Of Interest From the Times

Robert Eagle Staff Middle Schools, Licton Springs K-8 and Cascadia Elementary are all relatively near Aurora and North 90th which makes this very close to the tiny home housing for homeless addicts, the subject of this recent article in the Times.

Armijo knew about the gritty reputation of his neighborhood, three blocks off North Seattle’s Aurora Avenue, when he and his family moved there in 2011; but when his family planted those tulip boxes back then, he felt the neighborhood was on the upswing.

The last year has been different. Several times a week, Armijo sees people trying to shoot up drugs in his yard, look in his windows, and steal the packages from his front door. His 9-year-old son sleeps on the ground level below him, in a room with a sliding-glass door, so Armijo installed surveillance cameras and motion detectors to watch his backyard and front door.

And he blames it on one thing: Last April, in a dirt-and-gravel lot on Aurora, a 65-person village of tents and shed-sized tiny houses popped up inside a chain-link fence with barbed wire. It’s called Licton Springs Village.
Licton Springs Village is an experiment. But some neighbors feel that taking a lot of people who already use drugs — half of whom came from sweeps around the city — and putting them in a place where drugs were already a problem, was a bad idea.
On the one hand:
One thing is clear: The tiny house village is a cheap way to house people in the midst of a crisis of homelessness. It cost the city almost $600,000 in the past year; that’s $28 per bed per night, less than half the cost of a bed in the newer enhanced shelters.
On the other hand:
A Seattle Times analysis of 911 calls from April 2017, the month the village opened, to March 2018 showed that within two blocks of Licton Springs Village, calls went up 30 percent from the same period a year before. Calls just on the block where Licton Springs Village is — a block with fewer homes and more cheap motels, a Jack in the Box and a church — went up 62 percent.

Police have responded in kind, according to data from SPD: Officers radioed in 221 percent more incidents in 2017 than in 2016 on that block. Captain Sean O’Donnell, who runs the city’s north precinct, said he made sure that beat officers increased their presence after the village opened.
But he says Licton Springs Village is just one piece of a complicated puzzle in an area that’s struggled with drug crime since he started in Seattle in 1981. The area running up Aurora from 85th to 115th got more calls and incidents in 2016 and 2017 than any other beat in the north precinct.
 It's interesting because the neighborhood areas on either side of Aurora seem populated by people who care about their neighborhoods.  It's likely a huge stress on them. 

But it is especially worrying in terms of having such a large population of children nearby the Licton Springs Village.  I think in order to help homeless folks, first and foremost, they need a safe place to live.  But I'm not really for allowing addictions as part of that because of who else then has to deal with that kind of situation. 

I know many RESMS parents have been worried about traffic issues; any thoughts on this issue?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thank you for raising this issue. Our Eagle Staff community has been raising this issue all year with little support from the City of Seattle. It's very frustrating as 90th and Aurora is NOT safe to cross and yet the city refuses to pay for updates on that corner, specifically the crosswalk needs repainting and new signage is needed to alert drivers that children are present. The crossing guard we were promised refused that corner due to safety concerns. Addicts need to be discouraged from this particular hot spot. The students (and families) do not feel comfortable allowing students to ride the rapid line that runs on Aurora because of the problems at the bus stops (needles, feces, aggressive behavior, etc). A no/low barrier encampment should NOT be within any school zones.

A Raven
Anonymous said…
I also commend you for raising this issue. This impacts all school-age children in Seattle. I would love to be able to send my school age children to our neighborhood park four blocks away, but I cannot do that without adult supervision. The City needs to make Seattle safe for kids.

SICKANDTIRED
Outsider said…
I always wonder how many homeless people in Seattle fall into each of the following two categories:

1) Lived and worked in Seattle for some period of time, but ended up homeless due to some misfortune combined with the high cost of living.
2) Drug addicts from wherever who came to Seattle because drug addicts get more free stuff here than anywhere else, because numbskull voters, trying to reserve their place in heaven, always vote for the most socialist candidate in every election.

Drug addicts don't have a right to free housing here or anywhere. Drug addicts don't have a right to endanger honest people or destroy their quality of life. Stop voting for people who think that.

Anonymous said…
And a second low barrier shelter is opening soon not far from Loyal Heights Elementary. The neighborhood is already being impacted by a ton of crime. Two homicides this past week, a third stabbed in front of Larson's bakery in connection with a house with known drug issues. 19 tires slashed and multiple break-ins reported and that was just in a week period this past week.
Ballard resident
Anonymous said…
"I think in order to help homeless folks, first and foremost, they need a safe place to live. But I'm not really for allowing addictions as part of that because of who else then has to deal with that kind of situation."

