SHARE does good work on very little money and has been a valuable part of Seattle's social service system. That having been said, it's time they introduce themselves to the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

SHARE runs Nickelsville under the thin veil of "arms reach" so as not to violate the existing consent decree. It's a matter of hiding the facts in plain sight.

Tent City 3 and 4 are legally sanctioned and Nickelsville is a protest arm. When numbers of homeless drop at Nickelsville, residents are sent from the other tent cities because they "need the numbers".

Having Nickelsville also allows SHARE to maintain order (which is critical) and give residents of TC3 and 4 someplace to go when they are banned or kicked out. In that sense, Nickelsville is needed to assure that TC3 and 4 can maintain behavior that is legal and palatable to neighors and hosts.

So, an unauthorized and illegal encampment like Nickelsville is actually important for the public. If not at Nickelsville, some people would be on the streets after having caused serious problems at TC3/4.

SHARE/Nickelsville has gained a well-deserved reputation of being obstructionist, isolationist, manipulative, and rejecting offers of tangible assistance (land, money, volunteers, trucks, host sites, services from agencies) from many quarters so as to portray the plight of Nickelsville in the worst and most PR-attracting way possible.

That strategy and leadership mode has clearly backired.

Nickelsville leaders don't work with other agencies and have lost a good deal of support because of this. Internally, many key supporters have backed away as well.

We have a new mayor and a new composition on the council and on the port commission and all the signals are positive on the homelessness and social services front.

The staffer in the Mayor's office that they should call first is Elliott Day. email elliott.day@seattle.gov

Then, after explaining what they want with facts and specificity in a ONE page letter, they should ask Elliot to see if a meeting can be scheduled with Darryl Smith, the deputy mayor in charge of safety net issues.

A specific, achievable and very targeted presentation is the way to go. We are pissed off isn't actionable! We want you to turn the city budget and funding and strategy for social services on it's head RIGHT NOW isn't achievable! We want our issue to be the most important thing on the planet and will scream if we don't get what we want is a distraction from the real dialog that is needed.

Hundreds and hundreds of people ask for a meeting with the mayor and it's not a good strategy to saber-rattle in the press (this group already has a history using political grandstanding instead of negotiating in good faith and using tried and true methods of moving political will) and then scream "the mayor sucks because he won't meet with me"!!!

If they can't get that call through to Elliot Day, they should reach out to people that DO have access to the administration to help move the conversation forward. Tim Harris, David Bloom, Dorsol Plants, Alison Eisinger, Al Poole etc. would be a good start to begin building alliances to present a united front with a pitch plan that is put together by a coalition and has broad support.

Any smart politician would respond well to a reasonable and doable plan that achieves real measurable progress on a very critical issue (clearly an important issue, that's not debatable), providing the plan is fundable. It can skate through the political navigational maze IF it has broad support.

The press conference they had was bad positioning for a good relationship with any new mayor. Then, they send around emails bemoaning that the mayor hasn't met with them. Then little jabs in the press. It's stupid to call politicians out publicly, right after they take office and haven't even had a chance to address an issue. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that strategy sets up an combative environment that is rarely conducive to cooperative problem-solving.

I'm guessing that the mayor has a million issues he's dealing with right now and the jockeying is intense to get "your issue" escalated for action.

To assume that because there wasn't some instantaneous response to a vague demand for a meeting is an indication of lack of support is a mistake. It's more likely a lack of available time slices and slipping into protest mode to get attention is a strategy that is a proven failure.

Maybe they need a lobbyist or a pitch personal that has some credibility and doesn't have the toxic political baggage that their current leaders have? Just sayin'.

Lobbying strategies that work also include building political will by meeting with council members and aligning them to your goals. Directly, up front and with facts, not emotional pleas, drama, threats and rabble-rousing for no strategic gain.

They need to go about making their requests in a way that is intentional, strategic and politically savvy. That means, reaching out for the people that ARE working with the Mayor's office AS WE SPEAK on solutions for emergency services for the homeless and participating in the larger coalition of agencies and services that deal with homelessness instead of purposely rejecting it.

And, the efforts of many working on building public support and broad support from many quarters, public and private, for real progress on homelessness is actually hampered by SHARE/Nickelsville's shenanigans. Not only not effective, but destructive.

SHARE/Nickelsville needs a new strategy, a new lobbying plan and a new press plan. Only question is: can they adapt to the new political environment and take advantage of it to achieve their goals without new leadership?