Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, March 7, 2011

Mayor's Homeless Camp: Set Up for Failure?

Posted by on Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Updated with comments from Dannette Smith, director of the city's Human Services department.

Mayor Mike McGinn's plan to move 100 homeless people to a semi-permanent encampment at the defunct Sunny Jim's peanut-butter factory in SODO is already raising concerns from the people most likely to support it—homeless advocates. Their issue is mainly one of timing. First, they fear the mayor's time line for moving homeless people onto the site by October is unrealistic.

"I would be very surprised if they met this six-month time frame—land use changes need to be made and this time line doesn’t acknowledge that," explains Tim Harris, the executive director of Real Change, a homeless advocacy newspaper. "Also, it assumes that the whole process of approving the funds won’t get hung up by city council and that process will go smoothly."

Second, they say his goal for moving them into stable housing within a year of entering the camp is untenable and might set the whole pilot project up for failure. "It will be a huge challenge, addressing a homeless person’s barriers to housing, getting them sorted out, and getting them into a place that has space—which not many do," says Lindsay Lund, a spokeswoman for the Compass Housing Alliance, which helps homeless and low-income people find housing in Seattle. "A year is not very long to do that."

"There aren’t a lot of open spots in transitional housing and there's a queue of people that already exists," says Harris.

But Dannette Smith, director of the city's Human Services department—which crafted the goals for moving homeless campers into stable housing—argues that while there are subsidized housing wait lists, "we also see people moving into market-rate housing at the same time."

The whole goal of the pilot project is to connect homeless people to social services and transition them to stable housing. But if the barometer for success is finding housing within a year, as the mayor's proposal indicates, and if this barometer is unrealistic, as housing advocates fear, it could give critics a leg up in shit-canning future city-sanctioned homeless camps. "The mayor's office has potentially set up a few huge roadblocks for continuing projects like this," says Harris. "With Nickelsville [a roaming homeless encampment that will likely end up at the SODO site], there’s a strong track record of success and self-management. I would hope that a bunch of city mandated regulations doesn't disrupt that."

Smith says she understands the concerns raised but says the project is designed to be both ambitious and reactionary. "We recognize this goal is very lofty," she says, "but we'll be measuring this process on a monthly basis so we can see in real time where we may have to make some corrections. We'll be working in real time, which will allow for us to make corrective actions as we go."

Seattle City Council members are equally leery of the McGinn's proposal.

Before the site can be made ready for campers, the Seattle City Council must approve 1) money to decontaminate the site of hazardous materials and 2) changes to the site's current industrial land use to allow people to live there. This second point includes a lengthy environmental review process, which business owners and nearby residents will undoubtedly challenge (adding months of delay to the process). For this reason, while the city could vote now to release city money to upgrade the site, the city council can't vote to change the site's land use until next March.

To skirt around this problem, McGinn's office is asking the Department of Planning Development to grant the city a temporary, six-month permit to move people onto the site in October. "I don’t know whether that’s a wise choice," says council member Sally Clark, who chairs the council's built environment committee. Clark says that betting on the council's ability to approve the land use changes next year is risky at best. "That permit takes them to next March, but then what? This is a remarkably controversial plan that many residents oppose. If the council doesn't support [the land use changes] next year, I don’t know what that sets them up for—but it may be a serious lawsuit."

Piloting a homeless encampment in SODO is ambitious. It's a project most liberals in this city, or at the very least homeless advocates, should be able to get behind. But right now, it seems to be off to a withering start.

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Banna 1
Homeless people are sure fucking picky about the stuff they're given for free.
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on March 7, 2011 at 3:17 PM
2
But if the barometer for success is finding housing within a year, as the mayor's proposal indicates, and if this barometer is unrealistic, as housing advocates fear, it could give critics a leg up in shit-canning future city-sanctioned homeless camps.


