University playground on Northeast 50th Street
(photo courtesy of Tim Burgess)
(photo courtesy of Tim Burgess)
The City Council's Human Services and Public Health Committee is voting on Friday whether to present the Council Bill 118794 authorizing “transitional encampments” in public spaces, including parks and green spaces, to the full Council. The Bill also states that a 30 day notice for encampments is required on all of the cities public space, including sidewalks.
A map was released last Friday showing the proposed allowable green spaces for encampments, including 167 miles of sidewalks, possibly some Laurelhurst sidewalks and in parks, such as Magnuson Park, Matthews Beach and Green Lake and 5,200 acres of unimproved areas inside city parks and greenbelts
Friday's originally scheduled 9:30am meeting, will start a bit later, with the public comment period from 10:55-11:15, to give the Committee additional time to work on amendments to the ordinance before the meeting which will then be discussed publicly.
At 8am, the Neighborhood Safety Alliance of Seattle, is holding a rally in front of City Hall. And public citizens have talked about holding a protest at 9:15am in the same location.
Citizens can send comments by Friday to City Council members listed at the end of this post.
A petition is also available to sign.
The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) voted unanimously to oppose the measure at its last meeting. LCC said that if the Community Council approves the bill, there are sections at the NE edges of Laurelhurst Park that could be occupied, but it is a steep slope near St Stephens.
LCC added:
The real issue for the City (and LCC) is not whether any specific park or whatever grassy space would be affected. The focus is rather on the bigger picture that all parklands and greenspaces are allocated, and maintained by taxpayers, and should be 100% off limits for "campers".
The current laws should be allowed to be enforced by SPD, not hampered. The better approach is using the principles and protocol of "Pathways Home" which offers better solutions for accessing sheltered ,(not camping) for those folks who need it.
It is the plan advocated by Mayor Murray to stop the vicious cycle of unsheltered living in Seattle by the end of 2017,which works to provide medical, financially and mental health resources to those in need, and get inside "sheltered" housing. Sidewalks and parks and right of ways are not allowed by law to be used for camping, and it should remain that way.
The Alliance shares the NEDC’s compassion for the homeless and we look forward to working with neighborhoods and our City Council on making homelessness brief, temporary, and rare. Unfortunately, this bill overreaches, in its attempt to address a legitimate problem, by creating a legal right to camp.
If approved the proposed legislation which states "an ordinance relating to City responses to people who are homeless living on public property; setting standards and procedures for remedying unsafe conditions and protecting the rights and property of homeless individuals." would:
- limit the City’s ability to remove tents from sidewalks, unsafe locations and School property as Police officers would need to provide 30 days notice before removing an encampment
- permit homeless camping on public or City owned property, including Parks and Schools
- restrict the City’s ability to address encampments associated with criminal activity
The bill, sponsored by Mike O'Brien, is only opposed by one Council member,Tim Burgess and he states the impacts in his most recent newsletter (also pasted in at end of post):
The Impact on You, Your Family and Neighbors
As introduced on September 6, the proposed law establishes a new right to camp on public property across Seattle, including in our parks and greenbelts, and on sidewalks and planting strips. The law mandates that city government make public spaces available for camping in tents or vehicles. It creates complicated rules and processes that must be followed before anyone can be removed from a camping site. If anyone is removed, the city government must provide “adequate and accessible” long-term housing. Finally, if any of this process is violated, the proposed law establishes a $250 penalty per violation to be paid to the individual camper by city taxpayers.
Needless to say, this new law is not the balanced approach we all deserve, an approach that weighs and balances compassion with our public health and safety obligations. This proposed law is not balanced and will do absolutely nothing to move people from homelessness to safe and appropriate housing. Nothing.
