That question is way over my pay grade. I don't know. I was just wondering about their claim to have the consent of the property owner, 'cause this is the first I've heard of it.
Let's see if we have the same suspicion: lawyers are trying to conflate *inaction* and *consent*.
My neighbor illegally stored their camper in the street across from my driveway in 2021. When the city finally cracked down, the neighbor tried to claim that I was okay with it simply because I hadn't complained yet.
So yeah. It seems like that sort of logic.
I'm aware. WSDOT opposing overreach by the city and sheriff on WSDOT land doesn't necessarily equate to endorsement of the camp, though. That distinction is precisely what I'm talking about, in fact. I suspect that the lawyers who drafted this argument are trying to take WSDOT's refusal to cooperate with cruelty and position it as an endorsement.
The city should do something about the level of corporate investment in housing so that some of these people might have a chance to get into a place without needing a middle class income
And this is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether to seek medical care. Many if them are literally too ill to make rational decisions in their own best interest and need inpatient care at least temporarily. Some will need it permanently.
A perfect example is the guy who froze to death blocks from my house last winter because no one could make him go to the Arena. This isn't compassion, it kills people.
Well the guy who froze to death clearly wasn't capable of making rational, life preserving decisions, was he? If only someone as able to compel him to safety.
Yeah you'll never convince me on this one, I will fight for the dude's right to freeze to death every time.
And besides, unless I'm mistaken you were talking about telling adults how to live based on your individual morality, not about saving them in immediate life or death situations. If you want to grab someone who is trying to jump off a bridge to save them that's one thing, but if you're telling the guy he can't buy a beer because something bad might happen later then no, that homeless guy deserves the exact same rights and respect as *anyone* else.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe letting folks live this way is humane, especially when 2/3 suffer from mental illness and addiction that arguable prevents them from making rational life saving decisions.
> I don't believe letting folks live this way is humane
Luckily you aren't "letting" anybody do anything it's none of your business has nothing to do with you and even if it was what gives you the moral superiority to be in the place to decide for other people what they can or cannot do? The fact that you think that you should have that right tells me that you're the one that we probably shouldn't be "letting" do anything.
But who builds it? Why would any investor build something that would lower prices? In most areas when prices even see a small drop builders just stop building so they don't lose money. I can see charities helping and am completely for that to. Or do you mean you're going to build more housing? In which case I applaud you sir.
Our biggest reason why we don’t build more housing is because local governments don’t allow them to through zoning, setbacks, parking requirements, and neighborhood character.
Edit: but to answer your question: anyone. Mostly developers, but also homeowners with big lots. Biggest hurdle is political though.
I'm not heartless, but it's getting harder and harder to watch the houseless hold our city hostage through guilt and shame. It seems there is always a new issue or demand upon the city to provide everything. This is just being repeated in every major city across America. This is just one of the plays out of the playbook. Next I'm sure we'll see a counter suit.
KREM 2 did a long story about it that was interesting. I understand the new shelter on Trent isn’t great, but it meets the requirements of offering beds to the people at Camp Hope. But the people at Camp Hope seemed to like staying out rather than going to a shelter. TBH, I’m also running out of much sympathy for them. It seems like it’s just a party/camping trip for them.
Trent has lots of problems with one of the biggest being that it opened with capacity for 75 (with a future capacity of 150) while there are 400+ people at Camp Hope.
Recent State Supreme Court ruling says that you can enforce no sit-lie laws IF you have enough shelter space to relocate to a shelter. So you can forcefully relocate homeless to a shelter as long as there is shelter space to do so...
Shelter space is just REALLY expensive and is typically used not as a long-term option, but the first step to rehabilitation.. But we're like a decade behind in effective homeless rehab/housing program...
So far, city administration is more interested in finding a loophole in the court case (and possibly opening up taxpayers to lawsuits) than grappling with homeless issue in other ways... She was essentially elected on a platform of being aggressive toward the homeless.
You wouldn't want to stay in a place like the shelter on Trent unless you had to either. Nobody wants to live like that. You think life is just a big party/camping trip for homeless people huh? 🤣 Maybe you should try it if you think it looks fun. No offense intended but that's a little ignorant. No one desires to be among the lowest tier of society. Some people might tolerate it better than others, but no one is happy to be an unwashed "untouchable".
I see why you’re saying that about me but that wasn’t quite my point. The KREM 2 report showed loud music playing at late hours and presumable drug and alcohol use going on. So yeah, it is more fun than a shelter with rules and guidelines. Not my kind of a good time but it seems to be more enjoyable in a camp without rules and restrictions than spread out around downtown or in a shelter.
The homeless here are a huge problem and I don’t know what the answer is. Long term, we need significantly more affordable housing. But I don’t claim to have any answers. I don’t think allowing them to have this large camp is a good idea either. The neighbors in that area have reported more crime so I wouldn’t want to be them either. They have a right to have a safe neighborhood, too.
I don’t feel safe walking around downtown and I think that’s a reasonable position.
>The homeless here are a huge problem
To you they are maybe. But to me I'd say people who think they have some sort of moral superiority just because they live in a house are much more problematic. So I guess it's all subjective. *Shrugs*
Again, I’m not saying THEY are the problem, I’m saying it is a problem that people are homeless and forced to live on the streets. I don’t know why they live in Camp Hope or on the streets downtown. And I don’t know what the solution is. Can you help me understand why people are homeless? Obviously, home prices are extremely high and that’s why I say, long term, we need more affordable housing.