Excuse me? How many homeless camps do they want? And as to the time line, too fucking bad. Homeless "advocates" wouldn't be happy if the time line were ten years.
Posted by keshmeshi on March 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM
3
It'd be nice to see some numbers on what percentage of 'homeless' people from Nville ever 'get better'.
Posted by tiktok on March 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM
4
" I would hope that a bunch of city mandated regulations doesn't disrupt that."

Oh no, rules! Free range hobos can't have that, they need to be free!

You knew this would happen. The last thing this moveable circus wants is a permanent home and help to housing. They want to be camped out in magnolia pissibg people off.
Posted by Born Free Bums! on March 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM
5
Transitioned to regular housing within one year? What happens when that success gets out on the homeless grapevine? Expect an influx of homeless people from just about everywhere.
Posted by Citizen R on March 7, 2011 at 3:52 PM
6
This "year" should be taken metaphorically, like the seven days in biblical creation ... or the "year" in Obama's plan to close Guantanamo.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on March 7, 2011 at 4:36 PM
seandr 7
Mayor's Homeless Camp: Set Up for Failure?

LOLz at the double meaning in the title.
Posted by seandr on March 7, 2011 at 5:03 PM
Rotten666 8
Only in Seattle can a bunch of fucking tents hit a bureaucratic roadblock.
Posted by Rotten666 on March 7, 2011 at 5:31 PM
9
How many homeless camps do they want? After the "pilot" project, at least five in that area. From the proposed legislation:

"WHEREAS, the City of Seattle owns five different properties that are zoned IG2 and are located
within the Greater Duwamish Manufacturing/Industrial Center that could, under the
proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning code legislation, be used as transitional
encampment sites..."
Posted by clint on March 7, 2011 at 7:48 PM
10
"It will be a huge challenge, addressing a homeless person’s barriers to housing, getting them sorted out"

"Barriers" as in drugs, alcohol and insanity?
Posted by Bad Hobo on March 7, 2011 at 11:38 PM
11
The biggest risk to Nickelsville at the Sunny Jim site is right behind it: The Jungle.

The people who live in the various organized tent cities of Seattle are not dangerous, not criminals, not noisy, not messy. However, the people who live in the Jungle are. SPD won't even go in there without serious backup. The Jungle is a problem for all of SODO, and putting this camp right next to it is asking for trouble. The people in Nickelsville are vulnerable; the people in the Jungle are predators.

Posted by Lack Thereof on March 8, 2011 at 2:38 AM
12
You wouldn't be really happy if they moved in next door to you. I think I can arrange that.
Posted by DocSeattle http://thiswayupseattle.wordpress.com/ on March 8, 2011 at 10:16 PM
13
I'm sure everyone who signed onto the letter had their own reasons for doing so #2. And did I say Conlin or anyone else "hates the homeless?" No. I said he won't support Tent Cities and is conservative on this issue, which in this town (and in most places) means being in lockstep with the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness ideology, which says that all those 2,000-3,000 people sleeping outside can continue to do so until we've built them housing. It says that we care SO FUCKING MUCH about them, nothing less is good enough.

This is what Richard and the Sally's will arrogantly argue, despite the unanimous recommendation of the Tent City Panel — which was a who's who of Seattle advocates and shelter providers — that we finally break out of our denial that our inadequate emergency shelter and transitional housing system CANNOT MEET THE NEED, and that our pretense otherwise is a cruel form of neglect.

This really isn't so much an epic clash of Titans — McGinn vs. Conlin — as it is the grassroots voices of homeless people getting run over once again by a Ten Year Plan paradigm that admits no exceptions to its defining logic. The interesting thing will be whether those advocates and providers that made up the Mayor's panel will back up their recommendations with action, or crumble like a rancid feta cheese before the Enforcers of the Holy Plan and Holders of the Pursestrings.
Posted by Tim Harris on March 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM
14
oops, delete this. I posted it to the wrong post by cienna.
Posted by Tim Harris on March 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy