So, you remember last week there was a fire on 4th Ave? Everyone, including the twin 6-month-old girls, got out safely.
While most of the second floor tenants’ things were destroyed in the fire, the first floor and basement tenants escaped with only smoke damage to their belongings…
Until the looters showed up.
Moe’s story starts on the Friday afternoon before the fire:
I had just got home from work, my boyfriend was at my place, and my landlord had just gotten there to help deal with a rat that had gotten in the wall. I noticed a bike locked to our gas meter: I thought it was a friend of another tenants and thought nothing of it.
Then, a girl came in the backyard and began to unlock it, so I asked did she know someone there. She said no, but she had left a note in the door (there was no note) and that this bike belonged to her boyfriend who had just died and referenced the 50th off ramp death [Ed note: See Life Cut Short].
I said I don’t really care who’s bike it is, you don’t come into people’s backyards and lock things up. She then said that it was her boyfriends bike and something about a fight and she began to leave. My landlord came out from my place and asked what was going on. The girl had walked down the path to the street.
At this point, I noticed a bunch of mail in the narrow path that wasn’t there before, and realized it was mine. I had not checked my mail in weeks (I don’t get much mail, and its almost all junk mail). I called out to her and accused her of stealing my mail, my landlord went out to the street to talk to her. She stopped and I went to her and said let me see in your bag, and she said no.
I said “you stole my mail, with us here, that’s ballsy.” She said I don’t know what you’re talking about. I realized there was no way the cops would come, and told her to have fun with my junk mail, and the landlord said if we see her here again, we would call the police. She laughed a little and rode off on what was probably a stolen black men’s Giant bike.
Later that night I went to sleep. Only to wake up to the sound of people walking around in the gravel by my windows. I came out to yell at them for waking me, but then heard and saw the fire, ran back in to find a fire extinguisher and call 911 and put some pants on. I realized that smoke was coming in and the fire was probably moving way faster than I thought it was going to – my place is in the back and the fire was in the front – so I hustled and got my laptop purse and car keys and went to the yard. I was greeted by a fireperson telling me to get to the street.
For the next couple of hours I watched the fire devour the front half of the house. I couldn’t believe how fast it happened.
So then we all left for a bit while the Fire Department did the investigation. We came back and got what we needed for the next few days. A guy the landlord called came to board up the house. My door was lockable, so I told the guy to lock it when he was done boarding up the place.
That was Saturday.
Sunday late afternoon I got a call from the landlord and Eytan [the other tenant] that the door was wide open and my TV was gone as well as other stuff. I’m not sure whether they busted in my door or what but they got in.
I left work and drove to the house. On my way, when I got off at 45th I saw a man standing in front of the squatter house with my TV – I knew it was my TV because IT WAS IN THE BOX that I had in storage….. I stopped my car and called my landlord and Eytan who called the cops. Then I called the cops….. She said that someone would be on the way and there was no way to know when.
I sat there for 20 minutes. My boyfriend showed up and went to talk to the guy, so I called the cops again to pre-warn them of a possible altercation in the works. She was quite rude to me that we would take the matter into our own hands. I get it….But I also know the cops just don’t hustle for this type of thing and my stuff was on the move.
My boyfriend and I talked to the guy, who was oddly really laid back about it. He was a mid-30s black guy that was missing some teeth, and had inadvertent dreads…. Seemed out of place with all the tweakery heroined out white guys on the porch of the squatter house. I said that was my TV.
He said this was messed up and he had just bought the tv for 35 bucks an hour ago. I said that sucks for you, and maybe you shouldn’t buy stuff you know is stolen and I’m taking the TV. He asked if the watch in his hand was mine. I said no, but in retrospect I should have said yes and taken that as I later found out that it was from Scotts place.
This guy genuinely wasn’t the one who broke into my place.
There were other guys in the yard of that nasty house that were trying to be all hard, but they are a bunch of rookies and since we didn’t escalate the situation neither did they. So gross.
So we got to my house, and I see they went thru some boxes of my stuff, stole all my rings, most of my necklaces, and some earrings (hippie import stuff really – no pawn value). Took some things off my counter, didn’t take my tax info that was sitting right there, didn’t take my passport which was tucked into a bookcase didn’t take medicine in the bathroom. So stupid: I mean they had all night and this is the best they could do?
They stole my change jar full of memento stuff as well, stole a totally dead 15 year old laptop, stole a 15 year old creative zen player I loved, stole Kim’s expensive bike, two of Eytan’s expensive tents and my tools (a $20 promo set from Fred Meyer), and whatever they took from Scott and Kim’s after they climbed the fire escape ladder to their burned out place. We saw evidence on ground at the bottom of the fire escape ladder that people had gone up there.
The cops eventually showed up to take a statement and made me go up to the squatter house to see if I saw anything of mine in the yard, because they aren’t allowed inside without the owners consent. Seems like the laws here prevent any problems or crimes to really get solved. They admitted this house is a major player in the crime of the neighborhood. They seemed to both feel bad and shrug their shoulders at the same time about it all.
