Nickelsville Ballard, the city-sanctioned, self-managed homeless encampment presently homed on Market Street in Ballard will be decamping to Wallingford shortly.
Founded in 2008 (and named as a not-tribute to then-mayor Greg Nickels), the community operates with the city’s blessing, which acknowledges that “there is insufficient supply of low-barrier shelter beds for any given night and outreach workers often find that the City’s emergency shelter system does not meet the needs of people living unsheltered.” Besides the fact that they fill up nightly, a major barrier for many seeking shelter in the city’s official shelters: they do not accept families together, so husbands and wives and other partnerships must split up each night to stay warm.
There are presently four camps operated under the Nickelsville umbrella.
Unlike the unsanctioned camps by and under I-5, in Gas Works and scattered elsewhere around the neighborhood, Nickelsville camps have a formal admissions and governing system : admission is on a first-come, first serve basis as vacancies become available, which works out to about once every couple of weeks (typical tenure runs around six weeks).
All residents must agree to abide by the rules of the community, which include no booze, drugs or weapons on premises, and all members meet weekly, where they elect their leadership and ensure everyone is signed up for the shared jobs (e.g., security patrol, trash removal) and that other rules such as safe food storage are being followed.
The Ballard camp has approximately 23 residents, who live in a mixture of tents and 6 “tiny houses”. The houses are wrapped in tarp for warmth, and residents can draw water from 600 gallon drum and make use of the shared propane barbecues to heat food.
The plan at the moment is for the camp to move on November 17th, when its two-year Ballard lease expires, to 3814 Fourth Ave. NE in lower Wallingford, near Ivar’s. The property presently holds an old house owned by Seattle City Light. A representative of Nickelsville told me that the plan was to knock it down and clear the land for the temporary (two-year) Nickelsville lease occupation.
Now, none of this is set in stone yet. While Nickelsville is hopeful that the use of land with plumbing and sewer will allow them to have better facilities than the water drum and porta-potty setup in Ballard, the person I spoke with expressed concern both with the size of the lot (8,000 sq ft as opposed to the 9,6000 they occupy now) as well as the fact that there is presently a house that needs to be removed before they can move in…on November 17.
For those worried about the impact of homeless community on the neighborhood, there are a number of reasons to be hopefuly. For one, the Community Advisory Council, which now includes representatives from Ballard’s business and residential community, will include representatives from Wallingford’s community in their stead, so we’ll have a voice.
Also, unlike the unsanctioned encampments that often function as bicycle chop shops and bases for local malfeasance, the structure and rules of the sanctioned camps tend to keep those behaviors at bay. I spoke with Willow Fulton, who has lived near and worked with Camp Second Chance, a sanctioned camp by White Center, and she said that the presence of the sanctioned camp not only didn’t add to the crime and vandalism in the area, but tended to raise the behavior bar for nearby unsanctioned camps, as well.
“If the sanctioned camp weren’t there,” she said, “the city wouldn’t care about the people camping in the woods at all. But because the sanctioned camp is there, they have trash pickup, they’ve fixed street lights, they bring in shower trucks that everyone can use.
Removing the desperation helps remove the things that people do when they’re desperate,” she said.
(As of press time, my repeated calls and emails to City homelessness director George Scarola went unanswered.)
I took the time to thoroughly read your post which is a really good one. If they are governed as you say, I think Wallingford should give it a chance. The policies seem to directly address any fears we may have. As someone who is not happy about tents with bike parts, needles and trash, I should follow through with my belief that those are the things the I oppose and not just the fact that they are homeless.
As an aside, I got my bike stolen a few years ago and that made me pretty hardened against the tents along the BGT.
I took the time to read the post as well. I have lived in Wallingford a long time. I have listened and read one hollow promise after another. Recall when Gift of Grace opened a night homeless men’s shelter without informing the neighborhood? They promised to answer all emails and calls of neighbors? Mine, among others, were ignored. Lots of promises including that that burned out old restaurant would be dealt with– it is 6 years now- and the request the neighbors be a little patient? I could type out more but most long term residents know them.
