If you ride the Burke Gilman Trail as much as I do, you can’t help but notice the tents that have sprung up alongside the trail in the past few months. I’ve seen a couple between Corliss and Eastern, and another just west of Gasworks Park. I can’t help but wonder if the appearance of these tents was related to the clear out of the Jungle back in October.
Whatever the cause, the arrival of the tents is a recent event. I’ve rarely seen anyone at these tents although I do tend pass by very early in the morning, or in the evening – never midday. People are clearly living there, however, as I occasionally see bicycles hanging on the fence ready for use, and the tarps and rainflies get shifted about from day to day to best ward off the elements. Back in December, a huge pile of trash appeared in the bike path as if somebody had dumped a shopping cart load there. Bicyclists veered around it for a week and a half before it was cleared away to be replaced, oddly enough, by a dead raccoon bleeding from the mouth. That, too, was eventually cleared away. Perhaps different city departments are responsible for trash and carcass removal.
Now, the residents themselves face removal.
The signs cite the time of the notice posting (January 27, 8am), and the time of the scheduled cleanup (January 30, 9:30am). The notice states:
This is not an authorized area for storage or shelter. This material will be removed no less than 72 hours from the date and time posted above.
That is today. Where next? By Ivar’s? In Yankee Diner parking lot/ By Post Office? Gasworks?
Yes, we have a terrible affordability crisis in Seattle. This is one manifestation of it.
Tents on the BG are a manifestation of our affordability crisis? Paul, you could build thousands of affordable units tomorrow and it wouldn’t make any difference to the campers on the BG or anywhere else. Do you actually believe they’d get sober, stop stealing from us, stop assaulting each other, stop trashing our public spaces, clean themselves up, and get a job if they learned a bunch of affordable housing units had just come on line?
The people living in places like the Jungle have been offered help and shelter an average of 37 times. They don’t want it, they want to be left lone to do as they please. Allowing them to camp isn’t compassion, it’s enabling. That’s why the problem has gotten out of control, because Seattle is a destination city for them. According to the Grand Poohbah of HALA, Mayor Murray himself, 80% of our homeless are heroin addicts.
We don’t have a homeless epidemic here, we have a heroin and meth epidemic.
I agree with you that Paul’s conflation of homelessness with “affordability” is idiotic. However, I disagree with your statement that safe injection sites are also idiotic. So long as we have opiate addiction problems, it is far better to have such sites than not. There are numerous studies documenting their beneficial effects. Please don’t be like the right wing trolls.
It’s idiotic for the same reason that Amsterdam’s hash bars drew drug tourists from around the world. Good for tourism dollars, perhaps, not so good for the community at large. And heroin brings in a much seedier and more desperate element than hash and marijuana users.
Most users won’t go to the injection centers, they’ll inject whenever, and wherever they can. When InSite, Vancouver’s SIS that Seattle’s will be modelled after, opened in 2003 there were about 200 deaths from OD annually there. Now it’s at over 900. And really, you just look at all the zombies around Hastings to know it’s a failure.
Some more “fun facts” about InSite using their own numbers::
1.) Out of the 263,713 visits to InSite, referrals were made 464 times or 00.175% of the time.
2.) InSite is NOT a rehabilitation service. It is a detox service that helps you with withdrawals from opiates NOT long-term recovery and rehabilitation.
3.) Only 3.8% of the total users ever make it through their detox. 252 out of 6532 unique visitors.
4.) Out of the 263,713 visits to InSite referrals were made to “Other Social Services” 5368 times or 2.03% of the time.
We shouldn’t be aiding and abetting people’s addictions. We should spend the money instead on detox programs.
Comparing Dutch has bars to injection sites is false equivalency. You can’t buy opiates that the latter.
Your stats prove little except that we’re not doing well at treating or preventing opiate addiction. What’s your solution? Remember, outright prohibition never works. “Spend money on detox programs” is fine; it’s not an either/or proposition.
Basically, you appear to prefer that addicts just drop dead on the street from fentanyl contaminated smack.
My stats, (InSite’s stats, actually) prove that that injection sites don’t work.