Anyways, they came back to my house and continued to take a statement. Then that girl, the mail stealing girl, rode by on a different expensive bike this time. My landlord told the cops to stop her, and we all told the cops she had stolen my mail and trespassed the day before and I said I wouldn’t put it past her that she was involved in the fire, and certainly involved in the break in. We were speculating of course, but didn’t want to rule out her involvement.
They said they can’t arrest her for mail theft since they didn’t see it happen, and that the bike came back clean (because it was just stolen probably) and she went on her way. She did admit to them she was involved in the squatter house and she did admit she was somehow associated with the kid that got killed at 50th.
We packed up everything in my place and moved my things elsewhere.
The girl who stole my mail – she was mid 20’s black girl with short hair, a little longer on top, and wears kinda punky clothes. She had a different nice large bag each time she was stopped and really loves wayfarer style Ray Ban-ish sunglasses. She doesn’t have any sort of accent, snotty and sure of herself. She actually looks a little like she’s trying to be Bruno Mars or something. Same sort of hair and clothes. Anyway, keep an eye out for her.
I’m absolutely stunned by this story, but also not surprised. The “squatter house” she’s referring to 4331 5th Ave NE (at right), has been abandoned for some time (neighborhood lore has it that the owner is in a nursing home, public records show the owner is “RUSSELL MARJORIE A TRUSTEE”) and has become a squat for the group of men and women who take turns taking money from folks as they enter I-5. They can be seen any day drinking and relaxing on the sidewalk, waiting their turn.
At the same time, the encampment under I-5 at 42nd Street has bounced back from the fire in May and moved up into the brush, out of site. Peer in and you can see bikes and bike parts from the street, though. The chop shop is back.
Irwin’s Bakery was broken into this past week. Every day the Wallingford Facebook pages are lit up with more reports of car theft and houses broken into. Bike thefts happens every night.
It is getting worse and the police tell us there is nothing they can do: the area under and alongside I-5 is state property, and thus the Seattle Police need to coordinate their activities with the Washington State police to even enter the area, much less investigate crimes there.
And now arson that threatened the lives of babies, followed by looting of the same house by the same people? What are the police doing?
But wait, the Seattle City Council to the rescue. Council Bill 118794 is now under consideration, which would, in the words of Councilmember Tim Burgess:
establishes for the first time a new right to camp in tents or vehicles on public space throughout the city, including in our parks and greenbelts, and on city sidewalks and planting strips. It defines “public space” as “any area that is owned, leased, maintained, controlled, or managed by a government or public entity.” This is a very broad definition that would include property owned by the city government, King County, the state of Washington, the Port of Seattle and the Seattle School District. The ordinance expressly provides that the city must make public spaces available for camping, and campers will have an indefinite right to remain so long as there is an inadequate supply of housing in the city.
In the event Seattle ever has sufficient housing for everyone who wants to live here, the right to camp on public property is reduced to just 30 days per location. So, if this ordinance is ever adopted as law, campers will not only have a right to camp indefinitely on public property throughout the city until housing is available, they will have this same right after housing becomes available for 30 days per location. In other words, homeless camping in tents or vehicles becomes permanent throughout Seattle.
The ordinance allows the city to remove campers from “unsafe,” “unsuitable” or “hazardous” sites, but only if certain conditions are first met, including that the city must find an alternative camping site. But for individuals camping in safe, suitable and nonhazardous locations—think a greenbelt or neighborhood park, a public sidewalk, or in an RV or van in front of your house—campers can only be removed if they are provided “adequate and accessible housing.”
Irresponsibly, the proposed ordinance requires that city taxpayers pay $250 per violation to individual campers if any of the detailed and onerous conditions of the ordinance are not adhered to, essentially creating a right of private civil action against the city government. This ordinance was introduced without the required fiscal note which would have helped council members understand the fiscal impact of this fee.
Finally, and perhaps most important, this ordinance doesn’t actually solve homelessness for anyone. It is wholly inconsistent with accepted and proven national best practices to address homelessness. We can do better without the very poor policy mandates required by this ordinance.
Sorry to cram so much into one blog post, I appreciate anyone who had the patience, in this “only read the headline” Facebook-summarized age, to get all the way through this story.
I am very worried about the spike in criminal activity in this neighborhood associated with the encampments along I-5. I am even more worried that, rather than seeking to control the criminal activity, the city is considering further tying the hands of the police to protect us.
What do you think?
I am sure there are some legitimate legal barriers that our police cannot cross. However, doesn’t it seem like calling the police is like calling Lily Tomlin’s phone lady? The first thing they do is list all the excuses for why they can’t do anything. And they get pretty creative. This is the first time I’ve heard the I5 is state property excuse. I mean, come on. That’s ridiculous.
It reminds me about Danny Westneat’s column from a year or so ago. He called Seattle Police about a smash and grab where the guy was waving his stolen phone at him. Seattle said they couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything. The next week the thieves made the mistake of stealing in the jurisdiction of Snohomish police. Turns out the thieves were WASHINGTON’S MOST WANTED. Washington’s most wanted apparently aren’t of interest to SPS.
In wallyhood Forums I asked a reader to report to FB group & Next Door the movement of a yelling homeless person from Stone Way into a neighborhood.. A Wallyhood reader responded about my poor typing.
The increase of crime, homeless people camped out andothers sitting in front of QFC has changed the face and secure feeling of living in our neighborhood. I think joining the neighborhood groups; getting more Block watch groups; paying for private security; calling police, getting a dog, walking in groups and maybe more are some answers to keep some sense of safety. On the other hand… working to figure out how to handle or provide services and homes.. not in 10 years or 5.. but w/in 3 weeks is essential. Winter is coming; it will be cold. Some people may not want to sleep on the street or in bushes then; squatters getting into vacant homes;sleeping in carports, garages and peoples’ cars may become more common as people seek simple shelter.
I think you have a fair point about the cold weather giving them incentive to break into abandoned homes. However, I hope it’s a cold winter. Maybe that will discourage some of the flock from migrating here, and instead go be a burden to some city further south of us. Hopefully places like Portland and LA since they happily bus some of their homeless up to us. It is not the job or responsibility of Seattle to take in and provide for other cities homeless.
I also disagree with providing these people free homes. They don’t deserve any compassion or help from the taxpayers unless they’re willing to make an effort to get clean and turn their lives around. They can’t do that without a mandatory support program in place. The squatters house on 5th Avenue illustrates why just giving these criminals and junkies a free house is not a part of the solution. They have shelter; do you think they’re going to stop their drug habits and stop stealing from the neighborhood anytime soon?
I am trying to see the other side of as well as be compassionate and/or intelligent. I live across the street from a vacant house which owner boarded up after a few break-ins. how long til people break-in anyway and begin the history already happening at th e5th house?I My car was stolen I make typing errors, My own solution would be more legal encampments.. likely not near what used to be a sweet island of peace and safety in my favorite neighborhood in conjuntion with ‘help’ moving people to places not so populated, are warmer w/ legal encampments. And law enforcement which deters this stuff..
Has anyone tried to contact Marjorie Russell or the trustee?
I supplied some contact information below if anyone wants to try.
I’ve spoken via Facebook to her granddaughter. The family is looking to sell the house, and in fact yesterday I saw a real estate sign go up in front of it. Seems to me at this stage that the only buyer interested would be a developer to flip it or knock it down and put up apartments, if that property is zoned for such.
zoned Single Family so they would likely buy it, renovate it, and rent it out as an investment.
Are you sure the sign is for this house and not the house next door? It went up for sale with Century 21 on 9/23.
Windermere sign, right in front of house with the plywood-boarded-up front door. Though I’m not seeing the real estate listing anywhere.
I see it. For sale at $450k. Thanks.
Dear City Council: “Instruct the Police to vigorously enforce the LAW”
The police are hamstrung by our CITY COUNCIL, and are instructed NOT to clear out these problems.
It is the city council who is responsible for this mess, as they alone direct the police department on priorities, and which laws to enforce, yes really.
While I love living in a reasonably liberal city, the flagrant disdain that the most liberal city council members have for the homeowners, residents, and taxpayers in favor of those who could care less bout being housed (even if it was available) is beyond belief.
It is illegal to:
Squat in someone’s property
Camp on a freeway median
Camp in a public park
Stand on a Freeway on ramp
Be in possession of stolen items (any items!) such as bikes etc.
Trespass on private property such as in the story above
The answer is not so complicated really, ENFORCE THE LAW. Please Wallingford, contact our city and tell them “enough”
Mike O’Brien just sent an e-mail entitled, “Tomorrow, Safe & Healthy Communities – Next Steps”
Here’s
a link to the e-mail in a browser:
http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=11a79978ca7225050bfabf7ad&id=d6bba8f234&e=672a49dccb
I believe we’re mostly in District 4, where Rob Johnson is busy developing the University District. At least O’Brien is engaging on these issues.
I will try to make that meeting. We need people who are fed up with this crap to show up at this and future meetings in force. If we don’t, homeless enablers like SHARE will continue to dominate the discussion and the city will think that they represent the will of the people on this.
Please write the city council about Council Bill 118794 which is still very active, and let them know what you think about it. I wrote them all (and the mayor), and to date have heard from only O’Brien–who defended the need for the ordinance. Not as a solution to homelessness, more as a response to complaints with sweeps to remove encampments.
Edward Murray
Sally Bagshaw
Tim Burgess
“M. Lorena Gonzalez”
Bruce Harrell
Lisa Herbold
Rob Johnson
Debora Juarez
Mike O’Brien
Kshama Sawant
So Alx, you support this looming disaster? Not even as “a solution to homelessness,” but “as a response to complaints with sweeps?”
Tell me, why should we even listen to these complaints about sweeps from vagrants and their activist enablers? Not only will we allow them to camp anywhere they please now, we will have to pay each tweeker and junkie $250 every time the city fails to follow the very bureaucratic procedures laid out in the ordinance. We may as well put up billboard saying “Homeless? Come to Freattle, where we will pay you to live here!”
The idiots who drafted this ordinance and their cheerleaders aren’t part of the solution, they’re PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Please don’t argue with me, tell city hall. 🙂 I happen to agree with you.
Doh, I misread you. My mistake, sorry.
Where do these idiots live who are drafting this legislation? Let me guess — they do not own property because they just graduated with a degree in social welfare from a third rate university? No one holds them accountable. They will never be able to buy a house because they get payed what they deserve.
If they are public employees, why can’t they be fired?