Well, yes. but there have been bike thefts all over Wallingford. On almost every street, and in front of numerous businesses. So that is a big stretch to make the assumption. Might be true, might not be true. Did you get your bike back? I am sorry that happened to you. It is a personal invasion, and does not feel good. a fe years ago, I had my car (locked) stolen several years ago from right in front of my house. at 3pm in the afternoon.
Removing a house in order to house the homeless seems ironic.
No, it is a very good idea because the city has decided so.
We submit! We obey! Our virtue is signaled! Our Dear Leaders know best!
It’s removing a old big house to put in a lot of tiny houses. It’s not ironic, but the norm of resolving housing issues.
I hope Ms. Fulton is exaggerating at least a little there, but appearing at Wednesday’s WCC meeting Scarola did say the city pays more attention, in the vicinity of a sanctioned encampment. We can at least have higher expectations to start with.
It’s a shame Scarola wouldn’t write back. Wednesday he said they’d move in mid-December. I think Nov 17 isn’t even plausible at this point. I’d be surprised if the tenant has even moved out.
He didn’t mention tents, only the sheds. He may have just neglected to mention a few tents, but I thought I was getting a clear impression there’d be more than just a half dozen sheds, that the 30 dwelling units were at least typically sheds.
Where do the proponents live?
http://www.king5.com/news/local/homeless/new-homeless-camp-allows-drugs-alcohol/428964414
You are correct. Most Wally people will not be affected as they live far from here. This is the southern and eastern edge of Wallingford. It remains to be seen how this will influence people who live in this part of the neighborhood. If you saw the articles about our two major candidates for Mayor, they live far from such sites. I wonder how Ivars and Dunn Lumber feel about this? Will these folks have cars? Where will they park. The area around 40th from 7th to Latona is already overwhelmed by the John Stanford School overflow of parking as well as UW and the construction workers. It is really unfair to people who live here and pay taxes to not be able to get into their driveways. I hope people from the encampment will not be parking up here.
And for all you liberals who do not own anything, I am a liberal who owns things and wants my rights to be upheld. I guess because I want to be able to park and not have crime in my neighborhood, that makes me a Nazi pig? I would love to know the difference in the proportion of people in this neighborhood who are pro vs. nay on this issue who own and do not own property here? I would love to know this. I can predict the outcome.
I live about 6 blocks away. I believe that the inconvenience caused to the middle class housed and their “stuff” is worth absolutely nothing compared to a human life. If you had to live on the street even for just a week because you could not get into a shelter that was open for more than 8 hours, you might be singing another tune. Try to develop a little humanity. It could be you some day.
I have been in the helping profession for 30 years. I do not need you to tell me to have humanity. Why not let them move in with you? Or do you even own a house? I pay 47K in taxes to this county every year. I am doing my part already.
Do you think you are doing something therefore you deserve some privilege? I don’t really want people to just move in my house, but I would be fine if the government uniformly asked everybody to size down and cost down so some resources can be spared to help others. That’s what I’d advocate, basically the typical liberal ideas.
I personally believe ideas like donating a lot of charity or things like that to earn prestige is effectively a conservative position.
OK, so there are 3 deserted buildings on 45th– Iron Bull– has space, a kitchen and bathrooms an is on 45th w/ good bus service. Guild 45th- has bathrooms and is on 45th wiht good bus service. Both are close to drug and grocery stores so people could buy food or waslk or tak ea free bus ot the food bank. Kitaros, tho burned a bit also has a kitchen and a bathroom– same location with food and bus service nearby. There is a closed church on Whitman N & 41st– there is a building w/ a kitchen etc….
So you’re saying liberalism is about using government to confiscate our property and give it to others, while conservatism is about people voluntarily donating to charity? That’s probably not the best message to be putting forth to attract more people to liberalism.
I’ve told you before, the idea of “confiscate your property” is misleading. What’s defined as properties we own are based on rules we write. We define what can be owned or not arbitrarily, and we can always redefine it as we see fit. There is no confiscation if you don’t even define ownership. There are various forms of human society that define things differently.
And I don’t ever think we are going to convert people to different ideologies through these discussions. These discussions are more about making sure people are aware there are differences among us, and learn how to live together with these differences. At the minimum people need to know concepts like “livable” is complicated with many many different answers.
