Tent City4, NIMBY or: How to successfully bully the government

The BBQ Pit
1

King County Executive Ron Sims gave a permit to a group of 100 homeless men and women represented by SHARE and WHEEL. According to the article linked above, and from my conversations with local legislator Toby Nixon, the groups threatened to “occupy” some public park unless they were given somewhere, so Ron Sims chose…my neighborhood.

We - I mean the local area residents - found out about it on Friday the 1st. The tent city will begin to move in this Friday. Toby Nixon said the King County council was unaware of it. He himself (though he is a legislator in Olympia, not on the county council) didn’t know about it himself (and he lives within 2 miles of me, which counts as being in this same neighborhood) until he heard about it in the newspaper on Friday.

So tonight there was an “Informational Meeting” at a local church gymnasium. It was standing room only, angry, angry residents. It was not a Town Hall. They weren’t asking our opinion about what we thing of 100 people squatting in tents along our main road to the highway, right next to the park and ride. They were, in the opinion of several of the more vocal residents in the audience, feeding us propaganda.

There were shouts from the audience about ‘due process’, unanswered questions about wastewater, trash pickup, and other general health concerns. A lot of worry about increase in criminal activity in our neighborhood, reduced property values…and oh yeah, why was the community not even consulted via the democratic process? We know churches have been inviting these Tent Cities, and that they report good experiences with them, but they invited them. It was their choice. They were allowed to take as long as they wished to come to their decision, after reassuring themselves that it was a good choice. Plus it’s a very Christian sort of thing to do, taking care of those less fortunate, and so on. We didn’t invite them. Hell, we didn’t even know until it was too late.

As someone said, and I agree, it’s not that we the residents of this neighborhood have anything against homeless folks. It’s got to suck to be homeless, and I hope there would be help available to me if I ever found myself in that situation and family could not assist. But we do object strenuously to King County simply deciding to grant a permit - a PARADE permit no less - to a large group of people to permit them to squat in a residential subdivision for 90 days, without so much as a discussion with the residents of the area, nor any indication that police presence will be increased, hygiene will be maintained, and ‘residents’ of the tents are indeed no menace to our children (3 schools within walking distance).

Several representatives from churches who have hosted Tent Cities in the past were there, reassuring residents that they had good experiences after inviting the Tent Cities onto their properties.

What the site offers:

A fire hydrant to provide them (presumably County-funded) water.
A county public health department office within walking distance.
Access to public transportation, for those who have jobs.
Adequate space for 100 tents.

What the site does not offer:

Electricity (that I know of) for those tent residents who have televisions (as shown in the clip in the news)
Shower facilities.
Grocery facilities within walking distance (there is a 7-11 within walking distance one direction, and a small convenience store roughly equidistant in the other direction, but the prices are typical CS prices, not at all conducive to people saving money, getting on their feet, and renting an apartment, etc.)
An invitation from the local community.

Questions I would like to see answered (but when I called Ron Sim’s office to register my displeasure, I was given the phone number for SHARE’s flak guy and hung up on):

What will be done if crimes begin in our neighborhood, which can be traced back (or are suspected as traced back) to the squatters?

WHEEL/SHARE claim that the communities are “self policing” and that every resident is screened to exclude sex offenders. They say alcohol and loitering are prohibited by the code of conduct. What if people do loiter? What if the guys at the 7-11 see them coming in to buy beer etc? And what, god forbid, if people come along and start joining in at the camp site, who are not screened, and are a threat to locals, children or otherwise?

What if the Tent City does not move, or not everyone moves, or due to red tape or perseverence or god knows what? One of my neighbors is a police officer, and she said it took months for Redmond police to evict squatters in the woods in Redmond, and several of them turned out to be level 2 and 3 sex offenders.

I have small children. I’m worried. And I really despise King County government for governing by fiat, bowing to the pressure of specialty groups, granting a ridiculous permit under said pressure, and then expecting us to welcome 100 strangers with no obligations or ties to literally camp on our doorsteps…with open arms.

2

Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see anything about toilet facilities. That would be an issue for me if I was living in the “tent city” or living near the “tent city.”

3

Another interesting factoid: The site of this tent city is going to literally be right next door to a park and ride where there will be hundreds of unattended cars just sitting around all day.

4

You want to know what to do?

Get up off your ass and make sure that if these people are going to be there, that they get a clean and safe environment. Get the residents together and demonstrate against your official to ensure that your demands are met. If they are going to be there, the best way to protect your community is to ensure that the people in the Tent city don’t have need to go out and rob, and that their environment is kept clean.

A NIMBY attitude will only shift the problem elsewhere, rahter than trying to solve it. If, as you have stated, there has been no problems reported form other tent developments, then what makes your situation any different?

5

I live in your neighborhood. That’s my freeway exit and I run to that 7-11 for milk. I’m not unhappy about the tent city. I think it provides a neccesary service to people that is not available elsewhere. I’m a little confused as to why that location, it’s not very urban and has little in the way of services. But I support it.

6

As far as I know, there will be Porta Potties in place for dealing with human waste, but I’m still unclear about other waste and sanitation issues. As for making sure they don’t have to go out and rob, how is anyone to assure that? Does the government have an obligation to bring anyone 3 meals a day, and so forth, to assure that they won’t go out and steal? I had been under the impression, rather, that this group is determined to be as independent as possible. And if not the government, then who? Do the local churches have an obligation to provide food? Do I?