ACLU
The issue here is the police, and the fact that our local government is doing nothing to support their efforts. While the City continues to rake in revenue from expansion, nothing is being done to protect those of us who live here, and pay taxes.
It is encouraging to see people starting to take note. What has happened here is nothing short of disgraceful, and I think it will only come to a head when someone takes matters into their own hands. As always our local leaders, and our police will be complicit in a horrific tale of some poor homeowner going to prison for using force to protect their family, and as always, the innocent will suffer.
It is time to demand more police coverage in our neighborhood, and to insist upon full-time policing of our streets through precincts, like you will find in every properly governed city. We have become an embarrassment, and I for one am tired of the police claiming that crime is falling. The only thing that is falling is their response to us when we need them.
On the Council bill — they’re still working on it, and I believe the key word is “unsuitable.” The city would be able to take action on encampment in a public property location that’s unsafe, hazardous or “unsuitable.” If councilmembers like Burgess can get O’Brien to temporarily screw his head on a little tighter than usual, “unsuitable” could be defined as roughly everywhere. Everywhere but the specific places the city has arranged for encampment. O’Brien thinks we’re upset because of misinformation – we mistakenly think they’re going to allow camping on sidewalks and schoolyards – so you need to make it clear that it’s important not to create a legal right to camp on public property.
Part of the problem is incompetent officials, starting with the mayor. That predictably leads to a series of fiascos. The council then wades in and tries to fix things with policies. We don’t need to be wrangling over what legal entitlement people should have to public space camping, what we really need is competent enforcement that reflects our civic values. It’s like if the city started executing people by summary punishment for stealing TVs, so the Council makes stealing TVs legal. The wrong answer to the problem.
I wonder if O’Brien were to wake up one morning and find some tents in HIS backyard if he would find that location “unsuitable.”
Perhaps ‘some taxpayers’ should team up to camp in front of the mayor and council members homes! …just sayin’ Portland taxpayers did this with good result!
They’d probably bake cookies for you. It’s one thing to have someone come over from Wallingford and pretend, it’s another to have the real thing on the planting strip across the street.
“O’Brien thinks we’re upset because of misinformation.” He does have a tone of I know better all the time. You plebeians couldn’t possibly understand. Really annoying.
Readable account of the latest deliberations. We’re still not “out of the woods” – specifically, the woods in Lower Woodland Park came up as an example.
http://sccinsight.com/2016/09/29/homeless-encampment-bill-starts-to-take-shape/#more-3040
Nice to see O’Brien stepping up to tell business and property owners their opinions aren’t worth a plug nickle.
At the moment I can’t offer any constructive suggestions to stop all this crap from happening. All I can say right now is “THIS IS F***ED UP!!” I just want them all gone. My friends in West Seattle/White Center are getting a homeless shelter shoved down their throats in an area that is way too close to homes, families, kids, etc. and they didn’t get any input. They have had a large amount of crime associated with the tweakers living on their streets and in RVs and, as has been reported here and on NextDoor, there seems to be little the cops can do about it. WTF?! All I can do is ask the usual questions that don’t seem to have good answers: Where are all these people coming from? How many actually homeless or down on their luck people are here from Seattle that aren’t getting the help they need (and we pay for with our taxes and will apparently be paying even more if the mayor gets his way with another levy) because they’re getting lost in the scrum? I’m getting the impression the majority of these people are drunks or drug addicts and love Seattle’s open door policy and resources. One group of drunks that used to go past my house to the 7-11 told me panhandling on our streets is very lucrative and nicely supplements their disability checks. Then why don’t they stay in a shelter? Because they don’t want to deal with the rules required when staying in one. And the people with mental problems that won’t stay on their meds actually want to live in The Jungle and they definitely don’t want to take their meds because it makes them feel not like themselves. Everyone apparently has civil rights, but I’m wondering where ours are when it comes to this crap? It blows my mind people are allowed to squat in anyone’s home! Does anyone know if this Marjorie person (or her family) is aware of the squatters? I just feel utterly impotent. And I give major props to anyone who does try to rectify the situation themselves, despite what the cops say. Man, where’s “The Equalizer” when you need him? Wouldn’t you love to see Denzel make his way through the squatters, lol…
I hate this issue, which I keep encountering too. It makes me feel guilty for making assumptions about people and I am very conflicted about it. Living between Wallingford Park and the library, I regularly see trash from vagrants, heroin kits, needles and even a couple of drug deals right in front of the library. Some of these homeless people are familiar to me, some are friendly, and some have even chatted me up while talking about how they lived in the shuttered houses that were recently torn down on the corner. I know they were once innocent babes and they are human beings every bit as much as me. But, I’m a dad and that changes everything. I can’t afford to be wrong in the name of compassion. I have to teach my kids to be careful and to avoid such people, especially if they seem out of their minds or under the influence. I’ve been living in the neighborhood just over 5 years and have seen a steady decline in safety and an enormous spike in crime, along with many comments talking about how the police don’t do anything, can’t do anything, and are understaffed. It is absurd. I’ve gotten to the point that I accept we will be victimized, beyond the minor theft we’ve already had from our backyard, and am considering how to minimize what will happen, running wild scenarios through my head about how I will need to defend my children, and — yes — still feeling guilty about it all. I don’t know what to do and neighborhood watches have always struck me as somehow lame. What do they do but result in multiple people calling the police rather than one? I’m not being facetious; I really don’t know. I am socially liberal and believe we all need to live together as best as possible. Yet, that would be much easier were I single. I have to think about my family, worry about walking the dog at night, and qualify all of my caution with my children, letting them know I’m teachinhg them to stereotype just because it is better to be safe then sorry. I’m frustrated and don’t have a clue what to do really, other than remain vigilant, keep lights on and doors locked, and — last week — call my neighbor to let them know my girls just saw a homeless guy sleeping on their front porch, a guy that might’ve just been down on his luck, but who also might be one heroin or something else and out of his mind, certainly showing the indiscretion of sleeping on somebody’s front porch at 3 in the afternoon. I know my post is probably not helpful, but it is nice to rant and even nicer to feel the “community of frustration” on these issues.