I agree with your comments. The report regarding the increase in crime are the clear outcome and they are not mitigating it for those who are affected. The people who live in the Licton Springs neighborhood should not have to bear this additional burden. The wealthiest and most affluent neighborhoods in Seattle do not have low barrier shelters, why should Licton Springs and Ballard? People in these two neighborhoods are already impacted by the increase in crime they have been experiencing due to the homeless who are drug addicted.
SJ
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric B said…
Outsider, about 3 seconds with Google produced this article: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/king-countys-homeless-are-overwhelmingly-from-here-service-providers-say/

Seattle and King County homeless service providers survey where people last had a home. 86% of respondents listed a King County ZIP code, and another 6% were from elsewhere in the state.

I think it's kinda funny that people pining for the Halcyon Days of Old Ballard forget that you didn't walk down Ballard Ave at night in those days.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Feeling Concerned said…
There is a low barrier homeless area going-up on 15th NW and 80th. The camp will house women.

The area is in close proximity to Ballard High School, Whittier and Whitman. Will students be exposed to prostitution, drug deals and drug use?
Anonymous said…
I think there is no question that they will. This camp is a low barrier camp, meaning that drugs and alcohol will be allowed. The problem I have noticed first hand is not the individuals living in the camp but those that are attracted to the area to deal drugs and camp nearby constitute the main problem.

BallardParent
Anonymous said…
@BallardParent, did you go to high school yourself? Of course students will be exposed to drug use, and probably some exposure to drug deals. Exposure to sex, too--maybe not prostitution specifically (unless they were looking for it, or walking in particular neighborhoods, etc.), but lots of opportunities for exposure to sex.

Having more of this out in the open presents a good opportunity for serious conversations, as opposed to pretending (hoping?) teens won't be exposed to these things in a high school that doesn't have such camps nearby.

Should there be additional efforts to monitor student safety in the proximity of such camps? Probably. Are there similar measures/efforts in place in neighborhoods that maybe don't have official camps but have high rates of crime? These concerns may be new or heightened in neighborhoods experiencing rapid changes, but I suspect that many SPS students of all grade levels have been regularly exposed to drug use, drug dealers, and prostitution, not to mention violence and crime for years in some neighborhoods.

all types
Eric B said…
Also, if anyone is concerned about the level of drug and alcohol use that Ballard students are exposed to, you might want to check out Golden Gardens on a sunny Friday or Saturday evening. After that, you might be less worried about a homeless camp corrupting the students. The students themselves have that well in hand.
Eagle Mom said…
I do find it weird that the city put a low barrier shelter a couple of blocks away from 3 schools (two of them with elementary age students). We do live in a city, though. And there has always been a lot of drug and prostitution activity along that stretch of Aurora.

I find it more unconscionable that the city has not taken traffic safety around the schools seriously. It's one thing for some Seattle students to have sidewalks and other students not to. It's another for the city to neglect transportation safety for these new schools. I have been thrilled to see Deborah Juarez taking ownership of this area. It's nice for this part of the city to finally have some representation on the city council. Go, Deborah Juarez! Go City Council District 5! Go strong Native American women leaders!

And go, go, go, kids-hustle when you cross the street. If you survive crossing Aurora at 90th, your futures will be bright!
Anonymous said…
@EricB -Completely different point (teens being exposed to drugs/alcohol ) than the issues being faced in the Licton Springs neighborhood. Read the Seattle Times article Melissa posted. The increased crimes both non violent, as well as violent due to increased drug activity is a major issue and concern. I consider myself liberal and progressive on many issues and have compassion for drug addicted people, but all of us have some major issues we are facing in areas of Seattle by the increase in drug use and crime. Those voices should not be ignored. Safety is an issue.
SJ
Anonymous said…
"The last year has been different. Several times a week, Armijo sees people trying to shoot up drugs in his yard, look in his windows, and steal the packages from his front door. His 9-year-old son sleeps on the ground level below him, in a room with a sliding-glass door, so Armijo installed surveillance cameras and motion detectors to watch his backyard and front door."
Does anyone think for a minute that the city would put a low barrier shelter in Seattle's wealthiest areas such as Madison Park, Laurelhurst or the top of Queen Ann? What if this was your yard? Easier to dismiss or trivialize these kinds of concerns when it is not you being impacted. It is always the poor, working class or the middle class who bear the brunt of these decisions.
SJ
Eric B said…
SJ, I did read the article when it first came out. I do actually agree that there are real safety issues that need to be addressed. I just don't think that the sky is falling quite so hard as people are suggesting upthread. The idea that a homeless camp 15 blocks from a high school will expose high school students to drugs, alcohol, and prostitution for the first time is pretty ridiculous. If nothing else, there was a house selling pot brownies to students two blocks from Ballard a few years ago, not to mention high school students doing drugs on the Loyal Heights Elementary playground in the same timeframe.

