The recent announcement of SHARE’s indoor homeless shelter coming to the Gift of Grace Church in Wallingford has left many in the local community with unanswered questions, even after the notification meeting SHARE held last Sunday. As Wallyhood reported earlier, the main areas of concern for meeting attendees centered around the insufficient notification process by the both the church and SHARE to the community, concern over the screening process for shelter residents, the impact to the preschool, and uncertainty regarding ongoing communications with and inclusion of the Wallingford community in the current and potentially long-term presence of the shelter.
Since then, many local residents and citizens from nearby neighborhoods, have voiced other questions and concerns. Although not an exhaustive list, here are some examples of what folks are looking for additional clarity on:
- What are the zoning requirements and restrictions for housing an indoor homeless shelter in the neighborhood? Perhaps not a direct answer to that specific question, but on a related note, you can refer to the passage of bill ESHS 1956 that passed in March 2010 authorizing religious organizations to host temporary encampments for homeless persons on property owned or controlled by a religious organization.
- There seems to be confusion after Pastor Fecher’s comments at yesterday’s meeting as to whether the shelter hours will overlap with those of Huckleberry Forest Preschool including but not limited to open houses, parents nights, etc. The preschool operates from 8:55am to 1:30pm Monday through Friday. It is not clear whether the other preschool events are on a set calendar or pre-arranged with the church (in their role as landlord) on a case by case basis. It states in the agreed upon rules of conduct between the church and SHARE that “shelter opening and closing hours will not deviate from those scheduled for the shelter. Presently, the shelter will open at 7pm and close at 7am. Operating hours are subject to change to meet the needs of the host.” The host, as referenced in the rules of conduct, is the church. One concern is that providing notice of changes to operating hours for the shelter may be difficult to execute in the field given that SHARE residents are homeless.
- What liability does the church bear regarding the activities of a tenant? What responsibility will the church take given its role as host, in matters such as providing additional oversight for the shelter and its residents, keeping statistics on resident turnover, being responsive to incident reports, working with the appropriate organizations and authorities as necessary, and partnering with the Wallingford community, etc.
- There seems to be a question as to whether SHARE runs background checks as part of the screening process at one of their two tent city sites. If that is accurate, then the question was posed as to why SHARE couldn’t incorporate background checks as part of the screening process at the Gift of Grace location.
Many community members have also made suggestions on how to move things forward given that the shelter will open its doors this Wednesday, September 15th. Among the many ideas, here is a sample:
- Would Gift of Grace be willing to update its agreement with SHARE to require background checks as part of the screening process based on community feedback?
- Some have suggested that the rent that is paid to the church by its tenants be used to find an alternate less controversial location for the shelter–one that is separate from a school or daycare. It has been reported that this proposal was made to the church, but that a response has not yet been given.
- Would church and community members be open to contributing to a church sponsored fund (as described above) or a general fund to find an alternate less controversial location for the shelter? You may be interested in reading this letter from a church elder at the Maple Leaf Lutheran Church who has started a similar fund as their ministry struggles to decide whether to bring a SHARE tent city site to their neighborhood in November. He has pledged $100 to start a fund, posing the possibility that other churches and communities could help participate in finding a less controversial site. Perhaps the two Lutheran churches and the Wallingford and Maple Leaf communities could connect and combine their efforts in helping with the homeless issue, as well as directly assisting SHARE residents.
- Would SHARE be willing to maintain statistics regarding the residents at the Gift of Grace location, including metrics on turnover ratios, and share them with the church, preschool, and Wallingford community?
- Suggestions have been made that community concerns and questions should be taken up with and addressed directly to other Seattle agencies and organizations such as the Seattle City Council, the Mayor’s office, the Planning and Land Use office, and the Wallingford Community Council.
Although there is a wide range of opinion on the matter, and differences in thought about how the situation could and should be handled, one thing is clear: the Wallingford community as a whole, deeply cares about the welfare of all its citizens (both homeless and those fortunate enough to have homes), and has shown that civic participation in the democratic process is not just a relic of the past, but indeed thriving in our city. This may be overlooked at times as we discuss–sometimes very passionately–our varying pespectives on this issue; but at the heart of the matter, Wallingford is a community that cares.
Shelter programs would do themselves a major service by being diligent in communicating with their local communities. There was a huge blowup in the CD earlier this year when an organization named Black Dollar Days attempted to establish a felon halfway house with minimal notification. That by itself was enough to set neighbors on edge, and the organizatiion’s incompetence at planning and execution, and their clear contempt for residents who asked reasonable questions, made it even worse.
Many communites in Seattle are compassionate and very willing to support shelters. It would be nice to see groups that organize shelters work to get community conversations off on the right foot by giving adequate notice and by building plans which address normal concerns (I.e. Mechanisms which abode placing sexual predators in close proximity to vulnerable populations).
Very nice article.
I called the Mayor’s Office after reading the SHARE website and noting that SHARE went (all 35) to his office and were greeted and promised funding til endof year.
Zachariah( an admin asst) welcoemd my comments and said they needed to hear from communities. Please call those city council members and the mayor!
It seems going through many posts that 3 or 4 other church sites had serious problems with homeless sites beign thrust into the community- 2 with schools and parents involved. this history does not bode well for the homeless who need help nor fo rthis project proposed at Gift of Grace.
i suggest HOLDING!! putting a STOP to the plan until alternative arrangements fo rthe school or shorter hours for the homeless residents are ensured. Also that small space did not look adequate for 15 peopel to behoused. wqhere are the eating, toilet and washing facilities for 15 people?
It may be best to try to reach out to these other neighborhoods to find a way to put a stop to the practices exhibited by SHARE. This seems to be their MO and as a city we need to say “NO!” and put san end to this game of theres. SHARE runs the risk of doing more harm that good for the homeless if they continue to tear neighborhoods apart w/ such tactics. Anybody have ideas on how to organize a more city-wide network?
The Meadowbrook neighbors have put together a detailed package of information available on their website: http://www.meadowbrookneighbors.org If you have not yet read through their material, I high recommend that you do so. It is mainly focused on issues with tent cities, but there is a great deal of crossover with the SHARE shelters as well.
I believe that the folks over on the http://www.myBallard.com blogged extensively about their interactions with SHARE. The equivalent myGreenlake and myWallingford blogs have been active lately as well. I would start with the neighborhood blogs and try and pull together an inter-neighborhood task force.
I think it is vital that any organized approach be focused on both the problems surrounding the SHARE-run shelters, and providing viable and positive (and non-political/non-religious) shelter alternatives. I believe that Seattle has several of these already in place, but there should clearly be more non-SHARE shelters supported by our city. The tactics that have been used by SHARE as of late have been incredibly divisive, and they are causing a great deal of long term damage to the relationship between our communities, churches, and the homeless population.
Frankly, I’m hoping that if this happens (and does so properly), it will provide housing, bathing, bathroom and storage facilities for the street drunks so that they will stop using my (and my neighbors’) yard and garage for those activities. No sex offenders or violent criminals, please.
So sad. Some of us (probably more than post) would like to see this shelter move forward, and don’t equate homeless with sex offender or criminal. That view point is also valid.
Raffaella –
sigh…. the viewpoint you espouse is the ONLY one that has counted so far. The chance to reach a friendly consensus was denied by Pastor Jamie and SHARE by the tactics they chose. Now, its time to hear viewpoints from neighbors, parents, business owners, those with actual experience working with SHARE, and other thinking people.
I think the complexities of the issues coming from many of the neighbors are just too challenging for some to comprehend. Continued reference to equating homelessness w/ sex-offender or criminals seems to be the way for some to simplify things to such a lowest common denominator so that they can easily digest the conversation. For them it’s a black and white world – no concept of grey. I just don’t think restating things over and over is worthwhile. Just my two cents.
Raffaella, your viewpoint may be shared, believe it or not, by many of the people who object to the shelter at this particular location. They may very well support it at a location without an existing school conflict, but no one has given them a chance to voice this. The complaints, by and large, are about these two specific issues (existing preschool and lack of notice), and not about homeless shelters in general.
When we went through this with Nickelsville in our U-district preschool parking lot two years ago, the vast majority of the preschool parents were ok with homeless shelters in the vicinity. Just not in the exact same location as our preschool, particularly with zero notice and no plan whatsoever for dealing with any problems that arose. It was a true burden for our preschool, and the church members were not there, day in and day out, like we were forced to be. Any time you get two groups of people sharing a common space, there are going to be tensions. We were very resentful that we had zero input into the process, but 100% of the responsibility for handling daily problems when the inevitable conflict arose. That is simply not a good situation for anyone.
This is one of my biggest concerns with SHARE and how they counsel their host churches. They teach a divisive strategy, and it is backfiring on all the people who are affected. They do not give the community the chance to respond with the warmth and support that I have personally seen, or to allow the community to work with the church to find a viable and healthy solution. This is Seattle, after all – nearly all of us WANT to help out. Instead there is this huge drama like we are seeing now with decisions forced on vulnerable people, such as the preschool, with no real listening going on. I find the SHARE-sponsored process to be quite unchristian-like, to be totally honest about it.
And Lisa – at least with our experience, the only bathrooms were port-a-potties (which were hauled off when the bills were not paid), and there were no bathing or cooking facilities at all. I have no idea what the Gift Of Grace’s plans are for cooking, bathing, and bathrooms, as they have not been forthcoming with any details.
I think the issue is that homelessness and incivility (culminating in crime) can have either a causational or correlational relationship with each other, and in either order. (Are you are homeless because you are unable to be civil e.g. deeply rooted psych problem, OR did you become homeless for another reason, but eventually will become uncivil to survive in your environment and/or as a reaction to how you feel society is treating you).
On the end of either of those continuum is crime. So it’s impossible and impractical not to make the association in your mind to some degree.
I’m not a psychologist or social worker, but I would venture a guess that determining that order is probably pretty key to getting the folks the help they need before they move farther down that continuum. Not properly screening to get folks to the right assistance for their condition and compounding things by allowing the facility to be self managed (and just evicting them on to a bus if they are voted off the island) seems like a recipe for perpetually staying in need and sliding further down the continuum.
Blog entry from a former SHARE resident:
mike // Dec 15, 2009 at 10:39 pm
My girlfriend and I both lived in both tc3 and tc4 for over 5 years. We finale moved to Spokane to get permanent housing. We’ve had our own apartment for 3 years. I spent more time on the Executive Committee then most. The main reason we left tent city and came to Spokane was because what was going on in camp. Three years ago while at St. Georges in Lake City those of us on EC started seeing thing going out of control. We decided to clean the camp. We barred those using drugs and drinking in camp, we also got rid of the people stealing donations so they could sell them. Thing were going well for about a week. Scott Morrow who was in charge came in and barred 3 of the EC saying they were trying to take over the camp and said they had to much power over others. I stayed on there for 5 more months. We were told not to call the police for any reason unless Scott or Leo Rhodes. They said we needed to keep the population in camp up no matter what. They also stated if we called the police for any type of help it would make their record look bad, so we couldn’t call even at the risk of our safety. We watched cash donations meant for camp use go to Scott for gas and insurance for his car and to be used to buy him food. He passed up good, Guaranteed camp sites because it wouldn’t get Tent City enough press time. We were not allowed to update the sex offender list and had to use outdated lists. We had 3 people elected to EC in 6 months that were on that list. To keep crime from being linked to the camp people were allowed to sign in to camp without Id. They would also edit the list when someone got in trouble. At Cherry Hill church we were told to take in two couples with kids they stayed for 3 weeks. We also had an overdose by a man named Birch yet he was allowed back in camp. Three months later at Haller Lake the same man while on drugs tried to kick in the door to the church’s daycare next door saying they took his kids. None of it was reported to the police because the church did not want to cause problems for Tent City. There’s a lot of things that happen there that’s unreported.
Scott Morrow was not the founder of the first tent city he was a leach that took over.
Yes Leo Rhodes not only lives at TC4 he signs the checks for ShareWheel.
The site at the park was chosen by TC3 3 years ago but regected because they felt it would not get enough press time. TC3 helped reclaim a piece of the park from the weeds that are taking over there with the help of other voluntiers. It rained like hell that day. So you can check if you want. When you go behind the center at day break you go down a little hill to a path go right walk about 300-500 feet take first left go down the hill 20 feet follow the tree line right you’ll find a cement pad enclosed by trees that we were going to put the tents on. There’s a water spout there in the open area and go down the hill you’ll find a little lake. Watch out iy floods there.
The reason Share won’t be part of Safe Harbors is because the city could track who stays there. People would have proof tent city doesn’t all ways do sex offender checks., and let in people they know have warrents. I’ve seen people give the EC $20 not to check the sex offender list, Thats how 3 sex offenders were able to get in camp and serve on EC.
While at tent city I tried to update the perment bar list but was stopped by Scott because too many people were on it and it kept the count to low. So now people can get to day break even if they were distructive and violent at Tent City.
How many of the bus tickets meant for tent city are going to make it to this new place. That’s one of the ways Share gets people, by giving out tickets for people to sell when they save enough. Ask Scott about the time the bus tickets were stolen from the office by a staff member. Or the money stolen by one of the board members. Ask as well why he’s barred from all but one Share shelter.
MyBallard blog entry about SHARE:
Truth Detector 12 months ago
SHARE is lying.
They have had problems with sex offenders. The documented cases are endless and are part of the public record that has resulted in Tent City 4 being required to run these checks at every location they go to (however there is no evidence SHARE is running these checks on anything but a token basis).
An example is the very first location where SHARE put Tent City 4 in Bothell. A sex offender with repeat offender status had been living in Tent City 3 for some time. He was stalking a resident of the camp. That resident moved to Tent City 4 for safety reasons. She was followed there by this sex offender who continued to stalk her. Eventually he caught her alone and raped her.
When St Brendon’s church was contacted to inform them of the rape, and was asked for help for the victim, their response was to send their lawyer down to make sure they were not liable.
There is nothing “unamerican” about running a sex offender check before allowing someone to be unsupervised in a shelter located in a residential community. In fact it is unamerican to hide this information from people as SHARE does. SHARE instructs Sex Offenders to give their address as homeless and never as their camps or shelters in order to undermine the system that would require notification.
It is because of this system that the community found out about this repeat offender who preys on children. SHARE knew about it but refused to do anything until it became public knowledge and the media reported on it.
If the community wants a shelter for unsupervised sex offenders in their community then there is no problem. But you can not treat all homeless the same just like you can’t treat all of the population the same. We have laws regarding where sex offenders can and can’t live for a reason, and SHARE being an atheist and socialist group doesn’t care about those laws and in fact is active in constantly breaking them.
They do not have a track record of honesty and trustworthiness so no one should EVER take them at their word on anything.