“We define what can be owned or not arbitrarily, and we can always redefine it as we see fit.”
TJ, I define my car as my own. I define my TV as my own. I define my money as my own. And I define my house as my own. I certainly don’t define all that as being owned instead by the government, or by someone who is more needy than I. And I think it’s safe to say the overwhelming majority of Americans define their possessions in the same manner. The only people who Define other people’s property as belonging to the government or to society are the Socialists amongst us. And happily, they are a tiny minority.
So I wish you luck in getting the country to redefine all those things.
TJ’s point may be more nuanced than we give him credit for. Our security, our children’s education, freedom to build what we want on our property, our house’s view, etc. are all things over which ownership is not clear. Physical property is almost always considered “owned” in the United States, public lands excepted. I think TJ, you have to accept that.
However, for the purposes of a discussion on a community blog, such issues are of little consequence. What matters if how we support the neediest among us and how we can feel safe and respected at the same time.
No, you do not define ownership. They are specific rules written in laws to define ownership and protect them. Just like how food recipe as an idea is not protected and “owned”, but novel as an idea is protected. What Americans believe as private property surely isn’t consistent and without dispute either. Otherwise we wouldn’t have those wacky guys trying to prevent the federal government from owning lands.
Also you can just look at how people differ on their view of taxes. Tax effectively is a system that defines some of your money as “not yours”. And we obvious all have different views on taxes.
My point isn’t trying to upset all of these concepts and rewrite rules from scratch. I am talking about these just to point out many of these concepts are not “facts” or “truth” or “rights”. They are social constructs that actually are much more negotiable than some are taught to believe.
So, it’s not “confiscating your property” — you just want to rewrite the rules so it’s no longer your property? And that will make everyone feel good about it?
Actually yes, in the very long run. People were taught to consider properly ownership as a source of happiness, but it actually isn’t. Property ownership directly contributes to issues like higher level of unemployment. Ownership is a heavy burden that often anchors the life decision of people, and limit development.
I understand most people are already fixed in their mindset and cannot accept what they perceived as “truth” growing up are actually just social constructs that aren’t necessary. They couldn’t imagine why nomadic people with no land ownership concepts could possibly be happy. Still, I do see overall in human development these concepts will have to change with modern society developments.
We are actually getting close to a society where pretty soon we can output more than we can consume, and the productivity of some would be able to feed lots and lots of people. In a world where ten people can produce enough to satisfy a hundred, we wouldn’t and shouldn’t distribute wealth purely by contribution, because there are going to be pretty significant amount of people that would not be efficient enough for us to bother asking them to work. It doesn’t mean we’d then kill them off or let them become homeless in the streets. We as a society actually would be able to afford them to sit comfortably at home and play Madden all day. I will not feel bad if people are doing that off my labor, given that I can get to sit at home comfortably and play games at my leisure also.
How do you pay $47,000 to the county every year?
I own a house in Wallingford, and I got the “liberal guilt” of seeing my house value double within a short time knowing I didn’t really do much to facilitate that gain. All this at the same time when there are people who don’t have houses that are suffering. I don’t think you are a Nazi pig, but I kind of don’t think you are as liberal as you claim. I don’t think the society owe me parking or no crime in my neighborhood. There are obviously neighborhoods with way worse crime issues, and I’d have no problem seeing resources directed to those neighborhoods more than mine.
I do not claim to be liberal. I am liberal when it comes to health care and education. I am not liberal when it comes to crime. Most young people I know who live in South Seattle are trying to get an education so that they can get out of those neighborhoods because they are scared and have been traumatized throughout their young lives. I believe we should pay for a free education for people who show promise. I also believe we should provide health care for all. After this I draw the line. Yes I am not as liberal as the people in Wallingford who think that because I want my parking space left for me, that I am a pig. What if I told you that I have a family member who needs to be close to the front door. Does this family deserve less than someone who does not live here or someone who comes and parks here because they work at John Stanford or they go to UW? Do the people who are coming to the Homeless Encampment have cars? Where will they park? So because I want my family member to have a convenience that I payed for, I am cold-heartened?”
They won’t have cars.
We have no reason to believe crime will increase.
You don’t own an on-street parking space.
“Seattle residents who possess a valid Washington State Disabled Parking Permit may request installation of a disabled parking space adjacent to their residence, subject to certain conditions.” https://goo.gl/8d4jk7
We should provide all children an education regardless of whether they show promise.
You are not a pig. You are probably a very nice person; most people are in real life.
Please read what I wrote.
I was NOT talking about parking on the street. I am talking about people parking on the street and BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS. This is against the law. Look up it up. I want to be able to get in my driveway. My family member is infirm and needs to be close to the front door.
It remains to be seen what type of education. I really do not care whether you think I am a nice person or not.
I am a bit confused now. Is the whole thing just about your drive way, not about the homeless? Are you trying to decide your stance on this encampment based on if there would be people blocking your drive way?
I am worried about more parking spaces being taken up in an area already inundated by John Stanford and UW folks, as well as construction workers. I spoke to an officer who said they get numerous calls from people in Southeast Wallingford because their driveways are constantly being blocked. The encampment is in SE Wallingford…yes/no? Perhaps you have been fortunate enough to not have campers park up against or in your driveway? Yes, I was asking if these folks will have cars. I believe someone wrote in recently and said these folks will not have cars. This remains to be seen.
The encampment is across the street from Ivar’s, so even if somehow they got cars, they’d not be blocking your drive way. They are more likely to compete parking spaces with Westward customers than those parking around you. If your main concern is your drive way, you should have a way bigger issue with the school district than with the homeless guys. If they put mostly poor students in the school, then your parking situation would be improved. Right now it’s an option school with students from well-to-do families not necessarily within the neighborhood. That means a lot of parents with time to volunteer therefore parking in the neighborhood, and a lot of parents that drive their kids to school.
I went to one of the first PUBLIC schools for gifted students in the nation. My father never went to school and my mother to the sixth grade. I had to walk through our dangerous terrible neighborhood in NYC to the very tony neighborhood that contained the school. Most of the students came from upper middle class families. That school changed my life.
For more than 70 years that school has been used by wealthy white people to get a free education when they could certainly have afforded private schools. There was recently an article in New York Magazine about the school and the fact that the mayor of NYC has forced the administration to enroll 35% of their students from poor families in the city provided that they pass the exams. White liberals in NYC are beside themselves. They hate the major despite the fact that he is a bleeding liberal. They have to look in the mirror and see their hypocrisy. They have never had to face such a disconnect. People can say whatever they want, but what they do is another tale. The vast vast majority of people in Wallingford do not live anywhere near the proposed site of the encampment.
When it comes to schools for your kids, it brings out the ugly in people.
So many of our neighbors have Black Lives Matter signs on their lawns and yet they send their kids to schools that probably don’t have many black children in them. The signs say “we believe in science and love is love” but they go to religious schools that contribute to a church that actively opposes same sex marriage.
For every issue where local/personal differences can be created, people would be conservative for local matters. The main way to counter that is to reduce the allowance for local/personal differences. For example, systems like Medicare and Social Security where everyone is on roughly the same thing, people with means would ensure the systems are good enough for their needs, and people without means would benefit at the same time. When you allow local/personal differences, it means the region/individual with means will maximize the benefits, while the region/individual without means would suffer. If we ban localized security and only assign police resource based on need, places like Laurelhurst would then have to share the burden of Aurora or Columbia City, and the rich folks there would therefore be much more interested in putting in more resource on general issues as opposed to use that money for themselves.
Seattle public schools are among the most segregated in the country by wealth and by race. All the bad performing schools got school zones with minority and poorer neighborhoods. It’s not hard to see why: schools like JSIS could raise more funds from one class than a whole school in some of those south Seattle schools. With JSIS kids can all go on all kind of road trips with lots of parents volunteering to help, while that’d never happen in poorer neighborhoods where parents are having hard time just to keep the family fed.
It’s the same as the security topic: resources are already not distributed fully based on need, and the richer neighborhoods are spending money to make sure they’ll be even further ahead. The whole system is rigged to keep whoever ahead staying ahead.