Eric, you only feel guilty if you allow the homeless activists to MAKE you feel guilty. This is why we need more people to stand up and speak out against them and their disastrous and enabling policies and stop allowing them to intimidate those who don’t fall in line with their opinions and dominate the city council. And for that matter, we need a new city council, too.
The idea that all people are created equally is a nice thought. This concept came about because of the abuse and horrors that weaker people faced throughout history from aggressive stronger people.
Now we have government and we are much more self-reflective.
You thoughts are generative, but not realistic.
People need to be protected. The City is allowing homeless people to sleep on your porch and that is why they do so.
It would be nice to have harmony and love in the world, but some make it bad for all. We need to protect ourselves when we are innocent. Do not let the socialist pariahs make you feel guilty as noted by Hayduke on here.
Heartfelt and genuine comment, sir. Thank you for taking your role as a parent and neighbor so seriously.
Thanks, I agree totally.
Seattle has always been a wimp city.
More than 30 years ago, people wrote about how the people here were an
easy mark. Jokes were lodged about the ineffective police department and
the lazy government. You saw how long it took for this city to do
anything about the few riots that it did have.
Seattle has a
socialist heritage going back to the 1920s. People who pay taxes are the
villains and those who are vagabonds (now called homeless) call the
shots.
We need to form a coalition and march on City Hall. The march has to be about the protection of property and people.
Remember one thing:
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT ITS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This truly is the primary purpose.
There are many more taxpayers than there are homeless people. Why are we staying in our homes and not banding together?
Perhaps
we are scared of retaliation? Is this why vigilantes have existed
throughout history? There are numerous examples of the “have nots” taking
from the haves. In the French and Russian Revolutions people were
starving and the takeover of terrible governments was warranted. But who
is the perpetrator now?
How about a coalition to not pay property
taxes. We could use the money to hire a private police force as was done
in Laurelhurst. We could easily argue that we are not being protected.
SO these people have more rights than we do?
As I have said in previous messages on here, there are three types of homeless people:
1.
those who have mental illnesses and who need to be treated (good olde
Ronnie Regan is responsible for shutting down the centers). In most cases, their illness is not their fault, but inherited, congenital, early trauma, you name it.
2. those who have had misfortunes and really need help to get on their feet again. These are good people who have had bad things happen to them.
3.
Evil people. Yah know…….the 5% who cause 90% of the world’s
problems. These people are lazy and bad and want something for free.
They actually enjoy hurting others.
You might say, how do we identify who is whom?
People who have never had a job, but are 25 years old and who are not mentally ill and who have criminal records are just that, criminals.
How about a revolution against City Hall and all the impotent leaders? Let us start a movement. The council is PATHETIC!
They are allowing pigs to “almost” murder babies.
One more thing. Write letters and comments to the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times about how disgusting our government is. Shame the leadership. The vast majority of the press about Seattle is about how desirable it is, jobs, growth, climate, etc. How about demonstrating some disgust and anger on a world stage?
If you are feeling proactive and want to try to contact the owner, Marjorie Russell, she lives in Olympia at 5525 Henslin Dr SE. The number listed is 360-491-9174. She is in her 90’s now most likely so she may not be the best person to contact. You can try calling her son Marty Russell who lives in Seattle, his listed address is the squatter house and his # is listed at 206-632-4754.
Does anyone know if he’s actually living there? Or if he’s aware of the situation?
I seriously doubt he is living there.
See Jeff Barker’s comment. Family has been contacted and it looks like the property was already going on the market for sale.
As bleeding as my liberal heart is, it is difficult not to be concerned by an apparent spike in property crime around our area—and now, the MUCH more serious apparent arson and looting activity. I live on the same street as the fire and Jordan. On last Sunday morning as I was returning from a weekend away, I came off I-5 and then down 5th NE and noted at least one car with a window busted out. Bummer. Then I pulled in to my townhouse and…Bummer Squared…our car had its passenger window busted out. Only thing in the car was a satchel with papers and the car registration, which had just been renewed. Early this week, JSIS called and said that was found on the playground. I’m not sure what the solutions are; and apparently neither do the mayor and the city council.
The difference is that you care, the mayor and city council don’t. Some of their positions will be up for election next year, and if they have really tried to address this problem, they might be punished for it. Burgess can stand up and vote no on the bill Jordan mentioned – he has reportedly decided not to seek re-election.