As for fentanyl, yes it’s making heroin even more deadly. So I predict that eventually we’ll not only be paying for their safe injection sites and their rigs, but soon enough we’ll be buying them “safe” heroin as well. And do you suppose the net affect of that will be even MORE junkies in Seattle, or less?
I prefer we get them off the junk, period. Safe injection sites won’t do that.
Absolutely! I don’t like the fact that most of these addicts are thieves. So, we are saying “go ahead, steal what you have to, buy illegal drugs and we will take that you don’t die.” What a messed plan that is. I don’t get it. The more we tolerate drug addicts, the more there will be. I’m taking here about drugs, hard drugs.
You are so right. Addicts will not get sober until they have hit rock bottom. As long as we coddle the addict, they have no reason to get sober. I have some personal experience here and the only way to treat the drug addicts is to make their lives miserable. Sorry, they are not you mom and dad anymore. Once you turn to illegal drugs you have no conscience and no regard for anything or anyone, it is all about getting high. Sometimes we have to lose a few addicts by death so that other addicts might think twice about it. I know in my youth, I never tried heroin because I didn’t want to die. It was a very scary drug.
Indeed some of the homeless are doing it just because it’s their preferred life style. Many people hate having people like that around, just like how many European societies hate Roma. So laws are put in place to get rid of people of those life style. It’s just a fight between different preferences. I am glad that at least people can acknowledge now that “livable” is defined vastly differently by different people.
So an epidemic that has destroyed countless lives and communities isn’t a scourge, it’s just a “lifestyle.” Who are we to judge junkies, when it’s just a different “lifestyle?”
Do you write for the Onion in your spare time?
Hey, I agree that insistence on single-family houses is an epidemic that destroyed countless lives and communities too.
Not a single life or community has been destroyed by single family houses.
What? Give us your evidence.
TJ: “just like how many European societies hate Roma.” If you ever lived in any large European city, you’d know that many of the Roma or Gypsies are thieves. They even train their children to participate in the distraction tactics they use. I’ve witnessed it and been warned several times in Rome, Paris, London, and Frankfurt to watch out. I am prejudiced against people who commit crimes. It’s no fun getting ripped off, particularly if they take your passport. That is not to say that all Roma are thieves, but the ones you’re likely to come into contact with as a tourist on the streets or in the markets certainly are.
I was about to comment on that baloney myself when your post came in, so count me in, but the heroin statistic needs to be cleaned up a little. It’s commonly thought that 80% – or more – of the campers in illegal encampments are opiate addicts, and since we’re actually talking about illegal encampment here, it’s kind of a semantic fine point, but not all homeless live in illegal encampments and the percentage overall is surely much lower. There’s apparently quite a range of people who are homeless, from families with two jobs to junkie psycho derelicts, and we’ll never get any kind of consensus on what to do about it if we ignore that.
That’s a fair point to make Donn, and I do make the distinction between people who are homeless for legitimate reasons (for lack of a better word), versus opiate addicts who are living, as TJ put it, a “lifestyle.” Addicts repeatedly ignore offers of help and shelter. People who are actively trying to climb out of their situation and turn their live around aren’t the problem. The junkies are the problem.
Yes!
I think it bears mention that addiction is a disease of the mind, which debilitates the addict’s executive functioning and decision-making. People do not choose to become addicts, and it is extremely – EXTREMELY – difficult to break free of it, especially if one doesn’t have resources to go to a long-term treatment facility.
It is heartbreaking to see our fellow souls ravaged by such a destructive disease. While it can certainly be labelled a mental health issue, calling them “junkie psycho derelicts” is ignorant and heartless.
I think it’s pretty insulting to tell an addict that all they have to do is change their mind and they will be fine. It’s obviously a physical disease if you read the medical literature. People really need to read up on these things before they comment
Are you talking to me? If so, you’ve clearly misread my comment.
I am – and I will not allow your privilege to tell me what I see and perceive. Check that privilege and acknowledge my pain, please. Your comment has marginalized me. Rude!