I am serious that Ballard parents should check out Golden Gardens on a nice weekend evening.
Anonymous said…
Eric B - you may have a point, but what about the two elementary schools and the community centers that are even closer? I would venture there is a pretty big difference between the house that sells pot brownies and the elementary schools that find hypodermic needles on their playgrounds. Local Ballard elementary schools would finds them even prior to the opening of a low-barrier shelter. They probably won't be pleased if there is an increase.

I supported the opening of the (clean) camp on Market St. I am much less supportive of this.

-Changing times
Anonymous said…
Changing Times--I agree, it's the needles. And the poop. And the other garbage. And the threatening behavior by people who should be receiving services.

I feel like our kids' Wilderness Awareness classes have become, "See some nature while you avoid the hazardous waste."

SICKANDTIRED
Danny Westneat has a column of interest on homelessness in other cities.
Anonymous said…
SJ, I have to laugh at your comment that it is "easier to dismiss or trivialize these kinds of concerns when it is not you being impacted," by which I think you mean living in certain "upscale" areas of this city.

If you live in SEATTLE, you are being impacted by homelessness and drug addiction. Full stop. I happen to live at the top of Queen Anne. Our car was stolen from in front of our house; when the police found it, multiple people were shooting up inside. Every neighbor on my street has been the victim of car theft or burglary in the past year and a half - every one! I regularly find needles on our sidewalks and in our streets. Some of the folks who camp in the multiple wooded spaces on Queen Anne use parts of our neighborhood as a bathroom, deal drugs at bus stops, and sleep in playgrounds while kids play nearby swing. Kids from my neighborhood attend schools all over the city, including Cascadia, so they are exposed to homelessness and drug use in other areas as well. And of course, if you go downtown you see all kinds of things. My husband and kids were screamed at by a homeless woman at Pike Place Market just last weekend, for example.

Anyway, this is not a complaint about how bad things are in my neighborhood. I would certainly be even more alarmed if there was a low barrier shelter here. I'm just saying the situation with homelessness and drug use in Seattle is not limited to "poor" neighborhoods, and is hurting EVERYONE, including the homeless. If you or any other readers have some ideas for what "regular people" can do about these problems, I'd truly appreciate hearing them.

Troubled
Anonymous said…
Eric B and (of course) all types, could you please reign in your snark a little? I never said that I was worried about high school kids being "corrupted" by drugs, drug dealing and prostitution associated with the camp. My kid sees all that every day on her way to Ingraham High - and we live 2 blocks from Golden Gardens although I'm sure based on your comments, you are the expert on the place. I just said, for those that are interested, that there will be exposure. My experience has been that problems and assaults are associated with those outside the camps, not the residents. Corruption - give me a break - I am worried about kids running into "Stabby Phil" on 24th or other physical hazards.

The Market Street camp inhabitants have been great neighbors - I kind of wish they were not leaving. BUT, the illegal camps that sprang up all around it were a real problem. It is clear that spreading these encampments around the city works better for everyone involved. And yet I don't see any going up in Laurelhust.

BallardParent
NESeattleMom said…
Eric B., Comparing beer drinking and smoking pot at Golden Gardens (which has been going on for decades), to people shooting up and street walkers is comparing two very different things. As I drove up Aurora the other day between 80th and 85th there was a street walker in skin colored legging shorts so it looked like she had only her top on. That is not a good influence on children. Why should we have to explain that kind of thing to children, or going past people shooting up in public or passed out from drugs? Is that the city you want? With illegal hard drugs, addiction, prostitution, comes gangs and crime. How else can people have money for illegal drugs if they are homeless and addicted?
Anonymous said…
Uh Oh NESeattleMom, prepare for the troll onslaught.

I should also point out that the guys who accompany/employ the ladies on Aurora can be pretty threatening. We had trouble with one when we were parked in a business on Aurora. He just didn't like us there. It was a good talking point though - for our terrified kid.

BallardParent
Hey, let's calm down. I didn't detect snark in Eric's comments, just that's his viewpoint.

Like many of you, I see this on a daily basis. I do find it troubling but I am especially appalled at the lack of safety for kids walking around the RESMS complex, both for traffic and who they might encounter.

I plan on trying to get that crosswalk painted and a crossing guard. The district and the City owe those school communities that much.
juicygoofy said…
I have a current student at Eagle Staff and after witnessing the shenanigans going on there daily, I am also concerned about the new low-barrier camp coming to Whittier Heights (80th & 15th.) It's not so much the proximity to Ballard High, but this location is squarely inside the residential walk zones for Whitman Middle School, Whittier Elementary, Loyal Heights Elementary and even Salmon Bay K-8...FIVE??!! SPS schools.