Really? Burgess is the lone voice of sanity in the council. We desperately need to replace these clowns and especially mayor Murray. Do you know why he’s not seeking reelection?
Juarez has indicated she’s a little disenchanted with the atmosphere down there, too, after getting mugged over the police station business. Can you imagine, supposing Burgess is indeed sane, what it would be like?
If I was, say, one of the hosts of KIRO’s “Ron & Don Show,” I’d perk up if someone called KIRO and tipped me off to this story.
The encampment next to an elementary school is beyond the pale. That should be how we focus on it, because the cops (and Mayor) won’t like the appearance of not caring about the kids. The fundamental problem is that our shitty Mayor who doesn’t care about the actual homeless, is using homelessness as a moral wedge to combat Nimbyism to benefit his developer friends.
The fact that this crime is increasing is directly tied to a bunch of other disastrous shit he’s encouraging – unsupportable density, “low income” housing (bullshit) – reduced parking, warped zoning rules – and the city is becoming a magnet for homeless criminals, all while doing NOTHING to deal with actual homelessness or the problems that orbit it. Drug use, mental health, the whole enchilada.
Mayor’s got to go. He’s a human wrecking ball.
Well said. Murray is the worst mayor we have ever had in Seattle. No backbone, no plan, reactive not proactive. In all my years here, I have never seen this city degenerate the way it has. The city is getting fat off of real estate taxes, how is this being used? The county is raising our taxes and providing fewer services. Call in the National Guard, they will tell Murray to shove it.
He’s also a fraud. Every humane policy he claims to favor is actually a front for unlimited developer power and urbanization – which, pure coincidence of course, is by far the most profitable kind of development. And wrapped in surface level, foil thin glitter of “help the poor and homeless.” The current approach to homelessness, even if you ignore the giant increase in neighborhood crime, has probably killed a lot of addicts.
Two Amazon professionals in a 750k condo with no parking spaces, but two cars, is not a solution to low income housing. It’s making it worse.
Like the other posters here – I am in many ways a bleeding heart liberal, but until the city extricates addiction, mental health, poverty and in some rare cases, lifetsyle choices from the stupidly vague umbrella of “homelessness” then there will be no root cause solutions. Just platitudes and corrosion of the existing problems.
Two Amazon professionals in a 750k condo with no parking spaces, but two
cars, is not making situation worse than the status quo that many people wanted. Without those condos, there would be even fewer housing, and those Amazon people would just buy existing houses and make the price hike even more severe and Wallingford even more of a rich people neighborhood. How is that better than condos? You just displace even more people.
100% spot on, but let’s get even more real: if street parking is a hassle, 2 Amazon professionals with a car or cars aren’t going to d***k around with not having parking. And a 750k condo would be slumming it. If you want the property taxes on your SFH to be affordable you should thank whatever supreme being you believe in they are going for a condo rather than bidding up SFH prices.
“if street parking is a hassle, 2 Amazon professionals with a car or cars aren’t going to d***k around with not having parking.”
Because if you mandate parking, you hose everyone who has less money. If you let the market decide, then developers who are trying to target Amazon folks as customers will build it in, and developers who are trying to target people with less money won’t.
Amazon folks are unlikely to be content with Ikea countertops but that doesn’t mean we should mandate by law that every kitchen have granite.
Also, too, not an externality:
https://realitybasedhousing.net/2016/10/01/not-an-externality/
It is indeed an externality. There’s a famous economic essay that was written in the late 1800’s called “The Tragedy of the Commons.” It’s basic premise is that when you have more and more people using a limited and publicly available resource for their own benefit eventually that resource will be depleted. That, for example, is why they put quotas on commercial fisheries. Because the damage an individual fisherman does to the fish stock is far outweighed by the gain that individual gets, and that gives all the fishermen the incentive to fish it to extinction.
The same goes for public parking. It’s obviously a very limited resource here in Wallingford in other neighborhoods. So when a developer makes a tidy profit selling a fancy new apartment building, he is selling it to people who will need to park their cars somewhere in the neighborhood. And like it or not they WILL have cars. So in effect we are subsidizing the developers by letting them treat parking as an externality, just as we are by not assessing impact fees on them for the extra load on the public sewer system.
If that neighborhood you reference in the link doesn’t have enough voting machines for it’s population, the obvious answer is to provide more of them. So I’m sorry, but the author of that link you posted is flat out wrong. I suggest you find a better source ;-P
I wrote it, and your conflation of the tragedy of the commons and externalities is (sorry) a salad or apples and oranges.
Pro tip: before making the claim that comparing externalities and the tragedy of the commons is mixing apples and oranges, you might want to try Googling “externalities vs. the tragedy of the commons.”
You know they are separate chapters in the Khan Academy course, right?
Bryan, I don’t think you’re quite grasping the concept of externalities vs. the tragedy of the commons here. Negative externalities and the tragedy of the commons are the same thing. Or, to put it more accurately, negative externalities are the RESULT of the tragedy of the commons. If they were “positive” externalities, then it wouldn’t be a tragedy, would it. Another commonly used way to describe it is “privatizing the profits and socializing the risks,” like the government’s lax treatment and bailing out of Wall Street.