Many of the campers on Burke Gilman were attracted to the city because there’s a social network for the homeless and addicts. Access to drugs, access to support structures and so on. The city, ironically ahs become a magnet for the homeless and addicted from other regions. Affordability has literally nothing to do with this subset. Continuing to act like it’s (all) a housing, not a drug crisis is why we’re achieved nothing.
Spot on. The SF zoning cause homelessness and addiction narrative is a favorite tactic of HALA boosters. It’s a cynical ploy to shame and silence any opposition to HALA.
As for campers being attracted to Seattle: The city “leadership” and the Homeless Industrial Complex tries to claim that the vast majority of our homeless are from King County, because they list Pioneer Square or a local P.O. Box as their most recent “address.” Anyone else see a problem with that reasoning?
While no one can claim to have an accurate assessment of what percentage of homeless and addicts came here from somewhere else, there’s lots of anecdotal evidence to suggest it’s likely a majority of them.
Take a couple of recent stories, for example. Pacific Standard Magazine had a January 16th interview of six residents of Tent City 3. of those six, FIVE recently moved here, and they readily admitted to being homeless and/or addicted before they moved. KIRO interviewed some of our addicts back on November 7th. Here’s what “Cheyenne had to say, “They say if you’re gonna be homeless, do it Seattle. They have a lot of great befits for homeless out here, but they kind of make it easy. So people kind of get stuck in that homeless cycle.”
But of course, the safe injection site advocates are just fine with that. “Give me your tired, your poor, your junkies.”
I have seen these “Camps”too,really sad. I was VERY vocal last year about all the RV’s and trash on our city’s beautiful BG trail. Constant pressure FINALLY got results….Now, the’re back…… Meanwhile several scofflaws in Wallingford with their cars and boats, trailers too, parked for WEEKS even after repeated calls for enforcement with NO luck. Just like the campers on BG….Hmmm.
As several blocks of lower Wallingford changed to 2hr street parking without a residence permit ($60 yearly)…..Hmmm.. Seattle IS still a really nice major city,that is why demand is so high. No real mystery here about the affordability “CRISIS.” I could move to Othello or Basin City and save a load of $ but as far as a”nice city/town./.well…..
N
Do you think the poor raccoon was hit by a bicyclist? When you say “…bleeding from the mouth…” that makes me think it was still alive 🙁
I didn’t mention it in the article, but there were a suspiciously large number of dead rats on that part of the trail in the days preceding and following the raccoon’s demise. I think poisoning is a possibility.
So, hayduke and nisida, What do you suggest? Complaining is one thing, actual thinking is another. Unfortunately for them, people live on the streets. Some are addicts, many are mentally ill, many are both. Reagan gutted mental health funding in this country closing public shelter and resources for many thousands, Trump is going to be worse. Mental health spending in Washington State remains pathetic. We are ranked 47th out of our 50 states. 47th. This is shameful in a state (and in a city) this wealthy. And then there are the people who are just poor. Not addicts. Not mentally ill. Just poor and trying to shelter themselves. Working poor, some with children, some who lost their homes due to divorce or medical costs. Not all of those camping are disruptive hoarders, and not all are addicts.
Might be more helpful to figure out what the actul problem is for you, for many of us, at these camps along the BG. If it is the mess, the threat, the needles, the physical products of unstable minds, let’s deal with that just like we would if it was your neighbor in a house next door. It’s true, those things should be managed no matter where they occur. I walk a lot. I pass by many tents tucked into bushes and parks and under overpasses whose surroundings are kept tidy and the inhabitants, quiet, If someone is shelthering themselves in ways that aren’t unsafe for others – I mean, you said you don’t even see them – let’s deal with the problems that are created rather than railing at “the homeless” in general.
One problem with a tolerance policy like that, is that we do have a camper element that’s too dangerous and/or unwholesome to tolerate, and we don’t have anything really effective we can do about it, so we just chase them off. They then go somewhere else, and naturally, where others are already camping. So your non-offending tolerated encampment draws them like a magnet, and pretty soon there’s needles, garbage, theft, etc. I’m no expert in these matters, but it seems kind of inevitable, as long as the most effective deterrent we have at our disposal is just eviction; if we could take the offenders out of circulation and keep them from coming back, it would be different, but that’s a pipe dream.
omo, I have long advocated for more metal health and detox facilities. As well as for programs where homeless individuals can have a secure room with counselors on site to help them get their life back together. I’d be happy to offer you more details on that if you like.