What do you all suggest we ask of the City, SPS and the police to protect our young pedestrians going forward?
Eric B said…
BallardParent and NESeattleMom, You're right, I was too snarky. I get frustrated by people nostalgic for a time that never was, especially in Ballard. I shouldn't have taken that out on you.

So the bigger question is what can the city do about the homelessness crisis? People don't like the low-barrier camps, but also don't like the informal camps of people under every bridge and in many parks in town. That's basically a distributed low-barrier camp with absolutely no oversight.

You can lock people up for hard drug use at an enormous cost but without serious resources for treatment (including repeat treatment for when the first round doesn't take), you're not going to make progress. With a low-barrier camp, you can at least get people into one place and theoretically make it easier for people to get into treatment. I believe that there is research indicating that getting people into housing first has a major positive impact on whether they can successfully treat addiction.

I don't know what the answer is. I would love to see more alcohol/drug free tiny house camps like the one on Market. However, that's only a piece of the puzzle and doesn't solve the real issues. It would be nice to look at what other cities are doing and see if they are being effective.
Anonymous said…
Sorry @Ballard Parent, my comment about exposure to drugs and prostitution was intended for @Feeling Concerned, not you. My mistake.

@NESeattleMom, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time with the idea that skin-colored leggings are somehow a bad influence on kids. A bad fashion statement, yes, and another teachable moment. Do you know for a fact this was a street walker, or are you assuming so based on dress? If your kids are too young to know about prostitution, they wouldn't put two and two together. If they were appalled that it made someone look half-naked, talk about the importance of dressing modestly if they don't want to project a certain image.

As for having to go past people passed out from drugs, I doubt that's the city anyone wants. It's truly unfortunate that Seattle--like cities and towns across our country--is facing such a crisis. The reason we have to explain it to our kids is that it's the current reality. Maybe all this exposure in their early years will help turn kids off drugs when they are older. Although if we don't solve our income disparity, housing, education, employment, and incarceration problems there will still be many people "left behind" by the system and easy prey for drug dealers and pimps.

Many of these issues are not new--they are just new to some neighborhoods that were previously spared to some extent. I feel it's important to recognize that when demanding action for your own neighborhood.

All types
All Types, of course it's important for urban kids to understand the city they live in. But there is a common good to be had.

I don't think Licton Springs was ever "spared to some extent" being so close to Aurora. Maybe Ballard is getting more exposure but again, it cannot it said enough that the City does seem to spare some neighborhoods more than others.

JuicyGoofy, what I say you can do (and we need a lot of people to do this):

email the Board and the City Council and the Mayor and ask why there is no clearly painted crosswalk or crossing guard at a very busy intersection that is used by kids from three different nearby schools. (This being N 90th and Aurora.) Not to mention a nearby low-barrier tiny town for homeless folks.

Ask them if they would like a quick tour of that area that those kids use to access their homes and buses home.

Tell them you are very disappointed as assurances were made by the district and the City about the safety for that area before those schools came in.

Tell them you have to wonder about two entities that want more levy dollars for more education projects, making promises about those projects which they may not keep (as they didn't in this case). And, that perhaps you may have to vote against the levies and consider telling family, co-workers, neighbors and friends as well about your frustration and consider over promises made during levy campaigns that are not kept.

schoolboard@seattleschools.org

council@seattle.gov

jenny.durkan@seattle.gov
Eric B said…
Sorry I didn't mention this before, but to the concerns about crossing Aurora at 90th, you might want to go to one of Harris' community meetings and bring it up. She was successful in getting SPS Risk Management and SDOT to get their act together on a stop light near one of the WS elementary schools (Alki, I think). She would know what strings to pull to make something happen.
Anonymous said…
Wait don't we owe back massages and ice cream to all the homeless people? I think the least we can do is supply a free home and an electric bike to every street person.

Barry
Anonymous said…
This is what our children are missing because of this crisis:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/04/early-childhood-outdoor-education/558959/

SICKANDTIRED
Eric B said…
Sick and Tired, there are at least 10 outdoor preschools in Seattle like the one discussed in your article. https://www.parentmap.com/article/into-the-woods-outdoor-preschools-in-greater-seattle My understanding is that they are popular enough that most have waiting lists.
Anonymous said…
EricB--The 10 outdoor preschools are probably all for upper middle class parents. Do you think that a single mom can let her five or six year old play by themselves in greenbelts like when I was a kid? No. That is why this is an equity issue.

SICKANDTIRED
Eric B said…
Since you were citing an article about an outdoor preschool, I didn't think it was that unreasonable to cite the existence of outdoor preschools. But if we're talking 5-6 year olds playing outside without parental supervision now, that was an issue well before the opioid addiction epidemic. It's true that it's not the same as when I grew up (drop backpack after school, go outside, come back when Mom rang the dinner bell), On the other hand, there are many, many factors driving that change. Yes, needles in the parks are a problem. But fear of 2-legged predators or crossing busy roads were just as big a barrier when my kids were that age a decade ago.
Anonymous said…
EricB--I cited the story on outdoor preschools to show the importance of unstructured outdoor play.

Let me give you an example of how things are different than 10 years ago. Both of my kids play soccer. They are 8 and 10 years old. I have to be on "needle lookout duty" numerous times. Further, when either my 8 or 10 year old are playing soccer, I can't let the other kid just wander into the greenbelt, even if they are playing with other kids and are in a group. I would have been totally ok with this a decade ago, but because of needles and other waste I don't let them do this. So, my kids, who are by the way incredibly privileged, don't get to even have a modicum of freedom to spend 20 minutes of imaginative play in the woods by themselves. But, at least they can do this when we are camping at state parks, because the state parks we visit aren't filled with needles and garbage.

SICKANDTIRED
Anonymous said…
@Troubled I agree that all who live in Seattle are impacted by these issues. It was not my intention to state otherwise. I am very sorry you have also had issues in Queen Ann. I do understand that all Seattle neighborhoods are affected to some degree.

However, the city does seem to choose certain neighborhoods, over others, for placement of the low barrier shelters. It also sounds like you agree that "you would be alarmed" if they put a low barrier shelter near your house on Queen Ann.

But the city has not chosen the wealthiest areas in Seattle to locate the shelters. My point was that some areas are being impacted much more than others. For example, Licton Springs and Ballard already have more issues than other areas of the city, if you look at crime statistics. My statement was in reference to Armijo who is facing issues in his yard several times per week!!

One more equitable sugestion would entail opening low barrier shelters in "wealthy" areas of our city. In addition, IMHO they need to greatly step up police presence in these neighborhoods and allocate many more resources. Or eliminate "low barrier" shelters in favor of no drugs allowed shelters.

"Several times a week, Armijo sees people trying to shoot up drugs in his yard, look in his windows, and steal the packages from his front door. His 9-year-old son sleeps on the ground level below him, in a room with a sliding-glass door, so Armijo installed surveillance cameras and motion detectors to watch his backyard and front door."
SJ
Outsider said…
Eric, that 86% number is nonsense. Even the article you cite makes clear that the data quality is extremely poor and the number is far from correct. You cite it as authoritative because it fits your preconceived beliefs. Despite endless talk about the importance of critical thinking, funny how it evaporates in the heat of preconceived notions.

You are always here trying to enforce a sort of learned helplessness on the readership. Nothing can change, you have no choice, it was always bad, it was always worse, just adapt, nothing can be done. The first step to changing anything is to stop listening to prophets of learned helplessness. (No offense, I am sure you are a nice guy otherwise.)

Of course, you would say, there is something to be done. Just raise our taxes, and raise them and raise them enough to provide free no-rules housing to every drug addict in North America, plus policing and social services in proportion, in an already crowded city. Drive out the middle class to make room for it. Homeless people have a miserable time everywhere, but plenty of them are sane enough to gravitate to wherever the benefits are best. Put up a sign that promises free housing to every drug addict who comes to Seattle, and the line will never end. But even that wouldn't help, because remember we are a sanctuary city and there is still the rest of the world.

Every place has an obligation to help local homeless, addicted, and mentally ill people, but no place has an obligation to be a magnet. Nor do honest self-supporting people have an obligation to give up their safety and quality of life so drug addicts can do whatever they want.
Eric B said…
Outsider, that's kinda funny. I regularly point people to where they can take action to get results. Look up a few posts at the 90th/Aurora crossing for an example in this very thread. My point was that there are no easy solutions to homelessness. I'm not convinced that the city is either doing enough or using its money wisely. I specifically said that I would want to know what other cities are doing well. That's not helplessness, that's learning from other people's mistakes.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. Where exactly did I advocate raising taxes until we drive out the middle class? Where did I advocate free no-rules housing for every drug addict in North America?

As far as the data, you asked how many people were originally from Seattle. I gave you the best data apparently available, and you rejected it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. Yes, there are data issues with that study. Maybe the number isn't 86%, maybe it's 70%. Maybe it's 97%. Maybe it changes day to day like the homeless population. If you don't have a better source of data, you're pulling numbers out of the air. Maybe you could run a study yourself.
NESeattleMom said…
All types,
People can wear whatever they like. However it catches your eye when it looks like you aren't wearing anything at all on the bottom half. And if it walks like a duck it usually is a duck. That is what street walkers do... No, I really don't feel like talking about it with my kid unless absolutely necessary... I would rather talk about other things.
Anonymous said…
@Eric B The article you posted does not state people are from Seattle. They may be majority from King County, but they are coming in to Seattle from other communities.