Look around our great city and ask yourself whether you like what’s been happening even before this new right to camp has been established. Tents along our roadways and in our parks. Trash piling high in our greenbelts, in our neighborhoods and along Interstate 5. It seems as if city government has been paralyzed by the confusion and conflict around homelessness. Just look at the evidence. Here is a KIRO-TV news report from last Thursday night. Watch it. It broke my heart in two ways. First, how unfortunate that the individual or individuals living in the end-zone tent haven’t taken advantage of the multiple services Seattle has for them and will spend nearly $50 million on this year. Second, how tragic that we have become so confused and conflicted that our park’s staff and police officials failed to remove the tent for our kids’ sake the moment it appeared. Listen carefully to the coach, too. He describes an ongoing high-risk mess at Interbay that, frankly, city officials have allowed to fester.
Last Friday afternoon, after the KIRO report was broadcast, the city finally acted and the end-zone tent was removed. But, had this new right to camp law that my colleagues are advancing been in place that removal would have been blocked for a minimum of 48 hours, perhaps as long as a week or even longer, until we found another location for the camper(s) and complied with the onerous rules the law establishes.
This new law will increase public safety problems and make our neighborhoods less safe. The same night KIRO-TV broadcast their Interbay playfield report, a Good Samaritan was stabbed in the abdomen when he went to the aid of a woman who was being assaulted in a tent in Woodland Park. Witnesses described the suspect to police; he was later arrested. The Good Samaritan was taken to Harborview Medical Center. This isn’t an isolated incident. Living on the street or in our parks is dangerous.
The Elephant in the Room That’s Being Ignored
Read the proposed new camping legislation carefully. It contains a few key phrases that require the city government to allow camping on public property for at least 30 days per location. In addition, even when an encampment is in an unsafe or unsuitable location, the City cannot remove it until the City has provided 48 hours’ notice, and must offer the individuals alternative locations in which to camp.
This is the elephant in the room that’s not being discussed. The advocates of this proposed legislation believe people should be allowed to camp in tents and vehicles on public property for at least 30 days and more, if the City does not have an available stock of “adequate and accessible” long-term housing, and must allow persons who decline services and housing the right to camp in alternative locations, again for a minimum of 30 days in locations that are not “unsafe” or “unsuitable.”
Really? Forget homelessness for a moment. This new legal right to camp in the city cuts across decades of land use policy and zoning requirements designed to minimize use impacts. This new law sweeps those protections away and creates a high impact use—camping on public property as an individual right. For me, this is going too far.
A Better Solution
If this legislation is adopted by the City Council it won’t move one person to housing. It won’t address drug addiction or mental illness for anyone. And it certainly won’t clean up the piles of garbage we see around Seattle left by urban campers. (These piles of garbage are so contaminated and hazardous that we have trouble finding contractors to do the necessary cleanups.)
But this legislation does do one major thing quite well; it distracts us from measures that will make a difference for people experiencing homelessness. Those measures are called Pathways Home, a series of steps Mayor Murray has proposed to retool our response to homelessness and create increased efficiencies and effectiveness based on an in-depth analysis of what we are doing—or not doing—today.
Pathways Home is an integrated effort with King County, All Home, and United Way to move people from unsheltered living on the street to permanent homes. It is centered on evidence-based practices that have been proven to work in other cities. This is where we should be spending our time and energy. This is the complex work we should be focused on, not on a new law that perpetuates homelessness and makes our neighborhoods less safe.
The national experts who counseled the city on Pathways Home tell us that all of the unsheltered people in Seattle could be sheltered by the end of 2017. That’s a bold claim based on the experience of other cities, but it is certainly worth pursuing. Why wouldn’t we work hard and urgently to achieve this goal?
Some of my colleagues are working on amendments to the camping law. The suggested amendments I have seen so far don’t cure the core problems with the legislation. I will keep you posted as I continue to advocate for solutions that have been proven to actually end homelessness.
In Danny Westneat's recent Seattle Times article, titled "Now Seattle wants to copy Portland’s disastrous homeless camping policy, he states in part:
Seattle’s big idea is to let the homeless camp legally in parts of the city. Another city just tried this. It was such a disaster it dropped the approach after only six months. Portland pulled the plug on its liberal camping experiment. The reason was, as I’m betting you’ll be able to guess: People started camping all over the place.