Look, if thse folks are working and trying to support themselves the best they can, that’s all anybody can ask of them. But suppose there’s a percentage who don’t, won’t? (I won’t say “can’t” because people who can’t work clearly need to be supported) - who then has an obligation to keep them happy and fed so they won’t “have” to go out and steal?

Well, the representatives of the churches reported no problems. Rumor suggests however that while the “registered” inhabitants of the tent city are good citizens and good neighbors, in Lake City at least the presence of the tent city attracted other folks who were not such good neighbors. I am still unclear as to how the governing body of the tent city intends to keep out non-members, or how it deals with offenders.

And the difference is this: when you invite someone in (as the churches have done), you can uninvite them if there are problems. When somebody is quartered with you, so to speak, you cannot uninvite them because the situation is out of your hands. It’s a critical difference. I suppose if there are problems we will have to…appeal to the government, the same one that created this situation. Pardon me if I’m cynical about their responsiveness.

7

I can understand your frustration about not being consulted, but I am wondering why you are automatically assuming that homeless people = criminals? Or that they are a danger to your small children just by virtue of them being homeless? Where are you getting these ideas?

Well how can it be assured that you or any of your neighbors go out and steal? By offering them a place to live and water and facilities, isn’t this lessening the chances of them having to steal as opposed to if they were on the streets?

So if you are so against this, then what is your solution? Where would you have them go then? Or would you just like it to be “out of sight, out of mind?”

8

Ooops, I meant “Well how can it be assured that you or any of your neighbors don’t go out and steal?”

9

“Does the government have an obligation to bring anyone 3 meals a day, and so forth, to assure that they won’t go out and steal?”

Well, in a word, YES. See, that is why it is a “society” in which we all live together and we kinda have to make sure everybody has something to eat, because, people, damn them, will not go away somewhere and die of starvation quietly and out of sight.

10

In my town we had a homeless camp along the river for many years. It, too, was a self-policing drug and alcohol free environment. They knew their situation was tenuous, and they didn’t want to lose what little they had. Plus, they knew the camp was safe (unlike sleeping on the streets) and worked hard to maintain that safety.

Overall, it worked pretty well. They built the infrastructure they needed (sanitation facilities, mostly) on their own and brought the camp up to city codes. It wasn’t a center of crime or anything like that. The city even scheduled bus routes to serve the camp so that people could get to food, jobs, etc.

They dismantled it, amid much public protest, for some city redevelopment (the camp was on a river parkway they want to turn into a prominade). But it was a hard decision for a city that had found a way to keep it’s homeless safe and residents who no longer had to trip over people sleeping in doorfronts.

11

I think this is the main problem the OP has with the decision there is/was no time to address these concerns the city is coming in 3 days.

I think you are confusing government with society. I don’t think that there are too many people that will argue that society should feed everyone. I think that there will be quite a few that will disagree that the government has to provide it.

12

Did you miss the part about some squatters in Redmond being level 2 and level 3 sex offenders?

13

I found this FAQ today: The SHARE/WHEEL Tent City Project:

IF the tent city follows the guidelines as stated in the FAQ, I have no problem with it whatsoever, but rather compassion. Indeed, I feel a desire to contribute such items as I can afford toward its welfare. This is what information, provided in a non-threatening manner, has accomplished. It would have been a small matter to present this information to the community in advance, particularly including contact phone numbers for people with fears and concerns.

HOWEVER I still contend that a mistake has been made in making the decision to place it in this neighborhood (or any neighborhood) without first gaining the support of the community. Support is good. Hostility is not so good. A great deal of hostility is now directed toward these folks, which could have been avoided by preparing the community in advance. It is far easier to present people with information in advance and gain their support, than to reassure them afterward when they feel threatened. Any information presented afterward is going to come across like propaganda. (Though I suppose there’s the attitude that it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission. I doubt Ron Sims is going to get any forgiveness for governing by fiat, however, even if the community comes to accept the tent city.)

14

No I didn’t. Please note that squatters in the woods are not the same as residents of a tent city. There was no tent city in the woods, just some homeless people camping out with no permission to be there. The tent city is a controlled environment with structure and rules.

I would ask any of you to provide me with an incident that has happened where a resident of a tent city has preyed upon people of the neighborhood the city is in. It doesn’t seem there has been any pattern of this whatsoever.

Well, I seriously doubt that even if you had been asked/consulted, you and your neighbors would have never ever said yes to it…

I read that FAQ and it was very enlightening, the concept sounds like a very good idea to me.

15

I already posted that I am his neighbor and the project has my support. If asked previously, I would have spoken/voted/expressed my support.

However, based on this experience, County Exec Sims should know to start the procedings for the next location TODAY, as to avoid these problems. We know they’ll be moving in 100 days. That amount of time seems about right for notification for the next location.

16

And you may well be right. And then again, maybe not. I have effectively changed my opinion about the project since I actually learned something about it. I could have been supportive of it from the start had the information come BEFORE, and not AFTER, the announcement of what I (and many people) perceived as a government-enforced invasion by squatters.

I hope you are not actually saying, as I seem to see you saying, that since this is a good thing and people wouldn’t have accepted it even if they’d been educated, that education is therefore unnecessary; that communities should submit meekly to government decisions?

And to me. I have printed out the FAQ and will be making it available in a 3-ring binder, with Post-It notes and a pen, to people who come into the 7-11 (pending management approval of course) so that people who come in with concerns (which has been everybody, when I have been there) can pick it up and read it, and maybe jot down phone numbers while they’re there.