One homeless person interviewed for this article, who would not move to a shelter, stated she moved here from Indiana for our "liberal relaxed vibe". Apparently in this article only 37% of homeless accept offers to move to a shelter. So there are many who don't want to go. https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-homeless-tent-mansion-low-priority-for-city-cleanup/727621918

In Seattle homeless can camp over winter due to the milder temperatures as compared to other places. In large East coast cities like NYC, they cannot camp on streets and they are moved into shelters. Those cities that have managed large populations for a long time had outbreaks of disease and other issues many years ago that led to different laws. I am wondering when a great big public disease health crisis hits Seattle if we may enact similar changes to house people safely and have enough resources for treatment. But we have tax issues in this state.

NY is a right to shelter state since 1979, but has very high taxes (property & income as well) and many more resources for mental health and addiction than Seattle.
KL
Jet City mom said…
My kids are grown adults, however I raised them in this city, where I did playground duty picking up needles, condoms, pee bottles, and poop, over 30yrs ago.
Cities have a diverse population, and part of that population does not care about anything else except for what is immediately in front of them.
I agree
Unknown said…
As a clinical addiction specialist, and homeless case manager, I would challenge all of us to think about the issue of addiction as a social illness, and personally, for the addict as medication for trauma. In some studies, up to 100% of addicts and alcoholics were traumatized children. This certainly doesn't mean that all traumatized children end up as addicts and alcoholics, but coupled with factors such as childhood poverty, and lack of stable caregiving, but often will result in addiction, which will many times result in homelessness. There is also the issue of homelessness leading to addiction as a way to medicate Pain, physical pain from sleeping on concrete, emotional pain from being viewed as the scourge of society, not to mention mental health issues, which are often Medicated by alcohol and drugs.

A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. This is a social problem, not a personal problem. The opposite of addiction is not incarceration or banishment. It is compassion and connection. I'm the mother of a small child and I live in inner-city Seattle. I'm teaching my son to view Addiction in this way. I've also taught him to avoid needles and mentally ill people.

This is the society we live in. This is late-stage capitalism. These people are part of our community, whether we like them or not.

Also, the data show us that most School shooters are middle-class young , housed, white men, clearly not the demographic we're seeing in these homeless encampments.

It is my greatest hope that our society will move toward love and compassion as responses to social ills, not incarceration and social banishment.
Unknown, I understand and agree about addiction. I think many of us do care and have contributed to groups like Mary's Place.

But I puzzle over the many ways that the City has tried to help homeless people and, to my surprise, there is a substantial number who refuse that help. At this particular tiny town, I'm not sure where addicts get their drugs which may mean illegally. That helps no one. As well, I'm not sure if they are required to be trying to end their addiction with services.

At some point, there is the social fabric and safety for ALL the citizens versus the needs of some who won't even try even when offered help. I'm not sure I agree that children need to learn to avoid needles.

I'm not sure how trying to connect mass shooters with homeless people has any bearing.





Anonymous said…
@ Melissa, "some who won't even try even when offered help"? Maybe we're not offering the right help, the help they need at that point. Maybe they've had bad experience with prior offers of "help" and feel like they are the only ones looking out for themselves. Maybe they know that many shelters often are only open at night, or are only for a limited # of days, so it's just a short-term fix and nothing will be different afterward. Maybe a shelter placement would require them to be separated from loves ones and/or pets, or might not allow them to keep all their possessions. Maybe they are addicted to drugs and know they can't take their drugs to a shelter and are worried about getting into trouble with the police if they ask for drug-related help. Maybe they don't think the help will help. There are many reasons to not accept an offer--some may be justified and some may be based on misperceptions or fear--and it seems insensitive to characterize such instances as indicative of someone who "won't even try."

Other Shoes
So Other Shoes, I hear what you are saying but you missed some of what I said.

I did not say - and did not mean -all homelesss people. But there is no disputing, if you read news accounts in Crosscut, the Times, etc, that there are those people who want to live on the streets on their own terms. It has nothing to do with shelter availability or possessions. And they can make that choice.
ll.

Currently, our city is pushing millions of dollars out to help our homeless population. I am glad for that and I support that. I can certainly understand that everyone has a story with many layers and experiences.

But, we live in a society. The rules about where people can live and what they can do on public streets is for the benefit of all. And, while we may want to try to help on an individual basis, the crisis has become so large, the City has to make choices about what they can offer.

I am saddened that Mayor Murray had promised to end homelessness for children in Seattle by the end of 2017. And now Mayor Durkan wants to include some kind of supports for homeless children in the next Famllies and Education levy.

My wish - in terms of my own work - is that Durkan would go back to trying to do more for homeless families. That seems doable and if we are triaging the situation that would get my vote as most families may be newly homeless and therefore, easier to stabilize. But I'm no expert.