Legal urban camping was a circus right from the beginning. An alternative newspaper sent its reporters out to camp on parking strips, including in front of the mayor’s house, and then published “A Field Guide to Urban Camping.” A coalition of business groups then sued.
But what happened on the ground was both dispiriting and, if you stop to think about it for even a second, entirely predictable: Camping boomed. The police became overwhelmed.
“It became very hard to enforce it just because of the sheer number of camps that came up all over the city, whether it was two or three tents or the larger encampments,” a spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau said.
There is a big difference between tolerating some unauthorized camping and a message from the city that camping’s OK.
The Seattle City Council not only appears poised to make camping legal across large parts of this city, they are doing this experiment on a much larger scale and for a longer trial period than Portland (two years here versus Portland’s six months).
Seattle released maps Friday showing that a proposed homeless ordinance would allow camping here on 167 miles of sidewalks, as well as in 5,200 acres of unimproved areas inside city parks and greenbelts. It includes the Arboretum and Seward, Discovery, Lincoln, Carkeek and Magnuson parks as well as dozens of other parks big and small in all parts of the city. (City Council) is going with what just bombed in the nearest big city to the south.
North Precinct Seattle Police Community Liaison, Officer Michael Lanz, said about the current reporting policy for illegal homeless encampments:
For now report encampments in parks or on city/state property using the City Customer Service Line (684-CITY) to report over 72 hour parkers. They are still getting the orange sticker warning notice and they are supposed to move 72 hours after the posting (or be subject to be towed). The responsible city agency will eventually post the camp for removal in 72 hours. Note there are several camps and they may post larger ones before smaller ones. The city MDOT (Multi-Departmental Outreach Team) makes those decisions. You can also download the Find-It Fix-IT app to your smart phone and report it that way (including a picture).
LCC said in their most recent newsletter:
Reject Council Bill on Homeless Encampments
At its September 12 meeting, the LCC Board of Trustees voted unanimously to oppose Council Bill 118794 relating to homeless people living on public property. While the Council must address the city’s growing homeless issues, this proposal does not strike an appropriate balance to protect the safety of the homeless, the public, and our environment. The proposal itself is unworkable, and any solution must include a path for providing permanent housing for the homeless.
The proposed ordinance would allow the city to remove campers from “unsafe,” “unsuitable,” or “hazardous” sites, but only if certain conditions are first met, including that the city must find an alternative camping site and “adequate and accessible housing” is provided. It is not appropriate to allow camping on fragile greenbelts, in neighborhoods, and on public sidewalks. The Council committee has reiterated that schools and improved areas in parks would be exempt. They have agreed to hear public comment on the issue.
The proposed ordinance requires that city taxpayers pay $250 per violation to individual campers if any of the detailed and onerous conditions of the ordinance are not adhered to. An onslaught of cases would likely result due in large part to the city’s inability to enforce the ordinance. By the time the public comment period has closed, the Mayor’s Pathways Home goal of sheltered housing is scheduled to be completed, making this ordinance a wasted effort. LCC urges the City Council to adhere to accepted and proven national best practices to address homelessness. Contact Councilmembers with your concerns.
Public citizens have commented:
At the most October 10 Council Committee meeting, it seems the proposal has changed with all Council members agreeing that school grounds would be unsuitable. But, they didn't say that many of our parks and other public land are would not be available to campers. Council discussed at length what "improved" areas of parks may be "unsuitable," but didn't clearly detail what "improved" means or whether all areas maintained by the Parks Department would be considered "improved."
During the public comment period of the last meeting, there were many professionals who commented in support of the Ordinance, who appeared to work directly for the City in various capacities in a position of supporting the homeless. Other public citizens who commented included current or previous homeless people.
Why doesn't the City Council hold an evening public forum where more citizens could attend. It's very hard to attend a morning week-day meeting.