There is a plethora of disturbing information you can find about SHARE simply by Googling. Another example regarding SHARE and SafeHarbor:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-10-19/news/they-re-not-sharing/
We really need to ask why the church is partnering with such an questionable organization. Did they even do any checking?
From Seattle Time archives:
“Last night SHARE/WHEEL member Anitra Freeman said that homeless people and the community should not be swayed by some vocal opponents into changing plans for the camp’s location.
“You, as church people, know that you have to stand up for what is right,” Freeman said. “Letting people win by throwing temper tantrums is never a good idea, whether you are dealing with kids or adults.”
——————————————————————————————————-
Last minute notifications, keeping us in the dark, and done-deal agreements all dictated to the church by SHARE, are intentionally used to ramp-up the emotions of the neighbors. In the background, SHARE is grooming the church leaders with comments like the above. We’ve been played people.
By ‘we’ if you mean the neighborhood AND the church, I agree. SHARE are not good neighbors and that fact is irrefutable.
With ZZ and Guest #93’s post here, this is all starting to make a great deal of sense. Yes, the details are still murky but the context as to why there was no neighborhood/preschool input now has some clarity and the pattern is taking hold.
Something that was forgotten from the “community” meeting: Ms. Irwin-Fetcher compared painting her coffee shop blue (“I did not ask all of you what you thought of the color before I painted the inside of my coffee shop.”) to the church not asking the neighborhood about SHARE moving in. That was a logical connection for her. She wasn’t sure why we should be contacted. After all, it’s their church.
SHARE said that they have a relationship with Dept of Corrections at the meeting. (“We enjoy a relationship with the Dept of Corrections.”) As someone pointed out, why wasn’t their a cop or DOC person there to corraborate or provide testimony on their behalf? What does “relationship with DOC” even mean? Is it a good relationship or just a “relationship”?
Why did the SHARE leader Marvin giggle when he said that when the barred SHARE member gets escorted out to Metro? “Once he’s inside the bus and the doors close, that’s Metro’s problem.
Marvin giggled because he knows that when troublemakers are kicked out of the camps or the shelters, they are dumped into the surrounding community. Despite what may have been said at the meeting on Sunday, SHARE does not usually escort them even to the bus stop. This was the biggest issue we had when Nickelsville was in our preschool parking lot, and it was a newly removed, and very high, camper that assaulted one of our parents.
The city council told me that enough public notice was given for the public meeting on Sunday (the one that wasn’t on their marquee or website and no emails or canvassing.)
Anyhow, the City does give grant money to SHARE and they require “proper notification” for new projects. They believe that this was given.
Please double back with the City to let them know that there wasn’t any notification. If we can effectively make that point together, the City will start raising questions about this project. http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/councilcontact.htm
If there is one legislator who has championed “kids issues” and will be concerned about SHARE opening up a shelter in the same area as a preschool, it’s Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson. She’s from Ballard, Queen Anne.
Everyone should contact her, again with the same message as above that SHARE is moving a homeless shelter into the same area as a preschool. Neighbors and parents received no notification. They still do not check for sex offenders.
You get bonus points if you live in her district. She may say that she can’t do much about it but she could contact the City on our behalf, relaying our concerns. That’s the ask to her. http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/councilcontact.htm
Phone number: (206) 545-6513 and [email protected]
Please, GoG people, please I implore you… read the thoughtful posts by zz, #93, the letters from the elder at Meadowbrook (indeed, all of the thoughtful content on the Meadowbrook site)… is SHARE really the only homeless organization you want to cast your lot with, to draw ire from the community? This could have been so different. Instead, as a non-member, I have been sleepless for days, left feeling absolutely helpless to stop such a bad presence from overtaking our neighborhood; something that has pitted us against each other and cast generous neighbors in the role of elitists and NIMBYs.
A prerequisite for generosity is security. And a prerequisite for partnership is trust. SHARE and GoG have destroyed our trust and undermined our security.
Please, GoG congregation, read, research, understand. It is never too late for a different route to be taken. Rebuild our trust and see what generous partners your neighbors can be.
Linda here from Irwin’s bakery… Only responding to #16 Blackswan… You are misrepresenting me and my comments, I am only responding to make sure that anyone reading understands this. You have mis-quoted me and have taken the essence of my comments completely out of context. This is slander, and I do not appreciate the slam. I am very supportive of this community and will not allow you to undermine me or my business. Irwin’s is committed to support open conversation and dialogue regarding this issue. Again, please do not slander my comments or presume to comment on my behalf! (you are welcome to come talk to me about this issue in person!)
You know how when you talk to some people you can tell they aren’t listen/processing what is being said and are only waiting for you to stop so they can again convince you they are right, regardless of what you may have just said. That was my experience from briefly speaking to Ms. Fecher on Sunday. I’m not convinced we were having a open dialog. Maybe if one viewed the conversation from 100 feet away… I also was not aware of her connections to the church and the pastor. Otherwise, people in general were rather upfront about their motivations and I knew where their points of view was coming from. Alway good to have some context to help one understand. Blackswan, if you do chose to speak w/ her I hope you have a different experience.
I didn’t stay for the whole 3+ hours, so I can only hope that she didn’t trivialize matters by making the ‘blue paint’ comment. That would be FOX News worthy.
I’m a former member of a group that used to rent the basement of the Gift of Grace church’s for weekly rehearsals. The preschool was not there at the time, but if I understand the current layout correctly, we were in the area the preschool is now using.
At the time there was a homeless woman that the church was allowing to live in the basement. I’ve seen other posters say she lives “in a shed on the property”, but that’s not true, or not the whole story. There are both a shed and an old camper trailer in the parking lot, and I don’t know who uses them, if anyone, but she was in the basement every night that we were there. Her behavior was the main reason we ultimately found another location.
For one thing, she clearly urinated on her herself, in her clothing, and thus on the couches in the basement and anything else she sat or lay down on. It was neither clean nor healthy, for her or for anyone else using the space. I hope she wasn’t in the play room, but there was no lock to stop her.
For another, she occasionally and without warning would become angry and verbally (not physically) assaultive towards us and the small children we sometimes had with us. It was hard to understand exactly what the problem was — if there really was one at all — but she seemed to be angry simply that we had happy lives with our families and she didn’t.
As best as we could tell, she needed medical assistance and care, not warehousing in a basement. Probably many of the homeless SHARE would like to house need assistance of one kind or another too, but I see no reason to believe that GoG or SHARE is going to give it to them. SHARE is only interested in making noise and collecting checks for running shelters. and the city seems to be too lazy to check whether they’re actually running them well.
“…and the city seems to be too lazy to check whether they’re actually running them well.”
I think they (the city) are overwhelmed and do not have the resources to commit to looking into all this in a meaningful way. End of the day, this dysfunctional group (SHARE) gets tax dollars and we need to more careful about how the city and state uses those resources. We also need to educate our family, friends, and co-workers about SHARE and the fact that there are worthwhile alternative for the poor. They need there funding cutoff and put elsewhere.
From the Kiro website coverage
>>“What’s a homeless person going to do with somebody’s child? Give me a break. They don’t have any place to take them,” said neighbor Robin Moore-Slater.
Very well thought out. We should put children at risk because a sex offender has no place to drag them off to, because they’re thinking logically and not acting on any kind of deeply rooted impulse. Most people in the neighboorhood walk their kids to this daycare, fyi.
But hey Robin is probably right, I mean homeless won’t rob a bank either because they have no where to hide and, -oh wait, THAT HAPPENED. Coincidentally, they were apprehended sleeping at the Wallingford Playfield.
Seriously, no one involved is saying ALL homeless are criminal, and many of the parents of daycare children there don’t have an issue with a shelter provided they can be guaranteed the residents receive proper background checks and adhere to proper checkin procedures to ensure that none of the homeless have commted violent crimes or sex offenses.
It seems the church is taking no role or responsibility in governing the shelter. If they were, I’d have far less of a problem with this. All we’re hearing right now is that there’s “no overlap” so we shouldn’t be worried.
Call the mayor’s office: 206.684.4000.
Call the city council’s office: 206.684.8888
Do it today!
This is so more than just the daycare (and I’m not minimizing that point)… it is also about the church partnering with a group that has an appalling track record when other groups could have been an option. Other groups do BG checks and would have worked w/ the community and the preschool. We’d have an opportunity to get answers from case/social workers and administrators. They have a transparent administration, their budgets would be more transparent, they’d have a documented history of success, they’d offer medical assistance, job training, etc.
Think of all the bleeding-heart liberals (myself included) in Wallingford (Wallingford!!!) with time and resources to donate. What a HUGE missed opportunity. Instead we have a polarized community. The church really blew a fantastic opportunity. Why? Only god know for sure. I can only say they have misjudged their neighbors. Talk about prejudices. Sounds like it would have been a good idea to have a meal with their neighbors to get to better understand the diverse community of Wallingford – many who have COUNTLESS years helping the poor and homeless. Instead they armed themselves against NIMBYS, elitist, etc. When the message coming from the neighbors was more about the process and working w/ this particular organization – that has such a bad reputation – they were already prejudiced into thinking we were down on the homeless. Just look at all their post, the neighbors post, those from the church members – therein lies the proof. They are fighting a demon that doesn’t exits.
We actually had WAY more in common on all of this that what SHARE feed them to believe. And now we have a polarized community. The church was groomed by SHARE like a sex offender grooms his.her target. The same exact methodology. You befriend them, compliment them, play to their vulnerabilities. They never see it coming and they cannot step out of the situation. The whole thing is sad…
To the concerned Wallingford residents:
Let’s work together!
Meadowbrook is facing an equally dire situation- a tent city of 100 with the same lack of transparency, and the same concerns about sex offender checks. Visit meadowbrookneighbors.org to learn more, and see the photos of the location. Some neighbors are heartbroken that their childrens’ bedroom windows actually overlook the parking lot, with no barrier save a 6 foot tall wooden fence.
If you want to engage in a dialogue with SHARE, come to the Meadowbrook Community Council meeting tonight at 7 pm, at the Meadowbrook Community Center, 10517 35th Ave NE.
If you want to protest SHARE in person, please come to MapleLeaf Lutheran Church this Sunday morning and next. Services start at 9:30. Neighbors will be showing opposition to the tent city from probably 9 am through 10 am. The congregation is voting next Sunday the 26th! Any show of support from Seattleites concerned about SHARE would be invaluable.
We have many neighbors in Meadowbrook who can support you in Wallingford- come introduce yourselves!
Just received word back from Seattle City Council. The woman who heads up the SHARE-notification issue would be “glad to talk” with us.
Let’s give her a call or two. These calls are crucial. She’s interested in the facts.
Judy Summerfield
Survival Services Manager
Seattle Human Services Department
[email protected]
206.684.0569
I live in Meadowbrook and while I do not support the Tent City proposed there, I do support the current homeless shelter that occupies the Maple Leaf Luthern Church Basement every night from 9 PM to 7 AM.
As far as I know, there have never been any issues with the members of the shelter. There have been issues however, with the church and with SHARE. The homeless were essentially abandonned during the big snowstorm. No one from the church. No one from SHARE. Was there to feed these people nor provide them with a place to shower. It was the neighbors who stepped in and took care of member of the shelter. So be prepared, the neighbors will be the ones left holding the bag if something goes wrong.
I called the Mayor’s office, Licata’s office and Burgess’s office. Got the best responses from the Mayor’s office and Licata’s office. Burgess’s office seems to have a non-involvement policy.
I wasn’t able to attend the meeting at Wallingford Park last night. Can someone email me about what is happening? Thanks. [email protected]
Called Judy Summerfield and talked with her for a long time. I sense that she has a lot to do with the funding given to SHARE and seems to think they are fulfilling their obligations.
Because I have nothing other than anectdotal stories from blogs to call as resources (and god knows anyone can write anything they want to on a blog), I want to call on members of the community to reach out to Judy
with specific firsthand experience of instances of violation by SHARE in any community (say, the source of zz’s comments, #93’s comments, etc.) Does anyone know who these people are and can reach out to them? Judy was very receptive to my first-hand remarks about dialog with the congregation, but less receptive to my third-hand comments regarding the past activities and practices of SHARE, and it’s impact on each community.
With hard evidence and first hand experience, we might have a shot at the funding source.
James @ #26: You mention that there are other homeless groups that do a better job of background checks working with the community. Do you have some examples? I’d like to learn more about how they approach this same underlying problem so that I can make a more informed judgment on whether SHARE is as poorly run as some have stated.
Hi Mike,
Sure, this link is to the United Way of King County and listed a significant number of homeless charities they contribute to: http://www.uwkc.org/ourcommunity/endinghomelessness/resources.asp
I’d say, that is a good start. Note: SHARE is not one of them. It would be interesting to know why. Might mean something, might not. Just noting a fact.
You might look closely at this as an example: http://www.compasscenter.org/
They seem to be a class act.. a governing board of directors, seems pretty transparent wrt operations and budging, strong support system in place, etc.
To clarify #27 post from Julia,
Church service at MLLC is from 10:30-11:30. Education hour from 9-10. Members will be voting this Sunday the 19th directly after service at 11:30. Neighbors will be showing up in opposition at 10:00am.
Mike,
Not only look at what they profess to do, but if they really do it. SHARE keeps very spotty records and much of what is revealed is through those who have left and have talked to the media. The homeless do not have much of a voice, so visible complaints from within are rare. Not much data is gathered – and claims of falsifying data – make SHARE’s success difficult to accurately gage. But from reading first hand accounts from neighbors and participants, SHARE does not get high marks.
I suspect their lack of transparency and unwillingness to oblige to any rules coming from from external sources has made orgs like the UWay leery of funding them. But that is just a hunch. They’ve turn down $$ and space before… for a charity that seems to run so close to the red all the time, and seems to have to relocate shelters frequently, one must ask why turn down anything?
Ken, Is the meeting tonight w/ SHARE of is it just the opposition? Don’t know if I can handle another session w/ SHARE but would like to meet everyone and discuss a possible collective effort towards better accountability of their use of tax dollars. It would be good to get Ballard and Greenlake people involved too. If they profess to run a successful non-profit using tax-payer monies, then there should be some standards. From what I am getting from the city, those standards must be real low. Would like to change that. Thanks.
There is a meeting of the Meadowbrook Community Council tonight at 7PM in the Meadowbrook Community Center. SHARE will be there as well as opposition to the Tent City proposed for the Maple Leaf Luthern Church Parking Lot.
Again, there is a SHARE homeless shelter already in the church basement which has existed fairly peacefully with the neighborhood for about 10 years. It is the Tent City which the neighbors oppose.
In response to Linda #20, I was at that meeting and the quote that #16 made is right on. Maybe you should have been a little more thoughtful before making comments at the meeting. A smart businesswoman does not trivialize concerns of neighbors, the preschool, and parents.
