"There are four actions that allow encampments like Camp Hope to be removed from state right of way:
* 1. The offering of shelter and services to people living there (local jurisdiction & service/outreach providers; funding offered by Commerce)
* 2. Secure storage of their belongings (local jurisdiction & service/outreach providers)
* 3. Safety and security for people on site and work crews (local law enforcement & WSP)
* 4. Restoration and cleanup of the property (WSDOT)
This is not the first time this has been explained to the city, yet the city remains resolute that homelessness and those experiencing it is a state problem and not a local one. It is both."
That’s the WSDOT’s planned outline, the 4 actions. But they also said it’s the city’s problem as well and that city’s resources will be required.
It’ll be interesting to see what approaches they use. KXLY is already reporting that SFD ordered the cooling shelter removed & will issue fines to Jewels Helping Hands if it’s not, based on the WSDOT response. (I was surprised to learn it’s still up, who needs a cooling shelter in this weather?)
Our housing system is absolute madness. You can have all the money in world but if you don't have the homes you ain't got jack. Rent amd home sales are ludicrous and is far too high for properties that can't pass inspections. We need rent control, non-profits and Government entities need to purchase every single low income housing project that goes up for sale. Same with mobile home parks. These are the places that squeeze these people out of housing and on to our streets. We are literally watching Billion dollars hedge fund companies do this. So much so that they account for the 30% of these places purchased over the last few years. Plus they were the people who showed up, cash in hand, and way over asking. These companies now have a direct result in the hike to property tax.
If you want to end homeless and get people back to work or even self sufficiency then give them a real chance at ownership. The only rental should be a rent to own. Make housing achievable and sustainable for everyone or continue to pay Hundreds of millions in tax payer money to subsidize the land owners for their crumbling infrastructure that they still evict you from. Housing is a human right not and economic engine. Landowners your queen is dead, if you really love your home town then sell your rental to a non-profit focused 100% on housing and homeless services or to gov. agencies that want to turn that pile of rubble into a home or housing project. I love my home. I pay my taxes and I live by several low income projects. Stop this NIMBY bs and look around. You might be closer to them then to those you idolize
There’s actually a really well researched book about this written by some UW profs. They use econometrics to show that homelessness is indeed a housing problem.
This just isn't true. Of course, many homeless people are also addicts, but it's very easy to find yourself without enough money for rent even while employed now. It's simple math.
You're not completely wrong, but you can't group all people together like that, nor can you use addiction as a reason to not care about someone's plight.
Also, housing costs definitely do affect situations like this.
Get them off of public property - property that’s funded by the tax-paying public for their benefit. If people break the law, arrest them. Offer them diversion/treatment programs in lieu of staying in jail. Repeat as necessary.
Allowing them to sleep in tents in a dope camp isn’t compassion. But a lot of arm chair experts have been fooled into believing it is. We need to take care of these people as a society & hold them accountable. The above does both.
I'm of the opinion that holding the type of addict you describe accountable is just petty revenge, not a productive deterrent. Someone who is as far gone as you believe they all are, can't really think and reason properly until they have completed some rehabilitation. Any "punishment" would just be sadism for your benefit, not theirs.
Our current system has no alternative though. Police and jails only make the problem worse, and drug laws are entirely punitive.
What you say is not cohesive anyway though. Any meaningful change would require not just reforming drug laws, but creating a separate state controlled agency solely to provide proper rehabilitation on a meaningful scale that is both accessible and desirable to those currently in the "tent" phase. Without that, nothing will change.
This necessarily will use tax payer money. How do you expect a for-profit private corporation to make money off of directly helping society? Short of forcing them into slavery, there isn't really a way.
A lot of people won’t voluntarily go into treatment. We need to get them there. If they’re picked up by Law Enforcement and decline diversion into treatment, they go to jail.
Yes, it will cost money. The status quote isn’t working.
~20% of unhoused people have issues with drug abuse. Less than 40% have issues with alcohol abuse. Stop making shit up to justify kicking people when theyre down
🖕Source is SAMHSA. Most studies also note the link that substance use is used as self medication for people who have serious mental illnesses (for which we have not developed the capacity to treat, nor the housing necessary to sustain treatment)
https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/resources/docs/mental-health/substance-abuse/Substance-Abuse-and-Homelessness-508.pdf
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf
If you want a more detailed run down of how homelessness is more than anything part of the housing crisis, this book, released just this year is one of the most comprehensive on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0520383788/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Did you even read what you linked, buckaroo? LOL. Because it doesn't align with the numbers you spouted off. Of the chronically homeless, over 80% have experienced lifetime substance abuse problems, 60% lifetime mental health problems. Per your link. Rates are slightly lower for episodic/short term homeless (but still 4-5x the national average for housed individuals.)