The City Council members strongest supporters of the bill are Mike O'Brien, Sally Bagshaw, Rob Johnson and Lisa Herbold. Tim Burgess is against it, and Council President Harrell has strong concerns and Sawant will probably support it. The Mayor actually has come up with a real action plan called "Pathways Home" for remedying the homeless situations, and that program does not support "unsheltered" options. The goal is to have that implemented by the end of 2017, and all would be in some type of building, not outside in any case. Despite that program, many Council members supporting their own ordinance regard it as a stop gap measure, but the term of the bill is proposed to be for 2 years-deep into 2018, apst the Mayor's plan.
The Council Members spent much of their committee time in last week's meeting discussing what is "suitable" after ruling out "improved" or "maintained" park and green spaces, so they could find sanctioned camping areas in each community. If Council moves forward with the "community outreach" process that several Council members suggested, it seemed it could take a long time to identify possible "suitable" locations and then the Police would have to put together a map identifying specific areas and would parks be divided up, etc, O'Brien said that each neighborhood would have to come up with some "suitable" places for the homeless.
Public citizens should immediately write City Council members pointing out the unworkable proposed ordinance, and to stop wasting taxpayers' money on this, and instead put time and resources to support sheltered options instead.
I suggest showing up at Friday's City Council meeting with big signs, which makes Council very uncomfortable with this type of messaging. Write your own message. Also tell Council you will vote them out if they vote for this measure.
Whatever you do, do something right away, because if you do not , City Council only hears from the non-working folks who have the time to give public comment at 9:30am or 3:00pm on weekdays. If we do not express a no vote, Council will believe that they are supported by silence from another viewpoint.
Let's save our parks for our children to play safely and keep the homeless out. We have the responsibility to find a better solution for the homeless problem that has gotten so out of hand and it is sad.
The homeless should be as welcome in our public spaces as anyone else. However, we want to keep homeless camps out of the public spaces, such as parks.
Magnuson and Laurelhurst could be included in the list of targeted parks for legally allowing homeless according to this map posted on Safe Seattle Facebook page.
It seems that Council Member Rob has been meeting with the Committee and that some parts of the bill are being refined and revised, such as redefining "suitable" to exclude schools, parking strips, and parks that are regularly in use by children, for example.
It's important that everyone give feedback to Council right away, especially those on the Committee which include Bagshaw , the chair of the committee; Harrell, the Vice Chair; Burgess and Johnson.
It is a given that homelessness is a serious and sensitive issue that must be dealt with, but the proposed bill is not the answer.
A neighbor heard that City Council stacked the most recent Council meeting with supporters to prove that false notion that there is community support for the bill.
The Council's overall philosophy and strategy of trying to normalize and provide government support for homeless camping is alarming. And, along with that, not even considering that a large percentage of homeless need mental health facilities.
Everyone please contact City Council right away. The more feedback they all get the better. The city should find housing and not our parks that we all pay to maintain and keep safe for all of us.
Our Yesler Swamp boardwalk could be a great place for homeless tents, perhaps several hundred of them. There is easy access to public transportation, as well as access to facilities such as restrooms, beautiful grounds and access to the neighborhood. Also the Urban Horticulture Center is available, which is state government property, though they lock the bathroom when there are no meetings and during the night. So if everything is locked, the homeless have no facilities available to them, except for outside.
Are sidewalks in residential areas off limits? What about parking strips? And what about car campers parking on the street? Would they have a right to stay in front of someone's house indefinitely? These are all concerning issues.
Parks need to be off-limits entirely, as there are too many unclear areas . Public citizens also voted on a huge levy recently to improve the parks and homeless encampments are contrary to that levy.
Would parks such as Ravenna be off-limits because it is restored land? There are already homeless living there.
Regarding enforcing the law, would SDP be allowed to help Seattle Public Schools if homeless set up camps on school grounds?
Why can't the Committee create more tent camps, improve the notice policy for current illegal encampments, and focus on shelter and services and not perpetuate more tents?