I think you may just have to take those kids away from their parents then. I don’t know if you realize, but some kids have bad parents. Their parents aren’t interested in doing the hard work to raise their children. Sometimes it’s not that they can’t; they simply don’t want to and no amount of money or wealth redistribution will fix that.
You don’t have to take kids away from parents. You just need to have less segregation by wealth. If the rich and the poor live together in the same neighborhood and the kids go to the same schools, the poor kids would benefit a lot. Kids in poorer neighborhoods got no exposure to what better world is like. In extreme cases the brightest kid in a poor city would aspire to become the Social Security office lady, because that’s the most glorious and powerful job a kid would know locally.
That’s why I view it essential to ensure we can have a lot more poorer people living in the neighborhood. The impact is way more than just having a home.
By the way, are you trying to demonize some parents so you can say it’s not your problem therefore you don’t have to help?
We believe things like this to make to ease our guild about not helping.
It is much more common that poor parents are working so hard to pay the bills that they don’t have the time to spend nurturing their children.
When faced with poor parenting, as opposed to dangerous parenting, it is almost always better to leave the child with a parent or family member.
There are many ways we can address the opportunity gab while children live with poor parents.
When parents give to after school programs and tutors in affluent schools there should be some matching contribution to poor schools required.
In Seattle, gifted student testing should be mandatory and during school hours.
Talking about bad parents like this is often code for saying parents of color make bad parents.
SSD used to bus kids all over the district back and forth– kid sbeing on buses 45 minutes each way in order to desegregate. Kids got in troubl eon the buses fo rdoing things which were nto good for kids to do on buses but normal things kid sneed to do after school– be silly, wiggle, jump around. I worked in north end schools which had many bussed children. Parents of schools where I worked nestled in with the kids bused in and paid for their field trip fees; volunteered anyway and put a lot of effort in to workiing for all kids in the schools as did staffs.
This should be fine. I wonder if there are volunteer opportunities at the camp. Would be a good opportunity for the kids… and me.
At the WCC meeting, they said there will be a work party to help set up the camp and that there’s a meal calendar where you can sign up to host meals. The residents are not given food and the cooking arrangement doesn’t sound great, so I imagine meals would be greatly appreciated.
Are the future residents of this site to do any of the actual work to set it up? Or is that too much of an imposition on them?
Wait until you have met these people before you judge them.
Second thought, just don’t judge people.
Asking if they might actually contribute is judging them?
The judgement was in the way you asked. If I said about you “would it be too much to ask that you actually put your garbage in the garbage can instead of dumping it on the street?”, you would rightly be offended, because I’m implying an assumption that you dump your garbage on the street.
These camps are self-managed, they do neighborhood litter patrols, have a division of labor to maintain the camp themselves, so I would be very surprised if they did not participate in set up.
and where do you live?
He has every right to ask this question. Do you own anything?
Yes, I own a Car Talk cycling jersey signed by Ray Magliozzi.
At the meeting, Scarola didn’t mention if residents would be helping at the work party. They do have some responsibilities at camp, like working the front desk, cleaning and helping to run the camp. It was interesting, I think he said that if someone breaks the rules, the other campers decide what the punishment will be. Hayduke, I think you’d really support a guy like Scarola. He spoke quite strongly against illegal encampments and how degrading it is to let people live in those kinds of conditions. He believes the first step towards lifting them up is to get them into a better environment – the camps aren’t ideal, but are are much better than where these people were living. The camp gives them a sense of security and the opportunity to connect with services. It seems like a big step in the right direction!
Yes, God forbid the down and out actually contribute to their own care. They get free bus passes, medical care, and all kinds of social benefits paid for by the rest of us suckers.
Live is terrible for homeless people. What they get from government and charity is just provides for a subsistence living, often a short one. They have very little ability to improve their own situation due to mental health, addiction, poor education, and sometimes poor life decisions which had disproportional consequences. They need our help so that they can begin to help themselves.
I think they should allow families to be together in this shelter. It shouldn’t be limited to single residents. Couples should be allowed to be together.
Agreed. Children should be given top priority for getting off the streets, certainly over single, able-bodied men. And at least Wallingford would actually get some families living all that “multifamily housing” they want to shove down our throats with the HALA upzones.