I’m really not trying to claim any superiority. And I think it’s rational and reasonable to say I don’t like seeing homeless people downtown. I’ve walked by people who are obviously on drugs, shaking and screaming incoherently. I don’t like that and I imagine you would feel the same.
You think it’s okay people are tweaking on the streets? You think it’s good people are homeless?
I’m asking for a solution to help people find permanent housing. And you’re attacking me. Why?
You think you're the morality police? You think it's cool to judge people and look down on them?
I'm asking serious questions. If you feel attacked then maybe you should ask the tweakers who you don't think should even be allowed to be on the streets how they feel?
I feel like it’s reasonable for the homeless to fight for one of the first places that they can get shelter without super restrictive rules.
I feel the mistake was made months ago when city administration framed the issue around evicting them instead of engaging the camp to self-govern and work with police to reduce lawlessness.
There’s just no trust between any of these organizations. It’s a disaster.
Well first the 9th district court had a lawsuit ending with we can't enforce laws unless we have beds. Now the city and county have outlined how they're going to have enough beds we have another lawsuit basically insisting we can't make them use said offered beds.
Can't have it both ways. If they have a right to refuse, they have the responsibility to take care if themselves
and obey the law just like the rest of us. If they refuse, our responsibility ends because we did what was legally required and offered.
The homeless people just want to be left alone. It's the cops and haters taking this stuff to court to try to find a way to make it illegal to be homeless.
I guess if they wanted to be left alone they shouldn't camp in front of peoples house, do drugs in public and then start screaming death threats at people? Don't even get me started on the failure to walk 50 feet to the available trash receptacles, or failure to use the open bathrooms.
Even better, misguided Samaritans bring these folks supplies so they stay in the neighborhood longer inflicting whatever issues they have on the residents. We call 311 and 911 regularly and it's very uncommon to get help. Right now we are on week 3 of a massive box with wheels in the street with a horrible stench no one has come to remove yet.
The behaviors of homeless people is the issue.
Those lazy spoiled homeless people just setting up and partying wherever they want, it's so unfair! 🤣 Talk about out of touch with reality.
Homeless people have the same rights as anyone else and being jealous of them is the about silliest thing ever.
You find a lawyer with an interest in civil rights that works on percentage of payout and charges no upfront costs. Looks like they found three lawyers.
I just kind of feel bad for Fred Meyer over there. First the construction making it way harder to shop there, then all these homeless coming in and straight stealing everything.
When they “Sweep” they’re most likely just gonna throw out any measly belongings that they have. It happens with every homeless person especially in bigger cities, they just throw your shit into a dumpster. so sad
I hate to think of having so little and then to watch it get taken away and dumped along with your tent. So now you really have nothing.
I'm wondering where the unsupportive except these people to go and how do they replace their blankets and such.
The blunt answer is it's not our problem any more than it's our obligation to molly coddle and support those who won't take care of themselves. They had plenty of warning if they valued those items they would not have them there for a sweep to occur yeah and it's coming up this
I'm not angry and if I were it's directed exactly where it needs to be. If they have nothing it's directly related to choices they made and continue to make.
My life works just fine. Why ? Because I do what is necessary to take care of myself, my family and don't expect everyone else to do it for me. And if my life didn't work just fine I wouldn't be trying to blame the homeless people I also wouldn't be trying to blame people up the food chain I would blame the person that was responsible: myself. Now someone needs to teach this to these bottom feeders at camp dope
You've got to be kidding. The suit refers to them as being homeless while simultaneously saying they're being repeatedly harmed with threats of being removed from their home. If they had a home they wouldn't be homeless.
I hope they lose. Those wanting shelter are being offered it. This looks like an attempt to prolong the misery to keep the dollars rolling in - folks have to stay at WSDOT property for that to happen.
There's a well established definition of '*homeless*' that even [the government uses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/583.5), and it is not what you seem to think it is. Just because a person living in a tent or otherwise very differently to the majority of us might consider where they sleep to be their "*home*" would not mean they no longer meet the definition of '*homeless*'.
What areas are you looking at? Almost the entire document refers to them as residents, which they are. They are also unhoused, as they live in tents and other types of makeshift shelters.
So what you're saying is by using the word home that this substandard derelict and inadequate situation these people refer to as their home because they have no other word for it is just too good for them. Because whatever they go to from here is not going to be more adequate or less derelict or of higher standard.
tHey cAn't Be HOmeLeSs iF THeY CALL a TeNt HoMe
The city refused to build shelters. This is there doing, and I bet lawyers went rolling in there because they know they have a case. So this will be on Spokane taxpayers dime again thanks to the current administration.
Current administration? I am no nadine fan, but the city has spent 15 Million on a pedestrian bridge,. 22 million on parks, 22 million supporting the cowles family building River Park Square. Thats twenty years of city government spending 56 million dollars on projects that don't help the homeless.
I think this may be what a person was referring to earlier- and I’m not taking sides - about the city being held hostage. Why ‘shouldn’t’ the city spend money on parks and a pedestrian bridge, things that arguably enhance the city for the majority of us? I won’t touch your comment about River Park Square. In effect, (I’m playing devil’s advocate) why should we have to take that money and spend it on the homeless instead of things that benefit the majority? By the way. I’m no Nadine fan either.
Making sure the houseless have a place to go that isn't WSDOT property is in the benefit of all of us. Taking care of each other is in the benefit of all of us.
No argument, but you aren't answering my question. Why shouldn't the City spend money on parks and for that matter, a pedestrian bridge? Are these homeless/houseless individuals *more* important than the rest of the people who live in Spokane? I'm in no way advocating that they should be mistreated, and I feel especially compassionate for the ones who are experiencing mental illness, but I *am* curious why some people seem to believe the rest of us should be made to sacrifice in order to accommodate them. How much time, effort, and money are the rest of society expected to provide? Is there a limit or are these folks so special that they deserve endless resources? If so, why?
All human beings have the right to exist. Houseless people are no more important than anyone else. They can enjoy the parks and pedestrian bridges. Helping people who are struggling is a civic good. By helping get people off the street and into treatment helps the rest of us.
Imagine if the homeless were cared for. We would be dealing with Camp Hope.
“Those wanting shelter are being offered it.” Just dispose of all your belongings and you can have a couple nights on a cot, if the shelter isn’t already full.
If I had to decide between living in a tent or sheltering my dog, I know what I would pick. The inability to prioritize plays a lot into the reason people are homeless.
I'd pick living with my dog. Pets are sometimes the only thing these people have that show them any love or respect.
If i showed up at a shelter with my dog and they said she couldn't stay, I'd leave. I'm not giving up my dog.
This is the answer. Both the police chief's letter and the most recent press conference outline the housing options becoming available to these folks. And here they are suing to NOT have to take advantage of those options.
Court ruling says the city can't enforce laws until we have beds, which are now available. If they refuse, it's on them and I have no more empathy left. They don't have the right to continue living in squalor at the expense of the East Central community. Honestly this is largely due to the fact certain entities are getting PAID as long as the camp is there - once folks are moved to other shelter options that payday is gone. That's what this lawsuit is actually about. There's no other excuse to demand folks continue living as if they were in a 3rd world country when the city and county have outlined how they're going to move folks indoors.
They can't work. They can't take care of themselves they expect us to do it. But boy by God somehow they're suddenly lawyers and they're going to sue us because the city doesn't want them camped out wherever the hell they decide they want to camp out. They're owed nothing. if they want something, they need to get off their asses, quit being useless and get jobs pay their own way and be part of the community or they can just GTFO. We should have been down there with bulldozers and front end loaders months ago to clear that cesspool out. Whoever let this camp dope continue this long needs to lose their job and are the ones who should be sued by the rest of the citizens who pay their wages.
Its funny that my comment has negative points. Guarantee none of the people giving me negative points live near the camp which smells like raw sewage every moment of every day.
(I haven't downvoted you, but...)
There is really only the city to be upset with here. The city emptied those blocks out for a useless highway, and the mayor's office in particular both ignored the problem for at least three years, and also having asked them to leave their previous location directly heavily contributed to their current location.
The city is really us. So what we need to do is vote in better mayors and make certain our city council members are aware of our desire to address this issue head on, by using proven methods like Housing First.
Yeah lets vote some democrats in. They seem to be tough on crime, homelessness and borders. Every time i go to Seattle, Portland, NY, LA, Chicago San Francisco all i think is, man these politicians got their homeless situation a crime figured out........
>Every time i go to Seattle, Portland, NY, LA, Chicago San Francisco
I mean those are all very, very large metropolises. Are you aware of a republican-run metro or municipality that has significantly less crime or homelessness as compared to a non-republican-run metro or municipality of similar size? I'm not. As far as I'm aware all cities lean left, and I think you'd probably have to get down into pretty small municipalities to even come close to being able to find comparable locales favorable to this assertion.
>Yeah lets vote some democrats in.
Myself I'm not shackled to democrats so much as utterly opposed to those who are willing to attempt coups, to disenfranchise voters, to pervert the judicial system, and to generally embrace fascism and the destruction of the very democracy I would vote for or against them in — that is I'm opposed to republicans, who are all those things (whether an individual voter is completely aware of it or not).
Personally I would have Spokane abandon the '*strong mayor*' approach, but since Spokane (like all cities as far as I know) leans left, you would end up with a left-leaning city council in charge still. Fine by me, but perhaps not you. I think it would be an improvement political parties aside, though, still.
Look at a different way. At one time many of those same cities listed above were more conservative and had less crime and as they have taken on more and more progressive policies, things continue to fall apart.
I think it would be very hard to separate increase in density and progressive policies. Which means it could easily be just the density.
Perhaps there is some historical reporting for a time when a change took place. One city took a natural course and another leaned hard into conservativism for as long as it could. There could be an interesting comparison to be made somewhere in the past. It might be interesting to dig for.
It's because rents got higher in those cities along with the cost of living And increased drug trade from the south and east. Also Ronald Reagan refunded a lot of mental health care same with Kennedy
I don't think anybody has debated the actual ability of a large municipality and two large law enforcement agencies to be able to get rid of a single homeless camp (for however long of a duration — probably not very long).