Here are responses many public citizens received from Council members after submitting comments:
Rob Johnson's response:
My work on the Planning, Land Use and Zoning Committee has been largely focused on helping mitigate the current homelessness crisis by preserving and expanding Seattle’s affordable housing stock. While recent, important steps have been made, such as passing the Mandatory Housing Affordability Residential framework last month and the successful passage of August’s Housing Levy, we must work in the meantime to enact better, more compassionate short term solutions.
All of my fellow Councilmembers agree that our current encampment policies simply aren’t working. I recently visited with folks living in an encampment who shared with me their story: they had received notice from the City that their area would be swept within 72 hours. At the time of my conversation with them, those 72 hours had come and gone and the residents felt simultaneous relief and extreme anxiety that City officials could arrive any day to enforce their departure.
This type of inconsistency in our current polices is unacceptable and very far from the compassionate response our unsheltered neighbors deserve. And this is why on Tuesday I voted to advance legislation to be discussed in Councilmember Bagshaw’s Human Services & Public Health Committee to kick start important reforms.
We will clarify the legislation, namely around what constitutes an unsafe or unsuitable location for encampments as well as the provisions we create around them. I want to clarify that I will stand firm in stipulating that parks, schools, and sidewalks all represent unsuitable locations for encampments.
I look forward to working collaboratively with the Mayor’s taskforce, advocates, and members from the business community to make sure that we come up with an effective plan to this complex issue that is in synch with the longer term, housing first recommendations from Barb Poppe and the Focus Strategies Report (introduced in the Human Services Committee yesterday – visit Seattle Channel to watch footage if you’re interested).
Ultimately, this is the beginning of a month long discussion about reforms to our system which I hope we will pass before the winter arrives and in time to make sure we have the budget to implement recommendations.
Geri Morris, Legislative Aide to Councilmember Johnson, response:
I want to provide an update and share changes that have been made to the draft of the legislation directly based on feedback Rob has heard from constituents, business leaders, community groups, and from many other stakeholder groups.
First, we’ve limited the scope of this legislation to areas owned, leased, maintained, controlled, or managed by the City. We have specifically called out these policies to not apply to privately owned land, public schools and colleges, the University of Washington, the Port of Seattle, or Public Development Authorities.
Second, we’ve further defined “unsuitable location” to mean a public space that has a specific public use that would be substantially impeded as a result of an outdoor living space in that location. Improved areas of City parks, including restored natural areas or natural areas actively undergoing restoration, and public sidewalks in front of houses and dwelling units are unsuitable. Sidewalks in front of businesses are also unsuitable, as defined by our current sit lie ordinance.
So what happens if a location is deemed unsafe or unsuitable? If the unsheltered resident is present, then they would receive immediate outreach to move their belongings to a suitable location. If not, we want to give them time to get back to their site before removing their belongings. We’re currently thinking that somewhere between 24-48 hours would be sufficient, but that has yet to be decided.
And lastly, we’ve specified that this legislation will sunset in two years. This change was not made because we expect that we’ve solved the problem in two years, but that the conversation will be very different in two years based on our city’s investments in the Pathway’s Home strategies, as recommended by Barb Poppe.
The coming weeks will focus on how we operationalize this legislation. Rob is adamant in ensuring that as we set new policies into place, we have the funding and man power to hold ourselves accountable to what we set - especially when it comes to outreach and trash collection.
Ultimately, we can’t sit back and do nothing on this issue. The original draft of this ordinance raised alarm for many, and I think that through these changes, and changes still to be made, we are getting it to a place that strikes a better balance for both our sheltered and unsheltered residents.
Sally Bagshaw response:
Last week my committee discussed CB 118794, a proposed ordinance that would require new protocols for how the City responds to homeless individuals living on City property.
This ordinance is undergoing major revisions right now, and will not pass as originally proposed.The goals of the amended ordinance are to: Better use our finite resources, Effectively manage and reduce the number of encampments on City property, and Reduce harm to people who are trying to survive.