“Called Judy Summerfield and talked with her for a long time. I sense that she has a lot to do with the funding given to SHARE and seems to think they are fulfilling their obligations.”
Hmmm… if ‘ridding the street’ (don’t get all crazy now, it is just an expression) at night of a good number of homeless so that the police and Harbor View and not inundated is the intent, then OK. I can believe that. But as those at the meeting can attest, SHARE keeps no data. None. Zip. So how can one make such a statement. I work for a non-profit and we have to provide a lot of data to our funding agencies to ensure we are good stewards of the donations and funds, and that we are meeting certain benchmarks. Maybe for SHARE the bar is just set so low and there are few expectations. Maybe we need to demand more accountability of those that are funded from tax-payer money.
I’ve seen somewhere that SHARE spend around $2.50 a night to house 1 person. Other non-profits that actually provide service beyond warehousing people have appreciably higher operating costs (e.g., $10/person/day). They also set expectations and goals for their clients to get them off the street permanently, provide care, help setup employment, etc. That said, Scott Marrow – one of the original founders of SHARE – has been homeless (I believe) for something like 20 years! I see other mention of people living in tent cities for 5 or more years. You start doing that math and the $10 rate sounds like a bargain. AND you (hopefully) get a happy productive member of the community back on your return. With SHARE your 5-, 10-, 20-year investment in helping someone gets you a homeless person. Maybe I’ve oversimplified this to a large degree, but in the world I live you get out what you put in, and going cheap rarely is the best strategy in the long-run. Oops… almost fell off my soapbox.
I read with interest the idea about a community-wide effort to deal with the underlying problems behind this urgent issue. You should not necessarily confine yourself to the city of Seattle, as many of your neighboring communities have dealt with this issue also. I live in one of them. And please don’t engage in the usual urban vs suburban biases. As you are learning, you can often be wrong when you make or accept assumptions about what motivates objections that have been raised in the past in other locales. I have some very pertinent factual information to share, but first let me say I have followed SHARE’s activities for more than 5 years now, and recognize all the things that are being compained about here as very common and repeated components of their modus operandi. They do them because they have worked in the past. And they will continue to do them as long as they work. Stopping them from working now won’t be easy, but it needs to happen someday.
A similar shelter run by SHARE moved into the vacant Calvary Lutheran church in Ballard on May 30, 2009. Before that move, neighbors requested that SHARE do sex offender checks on residents (as they do along with warrant checks at TC4) SHARE refused, and questioned the motives and integrity of those who prudently requested the screening. They also claimed they were “too expensive” (These checks are done for them at no cost by a local law enforcement agency with names that the shelter residents call in, more about that later). SHARE and their supporters engaged in a lot of innappropriate labelling, claimed (erroneously) that there had never been a problem in the past, and that they already had a foolproof method of keeping sex offenders out. When pressed on this, neighbors were told that the SHARE “interviewer” could “just look them in the eye and tell”. Our Redeemer Lutheran of Ballard, which owned the Calvary Lutheran building did not listen or respond well in the stated opinion of neighbors. (check the Ballard blog from that time). They let the shelter move in without requiring the checks. On August 20th, after a “screening” by another shelter resident, Jonathan F. Schoppet moved in, 3 days after being released from jail. He was a LEVEL 3 sex offender (most likely to reoffend). He was convicted of child rape in the 3rd degree in 2005, and had been in jail numerous times since then. Some of his other offenses were theft, criminal tresspass and communication with a minor for immoral purposes. He had escaped from community custody before, and had been required to refrain from contact with minor children. Nevertheless, in late 2006 he gained access to a 14 year old boy with diminished capacity through a community program in the University District. He lied about his age, and was “grooming” the boy until the mother got wind of it, checked him out, and reported him to the police. For verification of these facts, view record # 07-1-00281-9 SEA for the Superior Court of Washington of King County.
It was a neighbor or Calvary Lutheran Church, (Shane Dillon) who discovered the presence of a LEVEL 3 sex offender in the shelter. He did so by checking the online data base for sex offenders. Jonathan had foolishly given them his real address at the shelter, which Shane recornized as the church’s address. I have been told by other former SHARE members that this is unusual, as they are warned not to give the shelter address, and told how to get around it by registering as just homeless. Neighbor Shane raised the alarm. SHARE went into damage control mode and kicked the offender out on September 12, 2009. (Coincidentally just about 1 year ago). Pastor Steve Grumm of Our Redeemer declared he was “bothered and disturbed that this happened”. However, neither he nor his church committee were bothered enough to act immediately. What followed was a 2 months long process of demands from the neighbors for vastly improved screening, refusals from SHARE, and the church “negotiating” some improvement in protocols while the shelter remained in place. They did stop accepting “new” members into the shelter. The shelter dwindled to 6-8 members, the negotiaions went nowhere and Our Redeemer finally concluded they couldn’t reach an agreement with SHARE and supposedly terminated their agreement with SHARE. However, they allowed them to stay on while they tried to find an “alternative” location. This would be no easy task, because the shelter had been asked to leave its previous location at a church in West Seattle because of reported problems in that neighborhood. (See their blog). I have heard they went to a temporary location in Greenlake at some point, but not sure about that.
This shelter you are dealing with may very well be the same one, or if not is certainly similar in its operations and operator .
Also, even if they were to agree to do checks, you still need to be worried and vigilant In speaking to former members of SHARE shelters I have been told of methods they have evolved for checking problematic people in under the names of others to avoid the consequences of checks. After all, they do the checks themselves, with no oversight by anyone, and keep the list without anyone neutral monitoring it. (I have even been told they keep duplicate lists). I also have and have seen lots of evidence that they don’t reliably enforce their “Code of Conduct” which you will be told is strictly enforced and you can rely on as proof there will be no problems. This evidence is in the form of court and police records. They have a pretty good method of covering up anything that does occur, which I could explain to anyone who wants to take the time to listen. Some of that has been mentioned in other posts here.
One instructive example is obtained from some documentation obtained during a move of SHARE operated TC4 from Bellevue to Mercer Island. On the public record at the time were affidavits from 55 or so out of the 97 residents who made that move. Those records were used by concerned citizens to run police and court records checks in surrounding communities. A chart of what was found was put in the public record in Mercer Island. Out of the 55 names, 10 things came up in the limited checks. 3 were active outstanding warrants. The others were crimes comitted by residents while living in TC4. And these residents were still there. So much for SHARE’s assurances. In one particularly aggregious case, a TC4 resident had taken advantage of an elderly woman who was trying to help her by paying her for odd jobs in cash. While in her house, this resident stole checks and a credit card, and used them to steal hundreds more from the women by forgery (previous charges for which were part of her extensive criminal history). The resident, Deborah Lynn Colley, was confronted about it while at their next location, and then arrested by the police for it at another location. See court record 07-1-04274-8 SEA, also of Superior Court of Washington for King County. She went to court and jail from TC4 locations. Upon her release from jail, she went back into TC4 and was there in Mercer Island when this came out in a public meeting. THEN TC4 finally asked her to leave, claiming quite incredibly to have been “unaware” of all the above mentioned occurences. This also is part of their modus operandi. After doing their very best to ignore, cover up and deny problems that occur, they will finally act if caught and then claim that proves they are “doing the right thing” If you want to be sure and protect the vulnerable, you will need to act to head off the opportunity for problems, not accept assurances they won’t happen, or will be dealt with appropriately.
It would be best to act very quickly and forestall the move-in until reasonable accountibility agreements are reached, and you have in place verification by some neutral party you can trust. You have my best wishes and sympathy. If there is to be another meeting I would be willing to attend and bring this and more information and documentation. I am also in contact with others who have more of such information from other locales. I will also try calling the City of Seattle, although in the past they have not been very responsive (some people have made this issue very divisive and politcal, and many government functionaries would just rather not deal with it, both locally and at the state level ). That is another whole can of worms and this post is long enough already.
Karen, Thank you so much for posting. You paint a disturbing picture. Have you ever spoke to:
Judy Summerfield
Survival Services Manager
Seattle Human Services Department
[email protected]
206.684.0569
She apparently may have some control over funding for this “organization.” Also, if you know of any grassroots efforts underway to better hold SHARE accountable for its funding, I’m all ears. Too bad that these sorts of independent testimonials are not likely see by the church’s congregation. I find it hard to believe that your feedback and that of others on these blogs wouldn’t light a small fire of uncertainty in their minds.
Interesting little article from last month’s The Stranger about SHARE and their chronic financial problems. Apparently, the city is bailing them out (again) and requiring that they get some planning assistance and fund-raising strategies in place.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/31/city-commits-30000-to-homeless-shelter-program-share
Great, they are driving off a cliff financially because they cannot manage their finances appropriately, have to get bailed out by a city with an already huge budget deficit, and have to now get help getting their act together. How many years have they been doing this? 20 years right?
Karen –
Please do call Judy if you can. She has been terrific in understanding our concerns so far, but when I spoke with her I lacked the concrete, first-hand experience with SHARE that you have. Also, if you could pass along her contact information to the other locales you mention with similar experience that you mention, that would be extremely helpful.
Judy’s comments to me were that SHARE was fulfilling their obligation to the city and as such were not at risk of losing their funding. I see a lot of contradictory information out there that I would like to see validated through first hand accounts and other direct evidence, and then passed to those who have the power to redirect our tax dollars to more transparent and productive outreach activities.
@ZZ 43: Oh for crying out loud. THIS is the org chosen by the church? Really? The one they have blindly followed that has resulted in a split with their neighbors? I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. The way they handled notification shows they have no understanding of managing that either. This does not bode well for once they actually get onsite.
Post 43: “…and a consultant approved by the city’s Human Services Department—to develop a financial plan with fund-raising strategies in order to address their seemingly chronic financial issues.”
Here’s a strategy for fund-raising… go into key liberal-leaning, middle class neighborhoods like Wallingford, Greenlake, Ballard, and Meadowbrook, work w/ local churches to secretively setup shelters and tent cities, and then spring it on the neighborhood with a ‘deal-done’ bravado. That should ramp-up donations immediately. Oh and make sure there are plenty of kids in the area. Family’s will love it when you ignore their reasonable request for criminal background checks. Their wallets will just fall open. It will be raining money!
Am I hired?
Why do we lump together everyone experiencing homelessness into one group? Advocates do it because it helps with gaining support for their admirable cause. But talking about “The Homeless” is like making no distinction between a person with a mild nut allergy and someone who has untreated end-stage AIDS. My understanding is that SHARE/Wheel is a group formed by and for chronically homeless people. These are folks who experince homelessness on a long-term basis. They are not generally the single mom who lost her job and then her apartment with no friends or family to turn to. The chronically homeless are overwhelming single people with a disability: serious health conditions, substance abuse problems, and psychiatric illnesses. Often all three.
“Solutions” like SHARE seem to perpetuate homelessness, rather than lead to solutions. People in the neighborhood are right to have fear of the people who will be “housed” in the church. Telling us about homelessness as if we don’t know the reality of the situation is condescending and betrays the naive nature of the church leadership.
Incidentally, why is the church’s sign sporting a bizzare joke about shampoo? This is a church?
WALLYHOOD REPORTERS AND WEBMASTER
This topic should not be scrolled off of the main page due to the addition of other event postings. This is an ongoing, critical issue for the people of Wallingford and this a valuable resource to the community. I continue to send neighbors to this site to keep them updated and to access info. I hope you will continue to give this issue the prominence on your site that it deserves.
Thank You.
@A – I passed by the marquee and thought it was very bizarre. Is the church trying to mock the plight of the homeless and their lack of access to sanitation? Or are they making a statement about what the neighbors can come to expect?
#34 James. I see you brought up Compass Housing Authority (Lutheran Church charity) as a class act for running homeless shelters. Are you aware that Compass sprung an 80 unit facility for the chronically homeless, including drunks, drug addicts and Level 1 and 2 sex offenders on the residents of Ballard. They plan on building this facility in the heart of downtown Ballard — 1753 56th Street. Compass worked with the City for about two years on the project, initially describing it as a shelter for homeless women. The public had virtually no notice of this move and found out when the reader board went up on the property–only now the shelter is for men. This facility is a shelter first facility — they would like the residents to participate in one of their sobriety programs but they aren’t required to do so — so they can party to their hearts content. This facility will be one block from the new Ballard Library, 2 blocks from the new skateboard park. Some Ballard businesses are fighting this along with many residents. Money for this facility comes from the City and the Lutheran charity — money from us taxpayers from the homeless levies we’ve passed. DESC is building a similar facility on 105th and Aurora — 90 units; LIHI is building another facility at 47th & 11th NE – 80 units. Virtually no notification to neighbors is made of these plans until they are ready to break ground. All of these facilities will bring chronically homeless drunks, drug addicts and sex offenders from downtown Seattle and move them into residential neighborhoods. Beware Greenlake, Wallingford, Meadowbrook — your neighborhoods might be next. These are not just nightly homeless shelters — these are permanent residences for the chronically homeless drunks, drug addicts and sex offenders. Read up on the City’s 10 year plan for homelessness. From what I can figure out is that with the redevelopment of downtown Seattle, they have demolished much of the low income housing. As a result they are moving people made homeless to the neighborhoods. Right now Pioneer Square wants to redevelop the neighborhood. Something like 85% of the rentals in Pioneer Square are low income. As developers push to redevelop guess where they residents will move — Ballard has taken on plenty — so I guess it’s up to Greenlake, Wallingford, Meadowbrook to take up the slack. You do some research, you will note that the heads of these organizations live in Laurelhurst, Magnolia, and Mt. Baker. You don’t see even low income housing in their neighboods, let alone a permanent facility for the chronically homeless. I am not heartless, there is a need that must be met when it comes to homelessness. My issue is where these facilities are being placed — in the middle of neighborhoods. Compass thinks Ballard is great because there is lots to do for the residents of this new facility. It’s walkable to a theatre, they can grocery shop at QFC, bus lines are close, the new library and city park are just a block away. There are also 1500 new condos and apartments surrounding this facility, elementary schools and daycares.
There is a group in Ballard that wants churches to allow car campers to park in their parking lots and to provide water and electricity to the vehicles. Now churches can do want they want with their property as long as it furthers their religious goals — regardless of city zoning codes, etc. The woman that is heading this Ballard Coalition resides in North Beach, one block from the water. The closest church to her house is 1.5 miles. I reside on 17th & 65th Street. There are 5 churches within 6 blocks of my house. A statistic I read says that only about 15% of a church’s congregation lives in the neighborhood. The congregation is the only one allowed to vote on the church’s business. So they can vote in what they want regardless of concerns from the neighborhoods, and then they go home, after all the church is not next door to their own home.
Read up on the issues, virtually all neighborhoods in Seattle will be affected unless we stand up to city government.
Call thos ecouncil members and the Mayor everyday.
Speak intelligrently.
Offer to help.
Offer to come in and meet with them.
Offer dropping SHARE from the city budget for their continued behavior of done deal before informing neighbors as well as lack of background checks.
I hope neighbors are organizing to do this and also to have ‘watch’ groups and individuals to observe how the homeless who supposedly are in and then out of the neighborhood from 7 – 7 actually coimply with this.
There are other sites inWallingford who do nto hav epreschools: Mosaic, Gasworks park, Fremont Dance Studio, Irwin’s has space after closure; 2 churches just east of 99 on 41st and 3 other churches in lower Wallingford.
Rhondi,
Thanks for the clarification and additional information. Sorry for implying anything with my comments on this particular charity. I was primarily looking at it from an organizational framework, which still seems better that SHARE. That said, operationally it sounds like a nightmare for you and your neighbors. I am sorry for that and didn’t mean to minimize the impact this is/will have on your lives. I guess my underlying point is that there are other solutions out there if one wants to assist the poor, and a complete and open survey of such places would have been far better received by the Wallingford community, than to be completely shut out of the process.
I attended the Meadowdale Meeting last night. Packed house. The biggest nugget of news for me came at the end when one of the last speakers, an older grandfatherly-figure mentioned that there was another registered sex offender incident. This one was found at Tent City 3 in Bothell and was there for severals days before it was discovered.
He totally owned the error (“It was our error. We screwed up.”). What wasn’t mentioned though was anything about the Ballard sex-offender or that these two cases (at least the two we know about) were enough to change any policy at SHARE.
Of all the speakers, he seemed to be the most off message. He then went into talking about the 160 police reports filled out from the Bothell tent city. “And now as Paul Harvey would say, I’m here to tell you the rest of the story, ” he said to a great deal of laughter from the audience.
He proceeded to make a mockery of the police by telling us that the cops would leave their cruisers and have a conversation with the tent city residents and then return to their cruisers and write up a police report that they had contact with the residents.
I’m not sure that making fun of the cops (who popped in and out of last night’s meeting) gets you a lot of brownie points, but in this surreal last four days, I don’t know left from right anymore.
There is another news article that went up a couple of hours ago:
http://www.nwcn.com/news/New-homeless-shelter-stirring-debate-in-Wallingford-102951689.html
If you are not in the habit of doing do, I would regularly check news feeds for articles.
Barbara Sehr, a member of the Gift of Grace community, also posted this blog entry this morning:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/barbarasehr/archives/221436.asp
I saw this article and few other ones. I know it’s going to be tempting to get into comment “flame wars” but I think the highest and best use of our collective time is to make the calls to Judy Summerfield, the mayor’s office and city council. Spread out the calls, too. A drip, drip, drip works best.
Judy Summerfield
Survival Services Manager
Seattle Human Services Department
[email protected]
206.684.0569
Mayor’s office: 206.684.2489
City Council: http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/councilcontact.htm
Like a previous poster here, I had a tremendous chat with Ms. Summerfield. It seemed like she is on the cusp of doing something she has never done before. That is, she is considering contacting the pastor and SHARE for the first time ever about what’s happened in Wallingford. This conversation (and phone-call flurry)was yesterday though and today brings new issues to her inbox and voicemail, so I would encourage you all to contact her. It was actually very cathartic to talk with someone who is very good at listening. Once you’ve done that, please consider sending this action item to a friend or two in the area. She is less concerned that you live near Wallingford and more concerned that their (our) money is spent well and prudently.
Regarding the mayor’s office, it’s imperative that they know this is not about a homeless shelter in Wallingford (that’s how it’s listed on their call sheet. They are tallying phone calls, pro and against. If only it were that straightforward.) Please let them know that this issue is about placing a homeless shelter run by an organization that has a sordid past with sex offenders in a preschool and neighborhood. Additionally, no notification was given. You know the message.
With the city council, the more our emails and phone calls drip, drip, drip, the more seriously they will take this.
I was at the Meadowbrook Community Council meeting too.
I think one thing you in Wallingford need to look at is how the shelter already in Meadowbrook in the church basement is doing. I have to say that being a neighbor of that facility has been fine. The homeless are there from 9 PM until 7 AM. As far as I know, the neighborhood has had no issues them and even took care of them when they were snowed in and left on their own. The shelter they want to put in Wallingford sounds very similar.
What Meadowbrook is dealing with is a bit different. SHARE/WHEEL now wants to put in a Tent City across the street from the church in a tiny parking lot that abuts right up against many houses’ backyard fences. In Meadowbrook, we have almost no sidewalks and this parking lot gets a great deal of cars off the street making it safer to walk on the street to the school down the street or the high school and middle school down the hill.
We like you though, have no say in the matter but will be left with the ‘inconvenience’ once the church members have gone home to their neighborhoods.
Susan, I think that most people here are fine with a homeless shelter in the neighborhood. The issue in this particular case is whether hosting one in the same building as a preschool will be a viable solution (the Gift of Grace church is very small). The fact that there was very little notice, and the pastor of the church has refused to meet with the preschool parents to answer even basic questions about logistics and safety is not helping matters.
I wish I could have made it to the Meadowbrook meeting last night, as I have some experience with Nickelsville, another tent city, being located in the parking lot of our preschool. You are right to be concerned about the details of hosting a tent city in a small lot. I’ll see if I can contact someone over with your group about our particular experiences two years ago.
We in Meadowbrook got next to no notice when the homeless shelter went into the church basement. I just wanted you all to have another perspective on having a homeless shelter in a church basement. The situation in Wallingford sounds very similar to what we went through 10 years or so ago. For us, it worked out but we did face the same issues as you did with the church basically deciding for the neighborhood without asking for our inputs or concerns. There were and still are children’s groups that met at the church too.
The Tent City is whole nother ball of wax.
I, too, live next to the church in Meadowbrook that has housed a SHARE shelter for almost 15 years. I literally live on the other side of the fence from the church. I was completely against this when it was first announced, and was angry that the church could do this without the consent of the neighbors. But I have to agree with Susan. It has been a non-event. On occasion I have had to walk over in the evening (in warm weather when they sit outside) and ask them to keep their voices down. They have been kind and considerate and have usually done what I asked. I have also stayed in contact with a church employee who is responsible for relations with the community. He has been responsive when I have had complaints. The only external indication that the church is a shelter is when the evening’s residents walk from the bus stop to the church. They are always gone by early morning.
I don’t think you have too much to fear about a small indoor shelter that has limited hours of operation. On the other hand, be careful! What we are finding out here in Meadowbrook is that once SHARE begins working with a church, they’ll push for more – and, as a result, we will likely be hosting up to 100 homeless people in tents – and they will be here 24 hours a day for three months – in the dead of winter. As much as I want to feel warm and fuzzy about how we are helping those in need, I am angered to the core that a church can unilaterally impose something like this on an entire neighborhood – in a location that is completely inappropriate for such an encampment. There is no buffer whatsoever between the parking lot and many, many homes – most of which house young children. There is something terribly wrong when homeowners have absolutely no say in what happens in their neighborhood. This is one of the most undemocratic processes I have ever experienced.
It is reassuring to hear about your positive experiences, Susan and KE. It also sounds like your church communicates well about the shelter, at least after it went in. Do you think this was one of the things that made it work well in the neighborhood?
Susan, My take on the main concerns coming the Wallingford community are:
— lack of process: meeting notifications and timing, ‘done-deal’ decision, why SHARE and not another org?
— lack of hearing the concerns of neighbors and families: concerns turned into stereotyping and name calling by those in favor and the perceived association that anti-SHARE = anti-homeless.
— disregard for said concerns by select few: homeless shelter + pre-school = residence screening, which made sense to most in the room. Democracy was not in play.
— lack of giving direct answers to direct questions: this speaks for itself and was the reason the people walk out of the meeting, plan and simple. That and the comment from the pastor about becoming a church member if you want to have a say in this. THAT was the tipping point.
— misinformation communicated by SHARE: There was misinformation stated by SHARE and not a chance by those in attendance to restate the real facts.
I appreciate your concerns about the tent city and I hope this helps you better appreciate our concerns.
@Anonymous: I promise not to take up any more of your neighborhood’s blog after this pot, but I wanted to clarify the reason for my earlier post. It’s meant simply to reassure you that if this shelter does goes through in Wallingford, it may not be as bad as some people think. On your other points, my goodness, can I ever relate!! We have dealt with the very same thing here – when the indoor shelter went in and now with the tent city fiasco. The church refuses to meet with neighbors, sugar coats the information, and responds to email letters in a condescending tone. I was told by their “task force” that it’s too bad that I feel burdened to live next to poor people. Like you, we have also been told to join them at their services on Sunday morning – or to “come to the table” as one church member said. I’m sorry – but I attend another church that better matches my values. So I hear you and understand fully why you’re upset.
@Guest (#93 Parent): I wouldn’t go so far as to say the church communicates well about the shelter. The only reason I’ve had communication is that I have contacted the church when I had complaints and established a relationship with this one employee. No, this church communicates poorly, if at all. As I said in the above paragraphs, they have actually treated the neighbors in a very rude and condescending way throughout this tent city thing. A group of neighbors put together notebooks of information to give to church members – so they can at least read other facts than they’re being fed. The church refused to allow distribution of these notebooks. You have to wonder why. So, no, I’d say the indoor shelter has been successful primarily because the residents have been quiet and considerate of the neighborhood. Hopefully that will be your experience as well. I just hope you never have to deal with the tent city thing!
Here comes Fecherville!!!
The city is revitalizing downtown and the big investors dont want the homeless hanging out downtown.
They are finding ways to move as many out as possible and they have Big $$$ to get this done.
Weee little Wallingford, just get in line like Ballard, Meadowbrook, W. Seattle, etc.
It does not matter that you chose to live in Wallinford because of what it used to offer. Security, close neighborhoods, etc. Homeless move in, area becomes less desireable, homeowners move out turning properties into rentals and a transient population develops.
Just received word that the moving vans have showed up at “Grace”.
The go-to there there appears to be Seattle Human Services Department (Judy Summerfield) and the Synod to which Gift of Grace belongs* (and perhaps DSHS).
Not the Mayor, not DPD, not the City Council, not the Walingford Communty Council or the Chamber, not KK Metro, not the Citizens Service Bureau. Notification is required in a 500 foot radius around a proposed site.
http://www.lutheransnw.org/about/contact.asp
*This is the local contact for the (Northwest) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Gift of Grace Church is governed by their in-house committee but belong to this larger group.
KE, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the lack of transparency, notification, and process in how these shelters have been going into neighborhoods. I understand that churches are allowed by state law to minister however they wish. But what I do not understand is why the *city* is providing taxpayer funds to these groups without requiring a more thorough, democratic process as part of the funding model.
Why is our city not requiring more transparency from these organizations before they agree to fund them?
“The city” is the Seattle Human Services Department. The church does not appear to have independent earthly oversight.
Today’s question: If there is no overlap between the preschool and SHARE, why was Sunday’s meeting held in the preschool?
KE, please continue to share your experiences with us on “our” neighborhood blog. Your history and experience bring us a valued perspective.
For the last several days I’ve been focusing my energy on SHARE and their M.O.:
– coming into an otherwise liberal neighborhood,
– choosing a church as a front so that they are practically untouchable by existing legislation,
– their practices of sweeping violations under the rug,
– their repeated practice of limiting notification to create a huge blowback by understandibly concerned neighbors/parents, and drive a feeling of smug self-satisfaction among the congregation
– the resulting sensationalistic press that this kind of an organization thrives on
But the last few comments bring me back to the church. The way this is being handled by them is so divisive, condescending, and un-neighborly. It’s as if they’ve been convinced by SHARE that all of their neighbors will behave in a certain way, and when we exhibit anger over ANY aspect of their choice, they fail to hear the subtleties of our arguments, stick to their talking points, and pat themselves on the back and remind themselves that those without the love of God in their heart will always behave in such a manner.
Doesn’t God also tell us to respect our neighbors and protect our children? Even if we take the huge leap of faith that SHARE residents are a homogenous pack of model citizens, the oh-so-avoidable furor over this done-deal-decision cannot be creating a positive place for the children. Did the church give any consideration at all to the inevitable consequences of their decision?
God also teaches us to own up to our mistakes. It takes a humble man to admit when he might have been misled or chose the wrong path. Is Pastor Jami humble enough to review the facts, weigh the risks, hear both sides of the story without bias, and mend fences with his neighbors? If he listened to 90% of what’s on this blog, it sounds like an excellent opportunity to start a new community outreach that is more inclusive of ALL of the neighborhood’s values. What a pity that the path that was chosen excluded his neighbors and has all but eliminated the possibility of partnering together to make a bigger difference to those who really need help.
As I said, Wallingford is by and large a very liberal community. We are, as a group, highly educated and come from many walks of life. Some of us have firsthand or family experience with mental illness/substance abuse issues/abusive relationships/poverty ourselves (many of the root causes of homelessness) and have a lot of compassion for others in similar situations, and experience with breaking the cycle. As much of the opposition has oh-so-snidely pointed out, we have now attained a certain level of success that we could share (get it, SHARE?) with the less fortunate. Approach us with an open mind and treat us with respect, and the outcome may yet change.
I heard on KOMO this morning that there is a public gathering tonight for folks concerned about the church and SHARE’s shelter moving in. They said it starts at 6 at Wallingford Park. I’d recced all those who have concerns and questions to attend this. At the very least, it would look weird if we didn’t have representation.
I left a voice message for the Acting Bishop of the (Northwest) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America yesterday with the message that they have an excellent opportunity for the Church to partner with the Community and create a strong program. I haven’t recieved a call back.
NancyM, can you provide more details about the 500 foot notification radius? And has there been any hard information about whether this requirement was actually met?
Guest (#93 parent), re: comment #58, I agree with most of what you are saying, except that I haven’t heard any evidence that the Pastor refused to meet with parents. (In fact he talked to me for over 45 minutes about the matter and I am a parent of a preschooler there…)
Rather, the preschool has not wanted GoG present at their mtgs with parents which is understandable given the situation.
@72: My work prevents me from attending such gatherings at these hours. Wish it were later, but understand why not. Please know I am there in spirit and if gatherings occur later at night aor on weekends, I’m there!
@Guest, I learned about the 500 foot radius and that the requirement was met from the Seattle Human Services Department. Contact info listed in #56.
@Torn: Bravo! You couldn’t have said it any better! We should ALL have a voice and a vote – at least those of us who live in close proximity to or whose children attend schools or events at these churches. And thanks for inviting me to continue contributing – wasn’t sure if an outside voice was welcome. It’s clear that our neighborhoods are being ignored in a similar fashion by the respective host churches. Perhaps it would be helpful for affected neighborhoods to band together in trying to change this most undemocratic practice. I’ll be following with interest what happens in Wallingford.
Other than Pastor Jami, whom else is on the Gift of Grace Church in-house committee that was referred to in Post #67?
Seems they must be part of the neighborhood also? Can any of these members convinced Jami to try to work with the Neighborhood?
Agh!! 6:00 PM?!?! I don’t get home until 7:30 most days.
Feel free to use my words.
@79: They drank the kool-aid.
I know that someone named Vivian was posting on here prior to the meeting – inviting everyone to a meal w/ the homeless prior to the official meeting. She was referred to at the meeting as being part of the decision team prior to having this come to a vote w/ the congregation. Not sure if she is a neighbor.
Wonder if that vote was by secrete ballot or by show of hands….
Found some contact info from a posting that she made following the meeting (this is only a part of a longer message)… Not happy with the response, she provided this bit of commentary and an interesting interpretation of church, community, and what the pastor said… It gives an email.
—————————————————————————————————–
I do not find the disparaging comments on this Wallyhood Blog useful for people interested in this issue and invite you to contact me at [email protected]. I have said all that I want to say on this site and will be present at the neighborhood meetings and of course, present with the conversations with the preschool.
To Anonymous and those of you who stormed out of the meeting, Gift of Grace members make decisions about what happens in their church. The pastor never said that you had to join the church to make decisions about what happens in this community.
Recommended reading: The Family, by Jeff Sharlet for a contemporary look at how some churches function in America, in his nonfiction tale, it all began in Seattle . . .
From my experience in Wallingford, renting or purchasing housing near either churches or public schools comes with no guarantees, Neighborhood Plans or no neighborhood plans. The oversight on either is limited and there are huge gaps between governing groups. For example, why isn’t the Department of Neighborhoods involved in such a neighborhood issue?
I do know that when Nickelsville took over our preschool parking lot, the Department of Planning and Development got involved and slapped a land-use-violation notice up. But that was before the state law was passed last year allowing churches to bypass state and local zoning laws. The city’s governmental groups have their hands tied.
But they are not required to fund these shelters, either. And I would imagine that any city-provided funding could be tied to longer notification times, a real neighborhood process, and requiring background checks for users of a specific shelter if it is too close to a school.
I think the right thing to do is to find out more about the agreement that the city makes with the shelters as part of the funding agreement, and try and get some neighborhood input at that point. I mean after all, isn’t that what Seattle is famous for – its community involvement in its neighborhoods?
(Chris – thanks for the update about the church. I am glad to hear that he is at least talking to the parents now.)
Watching this from the world wide webs, it would make sense to start collecting emails and a petition in oppositon to this. Public gatherings are ripe for collecting info and contact info.
Get organized!
Is there someone who could bring some ole-fashioned clipboard and a generic petition that can be circulated?
Rooting for you all.
@J – Vivian is funny… “I do not find the disparaging comments on the Wallyhood Blog useful for people interested in this issue.”
Really?
As an interested lurker, I have been here for days trying to decide what to do. The comments on this blog (90% of them) have been helpful, have led me to resources for research, to allow me to formulate my opinion with all input from all kinds of sources, to allow me to think before I speak, and before I act. I am so happy to hear that news of the death of my community has been premature, to say the least!
Now as an informed citizen, I have resources here about who to contact, meetings to attend, and specific references to laws and court records. Armed with facts, we can all make a difference. Thanks to contributors like Karen, KE, ZZ, #93, Susan, Kimberly, Cathy…
If only I didn’t have to work… oh, it breaks my heart that I and so many others cannot make a showing at tonight’s media event. Clearly there’s a groundswell of support here proving that we’re not a bunch of elitist NIMBYs as the opposition would like to portray us, but rather disenfranchised members of what we thought was an open community.
Please go! Please represent! Don’t let “their” voice be the only one heard. So far, theirs is the only voice that has had any say.
It’s our turn.
I guess I can cross Irwins Bakery off my list og friendly neighborhood places I will visit.
To fill you in at what happened at our meeting with the City — Compass and the various churches in Ballard brought a contingent of people to speak on behalf of the project — it felt like a church revival. So be prepared for the sermon-speak and be prepared to get up and speak. Very few first timers to meetings like this get up and speak. Write down your questions on a piece of paper so you don’t forget. Bring up the subject of the church being neighborly to its actual neighbors and ask some of those that are there on behalf of the church where they live and if they would like the homeless shelter next door to their own homes or better yet their grandkids homes and if they want to help so badly to invite some of the homeless into their own homes.
Another thing we have learned or been told is that petitions don’t work that well. This seems counterintuitive, but that’s what we were told. We were told to contact the city, email the various people and departments. It was our flood of emails to the planning department that got a public meeting called. We were told to email Reuven Carlyle, Jeanne Kohl-Wells, Mike McGinn, etc. But a warning here these politicians are all on board with creating new housing arrangements for the homeless and getting them out of downtown Seattle. You’ll note, these facilities don’t take people from the neighborhood that are homeless, they bring people into the neighborhood from other locations.
Good luck to you. We are fighting on in Ballard. But I do think we need to organize some of the neighborhoods to fight the influx of homeless from downtown into our neighborhoods. The homeless are coming but not the police to deal with the increased crime that comes with the homelessness.
I actually asked the mayor if they have any statistics on whether these new type of homeless facilities actually work — and whether the charities that run them are accountable for the funds they get from the city. He said there are no statistics on whether these new housing programs work but he said they must or they wouldn’t get additional funding from the City.
there are too many separate places to post… A note from Sharon on a different posting:
—————————————————————————————————–
Sharon said,
I’ve seen some posts about a community meeting tonight, Wednesday Sep 15th at Wallingford Playfield at 6pm.
Request: Could someone confirm if that is still happening? If so, I can do a short post as to notify readers.
Thanks.
Yes, that’s what was reported.
“He said there are no statistics on whether these new housing programs work but he said they must or they wouldn’t get additional funding from the City.”
My jaw just hit the floor. This is a comment from the mayor? Of Seattle? There are so many things wrong with that statement I don’t know where to start. I NEED to get more involved in my local government. This whole story has been a real eye-opener.
Doing some research on the church, here’s what I uncovered. Gift of Grace is an ELCA member congregation. It claims to have 93 members with 50 members in regular attendance. Pretty much a declining congregation, which has put them in a special status within the larger synod.
Given that this census is a bit outdated, that’s like asking someone how often they floss (“All the time.”)
@ Nancy M re DON: because the dep’t of n’hoods was among the first department to be decimated by budget cuts? You only wish they could be involved.
I’m encouraged that Ms Summerfield at Seattle’s Human Services Dep’t may have some interest in seeking some accountability from SHARE. Imagine that, somebody who actually recognizes that it’s the taxpayers who fund the Mayor’s generosity with the ‘homeless’ of this city!
Unfortunately, Ms. Summerfield is highly unlikely to get any kind of compliance rules enforced for this organization. Using techniques that would make any publicist proud, SHARE has assured their name recognition all over the region. Now it’s far easier for the Mayor to continue throwing money at them than it would be to make the effort to explain to his constituency what SHARE did that got them cut off. that might hurt politically and haven’t he and his departments taken enough of a hit since his election already??
Then, even if the Mayor should pretend for a minute that he’s competent and SHARE is forced to provide independently audited accountings of their activities, the same as we wish any tax dollar supported agency would have to do, the first thing SHARE will do is go screaming ‘foul’ to City Council. At that point Council members, knowing nothing about SHARE’s well-concealed dysfunction and having heard only from Nick Licata groupies, will force the Department to give SHARE a bye on the compliance stuff and fund that ‘poor, helpless’ organization in the politically acceptable way they’ve done historically. The long term backlash set in motion by this fubar system will hurt nobody more than the homeless and the legitimate agencies able to offer them real help.
Several earlier comments have suggested contacting Council members by phone or e-mail and I would like to suggest including a link or reference to the Wallyhood threads you’re reading right now. Where most blog discussions have a way of breaking down into obnoxious pissing matches within a few dozen comments, this one has maintained its integrity after HUNDREDS! It’s as close to the voice of the ‘silent majority’ as City Council members will ever get, an open, balanced and representative dialog they wouldn’t get if they paid a consultant hundreds of dollars for months of ‘targeted outreach’! This Wallyhood discussion should be required reading for any representatives hoping to make decisions on behalf of ALL of us, not just the noisy few who show up in Council chambers.
To my compatriots in Wallingford- SHARE gets you on that slippery slope and shoves you right down it. If you are concerned about SHARE, go with it. The overnight shelter could lead to a tent city. I am NOT going to tell you to support, or even sit back and watch, the church enter into a tangled and messy relationship with SHARE.
Why do we keep allowing SHARE and these churches get to frame the debate every time?
In Meadowbrook, the church has repeatedly said that the debate is NOT about finding the best way to help the homeless. Really!?!?! The debate, they say, is whether to approve the request by SHARE to provide church facilities and host a tent city/overnight shelter. From Pastor Julie Blum to me on 7/23/10: “While I think it’s a great idea for you to come up with ideas of ways to support the homeless, Maple Leaf Lutheran Church is currently responding to this specific request from the homeless themselves.” From the MLLC Task Force to me on 8/1/10 “We are considering hosting Tent City 3 because we were asked as a church, not because we were brainstorming ways to address homelessness.”
First problem- uh, can we all stop for just a minute and think about win/win solutions that MAYBE circumvent SHARE? Hey Pastor Julie, why don’t YOU and the task force “come up with ideas of ways to help the homeless” without supporting and promoting SHARE? The churches have tunnel vision, and why do they go down the path where SHARE is the be all and end all to eradicating homeless vulnerability in Seattle?
So many homeowners are up in arms about SHARE and the fact that the organization is not striving HARD ENOUGH toward safety and thorough screening. Can the churches, pastors, and congregations STOP and listen to us for one second without twisting our objections around? We are not anti-homeless. We are not mean. We are not bad people. (You lump us together as anti-poor so darn fast, yet we would never group all homeless together as the common negative stereotypes. Maybe you should think about your own use of stereotypes.) We are are smart, thoughtful citizens, parents, churchgoers, atheists, do-gooders, ne’er-do-wells, and who knows what else raising the same concerns, coming together, and ASKING to reframe this debate into “what is the best way to protect the homeless, protect our investments, protect ourselves?” There are better solutions that address all three issues.
From Pastor Julie to me on 7/23/10: “Please consider that Tent City may be a positive thing.”
Hey, Pastor Julie, please consider that the flip side of that is tent city MAY be a negative thing.
If you can’t guarantee it is going to be a positive thing, then maybe you are burdening neighbors with an amount of RISK they are unwilling to take. Maybe faith gets you through your days safe and sound. Well, that doesn’t work for me. I weigh the facts and evaluate risk. Who are you to say I can afford the risk? Who are you to say someone can accept property values dropping? Who are you to say that taking time away from your job to walk the kids to and from school won’t get you fired? Who do you think you are, Pastor Julie? You know, I don’t need you to shove your “christian” values down my throat in the manner, time and place of your choosing. Having a tent city in my neighborhood requires some sacrifices from all of us, and some of us CANNOT AFFORD those sacrifices now. Maybe you and your congregation can find an equally acceptable place for the tent city which doesn’t require the sacrifices from unwilling residents of the neighborhood. map here: http://www.meadowbrookneighbors.org/neighbor-survey-map
There IS additional risk and burden placed on neighborhoods because 100 homeless people who are strangers will REQUIRE us to take extra precautions in order to match our current peace of mind. That means maybe accompanying children on walks to school, avoiding walking the dog late at night by yourself, locking up tightly. These are burdens on us, maybe as small as a mustard seed in your eyes, but you should know the parable…
SHARE checks WA IDs against the King County sex offender database ONLY. There are other WA county databases that could be checked, and outstanding warrant lists. In fact, the response from the task force at Mapleleaf Lutheran Church to me on the unthorough background checks is, and I quote, “Tent City 3 screens for sex offenders. Their system is a good one. It’s not perfect, but it is good.” That was from the Christina Shinkle of the Task Force to me on 8/11/10.
Well, to be frank, all I can do is delete all the curse words I originally wrote here. I am a young woman and “not perfect but good enough” is NOT good enough. Come back when SHARE puts some more brainpower into the problem and the new implemented solution is pretty darn close to PERFECT. My neighbors and I deserve better than “it’s not perfect…” Christina. I don’t appreciate you condoning pathetically watered-down guidelines while you invite 100 strangers to live in my neighborhood. Other lists could be checked- I do believe at last night’s meeting, a speaker presented you three additional ways tent city residents could and should be screened. Let’s all hold you accountable for their implementation.
I am sick and tired of hearing promoters of SHARE proudly boasting about their “strict rules.” I don’t think the rules are strict, and you can read the Consent Decree yourself at http://www.mrsc.org/Contracts/S42TntCtyAgree.pdf
But you know what? Let’s start asking if the ENFORCEMENT is strict and consistent, not just the RULES. From many sources I have heard and read, the enforcement is horrible. A sex offender got into a previous tent city (situation described in previous posts) and stayed for 3 days because the SHARE bouncer was using a list not recently printed. Duh. Disrespect for their own rules, laziness, and inadequate enforcement. NOT what Meadowbrook residents are going to welcome, and not what Wallingford residents are going to look forward to either.
I support anyone and everyone who is standing up to SHARE, demanding more stringent rules and more stringent enforcement, and opposing any and all propositions SHARE is advocating in the city.
“We are considering hosting Tent City 3 because we were asked as a church, not because we were brainstorming ways to address homelessness” says the task force. This is NOT a strong platform to develop consensus among churches, the homeless, and the neighbors …
KIRO7 news story had the pastor give a tour of the sleeping quarters. Did anyone else see this? The place looked VERY small for 15 people and it looked like it had one exit to a narrow staircase. Is this up to code w/ the fire department? Anyone know much about that stuff. Concerns like this fall under safety, so I don’t think the law from 2008 would negate that they protect the lives of the residents. Moreover, remember that this is a CO-ED facility. Pack-in like sardines and w/ no criminal background screening, how safe do you think this place will be for a woman? I mean, this area looked SMALL. Why isn’t SHARE and the church more concerned about the well-being of its homeless guest. Don’t the homeless deserve some protection from violence, too? Are SHARE and the church not taking reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of homeless woman at their shelter?
