SHARE, Seattle Housing and Resource Effort, held a neighborhood notification meeting on Sunday at the Gift of Grace Lutheran Church (2102 North 40th Street). This SHARE indoor shelter will begin providing housing for a minimum of five and up to fifteen co-ed residents starting this Wednesday September 15th from 7pm to 7am, seven days a week. The shelter residents will occupy the second and third floors of the church and will be required to arrive and leave by the designated hours. Entrance will be through the west side door of the church. SHARE provides two bus tickets per day for transportation to and from the shelter site. Out of the fifteen indoor shelters, there are three that allow registered sex offenders to be residents. These are non-residential locations and do not include the Wallingford shelter.
I attended the meeting, along with many members of the community, parents and staff of Huckleberry Forest Preschool, Gift of Grace parishioners, and SHARE staff and residents. Members of the media from Fox 13 News and King 5 were also in attendance. Gift of Grace pastor and meeting facilitator, Jami Fecher, started the meeting with a moment of silence, then reviewed the goals of the meeting: to receive information from SHARE about the organization and its plans for the shelter, hear and respond to concerns, and attempt to address concerns. Given the level of neighborhood concern, the meeting went well past time, lasting over three hours.
SHARE residents Lantz, Wendell, and Alex took turns presenting an overview of the organization and its charter, the homeless situation in Seattle, and how SHARE shelters operate. Then the attendees were permitted to ask clarifying questions. Most of the questions 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. The latter issue came to a head when it was suggested by Pastor Fecher that non-church community members could join the congregation to gain more of a voice as the decision-making process to bring the shelter in was done internally by the church. This prompted some heated debate between church and non-church community members, causing several meeting attendees to leave.
Currently, the agreement signed between the church and SHARE is a one year term that is renewable. According to Fecher, the church is not receiving any monetary compensation from either SHARE or the city. SHARE members, however, have agreed to help clean the inside and outside of the church. Fecher and the SHARE staff member present stated that the agreement between the two parties is public information and will be shared with the community.
As stated on the website, SHARE is not a social service agency, but rather, a self-help group. There are no staff members in the shelters and the residents practice a philosophy of self-management, which includes having residents conduct the screening process for other potential residents and management of the shelters themselves. Each of the shelters uses an election process by which one lead and one assistant lead help to provide an internal management structure. There are also rules of conduct that govern the shelter residents and are the base of the agreement between SHARE and Gift of Grace.
The list of 37 conduct rules include the following:
- There is absolutely no loitering in the neighborhood during non-shelter hours.
- No participant can enter the shelter after 9pm.
- There are no in-and-out privileges. Once you sign in, you are in for the night.
- No drugs or alcohol are allowed on church property.
- No theft, destruction of property of the church, neighborhood, or [harm to] shelter participants will be tolerated.
These rules of conduct are also the basis of the screening process done by SHARE residents for the purpose of screening other potential residents. The screens are conducted once per person, at the downtown SHARE office Monday through Saturday. According to SHARE, there are no additional checks incorporated into the screening process such as background checks for criminal history or inclusion on the sexual offense registry and official identification is not required. 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. When asked if the church had inquired about or requested that SHARE conduct background checks as part of their screening process, Pastor Fecher stated that the church doesn’t conduct or require background checks on its other tenants and didn’t see a reason to deviate from its standard practice.
When asked by an attendee, SHARE stated that there is not a standardized list of offenses that would bar an applicant from becoming a SHARE resident, but there are general categories of concern such as violence, or drug and alcohol use along with breaking individual shelter rules, that would potentially raise a red flag. A resident may be barred from an individual shelter for a night or longer period of time by fellow shelter residents or may be barred from one, several or all SHARE shelters by the SHARE bar committee that meets every two weeks to review complaints. Most of these complaints will stem from a violation of the rules of conduct.
That said, if a problem at the shelter is confirmed, the shelter will close the next evening and will reopen only after the problem is resolved if:
- Drugs, drug paraphernalia, or alcoholic beverage containers are found and no one is identified and held accountable.
- The shelter space is left in a disorderly/unclean state.
- Community residents accurately report loitering or neighborhood disruptions by shelter participants.
- Destruction, vandalization or theft of church or neighborhood property occurs.
- A pattern of rule violations occurs.
In addition to the inadequate notification and lack of community involvement and outreach, the other large issues seem to be related to weak screening processes used by SHARE and the co-location of the shelter and the existing preschool. Particularly given that the Ballard SHARE location closed after the discovery of a level III sex offender, attendees wanted to know how both SHARE and the church would mitigate against such risks. Those key issues were discussed, but not addressed through action plans by either the church or SHARE, and thus, remain open items and lingering worries for local residents.
At the suggestion of a church neighbor, Pastor Fecher did agree to initiate a broader “steering committee,” to include representatives from all four interested parties: the church, SHARE, the Wallingford community, and the preschool. Details regarding the steering committee were not given but a list was passed around so that attendees could sign up for email updates from Fecher, the first of which will go out by Thursday September 16th.