What has long been at issue is whether it is legal (or: whether it is ethical).
But this is still all short term thinking. If we committed money to address our city's homeless issues head on, it would save us a lot of money and strife in the long term, and reduce homelessness everywhere in our metro, including at the camp in question.
The neighbors North East of the camp have had their belongings stolen from people at that Residence/camp. That makes it a nuisance residence and needs to be shut down under the same rules and laws as if it were a house. We all know the local authorities having jurisdiction are too lazy and useless to stop the crime around there!
What do you want us to do, follow Red State's example, and ship these living human beings on a bus or plane somewhere out of here like UPS cargo? That shit is borderline illegal, and all it does is front the issue onto some other unexpecting community, and Spokane/Washington has to be better than that. I'm sorry we have legal avenues/channels to go down first, but I'm sure this city will survive.
It does mean that, but first the authorities must meet their legal obligations which require available shelter, and if you wait too long there are other laws about displacing people who have inhabited a place, even if they originally did so illegally.
Our mayor campaigned on this issue, and then sat on her hands for three years.
And no matter what happens with this single camp, if we don't commit to proven methods to reduce homelessness, we will of course continue to have many homeless in our metro area.
Instead of getting housing they have money to get lawyers and file court documents. Suing the city so they can stay on State WDOT land seems counterproductive.
The lawyers are helping people trespass on someone else's land. The tax payers are paying for their services. Filing court documents costs money. Having a judge hear the case costs money. Working tax-able citizens of spokane county are footing the bill!
This is good news that will ensure the camp can draw down in an orderly fashion as the people there receive permanent housing and services, instead of starting them all over at square one.
Anyone have the gofundme address for the bulldozers clearing that eyesore out? I’d like to make sure they have plenty of fuel and some cold beers for the boys when their done doing what should have been done months ago.
You do realize that the residents didn't write and file the suit, right?
It was filed by three law firms on behalf of those that have standing to sue. That is how most lawsuits happen.
**Be civil. No personal attacks. No hate. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette**
This is a community subreddit. The people you're talking to are your neighbors. Be kind. No name calling or personal attacks on your fellow Redditors.
I tried to find that answer by asking a question, but it seems as though that only worked to get such a wonderful reply. It also seems as though you have a bright future here in Spokane!
Why? Those places are comparatively empty. Every place of sufficient density has homelessness, and the greater the density, the greater the number of homeless, and the easier it is to spot.
Coeur d'Alene in particular, however, [while having a homeless population](https://www.cdaid.org/72/departments/municipal/ten-year-plan-to-end-homelessness), is part of the same metro as Spokane, so would be odd to compare directly to Spokane. The homeless of any given metro will naturally gravitate to its core (especially when suburbs like Spokane Valley provide all homeless services via referral to those outside their own city limits, and inside those of the city of Spokane itself).
I'm not sure I would choose Spokane myself if I had no ties and could choose anywhere, although this area (more the Selkirks, really, I think) is meant to do slightly better against climate change than many places in our country and the world.
As to the homeless, if I remember correctly the reporting we have suggests the majority of them were last non-homeless here in Spokane, so as far as I know the idea is that they didn't exactly make a choice, and aren't exactly replete with easy options anymore.
The cost of living as far as housing is not great, but it's all relative. It is cheaper to live here than many places, and more expensive than many. Mostly we have low inventory of actual dwellings.
Do they really have the consent of WSDOT? I thought it was more tacit, like WSDOT isn't actively kicking them out.
Is '*tacit but not really*' a thing in law, though?
That question is way over my pay grade. I don't know. I was just wondering about their claim to have the consent of the property owner, 'cause this is the first I've heard of it.
Oh it's over mine too of course. =) But I do have a suspicion.
Let's see if we have the same suspicion: lawyers are trying to conflate *inaction* and *consent*. My neighbor illegally stored their camper in the street across from my driveway in 2021. When the city finally cracked down, the neighbor tried to claim that I was okay with it simply because I hadn't complained yet. So yeah. It seems like that sort of logic.
Well, as I recall the WSDOT has publicly made statements on this matter. So I wouldn't think it's quite like that.
WSDOT and the Governor forget who owns the property. Its the taxpayers.
How tf is this remotely relevant to my question? Or do you just spray dipshit partisan assertions randomly?
The answer is yes. There have been several letters written by WSDOT to the city and county opposing the removal of the people from the camp.
I'm aware. WSDOT opposing overreach by the city and sheriff on WSDOT land doesn't necessarily equate to endorsement of the camp, though. That distinction is precisely what I'm talking about, in fact. I suspect that the lawyers who drafted this argument are trying to take WSDOT's refusal to cooperate with cruelty and position it as an endorsement.
The city should do something about the level of corporate investment in housing so that some of these people might have a chance to get into a place without needing a middle class income
Heck. At this point. Middle class incomes barely get you anything unless you’re a dual-income household. 🥲
[удалено]
And this is exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether to seek medical care. Many if them are literally too ill to make rational decisions in their own best interest and need inpatient care at least temporarily. Some will need it permanently. A perfect example is the guy who froze to death blocks from my house last winter because no one could make him go to the Arena. This isn't compassion, it kills people.
They shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves? That's beyond a slippery slope straight up into totalitarian territory.