As the number of tents has increased over the past years, we are spending too much time and money chasing people from one neighborhood to the next with few, if any, positive results. Police officers and outreach team members have repeatedly told me that the way we have been dealing with encampments now often is a waste of time for them and makes things worse for the people who are forced to move.
Spending millions of dollars moving people from one outdoor location to the next is a waste of our resources. We must break the cycle while the Pathways Home Initiative is underway.
I am not forgetting our housed community members and business owners who justifiably do not want people camped outside their doors. I have heard from many neighbors who have big hearts and they want real solutions. And we need to draw the line.
That’s what the amended legislation will do. People will not be allowed to camp in specific places that are disruptive to the general public. Specific restrictions will prohibit camping on Seattle Public School property or playgrounds, residential sidewalks in front of homes, on sidewalks within commercial zones during “no sitting or lying” hours per SMC 15.48.040, or in our improved city parks among other locations. People will not be allowed to camp on sports fields or playfields and will be removed promptly if they do. But when people find a place to camp that is neither unsafe nor unsuitable, we may allow them to stay until outreach teams can reach them and successfully offer something better.
The new legislation will also require a prioritized response from the City to cleanup hazardous areas, removing garbage, needles, and offering hygiene facilities where appropriate. Through rule-making, the City will decide how to prioritize areas, and when and how to clean them up.
The legislation will also make clear that people who are homeless must comply with our laws. Police and fire fighters and first responders will be part of the solution. Arrests must be made for acts of violent crimes and property crimes. Being in a tent will not give a person a “pass” for bad behavior.
I am pleased to report progress is being made. Although not complete, this week, members of our business community, service providers and advocates came together to set parameters for how we spend our finite resources and reach agreements in response to neighborhood complaints about tents. This legislation will sunset in two years, giving the City time to create sufficient indoor options.
To address long term solutions, we will better coordinate how we fund homelessness programs. Frankly, today we are spending too much in an uncoordinated system of good efforts. If we want to reduce homelessness, we must change how we are investing our money and focus on getting people inside. Fortunately, we have learned what works in other cities, and we are underway with a new approach: see the newly issued Barb Poppe Report and local data collected by Focus Strategies. Their detailed report is available here.
The Poppe report recommends we move toward national best practices, advising us to better coordinate our system of services and increase housing options. The report recommends we “Act Now, Act Strategically, and Act Decisively.”
The City is acting decisively with the Pathways Home Action Plan. I support the Mayor’s plan, and the central point is to add hundreds more safe indoor spaces for people where they can stabilize their lives. This will be done in many ways: by adding more units for families through organizations like Mary’s Place, by creating more 24/7 shelter through a Navigation Center model like San Francisco’s, by expanding shelter through our faith-based partners such as the Church Council of Greater Seattle and Catholic Community Services, by renting more units from private landlords, and by asking everyone to help find innovative ways to house the needy.
These will come on line over the next year and more units will continue to be added with our regional partners. The keys will be to coordinate resources and increase spaces and outreach fast.
We will identify and prioritize people by name through outreach, adding their names and needs to the growing data based system, and we will offer them person-centered addiction and mental health services as defined. These are coordinated harm-reduction actions we will take to give people their best chance to move from unsheltered to productive.
But let’s be realistic. While these measures are underway, people will still be among us living in tents and we must manage that problem as best we can. That is why we need an ordinance to address encampment cleanups.
Many people have asked me how they can help get people inside. In my recent blog “Creating the Seattle Success Story” I mentioned a very generous donation that has gained national notice.
Amazon donated the former Travelodge to Mary’s Place for an agreed period of time to provide space for families experiencing homelessness. Other companies are following suit. Will you be part of the Seattle Success Story?’ Joe Casalini from Republic Waste Management Services suggested we have a regional challenge to get everyone inside and create a “home for now” by the holidays. Do you have property or know of a building that could be used to bring families and individuals inside? If you do, please call me at 206 684 8801. Thank you for being an engaged citizen. Together we will continue to work to create a solution for homelessness that is part of the Seattle Success Story.