James – Getting involved in fighting the Compass building in the heart of Ballard I too felt I needed to get more involved with the city processes. I started going to Ballard City Council meetings. Compass did approach the Ballard City Council in February of 2010. Who knew other than the groups that go to the council meetings? I found out after the building permit posted in mid-April and a ruckus was raised by neighbors. I now keep watch on neighborhood blogs and the Ballard News Tribune. I watch CR Douglas on Seattle Channel 21. I contacted him about the facility they want to build in Ballard. CR told me he had the “Ask the Mayor” show on that particular Wednesday night and asked me to call with my question. The show was in mid-June — I think you can find that evening’s program on the website. I specifically asked the mayor about moving the homeless into the neighborhoods and if he had any statistics on how well these new programs were working and the funding. Check out his response. He mentions a housing project near his house in Greenwood — he said they are great neighbors and that we all need to share in the problem. Well the next day I looked it up, it is a LIHI project for (I think) 38 low income families. That is a far different scenario than an 80 unit housing facility for chronically homeless drunks, drug addicts and sex offenders. I have CR Douglas interested in doing a show on the issue but as the summer went on and I saw that another building is going up in the U District and now I see the fight in Wallingford, I think that CR Douglas needs to put on a show about the move of the homeless by the City into our neighborhoods due to displacement caused by downtown development. Now as everyone knows Ballard has been built up quite a bit over the last 5 years or so — and I’m sure some low income people were displaced. I feel that the city needs to accommodate those low income people that were displaced by new development back into the neighborhood — by building additional low income housing in Ballard and I think the high end developers need to contribute to these costs. But to allow developers to tear out the low income housing in Pioneer Square or South Lake Union, leaving the residents homeless and then move them to Ballard or Wallingford is unfair.
WALLYHOOD STAFF
There is important and helpful resource that is serving the needs of many. It has been overwhelming respectful, informative, and very active. I ask those at Wallyhood to PLEASE make a static link for this issue on the front page where comments and information can be easily available for all coming to this blog. We currently have three different articles, each with different comment sections, and they are getting pushed further down (and off) the front page. This is important stuff and you are providing a wonderful outlet w/o personally taking sides in the discussion.
Thank you!
It seems to me that the city is bypassing its own zoning, housing, and public notice laws when it provides monetary support to these church-run shelters that are deliberately excluding community input. I wonder a lawsuit can be brought against the city for violating its own regulations?
Are there any lawyers in Wallinford willing to pro-bono their time to do this.
I am sure SHARE has a bunch on their team.
Where does the Hearing Examiner fit in?
From Sharon’s original article: “It was stated by a SHARE staff member that a government agency (either the Department of Corrections or Sheriff’s Department) regularly notifies SHARE’s main office if any registered level II or III sex offenders list SHARE as their place of residence.”
From mywallingford.com article: “SHARE employee Marvin said that the group has a relationship with the Department of Corrections and the sheriff’s department whereby they let SHARE know if a sex offender has reported seeking a space in a shelter.”
Two independent sources. I believe mywallingford.com recorded the meeting, too.
I called the King Co. Sheriff’s Office and spoke to Media Relations Officer John Urquhart. He was very familiar w/ SHARE and said they they call sometimes to check on individuals, but of course they can also just use the website. I asked twice, “So you don’t call them, it’s a one-way street?” and he said one-way street both times.
Please read again:
“SHARE employee Marvin said that the group has a relationship with the Department of Corrections and the sheriff’s department whereby they let SHARE know if a sex offender has reported seeking a space in a shelter.”
Next I spoke to the person at the DOC, they had never heard of SHARE, but would get back to me. They also seemed disturbed that no background checks were being required given the pre-school situation. The person did some investigating, returned my call, and said that to say they have a ‘ working relationship’ is (and I quote) “stretching the truth.”
Please read again:
“SHARE employee Marvin said that the group has a relationship with the Department of Corrections and the sheriff’s department whereby they let SHARE know if a sex offender has reported seeking a space in a shelter.”
That’s why I’m a ZZ wannabe. Wow!
ZZ – you HAVE to call Judy with your findings. Lying to the congregation and the neighborhood about their screening practices is a specific concrete example of them not “fulfilling their obligations.”
True, the expectations for SHARE seem to be rock-bottom, but an out-and-out lie has got to be something the city cares about, as there is a requirement to notify neighbors (albeit only within that 500 foot radius), but we were well within 500 feet of the facility when they told us outright lies about their supposed “relationship” with the DOC.
I can tell you that mywallinford did record the meeting. I was sitting at the same table and she kept checking it to make sure her iphone was picking up the recording.
There is so much here that I recognize and want to comment on!. But let’s stick to the factual data first. ZZ wannabe mentioned in his post about the meeting at Meadowdale that a “grandfatherly type” gave a version of a sex offender incident in Bothell. Well, as usual the version you were given doesn’t match the reality. This sex offender, Raymond Kavalski was ejected from TC4 (not TC3) after 5 days there not three. Check the Bothell police report case #04B-02668. And here as his quoted Paul Harvey would say is the REAL rest of the story. The narrative section of that report is heavily redacted, but does provide the information that some TC4 people told the reporting officer that although he had been in residence there since a date 5 days before, he had moved to TC4 from TC3 in Seattle, also run by SHARE, where he had spent the previous MONTH. (obviously no adequate checking done there). Now for the more anecdotal part, which I have heard from enough different sources to find credible. He had a severely disabled “girlfriend” at TC3 who he was abusive to, so she moved to TC4 to get away from him. He followed her to TC4. He blamed her for providing the information about his status that got him ejected at TC4, He later tracked her down at a Seattle bus stop and beat her up. Here we go back into the strictly factual, as there is a Seattle police report on that incident #04-216403. I also have more anecdotal information from former residents that this same women was later raped at another TC4 location, but those on duty who knew were told to keep it quiet or the church or city might kick TC4 out. There are 2 important points to this story, one that the version of events you get from SHARE ,and unfortunately shelter members dependent on them, is frequently incorrect. And secondly, It is not only vulnerable neighbors, but also vulnerable residents of these places that need the protection that transparency, accountibility and improved security could help provide. As for Raymond Kavalski, according to a KING5.com story at the time (I have a copy) he was a child rapist and registered sex offender who had admitted to sexually assualting 4 other children and was dropped from sex-offender treatment because of non-compliance. At the time, this incident was the main example that demonstrated that SHARE’s supposed “system” for keeping sex offenders out obviously didn’t work. That allowed Eastside citizens to demand and get from their respective cities provisions in ordinances and permits that REQUIRED more effective screening. SHARE fought this all the way, and has since come up with ways to undermine even this system. But it’s better than nothing, which is what you will effectively have otherwise. And the case in Ballard a year ago at a similar SHARE shelter (cited in my post #41 above) should provide an example for your citizens.
This also plays into the hidden part of the agenda for some of those who supported the push to pass House bill 1956 into law. As the Associations for Cities and Counties pointed out in their testimonies, a new state law really wasn’t necessary, as Federal RLUIPA law and the state’s consitution already cover this. But SHARE et al had already admitted in a Consent Decree in Bellevue that the city’s ordinance regulations as modified were enforceable and NOT a violation of their rights under either RLUIPA or federal or state constitutions. And many Eastside cities before and after Bellevue were passing ordinances that included similar provisions. SHARE and their allies chose to interpret and publicize these rules for doing things responsibly as attempts to ban them or keep them out. Some wanted this law as another cudgel with which to intimidate communities in this state so they would be afraid to try and enforce common sense regulations aimed at safeguarding public health, safety and welfare. All SHARE or another organization would have to do is persuade some religious group to cover for them. (Its your “religious expression” but we’ll run it for you). Then SHARE gets around all the rules, transparency and accountibility that would otherwise be present, even though SHARE itself is not religious. Many of these ordinances included some provision for financial liability in case of problems. Bellevue’s required the hosting Church to carry a certain amount of liability insurance. They didn’t want to of course. And we discovered that this was probably because their insurer actually had written guidelines for the running of a shelter by a church. And those quidelines lo and behold included many provisions very similar to the common sense regulations Bellevue wanted and the church and SHARE opposed as unreasonable. If you check you will find that SHARE has no money, and neither do some of the churches that host them (although some do). So they want to be relieved of any liability and also any requirement to have a contingency to handle any liability that could occur. Some cities, Mercer Island for one, also included provisions specifically exempting the city itself from any liability. These are provisions those who supported the bill wanted invalidated. They prefer a situation where any adverse consequences of their operations, policies or decisions (which we can’t have any influence over) will either not be able to be dealt with, or will fall upon the general population. Nice deal if you can get it. There are other problems with that bill (law) which I might get into in another post if people are interested. I would also highly recomnmend the book “God vs the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law” by Marci A. Hamilton, particularly the beginning chapter, Problem, chapter 4 on Religious Land Use and Residential Neighborhoods, and chapter 10 the Path to the Public Good.
Back to the elder gentlemen’s statements about what supposedly happened in the first location of TC4 in Bothell. Specifically to his attempts to make a mockery of their police, and comments about their supposedly making out 160 reports over meaningless contacts. First of all, as someone who has in the last 5 years had to become familiar with police reports and procedures about reports in order to gather information, there is a difference between a contact or call (report) and an incident (report). Bothell had TC4 purposely thrust upon them with almost no notice or communication, no opportunity for preparation or permitting etc.. The city and many of its citizens were understandably concerned. So in an abundance of prudence, the city decided to have police presence available there at all times. If they made frequent “contacts”, their existing policies and procedures probably required those to be documented, just as if you or I talk to or call the police about something, they may have to document that. I went to the Bothell Police Records Department sometime after that, and as part of a public records request, went through their records and reports concerning that stay. I looked at them all, and made and kept copies of a few of the Incident reports I considered particularly serious and pertinent. Besides the sex offender and the outstanding warrant arrests (at least 3 I think) another report was particularly interesting. They always tout their self-management model, how the residents themselves, whatever their problems or issues, can do such a good job of maintaining security at their shelters, and making decisions. Well this report, Case # 04B-02942 was very instructive on that issue. It involved the smoking of meth by a group of individuals in a tent at TC4. A report was called in, giving the names of two women, one of whom was identified shortly before to the policewomen on duty as part of the internal security force. They found her in the security tent, and she went with them to another tent, signing a form to allow a search. They found the pipe,torch and other paraphenalia in plain sight. The meth itself was up in smoke. She was mirandized, waived and admitted to smoking meth. When we later brought this report up to the head of the Board at the religious organization in our neighborhood who decided to host TC4, he actually claimed it wasn’t true, that because they found no meth, she wasn’t really smoking etc.. He had no plausible explanation for why she was observed doing it by someone else who called in the report and admitted it herself quite freely if it didn’t happen. So again ZZ wannabe, the guy may have been folksy and even funny to some, (they love it when they can get that reaction) but he wasn’t right on the facts.
For James, Act now and others who suggested it, I did call today and speak with Judy at the city of Seattle. I offered information and documentation if she wanted it, and told her I would be happy to speak to her again if she wished . I hope it helped.
You folks are missing the point. This discussion, though highly intelligent, does not address the issue. Homelessness is a problem within our society. In our system, the rich are wealthy beyond imagination and the disenfranchised can’t even earn enough for housing and nutrition needs.
Who picks up the mess? Listen to yourselves–even the innocent-type homeless are unwanted downtown, in SODO, and in the neighborhoods. The dangerous-type homeless, do we simply exterminate them, or what? And you are home with your kids successfully ignoring the problem until it happens to settle in a neighborhood near you. Next, you think the “democratic process” should save you somehow.
You are mostly reacting to, not solving, our problem. The jist of every posting here is that the power of “community involvement” should allow nixing such agencies in the communities which must eventually deal with this accelerating problem.
Folks, it’s just nimby nimby nimby.
It’s a complex question. But the behavior of Scott and GoG is identical to all the politicians in the paper; a little spin here, a little obfuscation there, and little fudging with the books, a bit of don’t present the whole story, some “timing is everything”, maybe a little witholding of a few facts… Sounds like the local police department, actually.
The problem needn’t be hidden from the children: they will inherit the problem.
I think the kids should see the parents reach out to be involved and solve the problem.
Hey, I recently came across a young volunteer at a homeless shelter petrified by the presence of a known Bellinghan pedofile. Quite shaken, the young man left the building stat. Well, in the aid station/social services end, the agency role does not involve law enforcement; there is no protocol for obtaining i.d. and checking on warrants for any creep. A necessary trust would be broken.
I have a loaded question here: I sincerely hope you will become able to ask for i.d. in the Wallingford situation, so only the more-respectable, no-warrant homeless would show up. Fine. Now where will you send the others? I know you folks think you are liberal and sympathetic, but the bottom line here is very strongly, very clearly “not in my back yard”.
Well, we own the problem. It is ours, folks. And the ninety-some posts in this discussion have not addressed it. After all, democracy is social responsibility; it involves dealing with our problems–all of them. This thread has informed us better about the limitations of SHARE and local tent cities but has dealt with little in the cause of solving homelessness. We need to really address it from your neighborhoods. Now THAT is community.
“I sincerely hope you will become able to ask for i.d. in the Wallingford situation, so only the more-respectable, no-warrant homeless would show up. Fine. Now where will you send the others?”
I would send them to a location that does not also house a preschool. Not only for the safety of the kids, but so they could also remain compliant with their court orders to stay away from schools. No one said that all shelters should only accept screened clients. Just the ones located near children.
I would be happy to sit down sometime in the future, one on one, and discuss the larger and complex issue of homelessness in our community, as I have far too much personal experience with it. But right now the immediate community is dealing with one very specific, time critical issue. Addressing this urgent concern is the primary focus at this time, at least for me.
From the an older thread that is running concurrently on wallinghood. http://www.wallyhood.org/2010/09/share-shelter-open-wednesday-gift-grace-draft/#comments
Guy said,
Well, I guess the facts will out – we’ve been lied to. We were told by all concerned that the shelter would operate from 7pm to 7am, and that there would be no homeless in the building during the preschool’s hours of operation. This was their assurance that there was no cross-over, so no concern. Well, a moving van pulled up today and the three homeless guys from the Sunday meeting started moving things into the church around 11am. The door to the street was left wide open and unattended for an hour or so and these folk had free reign of the building in the middle of the school day. No one saw anyone affiliated with the church nearby.
I thought at first that this whole fiasco was the case of a good pastor tricked into betraying his neighbors by the scheming advice of SHARE, but I’m starting to wonder if there is anything that this church and Pastor Jami says that we can believe? The facts: Jami planned this for over a year in secret, did not disclose the fact 6 months later in February when his soon-to-be-renters the Preschool specifically asked, has keep the neighborhood out of the loop all along, and now that the info is out, has done nothing but either bend the truth, stage situations (like the “local business person”) or outright lie to those asking honest questions. I for one am really sick of it! I highly encourage as many people as possible to ask that this whole mess as well as Jami’s actions be looked into by their governing body, the (Northwest) Evangelical Lutheran Church (info posted in comment #59).