That’s why in the search I suggested, it clearly spells out that relationship of externalities to the tragedy of the commons. Like in the introduction in the first item in the search, the UNC paper:
“In a classic example of a tragedy of the commons, a field is used by several farmers to graze their cattle. None of the farmers have the right to restrict access to other farmers. The field can support a certain number of cattle, say ten, without being depleted. But any additional cattle added to the field beyond ten will deplete the field and everyone will suffer. In this case, every farmer has an incentive to add the eleventh cow, as the benefit from doing so will accrue only to that farmer, while the costs will be shared by all. Therefore, the owner of the eleventh cow has imposed a negative externality on the owners of the ten when he brings the cow to the field. The tragedy is that because individual incentives deviate from collective incentives, and there is no external enforcement, everyone is bound to suffer.”
Or the MIT paper:
“A famous example of a negative externality is the Tragedy of the Commons. In this simple example, cows are purchased and are sent to graze on the commons until it is time to sell them for slaughter. The price the cow brings depends on her weight at the time of sale; the weight of the cow depends on the amount of grass she has eaten; the amount of grass she has eaten depends on the number of other cows that are grazing on the commons.”
But we can argue about this until the, ahem, cows come home. The negative externality of developers not providing parking in their structures means that eventually, NO ONE can park, and everyone is miserable. But hey, at least you’re getting some “equability” with that.
“eventually, NO ONE can park”
That’s impossible
(but yes, externalities & TOC are related, just not identical, apologies if I was splitting hairs or being pedantic vis a vis your position)
If developers were actually TRYING to target people with less money, you can bet they won’t be targeting them here in Wallingford. Regardless of what happens with HALA, they are not going to build affordable housing in Wallingford. The developers will pay the fee and they will build it elsewhere. I keep trying to tell you guys that.
So we should make the developers build parking underground in their new structures. Because like you said, it’s not like the Amazon people can’t afford to pay for it.
Of course developers are targeting less than rich people. While our house predates the boom, it was targeted at kind of middle class people doing well. We’ve had to progressively rip out the Home Depot-y stuff and replace it with more expensive stuff. I guarantee you if we bought a typical $750k townhouse like those in the Wallingford, Ballard, or Fremont LR zoned today (because, like our house it had a great location and the right bones) we’d spend enough doing the same to bump what would have been its original price up a couple hundred grand.
Really? Developers are targeting “less than rich” people with affordable housing here in Wallingford? Where are these hidden gems you speak of?
Smith & Burns
Apodments proposed at 48th ish and Stone
(Not “affordable housing” qua some form of remediation of lack of housing for working class and poor people – rather “not for rich people”)
Future generations will be looking back at the wizard’s legacy… Murray’s tall and gleaming EMERALD CITY … populated by ???
well has anyone on hold to speak to someone at the nonemergency number to report a car blocking a driveway an dafter 12 minutes decided to try the report form?? Ha ha. it has no place to report parking problems.. not even blocked driveways!!
We also have a vacant house next door that is a magnet for squatters. The key to get any kind of action from the authorities is to complain loudly and often. The city of Seattle has a website for complaints. We canvassed the hood and asked our neighbors to level complaints against the property on that site. Finally, the city assigned a case-worker and started to use threat of fines to force the home owner to clean up and secure the property. Currently, the house is empty and the needles and trash on my parking strip have disappeared, but I know that the moment we let down our vigilance, the vagrants will be back in the house chopping up bikes, prowling adjacent lots and dropping needles on my lawn.
We used to have a neighborhood rep in the Police Department for the North area of Seattle. Anyone know who that is now?
Sgt Bender
I just sent the following to Rob Johnson. I encourage others to send their own letters, including your own personal anecdotes.
—–
Dear Councilmember Johnson:
Let me start by saying that I appreciate your leadership on transportation, urban planning, and sustainability for the city.
Unfortunately,
I am forced to write to you today regarding deteriorating public safety
issues in Wallingford. For the latest and most severe example, I refer
you to this story about an arson that could well have killed half a
dozen people, including two babies:
http://www.wallyhood.org/2016/09/arson-looting/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Wallyhood+%28Wallyhood%29#gsc.tab=0
The
story clearly blames the trespassing, mail theft, arson, and burglary
on the same person or set of people. I don’t really care if this
evidence would prove the case in a criminal trial; it is fairly obvious
to any sensible observer what happened here. There are just too many
coincidences.
We have had a rash of cars being broken into as
well over the past few weeks. I have witnessed a man threatening
violence in the QFC at 45th & Wallingford.
This affects me
personally. I have been shoved, and my friend spat upon, in separate
unprovoked incidents while walking along 45th. Recently, I came out of
my house to find that someone had dug through my vehicle overnight,
right in my driveway. Whether they used a slim jim or I forgot to lock
it, I am not sure, but it’s kind of irrelevant: they have no place in my
driveway or in my van. A month or two ago, my wife was outside early in
the morning when a sketchy looking guy came cutting through our yard
carrying an arm load of stolen property. He was followed by a homeowner
who said that the guy had just ripped him off. In neither of these cases
were the police called. As our neighbor said, “It’s not like they’re
going to do anything.” And now, we can’t even chase a lowlife off our
property, lest we risk our children being burned alive?