Here are additional resources for information:
Here is an ditorial by Councilman Tim Burgess from the Madison Park Times, detailing the various aspects of the Ordinance.
Seattle Met: Council to Amend Homeless Encampment Bill by Defining More Spots as “Unsuitable”
Rob Johnson interview
Most recent committee discussion
Discussion of this legislation on the Seattle Growth Podcast.
King 5 piece
Mayor Murray fights City Council plan to regulate homeless camps
Here is contact information for City Council Members:
Rob Johnson - sponsor of the proposal
206-684-8808 Rob.Johnson@seattle.gov
Staff member: Geri.Morris@seattle.gov
Twitter: @CMRobJohnson
District office (4516 University Way NE) for drop-in public comment on Fridays from 9-12.
Lisa Herbold
206-684-8803
lisa.herbold@seattle.gov
Bruce Harrell
206-684-8804
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
Kshama Sawant
206-684-8016
kshama.sawant@seattle.gov
Debora Juarez
206-684-8805
debora.juarez@seattle.gov
Mike O'Brien
206-684-8800
mike.obrien@seattle.gov
Sally Bagshaw
206-684-8801
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim Burgess
206-684-8806
tim.burgess@seattle.gov
Lorena Gonzales
206-684-8802
lorena.gonzalez@seattle.gov
Rob Johnson - sponsor of the proposal
206-684-8808 Rob.Johnson@seattle.gov
Staff member: Geri.Morris@seattle.gov
Twitter: @CMRobJohnson
District office (4516 University Way NE) for drop-in public comment on Fridays from 9-12.
Lisa Herbold
206-684-8803
lisa.herbold@seattle.gov
Bruce Harrell
206-684-8804
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
Kshama Sawant
206-684-8016
kshama.sawant@seattle.gov
Debora Juarez
206-684-8805
debora.juarez@seattle.gov
Mike O'Brien
206-684-8800
mike.obrien@seattle.gov
Sally Bagshaw
206-684-8801
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim Burgess
206-684-8806
tim.burgess@seattle.gov
Lorena Gonzales
206-684-8802
lorena.gonzalez@seattle.gov
Homeless Encampments:
An UpdateIt has been four weeks since my colleagues’ introduced legislation that would create a right to camp on public property throughout the city. I opposed introduction of this legislation.
In this update, I want tell you what’s happened since, why it is so important for the people of Seattle to remain keenly engaged in the discussion, and efforts to change this legislation. This update gives my perspective on three important issues surrounding this proposed new law.
- How this legislation will impact you, your family, and neighbors.
- The elephant in the room that’s being ignored.
- A much better solution.
The Impact on You, Your Family and Neighbors
As introduced on September 6, the proposed law establishes a new right to camp on public property across Seattle, including in our parks and greenbelts, and on sidewalks and planting strips. The law mandates that city government make public spaces available for camping in tents or vehicles. It creates complicated rules and processes that must be followed before anyone can be removed from a camping site. If anyone is removed, the city government must provide “adequate and accessible” long-term housing. Finally, if any of this process is violated, the proposed law establishes a $250 penalty per violation to be paid to the individual camper by city taxpayers.
Needless to say, this new law is not the balanced approach we all deserve, an approach that weighs and balances compassion with our public health and safety obligations. This proposed law is not balanced and will do absolutely nothing to move people from homelessness to safe and appropriate housing. Nothing.
Look around our great city and ask yourself whether you like what’s been happening even before this new right to camp has been established. Tents along our roadways and in our parks. Trash piling high in our greenbelts, in our neighborhoods and along Interstate 5. It seems as if city government has been paralyzed by the confusion and conflict around homelessness. Just look at the evidence.
Trash and other debris piled up at University Playground on Northeast 50th Street in a photo taken last Friday morning. University Playground includes a sports field, tennis court, and a children’s play area. The University branch of the Seattle Public Library is across the street to the north.