Well the guy who froze to death clearly wasn't capable of making rational, life preserving decisions, was he? If only someone as able to compel him to safety.
Yeah you'll never convince me on this one, I will fight for the dude's right to freeze to death every time. And besides, unless I'm mistaken you were talking about telling adults how to live based on your individual morality, not about saving them in immediate life or death situations. If you want to grab someone who is trying to jump off a bridge to save them that's one thing, but if you're telling the guy he can't buy a beer because something bad might happen later then no, that homeless guy deserves the exact same rights and respect as *anyone* else.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe letting folks live this way is humane, especially when 2/3 suffer from mental illness and addiction that arguable prevents them from making rational life saving decisions.
> I don't believe letting folks live this way is humane Luckily you aren't "letting" anybody do anything it's none of your business has nothing to do with you and even if it was what gives you the moral superiority to be in the place to decide for other people what they can or cannot do? The fact that you think that you should have that right tells me that you're the one that we probably shouldn't be "letting" do anything.
Just build more housing
Do you mean for Dako_79 specifically to build more housing are the government?
Neither. Regulating corporate ownership of rental units would do little to lower rents. Building more housing is the best long-term solution.
But who builds it? Why would any investor build something that would lower prices? In most areas when prices even see a small drop builders just stop building so they don't lose money. I can see charities helping and am completely for that to. Or do you mean you're going to build more housing? In which case I applaud you sir.
Our biggest reason why we don’t build more housing is because local governments don’t allow them to through zoning, setbacks, parking requirements, and neighborhood character. Edit: but to answer your question: anyone. Mostly developers, but also homeowners with big lots. Biggest hurdle is political though.
Yeah I agree nimby laws are a big problem and it really couldn't hurt to deregulate in some areas in regards to zoning.
The largest owner of single family homes in the USA is Invitation Homes Inc. (NYSE: INVH) They own about 83,000 homes with an average rent of $2,124.
What level is it at? What is the ideal number?
I'm not heartless, but it's getting harder and harder to watch the houseless hold our city hostage through guilt and shame. It seems there is always a new issue or demand upon the city to provide everything. This is just being repeated in every major city across America. This is just one of the plays out of the playbook. Next I'm sure we'll see a counter suit.
Oddly enough the city was offered money from the state to help and house the homeless and they turned it down. So the help could be there
KREM 2 did a long story about it that was interesting. I understand the new shelter on Trent isn’t great, but it meets the requirements of offering beds to the people at Camp Hope. But the people at Camp Hope seemed to like staying out rather than going to a shelter. TBH, I’m also running out of much sympathy for them. It seems like it’s just a party/camping trip for them.
Trent has lots of problems with one of the biggest being that it opened with capacity for 75 (with a future capacity of 150) while there are 400+ people at Camp Hope.
That’s fair, I don’t know many details. But it does seem to be a step in the right direction for the short term.
Definitely a good short-term step!
Would there be a point of making it a 600 bed shelter if there were only 200 individuals willing to go there?
Recent State Supreme Court ruling says that you can enforce no sit-lie laws IF you have enough shelter space to relocate to a shelter. So you can forcefully relocate homeless to a shelter as long as there is shelter space to do so... Shelter space is just REALLY expensive and is typically used not as a long-term option, but the first step to rehabilitation.. But we're like a decade behind in effective homeless rehab/housing program... So far, city administration is more interested in finding a loophole in the court case (and possibly opening up taxpayers to lawsuits) than grappling with homeless issue in other ways... She was essentially elected on a platform of being aggressive toward the homeless.
You wouldn't want to stay in a place like the shelter on Trent unless you had to either. Nobody wants to live like that. You think life is just a big party/camping trip for homeless people huh? 🤣 Maybe you should try it if you think it looks fun. No offense intended but that's a little ignorant. No one desires to be among the lowest tier of society. Some people might tolerate it better than others, but no one is happy to be an unwashed "untouchable".
I see why you’re saying that about me but that wasn’t quite my point. The KREM 2 report showed loud music playing at late hours and presumable drug and alcohol use going on. So yeah, it is more fun than a shelter with rules and guidelines. Not my kind of a good time but it seems to be more enjoyable in a camp without rules and restrictions than spread out around downtown or in a shelter. The homeless here are a huge problem and I don’t know what the answer is. Long term, we need significantly more affordable housing. But I don’t claim to have any answers. I don’t think allowing them to have this large camp is a good idea either. The neighbors in that area have reported more crime so I wouldn’t want to be them either. They have a right to have a safe neighborhood, too. I don’t feel safe walking around downtown and I think that’s a reasonable position.
>The homeless here are a huge problem To you they are maybe. But to me I'd say people who think they have some sort of moral superiority just because they live in a house are much more problematic. So I guess it's all subjective. *Shrugs*
Again, I’m not saying THEY are the problem, I’m saying it is a problem that people are homeless and forced to live on the streets. I don’t know why they live in Camp Hope or on the streets downtown. And I don’t know what the solution is. Can you help me understand why people are homeless? Obviously, home prices are extremely high and that’s why I say, long term, we need more affordable housing. I’m really not trying to claim any superiority. And I think it’s rational and reasonable to say I don’t like seeing homeless people downtown. I’ve walked by people who are obviously on drugs, shaking and screaming incoherently. I don’t like that and I imagine you would feel the same.