I had wondered about saying anything further because, of course, I'm signing my name to what I say and apparently some may see my stand as heartless or insensitive.

It isn't but I think the City has to consider the city as a whole as well as the crisis at hand.

Anonymous said…
A relative of my partner was homeless, and also married for a time to a person addicted to drugs. This person also ended up in jail for crimes committed to support his addiction etc. He repeatedly relapsed. In order for this person to recover it entailed intense mental health and other support, as well as him completely leaving the environment, where other people were doing drugs. However, the low barrier shelters sanction drug use, put people together who do drugs, many of whom state they do not want/are not ready for treatment. It does not help them enter an environment or situation that will lead to recovery. It does not seem to be a logical way to truly help a person recover from addiction.
MD
NESeattleMom said…
MD, I agree with your comments. Shilo, the guy who runs the People’s Harm Reduction needle “exchange” does not promote recovery from addiction, instead advocates for use.
Anonymous said…
@MD and NESeattleMom, you seem to not understand the harm reduction model. The point is not to get everyone into recovery, but to minimize the risks (e.g., HIV transmission) for those who do use, which can also minimize the risks to the larger community.

HF
NESeattleMom said…
Thanks HF, I’m sure many people don’t know all the details of harm reduction. For me, making conditions through increasing unwanted behavior by enabling it would be a goal. But some people don’t see the same goals since they don’t think the behavior or conditions are not desired.
NESeattleMom said…
Edit sentence Making conditions worse....
NESeattleMom said…
Injecting Drugs Can Ruin a Heart. How Many Chances Should a User Get? Interesting medical and economic ethics article in NY Times today.
Anonymous said…
Unknown, you said, "A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. This is a social problem, not a personal problem. The opposite of addiction is not incarceration or banishment. It is compassion and connection. I'm the mother of a small child and I live in inner-city Seattle. I'm teaching my son to view Addiction in this way. I've also taught him to avoid needles and mentally ill people."

Do you allow your young son to stay up as late as he wants, eat whatever he wants, have whatever he wants? It isn't compassion to refuse to set limits or enforce consequences or remedies; quite the opposite. Those of us workaday, law-abiding citizens in the city are quickly becoming "its most vulnerable members", as we fail to get a reponse or protection from the police or City Council from the increasing prevalence of needles, excrement, theft, and the aggressively addicted and mentally ill. Seattle taxpayers have been extraordinarily generous in their support of funding to help, but are seeing the problems only worsen, and therefore are feeling angry and fleeced.
Anonymous said…
Anon@4:53, and so your solution is what? To lock up all the homeless, mentally ill, and addicts so we don't have to see them, their needles, and their waste? We don't have the capacity--space or $--for that. You can't just put on parent face and shake a finger and tell them to change their behavior or no more TV for a week. Even if we did have the resources for that, what happens when they get out? They may get clean and they'll no longer be homeless while they're locked up (but the mental illness will persist or worsen), but when they get out they will have what? Likely nothing, and no real chance to get a job, so guess where they'll end up...again? And it can't be all that fun living on the streets, so might as well find a way to self-medicate, you know...

I totally get that you don't like feeling you're the victim here (although by comparison to those you're complaining about, I doubt you are), and you'd like a cleaner, safer, more pleasant experience. So what's the solution, in your eyes? Not band-aid solutions that help you, but real solutions that will help everyone?

HF
Anonymous said…
HF - Fair question. My "solution" - as if it were that easy - isn't low-barrier villages, nor limitless encampments, nor so-called safe-injection sites, which the city is moving ahead with. That is truly throwing away the individuals and the neighborhood, as the only means for the unemployed to support their addiction is through dealing, theft and prostitution. I think that hands-off accommodation has drawn more of the same to our area.

You bring up a great point about the cycle of relapse, and "Unknown" is of course correct that many addicts had a horrible start in life and never have been given a chance at success. I think the first step should involve enforcing the laws on the books, with diversion to rehab and halfway homes with life skills and job training requirements and placement. These “homes” could include large FEMA-type tents as San Diego is trying. Jail for the more egregious crimes, and for those who refuse services. It should not be optional to accept help when camps are cleared. I would like to see transparency regarding where funding is being spent, and if there are encouraging results. As far as mental illness - a similar opportunity for treatment, as I'm sure many on the street could respond to the right medication if there was a system of evaluation. And how to pay for it all? We are in a robust local economy with tax collections at an all-time high. They just don't seem directed in any productive way.

Incidentally - I shouldn't have implicated the police in my last comment; I believe they are hamstrung by city policy.
Anonymous said…
@HF Other cities with large populations (like East Coast cities NY etc) do not have the same public health issues and crime we have in relation to sactioned drug use & homeless camping. The low barrier shelters do not help, but add to the issues. It brings drug addicts together and harms their ability to kick the addiction. It also impacts community and does nothing to protect public health. The needles are found everywhere and disease like hepatitis remain rampant among users.