I also encourage you to keep calling and emailing your representatives, the mayor’s office, and any group that you can about this matter (for example, how can they have 15 people living in a facility with no showers and scant sanitary facilities when they prepare large amounts of food in the same building for the general public each week?). It may seem futile, but trust me, it is the way that any forward movement will occur. Jami and the church are obviously not interested in discussing this, so a higher authority needs to make them interested.
Hi Joe #107,
Please explain in much further detail your comments that “this thread … has dealt with little in the cause of solving homelessness. We need to really address it from your neighborhoods.”
YOUR neighborhoods?
Why does “solving homeless” need to be addressed from our neighborhoods? How it better addresses from neighborhoods than any other location within Seattle?
I wonder if you have stats on the Nicklesville tent city(not in a neighborhood) vs perhaps Tent City 3?
Folks making requests of the webmaster, you should try emailing: [email protected]
I just emailed them to let them know about the requests that have been posted today. But if anything else comes up, I suggest emaling directly as there are a lot of comments to keep up with here!
So I have been reading some of the comments on here and the majority of you should be ashamed of yourselves. None of you are obviously followers of Christ (any denomination). Do any of you really think that any of the church members would let anything happen to anyone???? There is a 2 hour window before any of them will be there. It must be nice to be able to judge so easily, and God forbid any of you find yourselves in a similar situation. I have 3 wonderful and beautiful children myself and would not have a problem with this situation. In fact would take the opportunity to teach them love, compassion, and not to judge. Not one of you has taken one step in any of these people’s shoes or know what they have gone through to bring them to this point, you judge on looks or the word “homeless”. If you have such a problem with this what are ANY of you doing to help????? What, at thanksgiving drop off food at the food bank,? donate toys for tot’s,? and sleep good because you did, but not care where the very people you are doing this for sleep. This is a good thing that the church is doing….. It is the VERY thing that God wants a church to do…. and more should do. By the way how many of you have done background checks on your next door neighbor, co-worker, everyone at your neighborhood park? FYI it’s proven that a sexual predator is usually a well dressed white male, not someone who looks or is homeless. Again shame on you. You do something to help or shut up and support the ones that are doing something to help……
So Joe, you’ll let us know if any of that’s going to be on the exam, right?
Do you honestly think the issue of homelessness is as simple as a problem that can be solved? That every single ‘homeless’ person, or even the vast majority of them, would avail themselves of shelter and food even if it were provided free and without any judgement or obligation whatsoever? And what does it say to said ‘homeless person’ when a civilized society provides for all their needs without even the obligation that they show respect to themselves and their neighbors?
Spending tax dollars on dysfunctional groups and throwing folding money to the onramp bums are sadly disrespectful behaviors that only enable bad behaviors and make the problem worse. The responsibility of providing for yourself and conforming to societal expectations is not the punishment so many guilty ‘haves’ around here seem to think it is. Its a way to experience self respect, empowerment and growth as a human being.
Before moving to Seattle, I managed a 200 bed shelter in San Francisco, so I will be speaking here from my firsthand experiences of trying to help people move out of homelessness. For more on causes of homelessness and possible solutions, I would suggest http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html as a starting place.
@Joe: You are absolutely correct that homelessness needs to be addressed by our society. However, when people who work in homelessness and study homelessness can’t agree on the best way to “solve” it (and from what I can tell they’ve been trying to solve it since at least Jesus’ time), then I sincerely doubt that Wallingford is going to do the problem justice.
Homelessness is an incredibly complex problem and as such requires complex and multi-layered solutions. While a safe place to sleep a night does help keep people alive, it really does not address the root problem of why people are homeless. SHARE stated at the meeting on Sunday that they operated these shelters because it was a matter of survival. I think that statement is really the core of what is expected by SHARE of housing people at this site. Not an end to those people’s homelessness, but basic survival. That’s why “extras” like showers and cooking facilities are not such an issue.
Chronic homelessness and situational homelessness are very different problems, and I think would be best treated in separate facilities. Chronic homelessness is usually a mixture of some of the following: drug/alcohol addiction, mental illness, PTSD (think veterans), physical illness/disability, lack of education/job skills, lack of affordable housing. Of course there are deeper societal problems behind many of those (like racism, lack of support for veterans, too few beds in drug and alcohol treatment facilities, etc.), but I am not going to try to explore those on the blog.
The chronically homeless are typically the people that you visualize when you hear the word “homeless” (gross stereotype here): poor hygiene, talking to themselves, pushing a shopping card, etc. Chronic homelessness tends to affect singles more than couples/family units.
Situational homelessness is what happens to folks when they don’t have a safety net and something bad happens. Sometimes the something bad is an external force, like illness or the loss of a job. Sometimes the something bad is poor decision-making, like moving to a new state without a plan (we saw lots of this in San Francisco!) or choosing not to live within your means. I will assume that for most of us in Wallingford, our safety net would cushion us for a while if we lost our jobs or became ill. We might not like asking our families or friends for help, or having to move back home, but those options would be there. For people already living paycheck-to-paycheck and without a network of family or friends, changing circumstances can have really devastating consequences that lead to situational homelessness.
In my experience, chronic homelessness is a problem best dealt with in downtown areas for several reasons: First of all, multiple services are very close together. Consider that the homeless often have no transportation or money for it, and they spent inordinate amounts of time waiting line for basic services like filing for general assistance, getting vouchers for new clothes, getting food from soup kitchens or food banks, finding places to shower and sleep. The closer together these services are, the likelier a person will be to be able to meet his basic needs. Because most government assistance offices and the vast majority of front-line social service agencies are downtown, downtown is a good place for shelters. Secondly, as your chronic homeless folks are generally struggling with addiction or mental illness, housing them in an area where there are not a lot of neighbors seems to reduce the amount of negative encounters.
People facing situational homelessness might better be served in neighborhoods, especially ones with walkable services like libraries and grocery stores, and access to public transit. Stability and normalcy is very important to people facing situational homelessness, and not being downtown where drugs and prostitution are more easily accessed may in fact keep some people from crossing over from situationally to chronically homeless. From that perspective a neighborhood like Wallingford could make a lot of sense. And, from what I have read on this blog, many neighbors would be willing to support such a project. In fact, I believe that FamilyWorks, Solid Ground and the 45th Street Clinic, all of which provide services to the homeless, receive financial and volunteer support from many neighbors.
April, I was homeless for a time many years ago. My parents tossed me out in the colds of the midwest winter when I was 19. I struggled for a while, but ultimately did the groundwork to better my life to the point that now finds me rather successful in my career and living in Wallingford. You don’t have a clue as to who you are talking to on this blog. You don’t know the others who have many, many years of volunteer work with the homeless and have done advocacy work are their behalf. You profess christian values, but judge all of use based on your prejudices. You also apparently have deep rooted prejudices about the homeless – as if they cannot make a better life for themselves through hard work so that they can ever find success in society. Do you feel better about yourself through pitying others? Sounds like that to me.
Your self-rigousness is hard to digest. You could not have read the posts that were written on here. If you did you either have a read and/or comprehension issue or you’re are so blinded by your sad interpretation of what you *think* it means to be a christian, that you cannot bring yourself to the fact that you might just not be complete correct in all you view of the world and those who live in it. Not everyone starts out middle- or upper-class. I know many who have had all sorts of struggles with health, poverty, mental illness, drugs and alcohol, etc who have found their way to a better and happier life. I know you find that hard to believe, but we are not going to stay at the bottom strata to make you feel better about yourself.
You come across as someone who has the newfound exuberance of a teen who just discovered the homeless population and is going to be their defender. Ugh! Teenagers!
To tell other people that they are not followers of christianity is about as ironic a statement as I’ve seen on this site. (Pssss… I don’t believe that kind of statement is within the bounds of Jesus’ teachings or follows the the tenants of christianity. You might want to tone down the holier than thou rhetoric).
April –
See
http://www.icrimewatch.net/results.php?AgencyID=54473&SubmitUnmappableSearch=1
Here’s a list of 96 released sex offenders that the King County Sheriff’s office lists as “unmappable.” That is, they are either registered as ‘transient’ or have given incomplete or incorrect addresses, and are out of compliance with the conditions of their release. Read up on them. Not pretty. Review the photos. “Well-dressed”? Perhaps, but not really to my taste. White? Some yes, some no. Indeed, you can’t really categorize them as a group, just as you cannot categorize “the homeless” as a group, or “followers of Christ” as a group, or your neighbors as a group. Stereotyping gets all of us in a lot of trouble. Good luck with that.
As far as whether I’ve looked up sex offenders in the neighborhood, well yes, I have. It’s extremely easy, it’s free, and such a registry search could be easily incorporated into a screening process.
As far as whether I can rely on the members of the church for my protection, well, I feel uncomfortable with that given that they’ve hidden information from us, stereotyped us, condescended to us, and dismissed our concerns with your hearts already hardened. Furthermore, SHARE appears to be lying to the church (or the church is in on it – which is far worse). As the church is accepting them without questioning, without research, with a frightening sort of arrogance, we feel we need to look elsewhere for protection.
You know nothing about us. Nothing about the shoes we once walked in, nothing about our religious leanings, although Christianity has no monopoly on charitable acts… there are plenty of examples of Jewish, secular, Jewish, Muslim, etc. compassion in the world to draw from, but again, you are more prone to stereotyping than I am. Perhaps some research is called for.
You know nothing about us. In the future, please limit your comments to things you understand, and don’t attempt to shame us. You only bring shame upon yourself.
From April (#112): “FYI it’s proven that a sexual predator is usually a well dressed white male, not someone who looks or is homeless.”
— If it is proven, then you can provide some literature references to back up your point or…
— Is your comment based on truthiness (“truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts) or…
— You just have a bad sense of fashion. Go here: http://www.icrimewatch.net/index.php?AgencyID=54473&disc=
Do a search. Now check out some of the pictures.
I am now thinking about how we as a community should move forward, since the shelter has arrived whether or not we are prepared for it. Here are my thoughts thus far and I would love to hear which resonate with the larger community and what other things you all can think of.
From other posts and my conversation with Judy, I think the city may be ready to start asking for more record keeping/accountability from SHARE. I think we are in a position to help with that!
1. A procedure must be developed for churches who would like to host a SHARE shelter (I am not talking about Tent Cities here because I think that is a different ballgame but some of this will likely be applicable). Included in this procedure should be clear expectations about neighborhood notification as well as notification of other tenants in the building/neighboring buildings.
2. If there is a children’s facility that will be sharing the same site as the shelter (according to Judy this is not the first preschool that has shared a church with a shelter), the church, SHARE and the school director must meet together to work out safety concerns including entry and exit questions, ensuring the spaces can be locked and kept separate from each other, etc.
3. A clear procedure for ongoing communication must be established before the shelter opens. The church and SHARE should each have a point person that will be available when concerns or problems arise. There should be real consequences if those people are unresponsive. The neighborhood should be made aware of whom they can contact if they have concerns or problems.
4. A means of tracking any concerns must be developed, including tracking people who are turned away from the shelter, tracking people who are in violation of SHARE’s rules or their contract with the church, reporting any crimes committed by shelter residents or people turned away from the shelter, etc.
5. Someone(s) needs to keep up with the sexual predator registry. A neighbor was the person who discovered the violation in Ballard, so we neighbors will have to be vigilant here. I would also like to work with Judy to see if there is a way to get some screening in place. Of the 1500 people SHARE is housing in its shelters, there must be at least 5 with identification and the willingness to be background checked. My personal feeling is that it’s time for SHARE to differentiate between screening appropriate for Tent Cities and screening appropriate for longer term housing (though I do think the process at the Tent Cities needs improving).
Neighbors, I encourage you to ignore posts like April’s. To any of us who have been involved in this discussion, it’s obvious that she did not read all the posts. She is just trying to get a rise. Resist the temptation to respond!
Kimberly –
Is anyone keeping an (offline) list of neighbors willing to help?
I don’t know. If no one else is already doing this, I could.
Kimberly, Very encouraging. Would be great to talk through your items relating to #118. I think it’s best to work off-line on some of this. Would be great if those interested could get together and organize a bit. So far meetings have been at 6pm (and outside) and that time unfortunately doesn’t work for at least a few people I know. Not sure of others time commitments or the logistics of all this.
Kimberly, those are excellent points. I would add that the process for setting up a city-funded shelter should more closely mirror the ones already in place for any other city-funded project. I know that parks and rec projects, for example, have a very detailed schedule for how many community meeting much be held (at least two), how much notice must be given (two weeks, IIRC) and who much be notified (range is much further than 500 feet).
I would also like to offer up the idea that city-funded shelters that operate close to schools or parks add a background check requirement. There should clearly be designated shelters that accept unscreened clients, as they will need a place to stay, too. If there were assurances that the neighborhood shelters only accepted fully screened clients, and that the unscreened ones were being directed to safe havens elsewhere, then everyone can win – those afraid of screening still have a place to stay, and one of the biggest concerns of the neighbors can be reasonably addressed.
I would also work with the city to set up an independent citizen board to manage the oversight of the city-funded shelters as well (your points 4 and 5.) From what I gather, SHARE has been responsible for gathering and reporting their own statistics. Having an outside board confirm and track this information would be a more prudent strategy, IMHO.
I am volunteering my time to help out with this. I can also help with contacting people within my neighborhood as well. I’ll be in touch.
#93 succinctly hit some other points I thought were needed – especially the independent citizen board – and some great ideas I had not thought of. Would be willing to volunteer on this where I can, as well.
Wow. Take a look at http://www.sharewheel.org/
The front blog post (8/11) is a real eye-opener. This is how SHARE treats all people that disagree, or merely do not agree, with them, even by absentia:
The first thing posted is that the SHARE members are miffed that a new city employee, one week on the job, would dare take vacation, when they need a bail-out. And that they would post her name and her travel destination? DISRESPECTFUL!
Well, SHARE, guess what. You barge into neighborhoods via stupid self-centered churches in need of a PR blitz and then bully residents, but you cannot barge into City Hall and snap your fingers and demand vacations cease and employees listen up to your sob stories how you can’t manage your own funds.
Mike McGinn should have made you wait and go through the proper channels.
Mike McGinn should also stop giving taxpayer $ to SHARE. Reasons for that statement? There are so many reasons on these comments sections it will take hours to read them all.
Best thing is that now we have all figured out how to blog, and this info is going to be out there FOREVER for all seattle residents!
Our neighborhoods are going to start gathering up all the data points about SHARE floating around in various places, slowly but surely, and post them online. We are techies in Ballard, Greenlake, Wallingford, Meadowbrook, Laurelhust … look out. Whatever you have to hide, we are going to find it and advertise it.
You lastly this long, SHARE, but the blog will be the death of your organization’s unsavory practices and sneaky ways. CANNOT WAIT!
I don’t see how the city can support an org that resorts to radical activism. If SHARE wants to employ these tactics, fine. But why are our tax dollars going to support them? And with very little accountability. They should exist solely through non-taxpayer dollars. I cannot think of another tax-funded org allowed to behave like this. They may exists (hope not), but I’m not aware of it.
With those calls to the city council folks as well as mayor, please ask them to STOP funding SHARE becauseof their tactics.
Kimberley, have you read any other words I have printed. I do not knwo hwo toreach through this blog to contact you, but we certainly need your skill in working with this situation. With city officials as well as with the GoG folks.
I have repeatedly offered a list of other sites which do NOT have preschools. That list may instead be a list of where the preschool shoudl go since SHARE has effectivlly moved in to GoG.
Kimberly –
I’m going to have to second Cathy. I don’t know if you have time or want to do this, but I’m afraid that we need your past expertise, vast knowledge of the issues, and calm leadership to be successful.
Anonymous- I was homeless because of wrong choice I made(not drugs or alcohol) So I do know what I am talking about. I believe the church is just trying to help these people and give them a warm place to sleep at night. I do agree that not all homeless are willing to help themselves, but alot are and they just need a lilttle help.
I wasnt judging anyone on here I was just wondering if u dont want it in your neighborhood then what r u doing to help. You r getting all over me for judging, yet u r judging me without knowing what I have been through.
Homelessness is not something I have just discovered, it a reality we all see everyday, and I am thankful that there r people out there willing to stand up and fight for them and help them.
Do people really think that the shelter brings homeless people to the neighborhood? That without it, there would be no homeless in the area? The homeless, “situational” and “chronic” are both here already, sleeping in the bushes and alleys.
Oh, and there are sex offenders already in the area, housed. (Possibly also homeless, too, yes.)
So, the question is–offer some shelter, hoping to serve the poor at the risk of serving someone unsavory, or let the many go unassisted because of the possibility of serving one of the few bad apples.
Yes, I have read EVERY post. Why don’t people take the energy they are spending trying to bring down SHARE and instead channel it toward opening a shelter in Wallingford that is run to their liking?
This gets a little old after a while…
@April 129: “I wasnt judging anyone on here I was just wondering if u dont want it in your neighborhood then what r u doing to help.”
@April #112
“None of you are obviously followers of Christ (any denomination).”
“Not one of you has taken one step in any of these people’s shoes or know what they have gone through to bring them to this point, you judge on looks or the word “homeless”.”
@ fruitbat. None of the posts I’ve read dispute the presence of homeless and criminals in our neighborhood, shelter or not. Two questions for you:
–It’s naive to think even huge amounts of energy and enthusiasm are enough to produce and run a shelter for the homeless or anybody else. These undertakings also need lots of money and endless amounts of volunteer support. Try interviewing some of the shelters supported by the United Way. Why start another instead of working to make those already good ones stronger and more effective?
–Remind me why, other than the in-your-facedness of it, the outlying neighborhoods of Magnolia, Ballard, Maple Leaf, the U District and others are better locations for an overnight shelter than downtown where the homeless also have access to many other resources including showers, DSHS and employment offices?
I understand you’re feeling guilty, but resources are extremely limited right now and we need to spend them extremely wisely.
@Fruitbat: The work I do is something that most would consider for the public good. Whenever I tell people what I do, they often thank me (to my embarrassment) and tell me how it impacts their lives. I also volunteer and donate money to cause that mean something to me. Disclaimer: None of this has a direct impact on homelessness. There is too much need and not enough time and money from me. I’m tapped out.
That said, I do indirectly help the homeless through paying taxes on an overpriced home in Wallingford. Taxes that I’ve recently learned go to fund in large part SHARE and that are used to bail them out every time that hit financial problems – which by all accounts is quite often.
I am sorry that you feel questioning a dysfunctional and highly inefficient organization that lives off the pocketbook of the general public is disturbing to you. As both a tax payer and a professional, I feel it worthy to educate myself on SHARE and when I see deep-seeded problems with how they operate, I want to take action. Actually, I AM a doer; just not in the limited way you choosing to view it. SHARE needs help and also needs to be held accountable – to the city, the taxpayer, the host neighborhoods, and to the homeless. I’ve seen some pretty disturbing articles on how they treat their own, so it’s not all about ‘us’.
Quite frankly, I didn’t know much about SHARE prior to this. Again, my focus is on other needs in society (hope that doesn’t make me a bad person) and I use to just blindly vote to support such efforts without much research. Now that I’ve had first hand experience, I’m engaged to the point I can be and fixing an obvious problem seems like the place to start. They don’t have their house in order and that is a key focal point.
Which brings up my last comment… often people get involved with a charity through some personal connection. I could snidely ask what are you doing to stop the sexual abuse of children (maybe a lot!) or physical abuse against women (maybe a lot!) or gay rights (maybe a lot!). You should be kind to people and assume the best when interfacing w/ those you don’t know. Give people the benefit of the doubt as opposed to attempting to know their real motivations. That kind of behavior is a real dialog killer – case in point was the meeting on Sunday at the church.
ok so after talking to a parent of a child in the preschool I understand that the issue for her at least is not the homeless but that they didnt get enough notice. So I apologize to those that took offense to my entry and to my judging. I understand her feelings of not enought time to get used to the idea. Is that on fault of preschool or the church? I still stand by my entry on the part that I think this church is doing a good thing!!
Torn, Cathy, Guest 93 Parent and anyone else who is interested in trying to move forward from this place, you may contact me here: [email protected]
I don’t know if I can spearhead a movement (my primary cause these days is climate change) but I would certainly be willing to talk with Judy at Human Services to find out where citizen involvement can be useful. At the very least, I think we can setup our own neighborhood watch/survey of this sitation and start working with other neighborhoods to compile some data and facts about shelters in our communities.
My question today: Is the SHARE system working? Are more people sleeping inside than would be without SHARE? How many SHARE residents move on to more stable housing situations? What happens to those who don’t?
April, thank you for taking the time to talk with the parent. I really respect that you did that.
April- I give u kudos for seeing where u misjudged and apologizing for it. I find it funny that people get on u for judgeing yet they r doing the same thing to you. As for your “teenage exburance” Keep it up!! Its people with your passion that will help make changes.
To Anonymous- you have alot to say but why u hiding? why not put your name out and be proud of what u stand for and thin?
This is a very tough situation but truly its between the preschool and church if thats what all is worried about. If your worried about the homeless being in the neighborhood, well people look around they already is and has been for a long time.
April- I give u kudos for seeing where u misjudged and apologizing for it. I find it funny that people get on u for judgeing yet they r doing the same thing to you. As for your “teenage exburance” Keep it up!! Its people with your passion that will help make changes.
To Anonymous- you have alot to say but why u hiding? why not put your name out and be proud of what u stand for and thin?
This is a very tough situation but truly its between the preschool and church if thats what all is worried about. If your worried about the homeless being in the neighborhood, well people look around they already are and have been for a long time.
Mcginn is hosting an open forum tonight at st matthew’s church at 630 to hear concerns from his constituents. I’m not sure where this church is but would be a good place to share w him what has happened in Wallingford.
all should go who have concerns. Good outlet.
From Lake City Live:
Meeting with McGinn (the schedule changed at bit) By danaek
(0 votes)(report abuse)
Featured Event!
Posted: 1 day ago
Viewed: 19 times
Comments: 0
More
in Community
from danaek
Share!
When: Thursday, September 16, 2010 06:00 PM – 07:30 PM
Where: St Matthew Parish Hall, 1240 NE 127th Street, Seattle WA 98125
What: Thursday, September 16, Mayor Mike McGinn will come to St. Matthew Parish Hall for a Town Hall. Please join us.
6:00-6:30 Open House
Representatives from city departments will be on hand to hear from you.
6:30-7:30 Town Hall
Ask Mayor McGinn questions about issues that matter to your neighborhood. This portion of the evening will be moderated by Renee Staton, Pinehurst community member.
Where:
St Matthew Parish Hall, 1240 NE 127th Street, Seattle WA 98125. Parking in parish lot or on nearby streets. Bus #41 runs along NE 125thSt.
Jack – Just an FYI… I think there are a lot of people using the anonymous handle. Neighbors and others (trolls?). That said, it’s been fairly tame compared to other posting strings I’ve seen. The only challenge I have w/ anonymous – given the number of posters – is when I reply. In fact, I think there are more that one J. posting, as well. I don’t think listing an initial, name, or handle is a pride issue – at least for me. I do it so people can reply to me by “name”, if needed. Your as anonymous to me as the next person and for all I know your name is Silvia Smith and live in Portland OR but you go by Jack on here. I’m being facetious, but you get my point. That said, I’m fine w/ that too – doesn’t take away from your message to me.
I think the community as a whole has a right to express their opinions and concerns on this matter, so I disagree w/ you on that point. I think many of the posts point to the other concerns on the table. I don’t see homeless in the neighborhood per se as one that is even mentioned, so I am also not sure why that point keeps getting brought up on here. I think most on here know that there are homeless living in many neighborhood in Seattle, including Wallingford.
Please lets all be kind and fair. Take people at their word and not jump to conclusions.
Questions: If the hours of the shelter are 7pm – 7am and then they need to leave the area, then that means that the residence cannot stay for church services or Harvest Feast on Sundays, correct? But didn’t the pastor say he’d hope that they would take part and join his congregation? How would this get resolved?
I ask because from what I know (someone correct me if I’m wrong), in Ballard the SHARE shelter was near a place that served food to the homeless. The hours conflicted w/ the shelter’s agreement and so these people had to find food elsewhere so that they were cleared from the area as agreed to in the shelter’s rules.
To 143 Anonymous:
Speaking as an individual and not as a spokesperson for Gift of Grace, I would think that since the Preschool doesn’t operate on Sunday it would be OK for SHARE residents to attend Worship and GraceFeast during the hours of 10:30 AM – 1 PM. The allowed weekend times when SHARE residents can be on the premises needs to be worked out between Gift of Grace and SHARE. I would expect the basic rule that there will be no overlap between SHARE residents and schedule times (as spelled out in the lease or pre-arranged on a case by case basis) when Preschool children are on the premises would be maintained.
Also, it is my understanding that Huckleberry Forest Preschool does not rent the building in the evenings. If they do use the building in the evenings, it is on a case by case basis, which is usually approved, but this is not included as part of the lease.
@iyqtoo:
“Remind me why, other than the in-your-facedness of it, the outlying neighborhoods of Magnolia, Ballard, Maple Leaf, the U District and others are better locations for an overnight shelter than downtown”
“None of the posts I’ve read dispute the presence of homeless and criminals in our neighborhood, shelter or not.”
So, I believe you answered your own question. Or, perhaps you would like to have this discussion with somebody from Pioneer Square or other downtown neighborhoods–folks there keep asking why so many services and shelters are jammed together downtown, and not spread around through the city.
Why have shelters up north? Why not? Why make all the homeless huddle in one place? Is the problem this particular shelter at Grace of God, or is the problem shelters in the North-end neighborhoods? Are you hoping lack of shelter will cause the homeless to head south?
“I understand you’re feeling guilty, but resources are extremely limited right now and we need to spend them extremely wisely.” Um, guilty for what? I’m not trying to close down a homeless shelter. I’m feeling sad and annoyed at others. Is anyone in this discussion feeling guilty
@ Anonymous 133 (sure would help to use a name so we know how many anonymouses are the same writer)
Yeah, I do a lot of “good works” too–working, speaking out, giving time and money to various needs and causes for 30+ years now. From this, believe that I am not being “snide” when I ask why people don’t work on getting a different shelter in the neighborhood. I am suggesting that–since other have said how limited resources of time and money are–it might be better to put those limited resources to use in a positive, building manner rather than just a tearing down manner. I don’t want to sound all Happy-good-vibes, Let’s-all-think-positive-thoughts-now, because it’s hard to take that seriously, so I guess instead I sounded snide. But really–people can spend their time digging up dirt about SHARE and driving out the shelter, or spend some time researching other care providers and finding space for a shelter run to their liking. If the problem is only this shelter and its management.
Because, iqytoo, anonymous and everyone–the homeless are in our neighborhoods, they do not necessarily have the means or desire to seek shelter every night downtown, and we need to deal with them here. The void of shelters will be filled by someone, and if you don’t like SHARE and Gift of Grace, then you have to find a different someone.
Woody: Thanks for your reply. My question had nothing to do with the pre-school. It had to do with what the community was told would be the rules of operations – very strict rules that came along w/ assurances. There was no mention of weekly “exceptions” at that time. I do note that the handout states that hours can change at the desecration of the host, so I was just wondering if this was one of those instances. To me, if that was the plan all along, then why not state that in the literature provided and have the rules correct out of the gate? Some are looking for honesty and/or a sign of this being well-thoughtout.
The pre-school is not an easy topic… there are conflicting stories being tossed around and so it is hard to know who is to blame (if that is the best word). I do think the church could been more proactive and assumed a more visible role in notifying people, none-the-less. Did the church follow-up w/ the pre-school and asked them if they notified the parents? State if they didn’t the church would? They seem to have put the onus on the pre-school and SHARE and assumed they had no responsibility in all this. That may be *legally* acceptable, but they are responsible for their own PR and their standing in the neighborhood. And look how it turned out.
Which brings up another point… If I was landlord and was going to lease to a business where I would be doing something that I know would have an impact on the business (whether in reality or perceived), I would have probably not offered the lease to that business and found someone else. Yes, everyone is an adult here but later problems (like this) are just too much of a headache to deal with. Whether I am legally within my rights to take their money or not, the church didn’t have to lease the property to them. One should have seen this coming from a mile away and I would have hope the church and pastor would have counseled the young couple rather than making this a purely revenue generating venture. Maybe that did happen… again, I’m operating off of little data and only able to assess things from the outcome. Again, protecting the image of the church in this would have assumed a more visible role on their part.
I hope you take these comments in the light intended – as concerns and questions about this process and the church’s role in it. Deflecting to SAHRE or the pre-school is not satisfying to many. The church did have a major role in this and had opportunities throughout the process to intervene if they suspected troubles. It appears they did not.
Church votes to allow Tent City 3 in Meadowbrook. So much for listening to the neighbors.
To all of you guys drop everything. share made a mistake. i can tell none of you believe in god cause if i ran share i would let sex offenders in shelters. you guys rather have them on the streets then housed. like Jonathan schoppet. personal friend of mine and loved one. He is nice and was in a deep relationship tell daddy little girl was there so back off and drop something that happened a freaking year ago.. i do see the need to protect children but dont always believe what you see. your kid could get in the same situation as him…
my business required Wounded Warrior Handbook a few weeks ago and was told about a document management site that has an online forms database . If you have been needing Wounded Warrior Handbook also , here’s a
https://goo.gl/v9vPOU.