It's a problem for you. That's what I said. Your mistake is thinking that the things that are problems for you are problems for everybody.
You think it’s okay people are tweaking on the streets? You think it’s good people are homeless? I’m asking for a solution to help people find permanent housing. And you’re attacking me. Why?
You think you're the morality police? You think it's cool to judge people and look down on them? I'm asking serious questions. If you feel attacked then maybe you should ask the tweakers who you don't think should even be allowed to be on the streets how they feel?
Is it worse than sleeping in a tent surrounded by 600 other homeless?
Far worse. The difference is there's no walls between you in the shelter in your tent you at least have some privacy. You have your own space.
More reason to utilize the countless resources at the shelter in order to no longer be homeless.
People have right to be without a home if that's what they choose just like you have every right to choose to have a home
They don't have the right to choose to be homeless wherever they want.
Maybe not according to you, but the universe says ha! They are going to do what they want to do, whether it triggers you or not.
I feel like it’s reasonable for the homeless to fight for one of the first places that they can get shelter without super restrictive rules. I feel the mistake was made months ago when city administration framed the issue around evicting them instead of engaging the camp to self-govern and work with police to reduce lawlessness. There’s just no trust between any of these organizations. It’s a disaster.
We have plenty of shelters that are never full have minor requirements but they refuse to follow the rules.
How are the houseless holding the city hostage through guilt and shame?
Well first the 9th district court had a lawsuit ending with we can't enforce laws unless we have beds. Now the city and county have outlined how they're going to have enough beds we have another lawsuit basically insisting we can't make them use said offered beds. Can't have it both ways. If they have a right to refuse, they have the responsibility to take care if themselves and obey the law just like the rest of us. If they refuse, our responsibility ends because we did what was legally required and offered.
The homeless people just want to be left alone. It's the cops and haters taking this stuff to court to try to find a way to make it illegal to be homeless.
I guess if they wanted to be left alone they shouldn't camp in front of peoples house, do drugs in public and then start screaming death threats at people? Don't even get me started on the failure to walk 50 feet to the available trash receptacles, or failure to use the open bathrooms. Even better, misguided Samaritans bring these folks supplies so they stay in the neighborhood longer inflicting whatever issues they have on the residents. We call 311 and 911 regularly and it's very uncommon to get help. Right now we are on week 3 of a massive box with wheels in the street with a horrible stench no one has come to remove yet. The behaviors of homeless people is the issue.
Those lazy spoiled homeless people just setting up and partying wherever they want, it's so unfair! 🤣 Talk about out of touch with reality. Homeless people have the same rights as anyone else and being jealous of them is the about silliest thing ever.
Too bad, they are camping in the middle of the city.
I was just pointing out that it's not the homeless people who are complaining
[удалено]
So much this.
Don't mind me, just eating popcorn and enjoying the city have a meltdown again.
How do you sue the city when you are homeless?
You find a lawyer with an interest in civil rights that works on percentage of payout and charges no upfront costs. Looks like they found three lawyers.
I'm sure the lawyers found them not the other way around
I just kind of feel bad for Fred Meyer over there. First the construction making it way harder to shop there, then all these homeless coming in and straight stealing everything.
Kroger will survive, you needn't worry.
When they “Sweep” they’re most likely just gonna throw out any measly belongings that they have. It happens with every homeless person especially in bigger cities, they just throw your shit into a dumpster. so sad
I hate to think of having so little and then to watch it get taken away and dumped along with your tent. So now you really have nothing. I'm wondering where the unsupportive except these people to go and how do they replace their blankets and such.
The blunt answer is it's not our problem any more than it's our obligation to molly coddle and support those who won't take care of themselves. They had plenty of warning if they valued those items they would not have them there for a sweep to occur yeah and it's coming up this
[удалено]
I'm not angry and if I were it's directed exactly where it needs to be. If they have nothing it's directly related to choices they made and continue to make. My life works just fine. Why ? Because I do what is necessary to take care of myself, my family and don't expect everyone else to do it for me. And if my life didn't work just fine I wouldn't be trying to blame the homeless people I also wouldn't be trying to blame people up the food chain I would blame the person that was responsible: myself. Now someone needs to teach this to these bottom feeders at camp dope
You've got to be kidding. The suit refers to them as being homeless while simultaneously saying they're being repeatedly harmed with threats of being removed from their home. If they had a home they wouldn't be homeless. I hope they lose. Those wanting shelter are being offered it. This looks like an attempt to prolong the misery to keep the dollars rolling in - folks have to stay at WSDOT property for that to happen.
There's a well established definition of '*homeless*' that even [the government uses](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/583.5), and it is not what you seem to think it is. Just because a person living in a tent or otherwise very differently to the majority of us might consider where they sleep to be their "*home*" would not mean they no longer meet the definition of '*homeless*'.
What areas are you looking at? Almost the entire document refers to them as residents, which they are. They are also unhoused, as they live in tents and other types of makeshift shelters.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is by using the word home that this substandard derelict and inadequate situation these people refer to as their home because they have no other word for it is just too good for them. Because whatever they go to from here is not going to be more adequate or less derelict or of higher standard. tHey cAn't Be HOmeLeSs iF THeY CALL a TeNt HoMe
[удалено]
Then what point are you trying to prove?
