We sent an email to Shoreline City Council

Shoreline City Council was considering passing an ordinance that would have made hosting an encampment nearly impossible for most churches in Shoreline.

GSC's President, Cindy Roat, wrote an email letter on behalf of the Board of GSC.

Here's what it said:

Dear members of the Shoreline City Council,

This email is a request to the City Council to consider alternative language to the proposed amendments to the Shoreline zoning code that will affect transitional encampments in the city. These proposed amendments do not reflect the spirit of the directive that the City Council gave to the Planning Council, nor do they reflect the overall spirit of support that Shoreline residents have demonstrated for homeless populations over the past eight years.

I am writing as President of Greater Seattle Cares, a small non-profit organization serving four transitional encampments in the Puget Sound area. I myself am a Shoreline resident since 2003, serving the homeless since 2009, and I have always been proud of the support that this community has shown to individuals who are experiencing homelessness. Permitted encampments have found hosts here in Shoreline since Tent City 3 first came to Calvin Presbyterian Church in 2009, and many churches have since hosted camps with no problems, inspiring amazing levels of moral and material support from families in the surrounding neighborhoods. In late 2015, the City Council passed Resolution 379, in which the Council directed the city’s Planning Commission to review the city zoning codes with a view to reducing barriers even more for people experiencing homelessness in this community. Our Mayor, Chris Roberts, has even taken time out of his busy schedule to visit Camp United We Stand, one of the camps currently hosted in Shoreline. This personal interest meant a lot to the residents of that camp: people who often feel slighted, ignored, or actively ostracized because of their housing status, but who have felt accepted and welcomed in Shoreline.

Considering the degree to which so many of the people of Shoreline and their representatives in government have shown great compassion to those who are homeless, Greater Seattle Cares is chagrined to see the proposed amendments to the zoning code that are the results of the Planning Commission’s recent work. These proposed amendments do not reflect the spirit of the directive given to the Planning Council. Instead of lowering barriers for people experiencing homelessness, they will instead make it more difficult for churches and other organizations in Shoreline to host formal encampments. Specifically, the required 20-foot set-back will make almost 90% of the churches in Shoreline ineligible to host an encampment. The requirement for a “managing agency” that owns or leases the land on which the camp resides creates another barrier and ignores the successful relationships that these self-managing camps have had over the years with their church hosts.

In fact, some parts of these amendments may have legal implications for the city.

·         The federal land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws. In particular, the law protects against any “land use regulation that . . . unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.” Since the provision of sanctuary to the poor and homeless is a long-standing, even ancient, right of religious institutions, the two stipulations mentioned above could be construed as in effect placing the city out of compliance with RLUIPA. For more information on RLUIPA, see https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-land-use-and-institutionalized-persons-act.

·         State laws RCW 35.21.915 and RCW 35A.21.360 also prohibit local government from taking any action that “imposes conditions other than those necessary to protect public health and safety and that do not substantially burden the decisions or actions of a religious organization regarding the location of housing or shelter for homeless persons on property owned by the religious organization.” The limitations described above that would be created by the proposed amendments have nothing at all to do with public health and safety.

Respecting the work of the Planning Commission, and realizing that those unfamiliar with permitted transitional encampments often misconstrue how these function, Greater Seattle Cares would like to propose alternative language to parts of the proposed amendments to the zoning code. I attach these suggested changes, written in Microsoft Word with the “track changes” function. We hope that you will adopt them as you vote on January 30^th, or that you will send the entire amendment package back to the Planning Commission for revision, with clear instructions about the nature of the changes to be made.

Thank you for your dedicated work on behalf of the citizens of Shoreline. Please show that you stand for ALL of Shoreline’s citizens, even those who are having difficulties in their lives.

Sincerely,

Cindy Roat

Cynthia E. Roat, MPH

President, Greater Seattle Cares

cindy.roat@alumni.williams.edu

info@greaterseattlecares.org

www.greaterseattlecares.org

You can read the entire letter online here, at Shoreline's public comments page. You can also see many other people's comments about the matter, including those of Michael Ramos (Church Council of Greater Seattle), Alison Niebauer (Calvin Presbyterian), and Prince of Peace Lutheran. We'd like to thank everyone who commented against the ordinance as proposed.

Tent City 3 is moving!

Tent City 3 is moving, August 27, 2016, from St. Joseph's on Capitol Hill, to George Center for Community on 125th Street.

They're going to need help! Call 206-448-7889 or 206-399-0412 for more information or to volunteer. They may be starting to move stuff on Friday, August 26.

SHARE's troubles

SHARE is having financial troubles again.

From sharewheel.org:

... although we have been working on this to get more funding our efforts have fallen on deaf ears. ...

Unfortunately, we have reached the point when we can no longer AFFORD TO STAY OPEN, literally. To date we have $70K in unpaid bills, our staff has been withholding their salaries, and we don’t have enough bus tickets to last thru the end of the month.

The Central Committee has MSP’d to have the last night be on March 30th, hopefully we’ll have enough bus tickets to last us until then. On March 31st we will be marching to the King County Administration Building Plaza and staying there until such a time that we can negotiate the needed funding in order to reopen our shelters. We hope many of you will join us because this is the only way we will be successful.

We have faced similar crisis in the past and by staying together we have managed to prevail. For over the 25 years we have had many victories through direct action. These we achieved by staying together and UNITED. Our strength is in our numbers. NOW is the time to show our strength as a COMMUNITY.

Further on in their website, they comment on the reason given for refusal of funding by King County:

SHARE has been hobbled with debt the past two years. We’ve still managed to keep people safe and alive. Now though, through funding cuts and general increases in operating costs, we can’t promise we will be able to keep going much longer.We simply can’t function without more stable funding.   In spite of this King County rejected our two funding proposal requests without consideration in late February. In one case, the reason for denial was because “King County does not consider Tent Cities to be shelters.”

Tell a backpacker, "a tent isn't shelter," and he'll laugh at you.

We must demand that King County follow their own emergency plan, and fund SHARE. King County says they follow the “All Home” Plan (to end Homelessness) but they don’t.  That Plan is clear – existing shelters like SHARE’s should be preserved, not bankrupted.

King County is incorrect about tent cities, and a judge in 2002 commented on this. Tents have a long and well-established track record as emergency shelter. They've been around for thousands of years, and they still work.

That's not the real reason, though. That's the "ostensible" reason, and since it's clearly false, there must be another -- unstated -- reason. We know that the Human Services people of both King County and Seattle act as though they utterly despise SHARE.

I agree that tent cities are not a solution to homelessness. They are not. You will not get any staffer at SHARE to agree that tent cities are a solution for homelessness. Tent cities are an interim survival mechanism -- as are all other homeless shelters. That's all they are. And an "interim solution," it seems to me, should be as cheap as possible, on the very grounds that it's not a permanent solution. We should be spending our money on permanent solutions, not on temporary ones, if we can at all avoid it.

Tent cities are one of the cheapest forms of shelter available. Even at $90k a year for 100 people, this is $2.50 per day per person. Tent cities don't have bedbugs (unlike the indoor shelters, which have them in profusion).  Yes, they are minimalist in terms of shelter. But there are reasons why many people use them. See my post on why people refuse shelter.

Tent cities are very visible reminders of homelessness.

And then there's this: if SHARE disappears by going bankrupt, will the Tent Cities disappear?

NO, they will NOT disappear. The tent cities of SHARE can operate without SHARE, and will if they need to.

What happened at Nickelsville?

News of "Occupy Camp Dearborn"

We knew what was going to happen as soon as we heard the news. The Dearborn location of Nickelsville decided to fire Scott Morrow (he was their staff person) and go their own way.

I should probably begin last year in 2015, when about the same thing happened. This is documented in the SLOG, the Stranger's blog. In early 2015, Nickelsville fired Scott. Steve Olsen, the pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, warned them that if they did not reinstate Scott Morrow, they would face eviction. In 2015, they did so. Within a few weeks, the people who ramrodded that eviction were barred from Nickelsville.

So when the Dearborn site of Nickelsville did the same thing again, we expected it to go about the same way it did last time. There was a difference this time, though. The residents stuck to their decision. So, on February 20, when they were supposed to leave, and they hadn't found a spot, they didn't leave.

Olsen told the Nickelsville residents that he has "great confidence in the Nickelsville model of self-government." However, the church had understood that "when we contracted with Nickelsville was that Mr. Morrow, as staff, would be our chief liaison and communication link. ... If that is not to be the case, we will no longer be able to serve as church host for the Dearborn site."

Now, I have to question this decision. Was the Nickelsville model of self-government only okay as long as Scott Morrow was in charge of it? But be that as it may (and I only ask the question because there are accusations that Scott Morrow manipulates pastors into doing things like this), Nickelsville did not reinstate Scott, even after being threatened with eviction.

So, on March 11, 2016, Nickelsville was swept by the police. We cannot deny that the residents had plenty of notice.

Real Change News carried the story: (quotes from their website; please go read the whole story)

Polly Trout, founder of the social services nonprofit Patacara, stepped into the fray in February with the intention of becoming the new sponsor.

....

Sixteen former Dearborn residents were spread between hotel rooms and activists’ homes until afternoon on March 14 when they moved into the open lot in Africatown. It’s unclear how long they can stay there, and Patacara is actively looking for a more permanent location, Trout said. 

 But there's a problem.

Ms. Trout and Camp Dearborn have chosen a lower-barrier encampment model.

“Our mission is to offer compassionate, respectful services that meet people where they’re at,” Trout said. “We’re making sure everyone at the camp has case management and is getting on the coordinated entry waitlist for housing and connecting them to other services if they need it.”

Nickelsville cofounder Peggy Hotes says the low-barrier approach is not sustainable. In her words,  “when you’re drunk or high it’s impossible to make rational decisions, including decisions on moderating the intake of substances.”

Nickelsville has never had a really good reputation for making sure residents stayed clean and sober. When they were founded, they ran themselves as "anti-SHARE," and allowed open drinking and open drug use. When that didn't work out (it took them a week to figure that out), they decided that drinking and using in camp was not okay, but being drunk or intoxicated in camp was okay as long as they person stayed in their tent (or went right to bed) and didn't bother anybody.

The camp still has this attitude, sorry to say. Nickelsville has had a reputation as a camp for druggies for quite some time, and nothing that has happened in the last few years has done much to change that reputation.

Occupy Camp Dearborn has set up a facebook page.

According to the Stranger's SLOG, some Camp Dearborn residents have found a temporary campsite at the Umoja P.E.A.C.E. Center in the Central District. The writer of that article says, "the city faces constant neighborhood freakouts over opening even highly regulated tent encampments." This is very true. Imagine the freakout that will happen over a low-barrier "compassionate" encampment.

That's not to say that something doesn't need to be done for them, but a self-managed encampment is probably not the right answer. As Ms. Hotes says, it's really hard for someone under the influence to make good decisions.

Why do they refuse shelter?

Seattle reports that 60% of people in “unauthorized homeless camps” refuse shelter. A question many people ask is this: 

“Why don’t they go into shelter? Are they so addicted to drugs they’d rather have the drugs than sleep indoors?

I think that’s a good pair of questions, and they deserve a better answer than most are giving. The City of Seattle department heads, for example, don’t report why shelter is refused. They don't want to admit that their shelter system (or non-system) is inadequate for the needs of the homeless.

Let me ask a different set of questions, though, that may enlighten you as to why some homeless people refuse shelter:

Pets

If you were homeless, and the dog who’s been with you for 13 years was homeless with you, and you were offered shelter but the shelter prohibits pets, would you go into the shelter and abandon your best friend, your dog?

Spouses

If you and your wife were homeless, and the only shelter with beds available was for men only, would you go to the shelter and leave her outside to fend for herself?

PTSD

If you were homeless, and you had PTSD that was triggered by being around lots of people (shelters usually have lots of people), and you felt that you’d probably have a violent episode if you went to the shelter, would you go into the shelter knowing you were going to hurt people?

Bedbugs

If you were homeless, and you’d been in every shelter in the city, and gotten bedbugs at all of them, would you go back to any of them, knowing you’d be bitten again?

"Prohibited" Medications

If you were homeless, suffering from intractable pain for which you needed opiates or marijuana, and were prohibited from using those medications in the shelter, would you go, knowing you wouldn’t be able to sleep without your medication?

LGBTQIA...

If you were lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, and the shelters offered had treated you badly because of your gender preferences, would you return to those shelters to be mistreated and possibly abused?

Children

If you were homeless with your children, successfully caring for them by working like mad, and to go into shelter you had to give them up, would you go into shelter and let your children fend for themselves in another one?

Compassion for others

If you were homeless, and if there were only two beds available, and others nearby on the street needed the beds worse than you, would you go?

I wouldn’t. Not in any of those situations.
Many homeless people I know wouldn't either.
Would you?

Where do we let them sleep?

Today I went to a City Council committee meeting, convened by Sally Bagshaw, of a number of homeless service providers and homeless advocates from the City of Seattle. The Human Services Department had created a State of Emergency Implementation plan (3 months after the SOE was declared), and Sally wanted to get a bunch of people around the table to talk.

What we heard was, in large part, more of the same stuff. While there is some progress being made, they need more resources, they need more funding, they need... well... everything.

And someone asked the question: why, in 2/3 of the states in the US, are homeless counts dropping, while in the other 1/3 they're rising? What is there, in a general qualitative sense, that we in Washington are NOT doing that the other states ARE doing? Or, what are the 1/3 of states where homelessness is rising doing, that the other 2/3 are not doing? Or vice versa; maybe we're not doing something we should be. Yet, I can't find the data the commenter was talking about.

But maybe it's more complicated than that. This report from the US Conference of Mayors says homelessness is up in 53% of 21 surveyed cities.

At crosscut.com, this comment is echoed:

The operation surely doesn’t account for everyone, but so long as it’s carried out in the same way every year, it should tell us whether the solutions and money we’ve thrown at the wall have stuck.

By 2016’s count, so far they have not.

And King County's numbers aren't the only ones rising:

Sen. Sharon Nelson, D-Maury Island, said “Homelessness is a crisis in this state. There isn’t a community in our state that is immune.”

Homelessness in King County is up by 19 percent from last year, and in Snohomish County it’s up by 54 percent. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction just reported that more than 35,000 students in Washington don’t have a safe place to call home.

The same gentleman who asked why in some states numbers are dropping and in ours they're rising, also mentioned that he doesn't believe that we should be allowing any unorganized, illegal encampments to exist.

Yet, the City of Seattle is playing "whack-a-mole" with the encampments. Take one down, two days later it's up in another location. It's a real waste of time and money, in large part.

Yet again, the City must respond to reports of crime in relation to those encampments, even if the residents are not the cause of it!

And the question rises: when there is nowhere they can afford to live, where do we let them sleep?

Not every homeless person can tolerate the rules in the organized encampments. They have to have rules to function. And many would say, "society is based on rules; so if you can't deal with rules, we won't help you." And there is something to that argument.

Yet human need demands a place to sleep. So where do we let them sleep?