If you were unable to attend the meeting today and you have general questions about the SHARE organization, questions about this shelter location, or need to make an incident report, please call the SHARE office at (206) 448-7889. If you have questions for the Gift of Grace church as it relates to the SHARE shelter, or would like to be added to the email communications list, contact Pastor Jami Fecher at (206) 226-5299.
sharon, could you send me an email?
I have some ideas.
please
As was posted earlier, if you have concerns that this ‘done deal’ which does not run background checks for sex offenders will be placed not only in our neighborhood but also within a preschool, then the Seattle City Council is the appropriate body of elected officials to contact.
These emais AND calls should be made ASAP as this stands to open on Wednesday.
Additionally, there are some concerns that this space is not zoned appropriately, another question for the city council.
Feel free to copy and paste these emails in your “to” field:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; mike.o’[email protected]; [email protected]
Phone numbers:
Sally Bagshaw: 206.684.8801
Bruce Harrell & Tim Burgess (share an office): 206.684.8888
Sally Clark: 206.684.8802
Richard Conlin: 206.684.8805
Jean Godden: 206.684.8807
Nick Licata: 206.684.8803
Mike O’Brien: 206.684.8808
Tom Rasmussen: 206.684.8808
Everyone should make sure to read entry 93 on the previous article on this topic. It would have been great to have enough time to get someone like this to come to our meeting and speak of their experiences. I see why the church sprung this on us under SHARE’s direction.
You’d think that the church, after learning these sorts of thing and seeing the damage they are creating with their neighbors, would have a moment of clarity.
Sharon,
Pastor Jami continues to state that there will be no overlap between the shelter hours and preschool functions. From what I hear from the school and parents, that is defiantly not true. Is there a way for you to add to this article and report the truth on this matter. It would be interesting to hear his reasoning for continuing to make these statements. Is he simply misinformed? If so, we need someone with more knowledge of the facts to correct him – and soon. Why he wouldn’t have his facts straight prior to entering such an arrangement is another issue. It is also something that could have been easily clarified early in the process if the church would have been open to community and preschool input.
As I’ve sated before, if this is any indication of how this self-governing shelter will be managed, we are all in for headaches.
If you have any concerns about our new neighbors moving in on Wednesday, please contact the Seattle City Council. http://www.cityofseattle.net/council/councilcontact.htm
Thanks for the post. SHARE’s rules seem very fair and thorough. Welcome to the neighborhood.
J-
I’m involved with the preschool (as a parent), as well as a writer for Wallyhood, and as such I’ll make sure we give on update on their perspective.
Don’t know if this will help allay any concerns, but when I lived in Lake City there was a church that let up to 10 homeless sleep there per night. Usually the same folks I saw selling Real Change in the neighborhood. They were very respectful, quiet, and easy to coexist with. I walked by that church every time I left my house, even at night, even as a lone female. Never had any trouble. Though there wasn’t a daycare in the building, there was one across the street & a few doors down.
Sharon,
Thanks for the detailed and very accurate reporting.
So from what was said at the meeting yesterday, violations (big and small) that require immediate expulsion from the shelter are mediated by getting them on a metro bus and – as stated by SHARE, they become Metro’s problem. What about calling the police? I never heard this offered as an option once. If we have problems, call the Pastor or SHARE and they will take care of it. What about calling the police! No wonder the stats on SHARE shelters is so poor, they cover up problems. And how reckless is it to dump these people on a metro. Hope you or I aren’t on the bus when this happens. It that even a legal remedy? doesn’t someone bear some responsibility? Man oh man, be extra nice to your metro drivers. This is appalling.
Can someone from this blog interview someone at metro about this comment, and their own issues with SHARE residence. I think we need better informed voices in this discussion – and not only relying on the stakeholders.
For a pastor to think that dumping a homeless person onto a bus as a means of properly handling a situation makes me continue to question his judgement. He’s not winning points w/ me.
For those of you who plan to write/call the Seattle City Council, there was a law signed last year which grants churches the right to house the homeless without getting hassled by local ordinances, (and they don’t have to have liability insurance either) but it does NOT apply to issues of health and safety.
So you may want to mention something like the following (feel free to cut/paste).
“While I understand the signing of House Bill 1956 into law grants broad authority to religious organizations to provide shelter or housing to homeless persons on property owned or controlled by such organizations, the bill also explicitly ALLOWS a county to impose conditions to protect public health and safety.
Not performing criminal background checks on the homeless who will be sheltered in the same building as a daycare facility (especially when SHARE’s own screening procedures have failed to turn up some sex offenders in the past ) is clearly a safety issue, and children are needlessly being put at risk and we are asking you to take action.”
So their hands are NOT tied on safety issues. But please, don’t feel you need to take my word for it, the bill that was signed to law can be found here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1956&year=2009
How the heck did such a bill get passed? Makes me aware that I need to start talking more to candidates prior to voting. What a wake-up call for me!
“…host temporary encampments for homeless persons…”
Question: What defines temporary? Seems some of these SHARE shelter have been in the same place for years.
I liked this thoughtful letter from a church elder at a church in Wedgewood/Meadowbrook. It respectfully considers the neighbors and other services that exist at this church.
An excerpt:
Despite the admirable and commendable objective of helping the less fortunate, I have come to the conclusion that we should not proceed with this effort because of the following:
— It is not in keeping with the democratic principles of a free society;
— It is wrong morally;
— It is detrimental to the well being and longevity of the church; and
— It may well adversely impact the Homeless by creating discontent for the Homeless with many people in the neighborhood.
As you can see, he is a wise and thoughtful man who knows that a church is part of a broader community – not insular and acting w/o regard for its neighbors.
The whole letter can be found here:
http://www.meadowbrookneighbors.org/letters/powerful-letter-from-church-elder
Very nice recap of the meeting. You did an excellent job!!!!!
I know, that cracked me up. That no one in the House or Senate asked for a definition of “temporary”, nor ” Made me assume that the definition must already exist in RCW, but it doesn’t.
Another thing that I thought was funny is that it says churches are not required to carry liability insurance, and then the last provision says the elected officials cannot be sued for this going south. But the church isn’t listed as a party who cannot be held liable, so they CAN be sud.e So why wouldn’t they voluntarily insure themselves? Weird.
Oh btw, the part where I say “County” above, should just be “community” as the bill restates itself over and over with same provisions, but directed at counties, then cities, then code cities, then hamlets, etc. Bottom line is Seattle can do something about health and safety issues.
I was at the meeting for the first half and wanted to echo the comment that Sharon’s recap of the meeting seemed accurate and unbiased. Good job, Sharon.
I also wanted to comment on something that Chris said in his proposed letter to the city council: “especially when SHARE’s own screening procedures have failed to turn up some sex offenders in the past.”
During the meeting, one specific example was cited of an issue with a Level III sex offender being housed in a shelter in Ballard. As the parent of a young child living less than 2 blocks from the church, I can guarantee you that the thought of having a sex offender who has been deemed to be high risk living nearby freaks me out. But, I don’t believe that SHARE should shoulder the blame for that incident in Ballard (if their account is correct) because that individual was an un-registered offender. So, even if SHARE did pre-emptive screening through the Department of Corrections or the Sheriff’s office, that individual would not have raised a red flag. Clearly, there are some issues with the system if someone like that could be un-registered, but I don’t think we should be expecting SHARE to be held to some higher standard.
I don’t know if there are other examples of problems with sex offenders in neighborhood SHARE facilities, but I did want to make sure that people who did not attend the meeting and are reading all of this are aware of this detail. I could tell that emotions are running high from both sides of this issue, but the more we can focus on the facts and not assumptions, the better.
I also hope that as we continue to discuss and evaluate the successes and failures of the SHARE facility that we are able to distinguish between the residents of SHARE and the general homeless population in Wallingford. Because, I think we all realize that there are homeless people currently living in our neighborhoods and I think it would be unfair to judge the SHARE residents based on the actions of others.
It seems, just by the number of comments, that there are a lot of people passionate about this for good reasons, and coming from all sides. It seems a shame that a decision has already been made, knowing that there are so many concerns.
Mike, There was a lot of misinformation about the Ballard issue coming from SHARE at this meeting. Clarification and correction of info was not welcomed from those in attendance. Google and you will find more info.
I don’t live in proximity of Gift of Grace Church nor do I have children going to the childcare there. However, my children do go to a daycare hosted in the University Christian Church (but not associated with it) that shared their parking lot with Nickelsville last year for 3 months. The daycare rents parking spaces in that lot for parents to drop off their kids. Those space were kept open, but were hard to access because the main entrance of the parking lot was closed off for the tent city. There was basically no notice from the church that this would happen.
The point is that the Gift of Grace Church is not the first church to turn their ground into a homeless shelter while hosting a child care and without input from their tenants. I guess the churches just see the child cares as a source of rent money, but do not feel any obligation toward including them when making any decisions about the rest of their property. This lack of consideration makes me very angry!
Correction: It was two years ago (not last year) that our child care shared their parking lot with Nickelsville (also run by SHARE).