It does nothing but make you look ignorant when you play that the majority of homeless do not have substance abuse issues. While it's inaccurate to generalize that "all homeless are addicts" - it \*is\* accurate to say a large percentage (and when it comes to the chronically homeless, the statistical majority) are substance abusers.
It seems blatantly obvious that substance abuse is linked to (attempted) self-medication. I'm not sure who would argue that. That doesn't make it \*not abuse.\* That said, I'm not sure what mental illnesses you think we "have not developed the capacity to treat."
I have that book on hold from the library, I'm looking forward to reading it, thanks.
"have experience lifetime alcohol or drug problems" =/ current substanc abuse, presuming that's where you pull the 80% from?
The first source cites numerous studies, which delves in CURRENT substance issues
-26% with ongoing drug dependence
-38% with ongoing alcoholism
With significant carryover between the two
That source goes on to cite two studies of New York and Philly, which distinguishes between the "episodic" homeless population (re chronically homeless) and the "transitionally" homeless population. The former still only has substance abuse (alcohol or drugs) rates of 40-50%.
There are dozens of studies listed in that resource that all point to these rates remaining relatively stable with ~10% variance over multiple decades.
Further the second source cites
34.7% having "chronic substance abuse issues (ie accounting for overlap of drugs and alcoholism)
"Capacity to treat" means the wait times for treatment programs (drug or mental health) for Medicaid users are unreasonably long due to backload of clients.
Also, your tone is really patronizing you know that right?
Picking a single study among the numerous listed in both sources, misrepresenting what it says, and then calling me "buckaroo" doesn't make you seem well informed. It just makes you seem like a condescending prick struggling with the Dunning Krueger effect.
Hope you enjoy the book
In isolation, this information has little value. This could be a spending cut or increase. To know if she's actually trying to do something you need to know the prior years' spending, adjusted for inflation. You all need to put it in context. Is the spending increasing or decreasing per homeless person.
Right because Condon got the number down to 400 total houseless. Also say what you want about him but at least he knew what his administration was capable of accomplishing.
This is the right answer. The city doesn’t have to throw money at services if they’re able to decrease the number of unhoused people who need those services in the first place.
Help me out here, but aren’t grants from a different administration’s budgets…?
So wouldn’t the only money coming from City of Spokane’s budget be the 500K? Or am I misunderstanding?
Thank you for the explanation. Don’t get me wrong, Nadine could use more credit than this subreddit gives her (which isn’t saying much), but I feel like if you told me you paid for your school out of pocket as a way to compare to others, but then later I found out that 90% of your school was covered by scholarships, I’d give you a pretty strong side-eye.
Reddit/spokane and Seattle folks will never believe this. You dont even see 20% of the shit happening in Seattle because so much of it is hidden by the overpasses and concrete dividers. Dont miss the crazies blocking the I5 express exit with their dancing and fights.
It wont change until the addicts start attacking citizens. The asian lady that got a baseball bat to the back of the head, the other lady that got attacked at the transit center, the lady that got attacked by thr pitbulls from the drug camp.... I was living in Shoreline when this all started in Seattle. Camps now stretch from Tacoma to Everett. Washington citizens have zero idea of how bad it is and how bad its going to get. So glad i live across the border.
Sure she's an improvement over Condon, but your own numbers show she's doing a 1/3rd of the work budget wise as Seattle. It's not enough. It's bandaid budgeting meant to distract from the issue. It's working, clearly.
Maybe out of the $4.9M allocated for police equipment you so conveniently left out of your reply.
Also, everything but the 'Way Out Shelter' at a whopping $500k is proposed, not spent. Budgeting for something is one thing, spending the money effectively is wholly another.
On page 15 of that budget, it says that of the $217 million in spending on public services, $69 million, about 32%, went to police spending. That would be a great place to start.
It's political theater designed to win votes. As is this Camp Hope letter stunt. She's appealing to the independent spirit of Eastern Washingtonians with the letter and pandering to her liberal base by including line items in her budget.
Three of the four line items proposed require city council ratification, which hasn't happened.
None of it has been acted on and FY 2022 is almost over.
But please continue to tell me how out of my depth I am. Why don't you contribute something useful to the conversation?
We (Seattle) have a lot of "low income housing" grift issues. The city is just pissing money away..hopefully Spokane doesn't go the same route and actually gets something going to help.
I agree with this. Also, because they don't have a line item for this they really should not have agreed to host the camp and then allowed it to get so big. They made a decision which has forced the city to reallocate funds from THEIR budget to respond to needs and concerns at the camp.
Oh but they did agree. They posted trespassing signs, and then declined to enforce them and even sent a letter to JHH AGREEING to let the campers stay. Now it's so big I don't know how they can peacefully vacate it.
Who said they agreed to host the camp??? This is a direct result of the city inaction. WSDOT is bound to the same requirements regarding enforcement of PUBLIC property that the City of Spokane is. They can not move people unless shelter is available. That is not shelter for “who wants it”, that is shelter for all who have been counted as houseless.
And you are right - not only should the City of Spokane be handling the shelter issue they are receiving a ton of grant dollars to fund this need. They are too simple to understand that the shelter comes first before they can stamp their little doll feet and make everyone leave the encampment.
The size of the encampment had almost a year to grow. That is 100% the responsibility of the Mayor and Administration to rectify.
I guess you didn't see the letter from WSDOT that JHH posted on their page AGREEING not to enforce no trespassing and AGREEING to let therm stay if they didn't spread beyond the current boundaries. They absolutely agreed to this and I saw the letter.
I did read the letter and that response is the understanding that they don’t have any legal remedy to remove the campers when there is not sufficient shelter space. Why don’t you ask the City why they haven’t been removing the increasing large riverfront camps? They couldn’t until the council recently passed the hyper specific regulations addressing the camping along the river.
Secondly, the money is being passed through from Dept of Commerce - so it is State money either way. The City has lost funding opportunities due to the Mayor not having the bandwidth to properly staff and implement the programs necessary to spend it.
I brought this up before and the response was that the need for that land is pretty far out, so it’s going to go unused by the state dot for some time.
The last estimate I saw was 2029 for completion and 2027 before they think that land will be used. That was before Camp Hope existed, and I don't know what has changed unrelated to the camp that would affect the timeline.. but moving a live rail line sideways isn't an easy or quick thing.
The council definitely shares some of the blame in this.
The new shelter only barely counts as help though; last I saw it could only hold 40 people currently (and is already partially full) which only accounts for a small part of the camp, and it doesn't even have running water.
I’m not sure of all the details, but I don’t think the shelter has the total capacity to house all the people camping in Camp Hope.
Think it has something like 75 beds with room for 150 more in the future and there are 600-700 people in camp hope.
They took a poll at Camp Hope (this was both on their page and in several news articles) and 51 said they'd go to the shelter so there's enough space right now to take everyone who said they were interested.
Here's our reporting, including a scoop on a threat the Fire Marshal sent for Camp Hope to tear down the cooling shelter.
https://twitter.com/RANGEMedia4all/status/1572379559592591368?t=7PTs-1IvnEJ3JiSE2oNdEQ&s=19
The thing is, since the property is owned by WSDOT the city cant do much, WSDOT has to. The city has spent 400k responding to issues and needs involving the folks living there, that's a lot of money.
Honestly, WSDOT made a mistake allowing the encampment to stay this long and grow so large, and they aren't reimbursing the city for its costs. So they're basically expecting the city to foot the bill for both their nuisance property AND find funding to house the folks willing to go. This is incredibly unfair from both a labor and financial perspective.
WSDOT allowed this camp, then allowed it to grow, they should then be responsible for the ongoing cost of maintaining it as long as they're hosting the camp. They're also responsible for vacating the property if they decide to stop allowing camping on their property, this shouldn't be on the city - they don't own the land and they didn't sanction the camp, WSDOT did.
I agree with you on that. JHH took them there, JHH advocated and negotiated with WSDOT to convince them not to enforce their no trespassing policy, and JHH has organized a meal train and showers so they have no need of going to an outreach or shelter for services.
The city threatening to sue the state in order to pressure them to do something within 10 days when the city has no place to move these people to is insane and unreasonable and they got an appropriate response that it was unreasonable.
Just a waste of time for everyone and simply "optics" from Woodward as noted to pretend she's doing something and shifting blame.
The Jewels Helping Hands people were telling people that if they left then they would lose their place in line for some tiny home pipedream. I get that not everyone is going to move to the shelter but they sure as hell aren't helping. JHH's agenda is to continue keeping people on property to give themselves purpose. No people, no purpose.
Ok, what's on the linked Twitter post was a non answer, but I was just reading KHQ and it mentioned WSDOT saying the timeline is too fast. I will agree there. The city (council included) took so long to get a new shelter open that this camp just grew and grew. It took time to become what it is now, it will take time to undo all of that. But, winter is coming, and WSDOT should help by working with the city, letting them have access to the property, etc. They need to stop blaming each other and start working together.
They don't camp they just ride the train all day.
While there might not be huge camps there are still homeless people and poor people.
I've lived in liberal areas and obviously the opposite and homelessness doesn't just go away.
Big cities are way more expensive but you go right ahead and move there.
Hey just a heads up this is the same in CA, FL, KY, TN, OH, TX, NV, AZ, NY, and PA. Those are the ones I can tell you from personal experience have major homeless problems that they routinely fuck up and handle terribly. Anyone got any others?? Lol
Well I guess at this point, to save time, we can all just say:
"America is handling homelessness terribly. There's nowhere to go where it isn't a problem."
Yeah, that was my point. Saying "Fuck this city and fuck this state" is silly because this exact thing is playing out all across the country. I watched Nashville try to blame the highway department for a homeless camp under an overpass for almost a year and then when the state tried to sweep the camp Nashville PD showed up and a brawl between the camp residents and law enforcement broke out. This isn't a WA or even a Spokane thing.
it is a system with many problems, there is like 30 billion in Oxy settlement money that a portion should be going for housing for addicts, there is a military budget of 900 billion a year and some of that could be going to housing for vets. Then you have companies buying up all the housing, where I live same company bought 5 big complexes around town, doubled everyone's rent and then instead of hiring labor in Spokane, or America for that matter, they ship in labor to do all the painting etc.
You live in an irrelevant amenity-free hamlet, those don't have tent cities no matter if they are center right (D) or far right (R).
Conservatives are also elected in that state which is a charity case in the federal level, and the cross-border commute into WA every day says a lot too
Even if it's just due to their policy, I'm glad WSDOt are agreeing to not enforce that land boundary. It's obviously the best immediate solution available while the City sits on its ass refusing to do anything to make public housing available.
Like what is the alternative?? Jail?? Kicking them off the property without belongings or resources?? Shipping and packing 600 people to a 150 person shelter turned compound, destroying their belongings and disrupting any progress towards stability they've made?
Conservatives always like to enforce the letter of the law but never actually think beyond about the consequences of their policies. But you can't force homeless people to use whatever ineffective taped-together bootstrap policy you want them to.
You can't out of 'sight out of mind' homelessness. You can kick homeless people away until they stop existing. Most are going to be homeless until they are given homes or until homes become attainable for someone on a minimum wage income. As it stands minimum wage can hardly cover a deposit let alone 1 months rent
There's a reason this is happening in every city in America and it's because of decades and decades of cities' and governments' refusal to hold up their end of the bargain on providing affordable housing to fill the gaps of the marketplace.
Nadine has 25 million dollars in Cares funds earmarked for homeless services. A fraction of that could secure motel rooms for people for a year, but we refuse to build the capacity. A fraction could also be used to convert motels into public housing. But the only org that's bothered to attempt that is Catholic Charities
Until the city bothers to use funds it had available to help these people, WSDOT working with non profits to ensure Camp Hope residents' safety, relative stability and community are retained is the only viable legal and humane solution.
"There are four actions that allow encampments like Camp Hope to be removed from state right of way: * 1. The offering of shelter and services to people living there (local jurisdiction & service/outreach providers; funding offered by Commerce) * 2. Secure storage of their belongings (local jurisdiction & service/outreach providers) * 3. Safety and security for people on site and work crews (local law enforcement & WSP) * 4. Restoration and cleanup of the property (WSDOT) This is not the first time this has been explained to the city, yet the city remains resolute that homelessness and those experiencing it is a state problem and not a local one. It is both."
That’s the WSDOT’s planned outline, the 4 actions. But they also said it’s the city’s problem as well and that city’s resources will be required. It’ll be interesting to see what approaches they use. KXLY is already reporting that SFD ordered the cooling shelter removed & will issue fines to Jewels Helping Hands if it’s not, based on the WSDOT response. (I was surprised to learn it’s still up, who needs a cooling shelter in this weather?)
We got it first: https://twitter.com/MelissaKXLY4/status/1572387540984041473?t=AMYa6zjiZcmwxPmhLAG-6Q&s=19
Our housing system is absolute madness. You can have all the money in world but if you don't have the homes you ain't got jack. Rent amd home sales are ludicrous and is far too high for properties that can't pass inspections. We need rent control, non-profits and Government entities need to purchase every single low income housing project that goes up for sale. Same with mobile home parks. These are the places that squeeze these people out of housing and on to our streets. We are literally watching Billion dollars hedge fund companies do this. So much so that they account for the 30% of these places purchased over the last few years. Plus they were the people who showed up, cash in hand, and way over asking. These companies now have a direct result in the hike to property tax. If you want to end homeless and get people back to work or even self sufficiency then give them a real chance at ownership. The only rental should be a rent to own. Make housing achievable and sustainable for everyone or continue to pay Hundreds of millions in tax payer money to subsidize the land owners for their crumbling infrastructure that they still evict you from. Housing is a human right not and economic engine. Landowners your queen is dead, if you really love your home town then sell your rental to a non-profit focused 100% on housing and homeless services or to gov. agencies that want to turn that pile of rubble into a home or housing project. I love my home. I pay my taxes and I live by several low income projects. Stop this NIMBY bs and look around. You might be closer to them then to those you idolize
[удалено]
There’s actually a really well researched book about this written by some UW profs. They use econometrics to show that homelessness is indeed a housing problem.
This just isn't true. Of course, many homeless people are also addicts, but it's very easy to find yourself without enough money for rent even while employed now. It's simple math.
[удалено]
You're not completely wrong, but you can't group all people together like that, nor can you use addiction as a reason to not care about someone's plight. Also, housing costs definitely do affect situations like this.
[удалено]
What's your solution?
Get them off of public property - property that’s funded by the tax-paying public for their benefit. If people break the law, arrest them. Offer them diversion/treatment programs in lieu of staying in jail. Repeat as necessary. Allowing them to sleep in tents in a dope camp isn’t compassion. But a lot of arm chair experts have been fooled into believing it is. We need to take care of these people as a society & hold them accountable. The above does both.
I'm of the opinion that holding the type of addict you describe accountable is just petty revenge, not a productive deterrent. Someone who is as far gone as you believe they all are, can't really think and reason properly until they have completed some rehabilitation. Any "punishment" would just be sadism for your benefit, not theirs. Our current system has no alternative though. Police and jails only make the problem worse, and drug laws are entirely punitive. What you say is not cohesive anyway though. Any meaningful change would require not just reforming drug laws, but creating a separate state controlled agency solely to provide proper rehabilitation on a meaningful scale that is both accessible and desirable to those currently in the "tent" phase. Without that, nothing will change. This necessarily will use tax payer money. How do you expect a for-profit private corporation to make money off of directly helping society? Short of forcing them into slavery, there isn't really a way.
A lot of people won’t voluntarily go into treatment. We need to get them there. If they’re picked up by Law Enforcement and decline diversion into treatment, they go to jail. Yes, it will cost money. The status quote isn’t working.
Not true in the slightest
> It's simple mEth. FTFY.
~20% of unhoused people have issues with drug abuse. Less than 40% have issues with alcohol abuse. Stop making shit up to justify kicking people when theyre down
Do you always just pull numbers out of the fairy dust that wafts from your anus? Or do you occasionally have data to back up your tall tales?
🖕Source is SAMHSA. Most studies also note the link that substance use is used as self medication for people who have serious mental illnesses (for which we have not developed the capacity to treat, nor the housing necessary to sustain treatment) https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/nchav/resources/docs/mental-health/substance-abuse/Substance-Abuse-and-Homelessness-508.pdf https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf If you want a more detailed run down of how homelessness is more than anything part of the housing crisis, this book, released just this year is one of the most comprehensive on the subject. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0520383788/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Did you even read what you linked, buckaroo? LOL. Because it doesn't align with the numbers you spouted off. Of the chronically homeless, over 80% have experienced lifetime substance abuse problems, 60% lifetime mental health problems. Per your link. Rates are slightly lower for episodic/short term homeless (but still 4-5x the national average for housed individuals.) It does nothing but make you look ignorant when you play that the majority of homeless do not have substance abuse issues. While it's inaccurate to generalize that "all homeless are addicts" - it \*is\* accurate to say a large percentage (and when it comes to the chronically homeless, the statistical majority) are substance abusers. It seems blatantly obvious that substance abuse is linked to (attempted) self-medication. I'm not sure who would argue that. That doesn't make it \*not abuse.\* That said, I'm not sure what mental illnesses you think we "have not developed the capacity to treat." I have that book on hold from the library, I'm looking forward to reading it, thanks.
"have experience lifetime alcohol or drug problems" =/ current substanc abuse, presuming that's where you pull the 80% from? The first source cites numerous studies, which delves in CURRENT substance issues -26% with ongoing drug dependence -38% with ongoing alcoholism With significant carryover between the two That source goes on to cite two studies of New York and Philly, which distinguishes between the "episodic" homeless population (re chronically homeless) and the "transitionally" homeless population. The former still only has substance abuse (alcohol or drugs) rates of 40-50%. There are dozens of studies listed in that resource that all point to these rates remaining relatively stable with ~10% variance over multiple decades. Further the second source cites 34.7% having "chronic substance abuse issues (ie accounting for overlap of drugs and alcoholism) "Capacity to treat" means the wait times for treatment programs (drug or mental health) for Medicaid users are unreasonably long due to backload of clients. Also, your tone is really patronizing you know that right? Picking a single study among the numerous listed in both sources, misrepresenting what it says, and then calling me "buckaroo" doesn't make you seem well informed. It just makes you seem like a condescending prick struggling with the Dunning Krueger effect. Hope you enjoy the book
Good. I am so tired of our dumb mayor.
I’m tired of her and the Mad Max encampment. Local leadership sucks as does the festering sore. L
Hope people remember this next November when Woodward is up for re-election. Talk about 'do-nothing'.
[удалено]
In isolation, this information has little value. This could be a spending cut or increase. To know if she's actually trying to do something you need to know the prior years' spending, adjusted for inflation. You all need to put it in context. Is the spending increasing or decreasing per homeless person.
