Hundreds of Ballard residents crowded the Ballard Eagles VFW Post 3063 parking lot last night for a community-led meeting to discuss the city’s actions leading up to the planned transitory homeless encampment in Ballard.

The Ballard Chamber of Commerce organized the meeting along with a group call Speak up Ballard, a group that started a petition asking the city to hold public meetings before deciding on an encampment location.

Last month the mayor announced plans to build a homeless encampment on NW Market Street. There was public backlash from Ballard business owners and residents after the plans were announced. Community members complained of little or no public engagement in selecting a site location. 1,300 local residents signed the Speak Up Ballard petition, asking time for public input and meetings with the mayor.

Enrique Cerna moderated the meeting. Mayor Ed Murray, Department of Planning and Development Director, Diane Sugimura, and City Councilman Mike O’Brien were invited to the meeting. O’Brien was the only one who attended. With ballots due the following day, O’Brien faced a throng of irritated voters alone.

O'Brien, acting as the face of the city, answered a gauntlet of questions from hundreds of upset people at the meeting.

“I’m disappointed tonight. We invited the mayor, Mayor Ed Murray. He is not here. We also hoped that he would have sent a senior staff member. He chose not to do that either,” said Marty McOmber, organizer of Speak Up Ballard. The throng booed after his announcement.

O’Brien’s opening remarks struck a discordant chord that residents responded to through the entire meeting. He alluded to residents being “fearful” about building an encampment at the site.

“Any time you go into any community and suggest there is going to be a homeless shelter or tent encampment, you almost always get a reaction of fear and that’s okay. We can address fear. We can talk through that,” said O’Brien.

Residents disagreed and said that it’s not fear that spurred their contention, but rather a concern for the wellbeing of the neighborhood and a desire to have a say.

One by one residents took the microphone for over an hour and barraged O’Brien with comments addressing their disappointment with the city’s lack of engagement with the public and the “irrational” location of the site. A few residents criticized O’Brien for not taking a more proactive role in the process. One resident brought up the point that the mayor didn’t need the City Council’s resolution, but because the council signed a letter that basically approved the locations – though with recommendations for public engagement – a chance for public engagement was missed. The resolution would have likely gone to the Land Use Committee, followed by public meetings.

Another resident asked for the specific details in how the site was determined. O’Brien didn’t know exact details but reported that the sites were narrowed down from a list of 130. O’Brien admitted that he did not know about the site proposal until three days before it was announced and that he urged the mayor to engage the public before making the announcement.

“I want you all to know that I am committed to this process to have an open dialogue starting with vetting how we got to the three primary sites. … There hasn’t been a full transparent airing of how the list of 130 was narrowed down to those sites. …We (city council) laid out a process in the ordinance for the types of things that were a requirement for a successful screening of a city property. Beyond that I did not have any role to play in what specifics or how they were evaluated.”

One resident asked O’Brien, “How can the city choose the site when it will have a such a negative impact on the community?”

“I understand this perception, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume that because homeless people are going to live on the site that per se is going to be a negative impact on the community.”

There was a uproar from the crowd after O’Brien’s remark. People jeered him and yelled abuse.

“Let’s be civil folks,” said Cerna.

Another point of contention addressed was how the city cut down a healthy tree at the site right after the Ballard Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the mayor that asked to hold off on any action until public meetings were held. The tree was cut down after a 10-day public comment period. According to Seattle City Light the tree was cut because the encampment site is contaminated with heavy metals and pesticides, and the city plans environmental remediation work at the site. 18-inches of topsoil will be replaced. City officials said the tree’s roots were also contaminated and that it would need to be removed in order to clean the site.

Speaker Mary Fleck brought a jar filled with remnants of the tree. She gave it to O’Brien and said it was a reminder of the voters in Ballard. Another resident said it was disrespectful of the city to move ahead with their plan as citizens voiced significant concern and opposition.

Mary Fleck of Seattle Green Spaces Coalition offered O'Brien remains of the tree and asked for support keeping the land as green space after its public use

Another resident commented on how placing an encampment site in the heart of Ballard’s tourist area (near the Ballard Locks) would be detrimental to businesses and the community as a whole.

Mike Stewart, Executive Director of the Ballard Chamber of Commerce, asked that the city wait to take any further action at the site until there has been adequate public engagement. He also posed a question to O’Brien:

“Are you willing to roll up your sleeves, work along side us, put this site on hold and allow a more thorough and thoughtful selection process even if that means reopening the ordinance?”

O’Brien agreed, but stated he did not see reason for reopening the ordinance.
Stewart went on to address the city’s action and lack of public engagement.

“The total lack of public communication and partnership prior to the selection of this central Ballard site on Market Street is absolutely unacceptable.”

Mike Stewart asking O'Brien to "roll up his sleeves."

Stewart pointed out that the community has been working with the city for three years through the Ballard Partnership For Smart Growth and that the guiding principles established in the Urban Design Framework is to support a vibrant downtown Ballard business district and to create “hierarchy of great streets and public spaces with special attention to Market Street and preserving green spaces.”

“A transitional encampment at the Market Street location flies directly in the face of these guiding principles.”

Many residents stated that the community could do better than to make the encampment at a contaminated site that neighbors a bar, cannabis shop and liquor store. O’Brien agreed but said that they mayor’s office narrowed the site down from 130 and therefore must have a good reason for its selection.

O’Brien went on to say that the idea of only providing people with a site where they set up mere tents to live is “embarrassing,” however he said that with fall approaching the city needs to find a solution and set up a timeline for public engagement so an encampment can be established.

“The fact that in our city we are having a conversation about people living in tents as a solution to housing is frankly an embarrassment for all of us,” said O’Brien.

“Tent encampments are not a permanent solution for housing. We need to build more affordable housing. We need to find ways to stabilize people in existing housing to the extent we can, but the reality is…over 3000 people in our city are still sleeping without shelter.”

After an hour of comments McOmber adjourned the meeting and asked citizens to save their questions and “fire” for the public meeting next week with officials from the Office of the Mayor. The meeting will be held at the Leif Erikson Lodge at 6:30 on August 12.