As one of the most Democrat precincts in the state of washington we ought to be calling our representatives and voicing our concerns over this bill.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1956-S.PL.pdf
2009 House Bill 1956 (authorizing the housing of homeless persons on property owned or controlled by a church) (House Roll Call)
FOR
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
Appleton (D)
Blake (D)
Chase (D)
Chopp (D)
Clibborn (D)
Cody (D)
Conway (D)
Darneille (D)
Driscoll (D)
Dunshee (D)
Eddy (D)
Ericks (D)
Finn (D)
Flannigan (D)
Goodman (D)
Green (D)
Haigh (D)
Hasegawa (D)
Hudgins (D)
Hunt (D)
Hunter (D)
Jacks (D)
Kagi (D)
Kelley (D)
Kenney (D)
Kessler (D)
Liias (D)
Linville (D)
Maxwell (D)
McCoy (D)
Miloscia (D)
Moeller (D)
Morrell (D)
Morris (D)
Nelson (D)
O’Brien (D)
Ormsby (D)
Orwall (D)
Pedersen (D)
Pettigrew (D)
Probst (D)
Quall (D)
Roberts (D)
Rolfes (D)
Santos (D)
Seaquist (D)
Sells (D)
Simpson (D)
Springer (D)
Sullivan (D)
Takko (D)
Upthegrove (D)
Van-De-Wege (D)
Wallace (D)
White (D)
Williams (D)
Wood (D)
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
none
________________________________________
AGAINST
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
Carlyle (D)
Kirby (D)
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
Alexander (R)
Anderson (R)
Angel (R)
Armstrong (R)
Bailey (R)
Campbell (R)
Chandler (R)
Condotta (R)
Crouse (R)
Dammeier (R)
DeBolt (R)
Ericksen (R)
Fagan (R)
Haler (R)
Herrera (R)
Hinkle (R)
Johnson (R)
Klippert (R)
Kretz (R)
Kristiansen (R)
McCune (R)
Nealey (R)
Orcutt (R)
Parker (R)
Pearson (R)
Priest (R)
Roach (R)
Rodne (R)
Ross (R)
Schmick (R)
Shea (R)
Short (R)
Smith (R)
Taylor (R)
Walsh (R)
Warnick (R)
I encourage you to voice your concerns to those that make the laws that affect our community. Below are the links to our representatives our district (43rd)
43rd District Legislators
Senator Ed Murray
Representative Jamie Pedersen
Position 1
Representative Frank Chopp
Position 2
I am a pre-school parent and am concerned about the long-term business impact the church’s actions will have on the pre-school. I suspect that many parents who are considering what pre-school to send their children to will now hesitate or think twice about sending their child to the pre-school primarily because a homeless shelter is housed in the same building but also because the publicity and headache of the process undertaken by the church. Given the quality choices for pre-school in north Seattle, and the fact that the pre-school is still in its start up phase, this dispute could result in legal costs to the school and in lost revenue from potential families deciding not to enroll their children. This result will impact the school’s financial stability and, therefore, the quality of the education and care if staff can not be maintained. Thus, the decision to open the shelter in the process described on the local websites and accompanying comments appears to be a poor business decision for the church (and I recognize that isn’t likely a driving factor behind the decision which appears to be mission based, but, still, the church also decided to become a landlord, a business-based role) and could very well hurt the business of it’s tenant, the pre-school. For this reason, I am disappointed in the landlord’s decision, and I am not in support of the shelter. I have added my comments because I have not seen this point-of-view addressed.
I am the woman who posted #93 on the other blog entry, whose preschool went through this in the fall of 2008. The school definitely took a huge hit financially during the entire time that there was an encampment in the parking lot, and I believe for about a year after that as well. Our family ended up pulling our child out of the school during this time, as a matter of fact, though the specific reasons were far more complicated than just this one issue. Our spot was not replaced for a very long time, from what I heard through the grapevine. It was not our intention to cause financial harm to the preschool, but we no longer felt that we could keep our child in that situation anymore.
And though I don’t need to mention it, I do feel obligated to say that I am no stranger to homelessness, as I have worked with two family members, one a child, for over twenty years as they deal, unsuccessfully, with addiction and homelessness themselves. I have been in and out of countless ad hoc homeless shelters, SROs, weekly motels, squats, beach camps, and you-name-it places, helping out my loved ones when they were in trouble, or wanted to visit with their kid (whom I cared for for many years). Not to mention all the help we provided them by providing school costs, rehab costs, money during tough times, plane tickets, bail money, rent money, etc etc etc. My very strong belief is that the complex and rough issues that the chronically homeless face every day are suitable only for the adult world, and for adult intervention. Very young children and their families, like those at out former preschool, should never be unwillingly thrust into the middle without a say so or a voice, like we found ourselves back in 2008.
I do know that the pastor of our host church was approached by SHARE members at the last minute, encouraged to make a quick decision, and also encouraged not to notify the community or the preschool ahead of time, either. I have been following both the tent encampments and the church shelter openings, and they have all been following this same pattern for at least two years. There is a definite pattern, and I am saddened to hear that SHARE now seems to be providing a “how-to” manual. They are convincing good-hearted pastors and their congregations to shut their hearts and close their ears to their own neighborhoods, preschools, and existing organizations.