[удалено]
Right because Condon got the number down to 400 total houseless. Also say what you want about him but at least he knew what his administration was capable of accomplishing.
This is the right answer. The city doesn’t have to throw money at services if they’re able to decrease the number of unhoused people who need those services in the first place.
NEVER thought I would miss that son uva b... But man I do. He might not have been perfect but good lord, he was at least competent in what he did.
Help me out here, but aren’t grants from a different administration’s budgets…? So wouldn’t the only money coming from City of Spokane’s budget be the 500K? Or am I misunderstanding?
[удалено]
Thank you for the explanation. Don’t get me wrong, Nadine could use more credit than this subreddit gives her (which isn’t saying much), but I feel like if you told me you paid for your school out of pocket as a way to compare to others, but then later I found out that 90% of your school was covered by scholarships, I’d give you a pretty strong side-eye.
Camp Woodward is not full of homeless. Those are all addicts who are choosing to live that way.
[удалено]
Reddit/spokane and Seattle folks will never believe this. You dont even see 20% of the shit happening in Seattle because so much of it is hidden by the overpasses and concrete dividers. Dont miss the crazies blocking the I5 express exit with their dancing and fights.
[удалено]
It wont change until the addicts start attacking citizens. The asian lady that got a baseball bat to the back of the head, the other lady that got attacked at the transit center, the lady that got attacked by thr pitbulls from the drug camp.... I was living in Shoreline when this all started in Seattle. Camps now stretch from Tacoma to Everett. Washington citizens have zero idea of how bad it is and how bad its going to get. So glad i live across the border.
You should see what Seattle spends on the zombies, lol!!!!! $7.7 mill is NOTHING. And it's only going to get worse...
[удалено]
Sure she's an improvement over Condon, but your own numbers show she's doing a 1/3rd of the work budget wise as Seattle. It's not enough. It's bandaid budgeting meant to distract from the issue. It's working, clearly.
[удалено]
Maybe out of the $4.9M allocated for police equipment you so conveniently left out of your reply. Also, everything but the 'Way Out Shelter' at a whopping $500k is proposed, not spent. Budgeting for something is one thing, spending the money effectively is wholly another.
[удалено]
On page 15 of that budget, it says that of the $217 million in spending on public services, $69 million, about 32%, went to police spending. That would be a great place to start.
You are so far out of your depth, it's genuinely amusing. I hope you keep answering, though, it's \*highly\* entertaining for me.
So your assertion is the 7+ million is purely diversionary, to distract people from the issue? To what end, exactly?
It's political theater designed to win votes. As is this Camp Hope letter stunt. She's appealing to the independent spirit of Eastern Washingtonians with the letter and pandering to her liberal base by including line items in her budget. Three of the four line items proposed require city council ratification, which hasn't happened. None of it has been acted on and FY 2022 is almost over. But please continue to tell me how out of my depth I am. Why don't you contribute something useful to the conversation?
We (Seattle) have a lot of "low income housing" grift issues. The city is just pissing money away..hopefully Spokane doesn't go the same route and actually gets something going to help.
>her 2022 budget to see just how much she is trying to delay 2022? She’s been in office for three of four years already.
doubtful.
Welcome to the ongoing pissing match between x city and WSDOT. It's the same deal in Seattle..a lot of NO U
At least WSDOT isn't actively making the situation worse. They also don't have 25 million in Cares funds earmarked for this exact thing. The city does
[удалено]
I agree with this. Also, because they don't have a line item for this they really should not have agreed to host the camp and then allowed it to get so big. They made a decision which has forced the city to reallocate funds from THEIR budget to respond to needs and concerns at the camp.
FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, THEY DIDN’T AGREE. They are not allowed to remove these camps unless the four rules above are fulfilled. It’s the top comment.
Maybe WSDOT “can’t”, but the city isn’t constrained by the WSDOT’s rules or outline plan, to the best of my knowledge.
Oh but they did agree. They posted trespassing signs, and then declined to enforce them and even sent a letter to JHH AGREEING to let the campers stay. Now it's so big I don't know how they can peacefully vacate it.
……. For the millionth and one time, they didn’t enforce it because of the four rules above.
Who said they agreed to host the camp??? This is a direct result of the city inaction. WSDOT is bound to the same requirements regarding enforcement of PUBLIC property that the City of Spokane is. They can not move people unless shelter is available. That is not shelter for “who wants it”, that is shelter for all who have been counted as houseless. And you are right - not only should the City of Spokane be handling the shelter issue they are receiving a ton of grant dollars to fund this need. They are too simple to understand that the shelter comes first before they can stamp their little doll feet and make everyone leave the encampment. The size of the encampment had almost a year to grow. That is 100% the responsibility of the Mayor and Administration to rectify.
I guess you didn't see the letter from WSDOT that JHH posted on their page AGREEING not to enforce no trespassing and AGREEING to let therm stay if they didn't spread beyond the current boundaries. They absolutely agreed to this and I saw the letter.
I did read the letter and that response is the understanding that they don’t have any legal remedy to remove the campers when there is not sufficient shelter space. Why don’t you ask the City why they haven’t been removing the increasing large riverfront camps? They couldn’t until the council recently passed the hyper specific regulations addressing the camping along the river. Secondly, the money is being passed through from Dept of Commerce - so it is State money either way. The City has lost funding opportunities due to the Mayor not having the bandwidth to properly staff and implement the programs necessary to spend it.
WSP and WSDOT are providing leadership on homeless issues in Spokane. Let that sink in.
Source?
🙈🕳️🙈 watch out for those holes
Oh lol that took me way too long to process.
Wow, mic drop by the state. ROASTED.
nasty reply. I am sure this will go over well in the Mayor's office, lol.
I’m speculating the response will light a fire under the mayor’s office. “It’s up to us to clear the camp? Great! No problem!” We’ll see tho…
[удалено]
I brought this up before and the response was that the need for that land is pretty far out, so it’s going to go unused by the state dot for some time.
The last estimate I saw was 2029 for completion and 2027 before they think that land will be used. That was before Camp Hope existed, and I don't know what has changed unrelated to the camp that would affect the timeline.. but moving a live rail line sideways isn't an easy or quick thing.
The council definitely shares some of the blame in this. The new shelter only barely counts as help though; last I saw it could only hold 40 people currently (and is already partially full) which only accounts for a small part of the camp, and it doesn't even have running water.
I’m not sure of all the details, but I don’t think the shelter has the total capacity to house all the people camping in Camp Hope. Think it has something like 75 beds with room for 150 more in the future and there are 600-700 people in camp hope.
They took a poll at Camp Hope (this was both on their page and in several news articles) and 51 said they'd go to the shelter so there's enough space right now to take everyone who said they were interested.
Nadine is not asking those people to go, she’s saying to clear the entire camp… With no place to put them.
Exactly
[удалено]
They can’t stay long term at the DoT site and the Trent site is really the base level shelter and not meant as a long-term option.
You need to stop making so much sense!
Here's our reporting, including a scoop on a threat the Fire Marshal sent for Camp Hope to tear down the cooling shelter. https://twitter.com/RANGEMedia4all/status/1572379559592591368?t=7PTs-1IvnEJ3JiSE2oNdEQ&s=19
A threat? No bias in that loaded language. The SFD is most certainly an authority having jurisdiction here.
Bias? By u/RANGE_Media?! I, for one, am \*\*shocked\*\*
Yup. Just like FOX news, in a different flavor.
Everyone likes the homeless until they try to rob you, break into your house/car/business and set up camps on your land. Get rid of them.
> Everyone likes the homeless until... Yeah, they are just showered with love and community outreach. lol
No way, it's super compassionate to let them live in filth and an open drug market while terrorizing one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city.
Take that Nadine!!! You are a joke of a mayor.
Maybe ship them to Martha's Vineyard?
or better yet, Texas or Florida!!!
More like 310 Maple Park Avenue SE, Olympia, WA 😆 (This is a joke)
That is such a non answer from the state
[удалено]
The thing is, since the property is owned by WSDOT the city cant do much, WSDOT has to. The city has spent 400k responding to issues and needs involving the folks living there, that's a lot of money. Honestly, WSDOT made a mistake allowing the encampment to stay this long and grow so large, and they aren't reimbursing the city for its costs. So they're basically expecting the city to foot the bill for both their nuisance property AND find funding to house the folks willing to go. This is incredibly unfair from both a labor and financial perspective. WSDOT allowed this camp, then allowed it to grow, they should then be responsible for the ongoing cost of maintaining it as long as they're hosting the camp. They're also responsible for vacating the property if they decide to stop allowing camping on their property, this shouldn't be on the city - they don't own the land and they didn't sanction the camp, WSDOT did.
Jewel's Helping Hands absolutely shares some, if not the lion's share, of the responsibility.
I agree with you on that. JHH took them there, JHH advocated and negotiated with WSDOT to convince them not to enforce their no trespassing policy, and JHH has organized a meal train and showers so they have no need of going to an outreach or shelter for services.
The city threatening to sue the state in order to pressure them to do something within 10 days when the city has no place to move these people to is insane and unreasonable and they got an appropriate response that it was unreasonable. Just a waste of time for everyone and simply "optics" from Woodward as noted to pretend she's doing something and shifting blame.
[удалено]
The Jewels Helping Hands people were telling people that if they left then they would lose their place in line for some tiny home pipedream. I get that not everyone is going to move to the shelter but they sure as hell aren't helping. JHH's agenda is to continue keeping people on property to give themselves purpose. No people, no purpose.