I think pretty much everyone would raise their taxes to pay for these programs. And btw, if you happen to have small children living on the streets with, as I’ve seen many times, you shouldn’t be given a choice, period. The state or city should take your kids and put them into a safe shelter immediately, whether the parents like it or not. If the parent wants to choose their kid over their addiction and go to the shelter as well, then good for them
But allowing them to camp anywhere they want is NOT compassionate, and it’s not a solution.
So far the most effective programs are the Utah ones where permanent housing is given with no strings attached. Attempts that include helping people to get their life together typically means the worst ones would leave the program, therefore not really solving the homeless problem.
This has been the same issue with all kind of social assist programs: requirements for the participants to meet certain improvement criteria means those who need to be helped/corrected the most will not participate. The more effective solutions typically have no strings attached.
So what houses should we give to the homeless for free? Build some condos on Aurora I guess?
Effective programs put the homeless to work and give them a sense of dignity and belonging, rather than just coddling them and giving handouts. Check out Albuquerque’s program on that.
As for Utah, I know you guys love to hype their program, but it’s not been the success you claim. See the link below. Why should we give free housing as someone who’s just going to get high month after month, year after year with no requirement that they participate in a program to get clean? It makes far more sense to offer shelter to those who are ready to make a real effort at it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/utah-homeless-shelters-housing-first
I recall a project in Ballard(?) of giving people very small but solid wood ‘huts” which allowed walls & a window an ddoor- privacy and safe storage. I thought bathrooms were communcal. What happened to that project?
Pretty sure it’s still there. NW Market, north side of the street, between 28th & 29th NW.
When you add moral judgments like what people “deserve”, then you have to live with the fact that the least deserving people will not be helped and remain what they are. Albuquerque program definitely works, but it would not be a solution for all. There are a lot of cities around the world that give homeless people jobs, but that have not solved the homeless problem, and those programs are not designed to really help everybody. It’s pretty common around the world that homeless folks got jobs.
In this world it’s now a fact that we don’t need everybody to be productive, and we have resources to support a lot of people who are not productive, or pets for that matter. We go out of our ways to provide resources to the handicapped without hoping to recoup that investment also.
It all matters on what exactly are the problems you want to solve. If your goal is to get homeless off the street, your way simply isn’t that good.If your goal is to help those who want to have get out of the homeless lifestyle to do so, obviously your idea is good.
What’s wrong with judging people whose come here to live a “lifestyle,” as you call it, that negatively impacts not just them, but an entire city? After all, we judge bank robbers, rapists, crooked Wall Street bankers, and anyone else who victimizes others, why not addicts?
I do, however appreciate your comment that my idea would at least help the minority who want to get out of the homeless lifestyle. Get them sheltered in safe facilities, give them jobs not just for income, but dignity, and get them into programs to help them turn their lives and addictions around. That, combined with making Seattle an unattractive and unwelcoming place to live the homeless lifestyle, would go a long way toward actually solving the problem. Stop making Seattle a top destination for them. Keep sweeping the encampments and make it difficult for them to get comfortable in one spot, and then sweep them from their next spot. Eventually some of them will want to leave the homeless lifestyle. Or at least just leave the city. Either way, problem solved.
Cleaning up our the city’s homeless problem has to be a carrot and stick approach, it can’t be one or the other.
Nothing wrong with judging them. I am saying if your remedy is constructed based on that judgment, by default you already rejected some people, therefore you can’t expect to fix the whole problem. If you only help criminals that don’t want to be criminals anymore, some criminals surely wouldn’t want to be in your program. Your idea only works if we also include things like imprisonment for those who are not accepting help.
That’s where many measures fail: people don’t want to do something too harsh, yet people don’t want to provide help universally with no questions asked. Systems are just awfully inefficient this way.
Same with many drug issues: it’s worst when people don’t want to punish too harsh, yet having a lot of requirements for providing assistance. People have figured out assistance with no questions asked have worked well, or harsh punishments like those in East Asia also worked well.