Shutting down real discussion, and not giving all interested parties a chance to be heard, has never, ever been a productive nor inclusive approach to problem solving. Our neighborhoods in Seattle have always tried to find a way to support the homeless far more than any other city I have lived in (which includes Austin, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco). It is a real disservice to our neighbors and preschool parents to shut them out. I know that what I heard over and over within our school community was that we would have been very supportive of a nearby location for the encampment, but not one where we had to directly walk through the campers while we had our very young children in tow. It was the mixing of the preschool directly into the housing option that caused the problem. We called it the “Boy Scout” test – many of us felt that there would be similar issues with any sort of long term housing arrangement set up in our parking lot. Though I will be the first to admit that I know enough about homeless encampments to be a trifle more worried about them than about scouts, both would definitely be an insurmountable issue for a preschool.
I encourage the Gift of Grace community and pastor to ignore SHARE’s counseling for a moment, and give your preschool and your neighbors your true undivided attention. Have a little faith in your neighbors and their thoughts on this. Because I can guarantee that they will be the first ones to have to manage any problems that the shelter may, or may not, cause. They can also be the first ones to come through in a crisis as well (read the stories about the Maple Leaf shelter neighbors during the big snowstorm). Your congregation will just not be able to be onsite as often as these folks are. I’ve lived this, and it was not as rosy as SHARE would have you believe. Nor were the neighbors and the parents as hateful as they would have you believe, either. One can have a good and giving heart, and still be deeply concerned about the welfare of their own families
@ James regarding the letter from the Maple Leaf Lutheran Church elder: thank you for bringing this perspective into the discussion. It’s interesting that both of these Lutheran churches are doing the same thing at the same time.
Such wise councel from this person, you can only hope his church pays attention. You have to wonder how Jami would respond, given a similar resource.
Like handing money to onramp bums, giving on-going accomodations to people who make no effort to provide for themselves is only a band-aid and nothing more than bad parenting. I don’t recall much from my childhood religious experience, but wasn’t there something in there about the lord helping those who help themselves? Somehow this doesn’t seem like a very church-like activity.
As the letter-writing church elder suggests, there are resources available to the homeless with the potential to do so much more for them in the long term, and all are in need of support I’m sure. I have to wonder why any church would consider sacrificing credibility to do so little when they could help a whole lot more and GAIN the respect of their community by investing more wisely.
So I go to look at GiftofGrace.org website, and there’s no news on there either. Can any of the GoG parishoners tell us if and when SHARE was actually discussed with you? And was it a discussion you participated in, or merely a decision you were informed of, slightly ahead of the larger community?
Oh btw: I found this gem on the GoG site About page:
“We debate ethics so that we might learn better how to serve our neighbors.”
Apparently this is an internal debate that doesn’t actually require talking to the neighbors to know how to best serve them. –Or their preschool children.
James – to answer your questions from #10 – when we had the encampment in our parking lot, we had the most problems from those individuals turned away from the camp. Despite what the camp leadership said, they did NOT ensure that the troublemakers made it onto a metro bus once they were turned away. The police did have to be called, and more than once. And on more than one occasion the troublemakers returned, usually angry, high, or both (that was why they were turned away in the first place, BTW.) And they sometimes confronted the parents and their kids, while the camp organizers refused to intervene or help out in any way. It was a very rough time for us, as you can imagine. We ended up having parent escorts from the parking lot to the front door (no one from the church volunteered for this, either – it was all parents.)
The encampments may have a slightly different structure than the shelters, as intake was done at the camp location/preschool parking lot. It sounds like intake may be done downtown for the shelter. But the church and the preschool need to be aware that there may be problems with non-residents hanging around the shelter. Despite what they say, our experience was that SHARE did not follow through and remove trouble makers from the premises, nor do anything to ensure that the parents and their kids were safe from the people that were attracted to SHARE’s shelters.
There’s no way that the parishoners are monolithic on this. Is there anyone out there from GoG that thinks that the lack of public input and oversight (esp as it relates to a preschool in the same area and no background checks) as strange?
@Chris, comment 27: we (the congregation) were given copies of the proposal for the arrangement with SHARE in July 2010. At that time we were invited to a meeting in early August wherein we engaged in a formal consensus building decision making process. The outcome of that meeting (in which all present had the opportunity to participate in decision making) was to engage in this ministry with SHARE.
I really appreciate you asking about how the decision was made! We are a congregation of people who made this choice together and I appreciate that you recognized that and gave me the opportunity to share what role I have had so far in Gift of Grace’s relationship with the SHARE program.
Excerpt from mywallinford.com blog
——————
Linda, who owns Irwin’s Cafe one block from the church, also spoke up in favor of the shelter. Her cafe is open when the shelter folks show up, and she employs teenage girls who she said were much more likely targets than the preschool students. “I came here with concerns about the guys, and I’m leaving here with my concerns answered,” she said. “I think it’s almost safer for our neighborhood that we have a more controlled environment. I feel safe and good that our neighborhood is reaching out.
