By Shane Harms

The issue of homelessness in Seattle has been coming to a head as both the Seattle Mayor's office and the Seattle City Council have grappled with how to deal with homeless encampments. The recent clearing of the "Jungle" an area under Interstate 5 near Airport Way South resulting in the death of a homeless man when he was shot in an altercation with Seattle Police. Media reports on homeless people camping out on playfields, near schools and in other public lands leaving behind refuse, human waste and syringes have raised the ire of the public and officials who have yet to come to a satisfactory way forward with this complex problem.

The Seattle City Council held a committee meeting Oct 14 to discuss enacting Council Bill 118794, the bill that would allow homeless people to camp in over 5,200 acres of city parks and greenbelts.

Councilmembers Mike O’Brien and Sally Bagshaw wrote different versions of the bill for consideration. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services drafted the original bill.

Sally Bagshaw, Committee Chair of the Human Services and Public Health, announced before that meeting that the council would not vote on the ordinance.

Over 90 people signed up to comment before city council, and overwhelmingly the message from them was opposition to the bill. Among the commenters was the Seattle resident who wrote a petition to postpone the bill in order for the city to do an environmental impact study, allow for residents and business owners to comment and to submit the bill at the next regular election or at a special election. The petition received 19,160 signatures.

As the meeting ran beyond four hours, the council slowly excused themselves, starting with Councilmember Kshama Sawant early on and then later O’Brien. One commenter asked that the council members who left reread the council constitution.

So if the ordinance is enacted, parks like Carkeek, Woodlawn, Volunteer and Lincoln would be become a pitching-ground for campers. They would essentially have the right to camp. Then once someone has set up camp – including tents, cars and RV’s – it would be difficult to remove them. The ordinance outlines what the Seattle Times calls “ridiculous bureaucratic hurdles” that outreach personnel would need to abide to when removing campers from “unsuitable” sites. This includes notifying and allowing 48 hours for individuals who pose an “imminent and likely public health or safety harm" to clear the site. Outreach personnel would also have to provide alternative site locations, which could take days. In most cases there would be a 30-day period to notify and offer services to campers.

This rule in particular was a point of contention among commenters at the meeting. An incident mentioned in the meeting was that of a homeless man camping in the end zone of a football field at the Interbay Athletic Park. The man refused to move from the site during a youth football game. Interbay Eagle youth football coach, Ron Onyon, showed up to the council meeting with youth players. He asked for the language in the bill pertaining the removal of individuals be clarified, especially regarding campers in areas where children play.

Another issue scrutinized by commenters was that the bill would require the City provide water, sanitation and other services or be fined $50 per violation (originally $250), per day to each homeless person affected. Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Vice Chair of Human Services & Public Health Committee, questioned the enforceability of the penalty. O’Brien said he could clarify the details with Harrell at a different time. The crowded booed O’Brien’s response.

Another commenter mentioned a recent Seattle Times story by Danny Westneat that outlined how Portland tried a similar measure eight months ago, which ultimately failed. Portland gave it a go for six months before finding that campers were inundating public spaces and had little education about the actual law. Seattle’s plan would enact the ordinance for up to two years.

Councilmember Tim Burgess is a major opponent of the bill. Burgess has said that the plan would be ineffective in get people into permanent housing and calls the rules for removing campers “onerous.”

Burgess’ alternative to the bill is to focus on the Mayor’s Pathways Home proposal. The plan is an effort with King County, All Home, and United Way and consists of a series steps to analyze what the City is doing now in order to makes changes and increase its effectiveness and efficiency based on what’s worked in other cities. Representatives from the Mayor's office were in attendance at the committee meeting to provide background and insight as to how the Mayor's office wants to proceed.

“This is the complex work we should be focused on, not on a new law that perpetuates homelessness and makes our neighborhoods less safe,” said Burgess.

Other alternatives were mentioned at the meeting. Sharon Lee, Director of the Low Income Housing Institute, said she recently wrote a letter to City Council proposing that more city-sanctioned encampments be constructed modeled after the Ballard Nickelsville and the SHARE Interbay encampments. LIHI offers case management at the sites. Lee reported that since opening the encampments last year, 107 people have moved into permanent housing and 68 people have retained jobs. According to Lee, building the encampments would be about $35,000 to $50,000 depending on electricity and water utilities for set up and about $214,000 for a year for operations, which includes case management staff.

Bagshaw’s version of the bill mentions this as an option:

“Within 30 days of the effective date of this ordinance, the City shall set up additional sanctioned, or managed encampments or spaces where people can safely camp. Such identified spaces and sites shall be numerous and large enough to accommodate the reasonably estimated unsheltered population in need of such outdoor living spaces.”

The council meeting to vote on the ordinance has not been scheduled at this time.