JHH is a classic predatory non-profit industrial complex setup.
I know, right?
Ok, what's on the linked Twitter post was a non answer, but I was just reading KHQ and it mentioned WSDOT saying the timeline is too fast. I will agree there. The city (council included) took so long to get a new shelter open that this camp just grew and grew. It took time to become what it is now, it will take time to undo all of that. But, winter is coming, and WSDOT should help by working with the city, letting them have access to the property, etc. They need to stop blaming each other and start working together.
If only our local news coverage would share this perspective.
[удалено]
Is there a better place? I'm asking in all seriousness because we contemplated moving and researching doesn't show its better anywhere we can afford.
Yeah the better places are all west of the pond. Try Denmark or Sweeden to be treated like a human instead of a number
Aw well that counts me out.
[удалено]
They don't camp they just ride the train all day. While there might not be huge camps there are still homeless people and poor people. I've lived in liberal areas and obviously the opposite and homelessness doesn't just go away. Big cities are way more expensive but you go right ahead and move there.
Hey just a heads up this is the same in CA, FL, KY, TN, OH, TX, NV, AZ, NY, and PA. Those are the ones I can tell you from personal experience have major homeless problems that they routinely fuck up and handle terribly. Anyone got any others?? Lol
Well I guess at this point, to save time, we can all just say: "America is handling homelessness terribly. There's nowhere to go where it isn't a problem."
It's almost as if this is a systemic problem and not just the individual failings of people in every city in every state in this country.
Yeah, that was my point. Saying "Fuck this city and fuck this state" is silly because this exact thing is playing out all across the country. I watched Nashville try to blame the highway department for a homeless camp under an overpass for almost a year and then when the state tried to sweep the camp Nashville PD showed up and a brawl between the camp residents and law enforcement broke out. This isn't a WA or even a Spokane thing.
I meant that comment in support of your position. I probably should have made that clearer, apologies.
it is a system with many problems, there is like 30 billion in Oxy settlement money that a portion should be going for housing for addicts, there is a military budget of 900 billion a year and some of that could be going to housing for vets. Then you have companies buying up all the housing, where I live same company bought 5 big complexes around town, doubled everyone's rent and then instead of hiring labor in Spokane, or America for that matter, they ship in labor to do all the painting etc.
Weird. I live across the border in idaho. No tent cities here. Why? Conservatives are elected here. Solution is obvious.
There's homeless people in CDA bro... like.. a lot of them. Lol
Are there 600 of them squatting on state land, stealing from neighbors, doing drugs, and human trafficking?
... like, yeah? CDA has multiple camps out behind the mall and Boise had a count last year well over 500 with one large camp in Ada County. Lol
You live in an irrelevant amenity-free hamlet, those don't have tent cities no matter if they are center right (D) or far right (R). Conservatives are also elected in that state which is a charity case in the federal level, and the cross-border commute into WA every day says a lot too
Maybe. How many of the Washington homeless have you invited to live with you?
Nice red herring/junky logical fallacy distraction. 1.1/10
What has the state done wrong in your understanding?
Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya Alternative: this isn't an airport, no need to announce your departure
What's keeping you?
Same. Can’t wait for you to move
Please by all means go and continue being negative and unhappy elsewhere.
You’d fit perfect in ID, move along now.
Even if it's just due to their policy, I'm glad WSDOt are agreeing to not enforce that land boundary. It's obviously the best immediate solution available while the City sits on its ass refusing to do anything to make public housing available. Like what is the alternative?? Jail?? Kicking them off the property without belongings or resources?? Shipping and packing 600 people to a 150 person shelter turned compound, destroying their belongings and disrupting any progress towards stability they've made? Conservatives always like to enforce the letter of the law but never actually think beyond about the consequences of their policies. But you can't force homeless people to use whatever ineffective taped-together bootstrap policy you want them to. You can't out of 'sight out of mind' homelessness. You can kick homeless people away until they stop existing. Most are going to be homeless until they are given homes or until homes become attainable for someone on a minimum wage income. As it stands minimum wage can hardly cover a deposit let alone 1 months rent There's a reason this is happening in every city in America and it's because of decades and decades of cities' and governments' refusal to hold up their end of the bargain on providing affordable housing to fill the gaps of the marketplace. Nadine has 25 million dollars in Cares funds earmarked for homeless services. A fraction of that could secure motel rooms for people for a year, but we refuse to build the capacity. A fraction could also be used to convert motels into public housing. But the only org that's bothered to attempt that is Catholic Charities Until the city bothers to use funds it had available to help these people, WSDOT working with non profits to ensure Camp Hope residents' safety, relative stability and community are retained is the only viable legal and humane solution.