Okay, we’ve established that I’m opposed to giving them free housing and other handouts with no requirements for them to make an effort to clean up their act. And you’re opposed any harsh punishment.
So is there any middle ground here? Or at least some things that we could agree on? For example, do you think sweeping illegal encampments, especially those in residential neighborhoods would fall under the category of being too harsh a punishment?
Second, do you believe, as I do, that having safe injection sites would increase the number of homeless addicts in our city? I believe our success should be measured in two ways. The first would be how many people who are currently homeless abd abusing drugs we get into permanent shelter in and help them become clean and productive citizens once again. The second measurement would be to determine if we’ve significantly reduced, rather than increased the number the homeless in our city. What should not factor into that measurement is how many tents, sleeping bags and meals we’ve handed out to them, and certainly not how many clean needles we’ve given them and how many “safe” injections have been carried out.
“having safe injection sites would increase the number of homeless addicts in our city” — reduced by the number who drop dead from overdoses, other violence, and exposure.
These are difficult questions. Others have correctly pointed out that our political economy needs fewer workers at the same time as population continues to expand. (Which speaks to another ethically difficult issue: immigration and it’s relation to population and limits.)
I think it’s inhumane to simply leave addicts on the street where they will continue to commit crimes to feed their habit. It wreaks havoc on our residential (and small business) communities, and does not do a damn thing for the addicts. I agree with you that it’s problematic to have programs that “invite” purposeless people to come live on our streets (why they would choose Western Washington over anywhere in southern California is beyond me). This seemingly intractable problem is inextricably linked to others, like huge and increasing inequity, a nasty political economy that provides few options for these people, and a general failure to acknowledge that more growth cannot solve any of these problems.
Might add mental health among the related intractable problems, as someone mentioned above. I suppose opiate addiction might just as well be one of the mental health problems that afflict the homeless. A class of problems that are not just hard to treat, it’s hard to get people to commit to treatment. If we had the knowhow, and we scraped up the money to deal with them all, we’d still have to think pretty hard about the issues around involuntary commitment.
Good post, omo.
Did this happen for sure today?
The tents that I know of on the BG are gonenow-not sure how many there were. They were cleared out today. I am located on N. Pacific Street near Corliss. I know the big black tent type of structure is gone and my husband went down to chat with one of the guys cleaning up. The people living in that tent took some of their stuff and we heard they were headed to Gas Works.
People wonder why they choose to live in such conditions with no sanitation, restrooms to use, trash pickup, etc. when the city offers better options for the homeless. It’s because those better options forbid them from doing drugs. If you walk around these areas prepare to step on a used needle.
Yes, so the solution has to either include letting them use drugs in these better options, or punishment so severe that they’d have to leave or change. I don’t really see Seattle as a city that can do the latter, so it’s going to be people coming around and do the former.
TJ, as a professor of logic and history, I can’t help but respond to your binary thinking. There are always more options or positions to take on a problem than two. I suggest you try it sometime.
Well, it didn’t last long. After 3 weeks, they’re back.
Several tents went up over the weekend. Today, they removed the fence and started to build structures next to the Burke Gilman.
Welcome to Murraysville!
I’m not sure if the mayor is to blame.
According to the police, Gas Works was cleaned up so the campers probably moved down the street.
It’s amazing how much trash they already generated.
If someone is missing a gas grill or a ladder, you can find them on the Burke. 🙂
We tend to hold the mayor responsible for maintaining order in the city. If we don’t, who’s going to do it? I’m not saying there’s an easy way to do it, but he has to come up with a plan that will really deal with the problem. That plan will have some parts that aren’t warm and fuzzy, and he’s going to have to stand up in front of everyone and sell those not-so-warm-and-fuzzy policies. Or wait for the next mayor to do it, election this fall.
What about the white car with boxes on top an da bike next to it just behind our Wallingford Post Office? How long do these guys get to live here/
We talked to the police and they told us to use the “Find it, fit it!” app from the city of Seattle to report the encampment.
The more people complain, the higher the priority becomes.