——————
I think I will take my business to another coffee shop that is concerned about the children (including my own). Interesting they did not have the homeless shelter at the church when her children were young and living next door the church (formerly Mrs Fetcher).
@GoG
What is the size of the congregation, where do folks live, and how did you feel about making a decision that will effect the surrounding neighborhood in secret?
@ a: I hear you. I’ll never set foot in Irwin’s Cafe again. I believe she still has some connection to the church as a (sometimes) member, so I’m not sure how independent a voice is being represented here. Regardless of that point, she is welcome to her opinion and I will now head to 45th for my morning java fix.
What?! The business owner quoted in the mywallingford.org blog is the ex-wife of the pastor of the church and a church member! This gets weirder and weirder. You know, I thought it was odd that this person didn’t have empathy for the pre-school and exhibit solidarity with their fellow business owner. Now I get it. Wow! I hope the parents don’t make the mistake of patronizing that place when dropping off their kids at pre-school. They certain won’t be getting any more of my business.
I also have a question for GoG – when your membership was contemplating this, did you engage in discussions with other churches about their experiences with SHARE, and how it affected their neighborhood? Also, did you discuss this with the preschool as to how this may affect them, or how they operate their school? And lastly – were you counseled by SHARE to NOT seek out input from the neighborhood, preschool, or other communities with prior experience?
Good for Linda at Irwin’s. I appreciate her thoughtful comments and engagement in the community. I’ll make a point of eating and drinking there more often.
Thanks, Doug. Good for her – I always knew I liked Irwin’s. I’m going to stop reading these comments now. I love living in Wallingford – I just enjoyed a stroll up to Fainting Goat past lovely houses and found myself enjoying the gardens and old homes a little less than usual.
As mentioned the owner of Irwin’s is pastor Jami Fetcher’s ex-wife – a fact she decidedly did not impart at the meeting as she staunchly stood behind denying local residents more than a facade of comment and potentially destroying a small preschool. The other thing that she did not mention is that, while the shelter’s hours of operation are 7pm to 7am, her hours of operation are 7am to 7pm, so it won’t effect the former Mrs. Fetcher.
If the parishioners could be notified July 21 about this, why couldn’t the local residents be notified sooner than two months later, and less than a week before the shelter started? The only way that the reprehensible practices by SHARE can be countered (encouraging churches to forgo notifying/involving the community, not screening their residents, hiding dangerous infractions to make their record look good, ad infinitum) is for concerned neighbors and parents to stand up, make noise, make calls – to the church, to pastor Jami, to the church board, to the press, to government, and to not rest once the problem leaves their neighborhood. SHARE just up and moves to the next unsuspecting neighborhood.
I can add to the conversation that before the preschool signed a lease on the space pastor Jami guaranteed that the homeless would not be present within the building (it was a concern as there was and is a harmless homeless woman living in a shed on the outskirts of the church’s parking area). Also, the first face-to-face on the issue between church and preschool was the public meeting this past Sunday, despite repeated requests by the preschool for an emergency meeting.
Lastly, the preschool arrived Monday morning to find that the small, secluded garden that the children had planted had been vandalized for the first time ever – plants pulled up and angrily thrown around. Way to go! You show those 3-year-old who’s boss!!
Here is a quote from the KIRO TV coverage:
“The pastor of the church, Jami Fecher, said his church has been talking to Seattle Housing and Resource Effort for a year about housing 15 men and women overnight in the unused space in the church. He said the people who run the preschool knew about the talks before they moved in in last February.”
Issue one: the church has been in talks about this for a year, and they couldn’t talk to the folks who live here more than 2 days before?
Second issue, and a larger one: “He said the people who run the preschool knew about the talks before they moved in in last February.” I hope this was simply a misquote, because otherwise it is a flagrant out-and-out lie, and really does not bode well for anyone getting answers out of this church (see comment about this in comment #39)
It all bodes very badly fo rthe neighborhood and fo rthe school.
Please call the city council members and the mayors office. I called all council members. Yesterday at 4:37 I also called the mayors office. I was the first and only one thusfar!
SHARE is funded by the city. Hit them where i thurts- funding.
There are ways to help homeless peopel who do NOY lose their ID and who are willing to go through background checks. There are ways to communicate openly with a neighborhood. there are ways to NOT have the incidents recorded inmany of these blogs of violence between preschool parents and tent city members.
Cutting funding of groups which can not manage the problems is a start.
Time to call the Mayor’s office and city council members. I agree, we cannot let SHARE pull this nonsense elsewhere – this is just not a Wallingford issue.
As for the church and their pastor. There were a number of mistruths delivered at the Sunday meeting – from both SHARE and the pastor. It is hard to think that he comes to this w/ an open heart and mind. He seems to thinks he is right and is blinded to any fact or opinions to the contrary. That may be an unfair assessment, but until I see otherwise, that’s my take.