Patty,
I agree. I’ve met three homeless couples, in their 30s to 50s. I tried to help a Native American woman a couple weeks ago who was and is seriously sick, trying to get some sleep in the Meridian Park Gazebo. She obviously needed to see a doctor immediately. Her partner was not around. So I took her into my home for four days as I took her to doctor’s appts and to see her social worker, and tried to find her a suitable shelter. I was amazed how hard it was to find overnight shelter for a single sick woman. I could get her into a day shelter but nothing overnight.
After talking to her doctor and social workers and other shelter people, I finally had to admit defeat and resort to the usual pipeline — going through the Harborview ER, which I was trying to avoid. She was too sick to go to the usual mattress on the floor shelter but not sick enough to qualify for Harborview’s respite center, even though she had her doctor’s recommendation for it.
One social worker told me that people in her condition will be volleyed back and forth between the Downtown Emergency Shelter, which has beds and limited medical supervision, and the ER and if she’s very lucky she may die in respite or in hospice. But from my experience it’s doubtful there will be a bed. Her doctor and social worker had been working for weeks trying to find her a place to stay. One social worker was shocked that I had even found her a shelter at all. I now understood the meaning of our homeless emergency.
At any rate the couples I met were NOT druggies or drunks, and they always cleaned up after themselves. It really pains me to see the treatment they get from passersby. Like abused dogs, they hang their heads and follow orders immediately, they are so accustomed to being shunned and run off. I feel ashamed of myself for not being able to do more. I would like to welcome the new camp tenants to our neighborhood.
Thank you for helping her Gen.
Thank you Patty and Susanna for noticing my post. After being kicked out of Harborview and sent to the Downtown Emergency Shelter, where she was given a bed-bug ridden bed for 10 days, my friend collapsed and was taken back to Harborview, There she was finally given the hospice care she should have gotten in the first place. She died last night.
OMG, I’m soooo sorry for your loss. May she rest in peace.
Sad.
Thank you for caring for this woman.
Single family house being replace by more Amazon employees!
Me and my little boy were driving and he was soooo happy that it was snowing. And while I listened to him giddy with glee because of the first snow, I turned to see a homeless person huddling on the sidewalk under an umbrella in the cold begging as cars passed by. I’m happy this tiny village found a new home, and I hope Wallingford shares the best of its humanity in welcoming thses new neighbors. I hope this is a turning place for the people lucky enough to make it in. I only wish there were more villages like this.
> I only wish there were more villages like this.
In the long term, I wish we don’t have to wish for such things.
So how about putting the camp in Laurelhurst instead?
Lol, that will be the day when any of these are put in Laurelhurst, Queen Anne (upper), Madison Park, etc. Or for that matter, anywhere close to where any of our City Council members live who foisted the idea of ‘city sanctioned’ encampments on the rest of us!
Bear in mind that the “encampment” name for these places is a misnomer. People aren’t really camping there, in any meaningful sense of the word, and they’re subject to a lot more scrutiny than you’d get in an apartment building. No drinking, etc. It’s a selected few that get in, and by most accounts between that and the oversight, there aren’t a lot of problems for the surrounding community. (Note that the one in the Aurora Licton Springs neighborhood is a different deal, “low barrier” setup that takes harder cases. That’s not what we’re getting.)
On the other hand, unauthorized campers can go anywhere they want – including Laurelhurst. Haven’t been out that way recently, are there any in Laurelhurst Playground? Maybe the police pay more attention to those neighborhoods. I hope not, but it wouldn’t come as a huge surprise. But now this Northlake neighborhood is going to get that extra attention, for a very good reason: they can’t afford to let their people get tangled up with the campers. So maybe we’re one up on Laurelhurst this time, thanks to this “encampment.” Don’t expect it will make a huge difference, Wallingford is a much more attractive destination because of I-5, etc., but this isn’t anything to get freaked out about.