Cost is a barrier in Seattle and like HF said " We don't have the capacity--space or $--for that." Really? Well more resources and protecting the homeless & the public are actually the best solution and are the solutions that actually work in cities elsewhere.

The solutions are alot more resources for treatment and I agree with the previous poster 4/29 8:03PM who stated "I think the first step should involve enforcing the laws on the books, with diversion to rehab and halfway homes with life skills and job training requirements and placement."
JK
NESeattleMom said…
The city is investing a lot of dollars to deal with this issue. I think one of the most important things would be to require transparency from SHARE and LIHI and any other groups so that the city knows where the money is going, and also to show if any results are happening. It is so weird that SHARE would be asking for donations for basic needs recently (saw the posting elsewhere) when they get so much money. Where is their money going and how is it budgeted?
Anonymous said…
@NESeatleMom I heard on KUOW that when former mayor Murray wanted to increase funding for the programs that have demonstrated to work, and cut those that have not, some council members objected. The programs have continued to be funded. I consider myself a progressive, but don't agree with those who support writing a blank check without any sort of accountability. We need to better fund programs that are working and redirect funding from those that are not.
JK
Anonymous said…
@ JK, many of those east coast cities are places that have a legal right to shelter. If people have a legal right to shelter, then you have to build enough shelter for them. We don't. So yes, they don't have the same problems we do. However, I don't suspect you support "right to housing" policies, do you?

Our prison population is also overcrowded, so enforcing the laws on the books might not work so well either. More rehab with social services would be great, but is very expensive. From The Stranger: One of the first new “enhanced” shelters recently opened on First Hill, and it costs more than $16,000 per bed, more than three times the average per-bed rate of the existing system.Extending that level of service to would cost an estimated $61 million a year.

It's not an easy problem to solve quickly, and unfortunately things seem to be getting worse.

HF
ppower said…
It’s interesting that nobody suggests as part of the solution to actually give homeless an opportunity to work and earn some of the money allocated for their “support”. This would give them an opportunity to gain some self-respect and possibly find the way out of their predicament. The city and the wider community would also see some benefit.
Anonymous said…
@ppower, it's hard to work if you don't have housing (and an an alarm clock, a place to shower, work clothes, a place to store your work clothes, a place to safely store your things, etc). That's why "housing first"
approaches tend to work best.

Not to mention that many of our homeless have problems with mental illness and/or addition, many have young kids to care for, and many are teens or young adults who may lack job experience or training.

I think some of the shelters require people to do work at the shelter, but simply giving the homeless jobs isn't likely to be that easy of a task. It's a great idea for probably a ver small group--but even then, how will getting a minimum.wage job help you get housing in Seattle, with high rents, deposit requirements, no recent rental history, etc.?

HF
Anonymous said…
@HF "many of those east coast cities are places that have a legal right to shelter. If people have a legal right to shelter, then you have to build enough shelter for them. We don't. So yes, they don't have the same problems we do. However, I don't suspect you support "right to housing" policies, do you?"

Yes there has been a right to shelter law in place in NY since 1979. That is definitely a policy I support, as well as many more resources. Not allowing people to camp on the street. I also support an income tax, and wish our state can figure out some way to change that outdated law that is a barrier to more equitable tax laws. Homeless camping on the street and illegal drug use with needles everywhere (that parents have to pick up in school yards) is a public health crisis that is growing and growing. There are different populations of why people are homeless and services and shelters need to be tailored to their needs. Some people (like woman quoted in recent news article) are also coming here BECAUSE they are allowed to camp and our "liberal low key vibe".
JK
Anonymous said…
@HF P.S I don't buy that housing homeless, providing enough shelters or providing services is not doable in Seattle. It is the way things are done in NY and other cities all across the country and elsewhere, in areas that are MORE expensive and have MORE homeless than Seattle.

The women in the news article visiting from London also stated how shocked she was at seeing people camping on the street. I think maybe some have been in Seattle too long and are being desensitized to the homeless on the street, but to me the situation is staring very much to look very identical to situations of tent cities in what we consider "third world" countries.

As an Italian friend who visited also exclaimed how "shocked he was" as the US (& Seattle & WA!) is a rich place/country. We can figure it out! In addition, in contrast there are many many affluent people living the high life IMO in Seattle...millionaires and foodies galore. If I was an alien from outerspace visiting Seattle, I would scratch my head why they think they cannot fix this issue?
JK
Anonymous said…
This is an old thread now but in case anyone following, apparently we spend more money person on homeless than any other city in the entire nation? Can that possibly be true with such dismal results? http://mynorthwest.com/963948/ballard-homeless-encampment/?
KM

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?