As far as SHARE… the Internet is full of information about them that is bordering on the criminal and acting in bad faith. Why weren’t we notified earlier? SHARE was grooming the church members before we were included. That is why – plain and simple.
Guy, I hope (and encourage) the preschool to call the police. This is vandalism – and however small – is intended to intimidate and is most certainly linked back to this debate. The more we get the police involved if/when we have problems related to the shelter and the divide, the better. At least we’ll have a track record of issues surrounding the church’s decision.
Odd how the message of compassion and understanding is being conveyed to the pre-school, huh?
I only briefly talked to her, too, and she made some comment about being the *only* business in the area of the shelter so she had unique concerns she wanted addressed. I thought, only business? What about the pre-school? And I walked away…
comment 44 posted to wrong article. Sorry…
The “only” business was quite a bit self focused. There are at least 4 businesses right on the corner of 40th and Wallingford which are probably just as much in the busline route as her business is going to be. I know for a fact that 2 of them are open before 7 because I have stopped in there before that time.
“The “only” business was quite a bit self focused. ”
BINGO! Not very community-minded, but that seems to be a common theme…
WOW! Just WOW!
Now the homeless are being blamed for the vandalism?! No proof, no facts, just more vicious slander. Are you sure it wasn’t the neighborhood mob that did it to make it look like the homeless? Come on people, stick to the facts.
Steve
E30, what I find truly unbelievable is that the simple statement that there was vandalism would be conflated, by you, into a comment that the homeless did this. WOW! Just WOW! No proof, no facts, just you making your own vicious slander. Wow. The homeless aren’t even here – or in your rush to judgment did you overlook that? The fact, as stated was that the vandalism had happened. It also made the children who worked hard on that garden very sad, but I’m sure you don’t care about that. It frankly seemed to me to have been a cranky member of the church, but with no facts to support that, I for one was not willing to jump to a conclusion. It seems that you were. But then again, you seem to have an agenda, so it’s not surprising. But WOW! Just WOW!
I think we’ve all seen Steve capabilities for reasoning and his tendency for hyperbole. His posts stand on their own. Agree, they are all cringe-worthy, but at least he puts his name to them (like that validates them or something). I do wonder though… what is the color of the sky is in Steve world?
You think Steve’s comments are unique? Just wait until crap starts happening – not that kind of crap, Stevie, so settle down- and see how they all handle it. “It wasn’t one of our residents” and the like. You’ll have have a better case than Perry Mason to prove to them that their shelter was responsible in anyway. And there will be the occasional paranoid rantings from some that Steve so kindly provide to us (thanks Steve, very timely).
J, that was our experience two years ago. It is critical that the police be called out every single time there is an incident, to make sure it is documented and not forgotten or minimized later.
I deplore that once again, the tactics that SHARE has been encouraging its church host to follow are so divisive. I really, truly wish the church could find it in their heart to reach out to their community and actively listen. I know that our own little preschool was very supportive of homeless issues, and we even has preschool-appropriate lessons, and the preschoolers volunteered at the food bank in the building to portion out rice for the clients. We all still feel that way. But at the same time, we also needed to make sure that we were informed about what was going on in our preschool space, and that adequate measures were being taken to ensure that strangers (homeless or not) were not being invited into our children’s space. One can be actively supporting homeless issues while also caring about family safety- the two are not mutually exclusive.
I implore raffealla, vivian, linda, jami, and other members of Gift of Grace to please sit down with the preschool parents (and without SHARE) and just listen, really listen. They will be the ones in the space every day. A great deal of harm is being done to the community, including your own, by closed hearts and by secrecy. Let them show you their compassion, their concerns for the homeless, their personal experiences, like our own preschool families had, as well as let them voice their concerns as parents of very young, very vulnerable children. Give them the same consideration that you give to other people that come to you with heavy hearts. Let them surprise you with their diversity and their kindness. Put yourselves in their shoes for one brief moment, and listen.
Guest (#93 parent): If you have personal examples of issues with SHARE and how they have misbehaved, please, please call the person below. We need you to share your experiences w/ her. Thanks.
Judy Summerfield
Survival Services Manager
Seattle Human Services Department
[email protected]
206.684.0569
I had a long and productive chat with Judy this afternoon about my experiences with SHARE personnel and Nickelsville. Thank you for posting her contact information
I posted comment #41 late this afternoon to Sharon’s previous article about this issue. I encourage those of you on this thread to read it for some very pertinent information about experiences with SHARE and their tactics. In particular, I gave the details on the LEVEL 3 sex offender who was in the Ballard SHARE shelter a year ago, including the court citation with which to verify the facts. And I’m afraid Mike has been misinformed,and that needs to be corrected. That man, Jonathan F. Schoppet most definitely WAS a REGISTERED sex offender. Check the court citations. And the fact that the whole thing came to light because Shane Dillon, a neighbor of that church found out about him by checking the database of sex offenders, where he was listed at the time as a LEVEL 3 sex offender. Like I said, that post includes many details that are very instructive about what kind of threat this person represented. Check it. So yes, SHARE should “shoulder the blame” because if ANY credible check was done they would have known about him.