I am curious what “extra atention” will the police provide? Do you recall the campers an dvans which were parked along Northlake Way N for months and which never moved, left huge piles of tash around, were a known site for theft and drug sales? There are a few articles on Wallyhood about that and the response and attention the police were giving them- minimal. I can ot believe anything different regarding police attention will happen. Having lived across the stret from squatters and recently tried to repor tillegal camping I have little confidence in the rights the police have to do anything about these social problems.
Those RVs were in fact the specific example. As best I recall, he said if there were a lot of RVs, they would take action – his people would, presumably via the police. He wasn’t able to make any really accountable promises though.
That isn’t surprising. He takes the general stance his bosses Murray and Burgess have been taking, that sometimes we can and should interfere with campers for their own good, but even that is a delicate compromise. There is a vocal contingent that wouldn’t go for even that much enforcement, and downtown politicians know very well how the slightest smudge on their progressive credentials could lose them the support of the people who get them elected. Likely we will continue with the delicate balance, but if we fall off, it will be to the left.
But I digress. The point is, we have at least this one small reason to expect slightly more enforcement response to illegal activity in that vicinity. So in my view, when they decided to put this facility here, it may turn out be to our public safety benefit.
I’m not aware of any agreement with the neighborhood. It was pretty clear from his account of how things happened, that they do what they have to do, and ask forgiveness afterwards if necessary. But I believe illegal activity nearby is a problem for them, both because neighbors who are hit with property crimes etc. can’t distinguish as to the source, so it’s bad PR, and because the residents’ outcomes will likely be better if there isn’t a lot of trouble hanging around.
I think the only thing is that with this new camp you’d have more people that might actively report issues to the police. These type of sanction camps are effectively a bunch of tiny house dwellers, and they are as fearful as dangerous people as us. This camp will not solve any existing problems, but they also aren’t expected to add new problems based on the track records in Ballard and around the city.
Homeless people aren’t allowed to stay overnight in parks in Wallingford also, and yes police do enforce that here. Homeless guys might sleep in the park during the day time though.
Laurelhurst and Magnolia type of places don’t have services like food banks or free meals, and they are far from other places. Homeless are most visible around places with services.
“Homeless people aren’t allowed to stay overnight in parks in Wallingford also, and yes police do enforce that here.”
Maybe you should get out more and take a little stroll through lower Woodland Park sometime.
I think you can see why though. Woodland Park is not the equivalent of Laurelhurst Park. Wallingford Park and Meridian Park are the better examples. I think Gasworks would be a better example of what you are trying to say.
My point is that homeless people are less visible and probably less likely to be in Laurelhurst not necessarily because of any policing differences.
Laurelhurst also has its own privately paid “police force.”
Well, more reason for me to dislike that neighborhood!
TJ, I’m not trying to steer the conversation off on a wold tangent here, but I have to ask, why would that make you dislike that neighborhood? They’re using their own money to pay for a public service to help make their neighborhood safer. And especially considering that our police are woefully understaffed to the point that they don’t even file reports on property crimes anymore, that presumably frees them up to patrol other neighborhoods.
So why does that bother you? It’s not like it’s negatively impacting you or other people. If anything, it’s making our city safer for all.
Because s/he’s a troll. Questions the charm factor of Old Ballard Avenue and says it’s the multi-story mix-used buildings that make people want to visit Ballard. Come on. Not for real. Ignore accordingly.
That’s not what TJ said: http://disq.us/p/1nfizng
Name calling is not nice, or helpful.
I do not question the charm factor of Old Ballard Avenue at all. The problem isn’t me. The problem is how the general American public don’t care about those kind of things, so the charm you talked about don’t attract people. It’s the fancy food and boutique stores that do. I actually think it’s quite sad that Americans typically don’t appreciate these type of things much. It should not be hard for you to see how beer tours is way more of a thing than old Ballard culture tours.
I went on a Southwest road trip two years ago, and whenever a spot is natural, you got tons of American tourists. Whenever a spot is cultural like Mesa Verde, you’d see that European tourists outnumber Americans. The imbalance of visitors among museums at National Mall is also telling. The overall interest in culture just isn’t high.
Because I believe in the welfare of all before the welfare of the few. If a rich city got the money to pay for its already high security level to be even higher, I’d prefer to take that money to be spent on some other neighborhoods that desperately need the help. It’s also the same neighborhood with many people that tried to block traffic improvements, including easier access for the Children’s Hospital, just so they can be a quieter neighborhood. Selfishness bothers me.
