldn’t, fit in at one of the camps run by a church. In any case, Nickelsville staff have repeatedly turned down this option. However, if it comes to a forcible eviction, some of the current residents will almost certainly end up at church-run facilities.

    Perhaps that’s the City’s unofficial back-up plan.


    5) Eviction.

    This would look bad, of course. But the worse things get at Nickelsville, the better this option actually looks by comparison. Eventually citizens might be convinced to accept eviction as a “regrettable necessity.” Especially if the City has a non-corporate tenant like Food Lifeline to ward off the Evil Eye.




    Question from Jan (#65):

    If and when the city gives Food Lifeline permission to purchase the land that NV is now on, will the city help in any way to relocated the people who live there, or will they simply give them a 2 week notice, and dump them out on the streets?

    –I’ll forward your question to Messrs Smith and Licata. My guess would be that before an eviction the City would send social workers out there and try to find as many shelter spots for people as they can. Motel vouchers would also be handed out, I would think.

    (Sadly, if that happens, some may migrate up the hill to the greenbelt, even closer to Highland Park – guess HPAC will have to live with that)

    –Many ex-Nickelodeon’s are on the hill already, which is actually one of the larger problems created by the camp. Often, when people get barred, they simply move into the greenbelt above, and if they’ve been barred for drugs or behavior problems, they bring those problems with them into the greenbelt and sometimes into the surrounding neighborhoods.

    Folks living in the greenbelt maintain a loose association with camp, occasionally dropping into camp for supplies and social visits.

    As a result of this, Highland Parkers who live near the greenbelt have been stepping up pressure on the City to do something, so I’m assuming that an eviction of Nickelsville would be combined with a sweep of the surrounding greenbelt as well.


    Re: HPAC

    Can anyone blame residents of Highland Park for not welcoming this situation? Fretting about your property values is one thing. I’m not very sympathetic to that. But having people with drug and/or violence problems hanging out in the woods across the street from you . . .

    Yeah, I can see where they’re coming from on that.




    well, I suppose I would not make a broad statement about those in the greenbelt. regarding drug use…not all homeless people are that way because of drugs or other illegal things. Further…how many of your neighbors, those in houses, use drugs? I’m betting more than you think….but HPAC is willing to live with them? I know for a fact that there are drugs users in my neighborhood, even in my building, frankly. These people keep to themselves, they work, they have lives, they are integrated into the ‘hood. I don’t condemn them for it. I also realize that there are different levels of “drugs”…if we’re talking about heroin/cocaine, yes, I would be concerned…for their health, for the fact that they might steal to support or sell to support (happened in my building once). I would object , then, too. HPAC lumps all homeless into one category it seems to me(of course, I could be wrong, and often times am)…and that’s a shame.

    It makes me wonder. If the city will have vouchers, or other shelters for the NV residents when they are moved out, how come they don’t have them now? And are these shelters where they have to pack up all their belongings every day, and stand in line again the next night? That makes a difference – I think more would rather live in a tent in the woods than do that…

    just thoughts..



    Jan, I generally agree with what you’re saying about the drug thing, but it’s a matter of degree. If you’ve got one or two drug users in your building, yeah, it’s cool. But what if you saw a couple new ones moving in every month or so. At some point, wouldn’t you say: Whoa!

    Would that make you a bad person?

    Highland Park folks are frustrated. It’ll soon be two years since Nickelsville moved in, and still no one at City Hall can give them a timeline for when they’ll be out. Meanwhile, the situation is worsening.

    Some of them didn’t like the idea of Nickelsville but were willing to tolerate it as long as it stayed at the bottom of the hill. But it didn’t stay there, and now it’s moving up the hill and spreading out. And whereas the people in camp are subject to some rules, the people on the hill are subject to none.

    From my perspective, it looks like City officials are asking Highland Park to pay for the City’s political inertia. I’m not going to criticize Highland Park residents for complaining.



    I would like to see data that compares the increase in homeless population in the green belts below Highland Park compared with the increase in the homeless population in all of the city’s green belts…

    i would be surprised if there was much difference.

    the simple truth is that our homeless population is increasing exponentially and we are doing little to alleviate the problem.



    It is not just the Highland park area either it is all the way up Meyers way too.

    Sadly there is not easy answer as DBP stated, many won’t/don’t follow rules so they get kicked out.

    JoB, please god do not take this as an attack:. I see the camp everyday, I see people that go in and out and up and down the highland park and Meyers roads, and in the green belt. So yes I have seen huge increase in the “homeless” people around. So while it may not be a “stat”, but I have noticed.





    the people who live along the canal have seen an increase in the numbers of homeless living on their benches too.

    do we attribute that to the car camping program at some of the area’s churches?

    i know about the traffic up and down the hill…

    and I know there are ex-Nickelodeans up there..

    i was visiting them regularly until late last summer.

    but i also know that you will be hard pressed to find any green belt that does not have homeless people living in it…

    did our greenbelt become more visible to the homeless when the Nickelsville moved in at the bottom of the hill. yes, it did.

    but i don’t believe it became that much more desirable because Nickelsville is there.

    and i don’t believe that the population will decrease when Nickelsville moves on unless an option for large scale encampments is created by the city.. and maybe not even then.

    i visited Portland last weekend and was amazed at the volume of homeless people on the “good” side of Burnside… homelessness has increased there too.

    Was it because of Nickelsville?

    I ask because i met a few friends from Nickelsville on the street just outside my hotel last weekend…

    and no.. they didn’t live in the one block encampment on Burnside that by the way is a pleasant space to visit..

    I think few people realize how fluid the homeless population is in the United States… or how large is has become.

Viewing 25 posts - 51 through 75 (of 136 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.