I also found it very interesting that you have discovered House Bill 1956. It finally passed last year, but that was their 3rd attempt. The whole thing was done pretty much under the radar. It was a pet project of particular state representatives, who kept bringing it back up even after it didn’t get out of Senate committee the first 2 times. Those who pushed it hard were Democratic representatives, and others seemed to vote on it along party lines and without talking to anyone with another perspective. That is how it finally passed. I am an independent and don’t see this at all as a partisan issue, but that is unfortunately how it played out at the state legislature. Very disappointing. I tried to talk with my own representatives, approaching them at public meetings and offering to provide them with factual information about possible problems with certain provisions of the bill. The version which passed the House the first time was so vague and unformed that it died in Senate committee. The second time around, I was the only community member to testify in opposition before the Senate committee, pointing out misinformation and potential problems with portions of the bill. (Including the inconsistent insurance and liability provisions mentioned here) I also submitted detailed written documentation about questions that were raised. It died in comittee that time also. The third time I was again the only community member there. The only others who found out about it in time to testify that there were problems with it were the associations that monitor the legislature for cities and counties. And this time, it was pushed through, although we were able, with the backing of legal personnel from my city and perhaps others, to point out that one provision actually would violate from the other direction the constitutional provisions about separation of church and state. I tell you all this to point out that the struggle on this issue has been playing out on many fronts. And unfortunately, on most of those fronts the tactics of late or no notice in time to have an effect, and the unwillingness to take the time to really listen and analyze is a common theme.
As I said in my other post, I will call the lady at city of Seattle. But reigning in SHARE’s innappropriate tactics is a long term struggle that has been going on for years in many venues, and will take concentrated effort. I will continue, and I urge the rest of you to look very carefully, don’t believe everything you are told, listen to all perspectives with equal respect and consideration and use the same common sense logical paramenters for making decisions as you would on any other issue. And as I said in that other post, even though this is such a closed system that cover up is very successful, documentation of ongoing problems does exist, and can be provided if asked for. That documentation is not only anecdotal, but also in the form of court and police records. I detailed some of this in the other post, but there is much more. I am encouraged by the discussion here, and hope it continues until it has some effect.
And let me be clear that the problems I am talking about are with SHARE and the people who defend them at all costs. I am aware of other programs to help the homeless that have much different tactics, are much more respectful of neighborhoods and much more effective in actually helping the homeless. That is, of course, harder to do than what SHARE does. Seek those programs out and support them. Keep up a dialog with them and help them do a better job. And try to encourage your city to support the good ones, not just the most politically active or the cheapest. Seattle has given a lot of money to SHARE.
Karen –
Thank you, and thanks for the encouragement.
You are most welcome Act now.
I’ve been reading your blog with great interest as I live one block from the proposed Tent City site in Meadowbrook (at Maple Leaf Lutheran church). While there’s a part of me that would like to feel good about “helping” the homeless, there’s another part that is livid that a church can legally do this to a neighborhood – and then shrug their shoulders, turn their backs, and face no liability whatsoever if anything were to happen. There is something terribly wrong with this very undemocratic process. Yes, churches should have the right to carry out their mission – as long as doing so doesn’t trample on the rights of others. I wholeheartedly agree with Karen that we need to help other better-run organizations fluorish and stop organizations like SHARE from strong-arming neighborhoods. Hopefully we can all band together and speak loudly enough to be heard.
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.
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.
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 evaluate the facts and weigh 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
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 …
Yes, still happening.
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.
@Guy
Will you please re-post the above in the more current Wallyhood story? I think people are getting confused going back and forth.
Keep calling the council men and women. Sally Clark’s office wants to help. The leg. asst, Michael at Harrell’s office said he would look inot some things for me.
Get them and the media to come down.
Provide alternative places: Mosaic, Fremont dance Studio, 4 other churches nearby, Irwin’s, Gasworks. And offer clothes, food.. we are nto heartless, we simply do nto want to be blindsided or lied to or have a bad situation.
Keep talking to store managers and staff on 45th.
Today I saw 3 likely homeless people on 45th whom I have never seen before. While tyhis is not anything.. so far, it is an indication of siomething new happening concurrent with the shelter situation at Gift of Grace.
Guy, please call Judy and let her know about this. The kids were in the preschool at that time.
Ijust went to the playfield fo ra 6 PM meeting and didnt see a group. I can understand it being rained out.
I stopped by Not A Number and talked with John, the owner, who is on the Wall. Comm. Cncl.
My alternatives are good ones for a different site or possibly for the preschool.
This is my birthday week and I am not working so though I am giving some energy to hope and help with the situation, I have to release for the rest of the week. i will note new people on 45th is I see them and I hoep you all do also..