And as to who will pay - we middle class citizens will pay, not the ultra-rich who get more than their fair share of services.

Reviled by whom exactly? Are you reporting or is this an opinion piece?

If they would clean the bums out of the Metro system next we might eventually have a livable city.

Right… Because the ultra rich yearn to escape the oppressive confines of their palatial compounds to hang out in the park at Third and Yesler, and as soon as they run the bums off, they will be able to realize that dream.

Those damn ultra rich and their passion for loitering in public spaces…

@3--there was a great article in last week's paper about a study that found that the city saves money by housing homeless people. In a nutshell, the costs of certain housing programs is more than outweighed by the savings in areas like healthcare, jail, etc.

I think the city's going to face legal challenges to this proposal. There are a number of concerning issues: deputizing citizens, the definition of confiscatably property and the potential of being excluded from ALL public property. I'm not saying that the city doesn't need to work on this issue, just that the solution is a bit problematic.

...there was a great article in last week's paper about a study that found that the city saves money by housing homeless people.

Too true. Unfortunately, there are problems with upfront cost and political will. It costs a lot of money to build housing and good luck getting politicians to commit to it.

If the scale of the problem is 2,000 people camped outside in the winter, then projects like the 240 units of transitional housing that Common Ground is going to build at Sand Point over the next 2 years are a pitiful joke.

This city is NOT going to build 2000 units of "Permanent Housing" for the homeless. The will is not there despite the "10-year plan" lip service.

soylent green

Local governments don't have the money to serve that population. Period. Those people used to be served by the federal government and, indeed, the federal government is the only branch of government that can effectively serve this population because any local government that creates permanent programs for these people risks not only bankrupting itself on a social spending project that shows negligible returns, but also becoming a magnet city for the mentally ill.

If we're not going to treat the mentally ill chronically homeless, the next best option for a local government is to set a minimum standard for outpatient services and then criminalize all other behaviors relating to homelessness. That essentially allows local governments to create de facto in-patient facilities in low-security local jails and detention facilities. This is a good strategy because, while the Fed refuses to support in-patient programs for homeless people, they are more than willing to give block grants to jails.

In sum: in the current political climate, the best options for treating mentally ill chronically homeless people is to criminalize them.

If you guys weren't so busy pouring out your bleeding hearts, you'd realize that.

Send them to LA, San Diego, San Fransisco.

Even Phoenix would be affordable. Just get them out of here. It isn't "gritty" to run into a dirt bag beating off in the park. It's disgusting and disturbing.

Oh, and it was one of these pieces of human garbage that murdered Shannon. Should we embrace these useless bum's even if it means that some of us get murdered for our troubles?

Now you have some lovely medicines (when you remember to take them) and plenty of room for your unicorn and rainbow collection.

But for the Grace of God goes ye, Ecce....

We need to build more facilities and provide more treatment to the mental ill and we need to do this even if they don't want it. Mental illness of the severe kind renders one incapable of exercising judgment and in that case the sate should step in to compel treatment.

The idea that we should respect the decision of the mentally ill to live in squalor is nonsense.

Lets treat the mentally ill, provide services to the disadvantaged and make our parks places that are actually nice places to go.

It's also a Republican talking point. They're too cheap and selfish to spend the money to give people the care they need, but dressing it up like that makes them sound compassionate. At least to them, and the morons who vote Republican.

Judah @19: I agree with you that there are really hard core homeless who cannot realistically live independently because of severe mental health or addiction issues. I don't have any solutions; if I did I'd run for mayor. But some homeless people are not only employable but are in fact employed. Many in the vastly shrinking middle class (thanks again, Mr President!) are one layoff or medical emergency away from the street. If the city was serious about doing something about homelessness they would encourage developers by carrot and/or stick to put up housing that average people can actually afford, not the gazillion dollar condos that are springing up like fungus on practically every corner.

Finally, ecce @21, one does not make a noun plural by adding an apostrophe and the letter s as you did in your use of the word "bum's". You probably should have learned that in one of the years you spent in the third grade.