Here is a KIRO-TV news report from last Thursday night. Watch it. It broke my heart in two ways. First, how unfortunate that the individual or individuals living in the end-zone tent haven’t taken advantage of the multiple services Seattle has for them and will spend nearly $50 million on this year. Second, how tragic that we have become so confused and conflicted that our park’s staff and police officials failed to remove the tent for our kids’ sake the moment it appeared. Listen carefully to the coach, too. He describes an ongoing high-risk mess at Interbay that, frankly, city officials have allowed to fester.
This new law will increase public safety problems and make our neighborhoods less safe. The same night KIRO-TV broadcast their Interbay playfield report, a Good Samaritan was stabbed in the abdomen when he went to the aid of a woman who was being assaulted in a tent in Woodland Park. Witnesses described the suspect to police; he was later arrested. The Good Samaritan was taken to Harborview Medical Center. This isn’t an isolated incident. Living on the street or in our parks is dangerous.
The Elephant in the Room That’s Being Ignored
Read the proposed new camping legislation carefully. It contains a few key phrases that require the city government to allow camping on public property for at least 30 days per location. In addition, even when an encampment is in an unsafe or unsuitable location, the City cannot remove it until the City has provided 48 hours’ notice, and must offer the individuals alternative locations in which to camp.
This is the elephant in the room that’s not being discussed. The advocates of this proposed legislation believe people should be allowed to camp in tents and vehicles on public property for at least 30 days and more, if the City does not have an available stock of “adequate and accessible” long-term housing, and must allow persons who decline services and housing the right to camp in alternative locations, again for a minimum of 30 days in locations that are not “unsafe” or “unsuitable.”
Really? Forget homelessness for a moment. This new legal right to camp in the city cuts across decades of land use policy and zoning requirements designed to minimize use impacts. This new law sweeps those protections away and creates a high impact use—camping on public property as an individual right. For me, this is going too far.
A Better Solution
If this legislation is adopted by the City Council it won’t move one person to housing. It won’t address drug addiction or mental illness for anyone. And it certainly won’t clean up the piles of garbage we see around Seattle left by urban campers. (These piles of garbage are so contaminated and hazardous that we have trouble finding contractors to do the necessary cleanups.)
But this legislation does do one major thing quite well; it distracts us from measures that will make a difference for people experiencing homelessness. Those measures are called Pathways Home, a series of steps Mayor Murray has proposed to retool our response to homelessness and create increased efficiencies and effectiveness based on an in-depth analysis of what we are doing—or not doing—today.
Pathways Home is an integrated effort with King County, All Home, and United Way to move people from unsheltered living on the street to permanent homes. It is centered on evidence-based practices that have been proven to work in other cities. This is where we should be spending our time and energy. This is the complex work we should be focused on, not on a new law that perpetuates homelessness and makes our neighborhoods less safe.
The national experts who counseled the city on Pathways Home tell us that all of the unsheltered people in Seattle could be sheltered by the end of 2017. That’s a bold claim based on the experience of other cities, but it is certainly worth pursuing. Why wouldn’t we work hard and urgently to achieve this goal?
Some of my colleagues are working on amendments to the camping law. The suggested amendments I have seen so far don’t cure the core problems with the legislation. I will keep you posted as I continue to advocate for solutions that have been proven to actually end homelessness.
Here’s an interesting discussion of this legislation on the Seattle Growth Podcast.
Stay engaged. Make sure your voice is heard at City Hall regardless of your position on this legislation. Your opinion matters.
Councilmember Tim Burgess
Email: tim.burgess@seattle.gov
Phone: (206) 684-8806
Online: Council Website
Next Council Action on the Legislation
The City Council will consider the camping legislation at a special meeting of the Human Services and Public Health Committee on Friday, October 14 at 9:30 a.m. The Committee will meet in Council Chambers on the 2nd floor of City Hall.
Website
Copyright © 2016 Seattle City Council, All rights reserved.
You are signed up to received updates from Councilmember Tim Burgess. Thanks for staying in touch!
Our mailing address is:
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list
No comments:
Post a Comment