The issue of what to do with the homeless in Seattle is a fundamental problem that dates back to well before the 1930s. It’s been with us longer than black berry thickets. Incidentally, the City’s solution has not changed much over the last 80 years: transitional housing in constantly short supply. In fact it’s even worse than what the city did during the Great Depression.

Although the City has devoted millions of dollars to constructing housing and offering services for the homeless, they have not been able to keep up with the boom of individuals living unsheltered. Just this year the King County One Night Count recorded 21 percent more men, women and children sleeping with no shelter compared to last year. There were 3,772 through out the county and 2,813 in Seattle.

The City’s response? Last July the Mayor rolled out a plan to establish three tent city encampments in Seattle to house the growing number of homeless people. Each encampment will provide shelter for up to 100 people. The one in Ballard will house about 50.

Meanwhile, financial and income inequality is at an all time high, rents are staggering.

Here’s some numbers:

A 2014 report that studied the distribution of wealth in the U.S. done by the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances shows that America’s richest 10 percent now hold nearly 85 percent financial assets.

According to the Census ACS survey, the median household income in the U.S. was $53,657 in 2014.

Amazon reports that Software Developers make $89,000 to $122,000 annually, plus bonuses.

According to Rentjungle.com – a site that collects national rent trends – Seattle rents are $1,650 for a one bedroom on average.

A homeless person at Green Lake. The King County One Night Count recorded 21 percent more men, women and children sleeping with no shelter compared to last year. There were 3,772 through out the county and 2,813 in Seattle. Photo by Shane Harms.

Still, it is said that problems are really just opportunities. In a city where it rains – a lot – somehow the best solution the heavies on top have come up with is to house people in tents. One does not need to be an REI member to know a tent can only do so much against rain, wind, snow, cold temperatures and someone intent on harm. The elements are cruel and a tent is a static nylon parachute. The whole idea of housing people in tents in Seattle is much like building rescue boats with leaky hulls. How long will this solution be pitched?

Even the homeless of the 1930s with extremely limited means took up the hammer, nail and sturdy plank to build a structure where they could be safe, warm and free from the dangers of the elements. With thousands having no work during the Depression, shanty–towns, or what were called Hoovervilles, were constructed out of desperation by the thousands of homeless in the city. These establishments also sprang up all over the country. At the time there were no city-organized programs to house people, and a group of homeless men seized a vacant lot owned by the Seattle Port Commission on South Atlantic Street. According to a Seattle newspaper, “The Vanguard,” at one point there were over 600 structures housing thousands of people.

Before 1932, when a new city council was elected (apropos to Nov. 3), the City opposed the encampment. At one point they even burned it to the ground after giving the residents seven days notice to vacate. But the residents rebuilt their homes. Eventually the City’s plan of action was to “tolerate” the makeshift village.

One cannot hear about the Hooverville in Seattle and not compare what happened then to what’s happening today.Indeed, it seems the same social and economic ingredients that contributed to the problems of the Depression are in the contextual stew today. What’s boiling are increasing rents and a cost of living soaring, amid a lack of social services that aid the mentally disabled, elderly, sick and addicted.

A report conducted by Mental Health America ranks Washington State fourth to last for highest prevalence of mental illness with lowest access to care. Trailing behind Washington is Nevada, Mississippi and Arizona.

Moreover, the meat of the problem of homelessness in Seattle lies in a city government that apparently has the inability -- due to lack of motivation, creativity or pressure from their constituents -- to come up with a solution better than designating spaces where people sleep on pallets in tents.

“The tent cities are a response to a crisis…Shane,” someone with a limited memory might chime, and lo this chime echoes 25 years. Let me remind you that Tent City 1 started back in 1990 and there were three more after that up to 2004. Nickelsville is a chapter of it’s own and has pitched tents in 16 Seattle locations since 2008. It seems the City, King County and voters have had 25 years to come up with a better solution for this crisis. Furthermore, this apparent “crisis response” seems to be more of a policy that City officials have pushed into a back office desk drawer under crumpled up land-use code amendments, dusty Mono-Rail bills, psychic hotline calling cards and a huge list of lobbyist emergency contact fax numbers.

But, it’s not all their fault. They inherited the problem, and they are really the manifestation of a Seattle voter zeitgeist, one that seems to not be seriously devoted to remedying the increasing problem of homelessness – or at least they weren’t during the last election.

But things are changing, and ballots have been mailed out.

Certainly after 80 years with all the technological, cultural and social advancement there could be a better solution than “Coleman Camps.”

Some people share the same notion, especially because when the Mayor announced the plan to pitch the tent encampment in Ballard on Market Street the community reacted with calling for more public involvement and input. Ideas, opportunities to collaborate, other solutions could have been presented, perhaps even better plans than tents. But the Mayor skipped the two major public meetings in Ballard devoted to the endeavor. During the City hosted meeting Mayor Murray was reported to be across town at a winery opening event in Georgetown where Jerry Lee Lewis was playing.

One idea that a Westside Weekly reader shared is to recycle all the materials that come from developers who tear down structures in order to build luxury apartments. The materials could be used to make quality “Tiny Houses,” and lots of them. The Edith Macefield house could even be a candidate. The City could also tax developers and use the funds to pay for homeless services and housing. Taxing developers to aid homeless people seems to have an obvious symbiotic relationship. Jeez Louis, while we are at it, why not finally enforce Impact Fees?

If the mayor steps to the plate, these “Viable Villages” of tiny houses made from recycled houses could even be called Murrayvilles. Let’s face it, with runaway development happening throughout the city, there would be no shortage of materials. And the Low Income Housing Institute has already reported that they turn away volunteers who want to build tiny houses. Free materials, volunteers ready to work: it would be a boon in all directions for the homeless, the City and for Mayor Murray. Hoovervilles were named after Hoover because of the failure of his social and economic policies. Naming the new villages Murrayvilles would celebrate Mayor Murray finally finding a solution to homelessness in Seattle and maybe even the country.

But what’s happening nationally? Well, on the West Coast homeless is staggering. Both Portland and Los Angeles Mayors have declared a state of emergency for housing and homelessness. Hawaii recently did the same. According to Portland’s Point-In-Time Count every night 3,800 people sleep without shelter in the city.

Meanwhile, in St. Paul, Minn., there are plans for a $100 million five-story homeless shelter. Also, Salt Lake City has “statistically” eliminated homelessness by constructing permanent housing for the homeless and offering onsite counseling services. The homeless population has shrunk to almost none over the last 10 years after the city invested $20 million per year.

In Seattle, the Mayor’s new budget for 2015-2016 proposes adding $2.75 Million for Human Services and adding $1.5 million to the homeless services for what the City calls a “suite of new investments,” which includes ramping up services for rehousing people and programs that target homeless veterans. But is this enough to end homelessness the way Salt Lake City has done? I think it’s time for Seattle to fold up its tented-notions and make some real commitments to ending homelessness by dropping the “crisis” crutch its been leaning on for 25 years. It’s time to think real housing and real services.

But these are just ideas, and lofty ideas at best coming from a journalist who’s writing this on a Friday night in his rented 300-square-foot studio apartment. Down on the street I can see a man sleeping on the sidewalk under a building canopy. He’s usually gone by morning. The heart of the matter is what have we learned in the last 80 years? It cannot be that Coleman tents are better shelter than brick and mortar structures? Carpe diem, Mr. Murray.