Enough is
enough. It is time for the police to do something about this, and
Council needs to support them in doing it. This is not a resources
issue. If the City can find the resources to ticket people for letting
their dogs run in an empty park, it can find the resources to respond to
crimes that endanger life and property.
Let me close by saying
that I do not pretend to know exactly what the full solution is here,
but it doesn’t involve giving $250 of my tax money to everyone who’s
decided to hijack public property for their own exclusive use, as CB
118794 would do.
In 1789 the homeless stormed the Bastille. In 2016, the home owners need to storm Seattle Hall. In both cases, there was and is justification.
Also: if you want to stay on top of what is happening with City Council, you can sign up for email notifications here: http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/agenda-sign-up
We need to pack these meetings and make our voices heard.
This afternoon I went tp QFC for a 20 min shop trip passing by a completely passed out guy on sidewalk by front door. I no longer ask to speak to a manager about these things. I told an employee in passing; he responded that they knew. As I left I saw same guy still there. I spoke loudly to the Real Change seller to ascertain if “passed out” guy might move, shake, open eye etc.. No movement. I called 9 1 1 on arriving home. No one had called it in.. Maybe I was wrong.
I was there earlier today and witnessed a large homeless man arguing with one of the store managers. I’m not sure what it was about.
Just another day at the QFC homeless gauntlet.
It does nOT have to be just another day at our wonderful home neighborhood grocery store. We can stop giving them money ( I never do) others do. We can report out of control behavior. We can encourage Kroger to get ‘creative’ to nudge them along. Solid Ground can reach out. We can argue with others if they make a typing mistake.
I go to Whole Foods and park in the garage. No need to thread the needle of beggars.
Time for North Seattle to succeed from the City of Seattle and we can run a local government that actually responds to and respects it citizens.
The City has scheduled a Find It Fix It walk for Wallingford in November (exact date TBD). Safety concerns are one of the topic, so I wonder if any of the places mentioned in this post may be valid topics. Here’s more about the FIFI walk: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/programs-and-services/find-it-fix-it-community-walks
Does anyone know if someone was arrested for the arson. That is the most concerning part of this for me. We’re very lucky no one was hurt (this time).
Nice to see the squatter house is now for sale. $450k, any takers?
Naturally affordable housing!
You’re a problem.
In case you’ve not seen this today from Tim Burgess: http://timothyburgess.typepad.com/tim_burgess_city_view_/2016/10/homeless-encampments-an-update.html
Thank you Jordan for posting this and for sharing what SCCM Tim Burgess said. I watched the meeting (link here).
http://www.seattlechannel.org/mayor-and-council/city-council/20162017-human-services-and-public-health-committee?videoid=x68240&Mode2=Video
and got a better understanding what the ordinance is trying to do. It would be a temporary measure…good for two years after it is implemented. During those two years, Pathways Home will be (hopefully) working well and people will be getting permanent housing. What isn’t clear to me is the $250 financial compensation for campers. How will the City keep track of these folks? One sure way is to fingerprint them. Also, it seems like it creates an incentive for campers.
From Seattle Times Columnist Danny Westneat: City Hall is now letting the activist groups write the laws for them. Seattle City Council has entertained a series of proposed ordinances that were written by outside advocacy groups, and then introduced into the city’s legislative mill almost word-for-word.
Last month, some homeless-aid groups wrote up a controversial ordinance
giving the homeless a right to camp on some public property. It was
retitled as “Council Bill 118794” and introduced with 95 percent
identical wording (though it has not yet passed). The city staff’s memo says bluntly that the bill didn’t come from any elected official: “CB 118794 was
drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia
Legal Services.”
Read the whole article here:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/citizen-watchdog-calls-out-seattle-city-council-for-blurring-lines-with-advocacy-groups/
Two more points:
1) At the end of the meeting, only two Council members remained to hear the public comments and concerns…Lisa Herbold and Sally Bagshaw. Talk about not having your voice heard.
2) I highly recommend subscribing to https://www.facebook.com/sccinsight/
Danny Westneat calls the owner of the FB page: a former Microsoftie turned obsessive Seattle City Council watcher
A large percentage of these people in tents and campers and squatting in abandoned buildings and robbing my burned out apt….very truly do not want help finding housing. The govt is wasting its money. And a two year plan?
The “homeless” are taking over and have control. Civil liberties have gone too far.
Im going to start looking for an rv, seems like the way to win these days.
I agree w/you Moe, it seems many people choose that type of lifestyle. I’m not sure what is going to happen to those folks. I understand what the SCC is trying to do…make some rules and guidelines about where it is legal to have an encampment. There are so many unanswered questions. This is a good article about it: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/proposal-to-seattle-city-council-seeks-to-further-limit-homeless-sweeps-on-public-land/
That’s the same bill Burgess is talking about, drafted by ACLU. They’ve been tinkering with it, but the misguided basis for it remains intact. It will take massive citizen “pushback” to stop it – once they get started on something like this, their progressive cred is on the line and they almost can’t back down. As mentioned above, Kevin Schofield’s blog is http://sccinsight.com/ … for those like me who don’t get facebook.
Thank you Donn!