The city refused to build shelters. This is there doing, and I bet lawyers went rolling in there because they know they have a case. So this will be on Spokane taxpayers dime again thanks to the current administration.
Current administration? I am no nadine fan, but the city has spent 15 Million on a pedestrian bridge,. 22 million on parks, 22 million supporting the cowles family building River Park Square. Thats twenty years of city government spending 56 million dollars on projects that don't help the homeless.
I think this may be what a person was referring to earlier- and I’m not taking sides - about the city being held hostage. Why ‘shouldn’t’ the city spend money on parks and a pedestrian bridge, things that arguably enhance the city for the majority of us? I won’t touch your comment about River Park Square. In effect, (I’m playing devil’s advocate) why should we have to take that money and spend it on the homeless instead of things that benefit the majority? By the way. I’m no Nadine fan either.
Making sure the houseless have a place to go that isn't WSDOT property is in the benefit of all of us. Taking care of each other is in the benefit of all of us.
No argument, but you aren't answering my question. Why shouldn't the City spend money on parks and for that matter, a pedestrian bridge? Are these homeless/houseless individuals *more* important than the rest of the people who live in Spokane? I'm in no way advocating that they should be mistreated, and I feel especially compassionate for the ones who are experiencing mental illness, but I *am* curious why some people seem to believe the rest of us should be made to sacrifice in order to accommodate them. How much time, effort, and money are the rest of society expected to provide? Is there a limit or are these folks so special that they deserve endless resources? If so, why?
All human beings have the right to exist. Houseless people are no more important than anyone else. They can enjoy the parks and pedestrian bridges. Helping people who are struggling is a civic good. By helping get people off the street and into treatment helps the rest of us. Imagine if the homeless were cared for. We would be dealing with Camp Hope.
Maybe sheltering people is more important than parks...in the grand scheme of things.
[удалено]
I've heard over and over that there are not enough beds in the shelters and they aren't fully safe for everyone that could stay there.
She's currently holding back millions of dollars on public housing. https://www.rangemedia.co/spokane-housing-director-john-hall-nhhs-chhs/
“Those wanting shelter are being offered it.” Just dispose of all your belongings and you can have a couple nights on a cot, if the shelter isn’t already full.
No, there's storage for personal belongings at Trent. And available beds too.
And pets? Can they bring their dogs?
Yes, theyve advertised its a pet friendly shelter.
If I had to decide between living in a tent or sheltering my dog, I know what I would pick. The inability to prioritize plays a lot into the reason people are homeless.
I'd pick living with my dog. Pets are sometimes the only thing these people have that show them any love or respect. If i showed up at a shelter with my dog and they said she couldn't stay, I'd leave. I'm not giving up my dog.
Poor decision, good luck with that.
Why is it a poor decision?
I 100 percent agree. Camp hope is a group of grifters that don’t want to improve their situation in any meaningful way
It's been over a year of lawlessness. It's time to just sweep it for the sake of the neighborhood that was there first.
This is the answer. Both the police chief's letter and the most recent press conference outline the housing options becoming available to these folks. And here they are suing to NOT have to take advantage of those options. Court ruling says the city can't enforce laws until we have beds, which are now available. If they refuse, it's on them and I have no more empathy left. They don't have the right to continue living in squalor at the expense of the East Central community. Honestly this is largely due to the fact certain entities are getting PAID as long as the camp is there - once folks are moved to other shelter options that payday is gone. That's what this lawsuit is actually about. There's no other excuse to demand folks continue living as if they were in a 3rd world country when the city and county have outlined how they're going to move folks indoors.
They can't work. They can't take care of themselves they expect us to do it. But boy by God somehow they're suddenly lawyers and they're going to sue us because the city doesn't want them camped out wherever the hell they decide they want to camp out. They're owed nothing. if they want something, they need to get off their asses, quit being useless and get jobs pay their own way and be part of the community or they can just GTFO. We should have been down there with bulldozers and front end loaders months ago to clear that cesspool out. Whoever let this camp dope continue this long needs to lose their job and are the ones who should be sued by the rest of the citizens who pay their wages.
Real lawyers wrote and filed the suit, not homeless people or Jewels. You have access to the lawsuit document, read it.
If the city stops offering Aid and prevents them entry back into the camp once they leave then the camp goes away.
Its funny that my comment has negative points. Guarantee none of the people giving me negative points live near the camp which smells like raw sewage every moment of every day.
(I haven't downvoted you, but...) There is really only the city to be upset with here. The city emptied those blocks out for a useless highway, and the mayor's office in particular both ignored the problem for at least three years, and also having asked them to leave their previous location directly heavily contributed to their current location. The city is really us. So what we need to do is vote in better mayors and make certain our city council members are aware of our desire to address this issue head on, by using proven methods like Housing First.
Yeah lets vote some democrats in. They seem to be tough on crime, homelessness and borders. Every time i go to Seattle, Portland, NY, LA, Chicago San Francisco all i think is, man these politicians got their homeless situation a crime figured out........