I also really hate segregation by wealth.
No, they do not.
Just a guess, but I wonder if Kshama Sawant has proposed any homeless encampments in her district?
Leschi……….? Are you kidding me?
Never in Leschi.
There is a perfect place. Madrona Park. Right across the street from those multi-million dollar homes. They will not even have to pay property taxes.
Ask Nickelsville how many people they moved into permanent housing. And be ready to say hello to the satellite camps that set up in the vicinity. There’s a “rule” in the agreement the city makes with the neighborhood stating other unsancitioned camps will not be allowed within a certain distance. See how quickly that rule is ignored. Ballard wishes our neighbors well in their new site.
Yes, how do you think they’re going enforce the illegal encampment rule once Sawant and Mike O’Brien get their way with defunding the sweeps? They’re also defunding the navigation teams and eliminating the line item for building fencing around places that have been cleaned up.
Wallingford should demand that they consult with us a year from now when they try to renew it for a second year. Because I have very little faith in the city that they’re going to keep their word about enforcing the rules. And we should have the right to tell them, no, you’ve overstayed your welcome if that ends up being the case.
This wouldn’t be the path to resolve issues. We can already see how it’d be. This encampment residents would look like model citizens comparing to the unsanctioned camps, which is the case for all the existing similar encampments. So people will support the renewals.
The worst elements among homeless people would not be in this camp, and the issues associated with them aren’t going to be impacted by whatever we do with this camp.
People will support renewing the camp there for another year IF it’s run the way George Scarola and the city claim it will be. If the city fails in in it’s promise and responsibility to do so, then hopefully the citizens of Wallingford will have the courage to stand up and say no to next year. The city shouldn’t have a problem with agreeing to move the camp if things start to get out of control and we start seeing illegal encampments popping up nearby. I think it’s less likely to have problems if they only let families with children stay there, and IMO, that’s who should get top priority.
But that’s assuming, of course, that we’re even given the courtesy of having a voice in the matter. And given that the city doesn’t seek input from neighbors on these encampments, until after the decision’s been made, I doubt that’ll happen.
Camps like these are not new, and there are track records. What’s the reason to think suddenly it’d be different in Wallingford? Only the new Licton Spring is somewhat different, with lowered requirement for camp residents.
The city will renew for another year whether you like it or not. Sharon Lee and Scott Morrow will see to that. And they’ll overstay their lease if they want to, as well. As for the “track record” of the other camps…Ballard suffered from a pestilent encampment less than 100 yards from Nickelsville. It was a chop shop, drug den and home to many folks who would sweep out into the neighborhood at night to grab whatever wasnlt nailed down.
This unsanctioned encampment was largely made up of people kicked out of Nickelsville for breaking rules. The business next store to it — an event space — lost more than $100,000 in business. Homes for sale in the area regularly sold for 10 – 15% lower than comps farther away. Red Mill was broken into. The liquor store was broken into. One business had a 10-fold rat extermination cost increase. Neighbors had to organize, for the first time, walkabouts to collect needles from yards and curbs.
And I love it when TJ says that Licton Springs is “somewhat different.” LOL That’s a whole new definition of “somewhat.” Neighbors there are being told by the city how to “activate” their personal parking strips because people have been camping on them. But I’m sure TJ and others would welcome this in their own yards.
The problem is not going to be about this specific settlement. We don’t even need to “wait and see”, since we can already see how it works right now in Ballard.
The problem as always is how settlement like this and many other homeless remedies are still far from enough to tackle the problem. And as always, with the resource being limited they tend to go to those easiest to be helped. So the most problematic cases are still going to be out there not being resolved, and the fact many of those reject the path people want to put them on makes it much worse.
To attract today’s socially conscious hobo, Wallingford’s nickelsville should offer organic canned beans and only locally sourced fair trade bindles.
The 19th is in 8 days– is this still going to happen on time/
No. See my post from a week ago, about 8th from the top at this point.
Update posting tomorrow
My mother used to say “If, per chance the inevitable occurs.”