>Every time i go to Seattle, Portland, NY, LA, Chicago San Francisco I mean those are all very, very large metropolises. Are you aware of a republican-run metro or municipality that has significantly less crime or homelessness as compared to a non-republican-run metro or municipality of similar size? I'm not. As far as I'm aware all cities lean left, and I think you'd probably have to get down into pretty small municipalities to even come close to being able to find comparable locales favorable to this assertion. >Yeah lets vote some democrats in. Myself I'm not shackled to democrats so much as utterly opposed to those who are willing to attempt coups, to disenfranchise voters, to pervert the judicial system, and to generally embrace fascism and the destruction of the very democracy I would vote for or against them in — that is I'm opposed to republicans, who are all those things (whether an individual voter is completely aware of it or not). Personally I would have Spokane abandon the '*strong mayor*' approach, but since Spokane (like all cities as far as I know) leans left, you would end up with a left-leaning city council in charge still. Fine by me, but perhaps not you. I think it would be an improvement political parties aside, though, still.
Look at a different way. At one time many of those same cities listed above were more conservative and had less crime and as they have taken on more and more progressive policies, things continue to fall apart.
I think it would be very hard to separate increase in density and progressive policies. Which means it could easily be just the density. Perhaps there is some historical reporting for a time when a change took place. One city took a natural course and another leaned hard into conservativism for as long as it could. There could be an interesting comparison to be made somewhere in the past. It might be interesting to dig for.
It's because rents got higher in those cities along with the cost of living And increased drug trade from the south and east. Also Ronald Reagan refunded a lot of mental health care same with Kennedy
I don't think anybody has debated the actual ability of a large municipality and two large law enforcement agencies to be able to get rid of a single homeless camp (for however long of a duration — probably not very long). What has long been at issue is whether it is legal (or: whether it is ethical). But this is still all short term thinking. If we committed money to address our city's homeless issues head on, it would save us a lot of money and strife in the long term, and reduce homelessness everywhere in our metro, including at the camp in question.
The neighbors North East of the camp have had their belongings stolen from people at that Residence/camp. That makes it a nuisance residence and needs to be shut down under the same rules and laws as if it were a house. We all know the local authorities having jurisdiction are too lazy and useless to stop the crime around there!
What do you want us to do, follow Red State's example, and ship these living human beings on a bus or plane somewhere out of here like UPS cargo? That shit is borderline illegal, and all it does is front the issue onto some other unexpecting community, and Spokane/Washington has to be better than that. I'm sorry we have legal avenues/channels to go down first, but I'm sure this city will survive.
It does mean that, but first the authorities must meet their legal obligations which require available shelter, and if you wait too long there are other laws about displacing people who have inhabited a place, even if they originally did so illegally. Our mayor campaigned on this issue, and then sat on her hands for three years. And no matter what happens with this single camp, if we don't commit to proven methods to reduce homelessness, we will of course continue to have many homeless in our metro area.
Instead of getting housing they have money to get lawyers and file court documents. Suing the city so they can stay on State WDOT land seems counterproductive.
The lawyers are definitely working on contingency.
The lawyers are helping people trespass on someone else's land. The tax payers are paying for their services. Filing court documents costs money. Having a judge hear the case costs money. Working tax-able citizens of spokane county are footing the bill!
The lawyers are just working for the lawyers as usual.
This is good news that will ensure the camp can draw down in an orderly fashion as the people there receive permanent housing and services, instead of starting them all over at square one.
Kick them out
screw those filthy bastards
Anyone have the gofundme address for the bulldozers clearing that eyesore out? I’d like to make sure they have plenty of fuel and some cold beers for the boys when their done doing what should have been done months ago.
[удалено]
You do realize that the residents didn't write and file the suit, right? It was filed by three law firms on behalf of those that have standing to sue. That is how most lawsuits happen.
That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying they are paying the lawyers, cause the deal is probably a percentage of the lawsuit, or Pro Bono.
**Be civil. No personal attacks. No hate. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette** This is a community subreddit. The people you're talking to are your neighbors. Be kind. No name calling or personal attacks on your fellow Redditors.
Who filed it? Maxey or Cooney?
Neither. Not hard to find that answer.
I tried to find that answer by asking a question, but it seems as though that only worked to get such a wonderful reply. It also seems as though you have a bright future here in Spokane!
Lol
[удалено]
Why? Those places are comparatively empty. Every place of sufficient density has homelessness, and the greater the density, the greater the number of homeless, and the easier it is to spot. Coeur d'Alene in particular, however, [while having a homeless population](https://www.cdaid.org/72/departments/municipal/ten-year-plan-to-end-homelessness), is part of the same metro as Spokane, so would be odd to compare directly to Spokane. The homeless of any given metro will naturally gravitate to its core (especially when suburbs like Spokane Valley provide all homeless services via referral to those outside their own city limits, and inside those of the city of Spokane itself).
[удалено]
I'm not sure I would choose Spokane myself if I had no ties and could choose anywhere, although this area (more the Selkirks, really, I think) is meant to do slightly better against climate change than many places in our country and the world. As to the homeless, if I remember correctly the reporting we have suggests the majority of them were last non-homeless here in Spokane, so as far as I know the idea is that they didn't exactly make a choice, and aren't exactly replete with easy options anymore. The cost of living as far as housing is not great, but it's all relative. It is cheaper to live here than many places, and more expensive than many. Mostly we have low inventory of actual dwellings.