Tim Burgess' City View

Sleeping on the Grass Wrap

The sleep-out protest in front of my home ended Friday morning after three days.  It wasn't a problem for me, but I was uncomfortable that my position in city government brought discomfort and anxiety to my neighbors.  I really regret that imposition. 

No matter what one thinks about the efficacy of this type of protest, nothing about it was pleasant for

Sleeping on the Grass

A group of about 40 people slept in front of my house and my neighbors' houses last night.  They were advocates with the group SHARE/WHEEL, a local nonprofit organization that operates several homeless shelters around the city.  They showed up a little after 7 p.m. last night and left just before 7 a.m. today. (Read this Queen Anne View summary of the protest. And this editorial in today's Seattle Times.)

The campers were protesting what they believe is the city's inadequate funding of their services, especially money for Metro transit passes so those living in their shelters can travel to jobs, job interviews, and other necessary appointments.  Because SHARE is facing a budget shortfall, they have asked for more money.  The city offered to advance $50,000 to SHARE from their 2009 allocation of just over $300,000 on the condition SHARE keep their shelters open through the end of this year.  SHARE's annual subsidy from the city is paid out monthly and there was concern that if the city advanced what would be the equivalent of two monthly payments SHARE would deplete all of its financial resources before the end of December.  SHARE declined to accept the year-end condition.

That's the big picture, but I want to recount what I learned last night and this morning as I spoke with some of those in front of my house. 

Just after 10 o'clock, I ventured outside and spoke with a group of the protesters.  The TV cameras had gone and we were alone.  (Joleen took the above photo on her iPhone from inside our house.) I'm

Affordable Housing Levy Heading for Renewal Vote

(Corrected, June 15, 2009) My colleagues and I voted on a number of key provisions related to renewal of the City's affordable housing levy this afternoon, including setting the amount of the levy at $145 million over seven years beginning in 2010.  We will take our final vote next Monday afternoon at 2 p.m. to place renewal of the levy before the voters.  If passed, Seattle voters will make a final judgment about the levy this November. 

The affordable housing levy develops rental housing, provides rental subsidies and offers assistance to home-buyers.  New rental units help our lowest income neighbors find housing in Seattle that they can afford.  The rental assistance prevents low income renters from becoming homeless.  And home-buyer assistance encourages home ownership by those who otherwise might not have access to the market.

When approved, the vast majority of levy funds will target those earning 50% or less of the area median income (about $29,500 for a one-person household).  Some funds may also be spent on those earning 51% to 80% of the area median income (between $29,500 and $44,800).

Seattle voters first approved an affordable housing levy in 1981, and then renewed it in 1986, 1995, and 2002.  Another renewal of the levy is fully justified because of the excellent track record of the previous levies and because the current economic crisis the nation is suffering is placing many working families at risk.

Approval of the levy can also be seen as part of our city’s economic stimulus effort.  Administration of the levy involves a public-private partnership among the City, the nonprofit sector, and private industry.  That partnership creates jobs.  The private sector especially benefits as thousands of jobs are created for architects, engineers, and construction workers. 

If approved by voters in November, the levy will cost the owner of an average ($460,000) assessed value Seattle home approximately $6.60 per month.  The owner of a median ($379,811) assessed value home will pay about $5.45 per month. 

Most Encampment Dwellers Refuse City Aid

The City Council was told this morning that the vast majority of homeless living in encampments refuse offers of aid from city outreach workers.  In 2008, 90 outreach visits were made to 17 encampments (three or more tents or other shelters) and 19 to camps (less than three shelters).  A total of 320 individuals were contacted by outreach workers and offered assistance; only 106, or 33%, accepted emergency shelter or other assistance. 

The city adopted new administrative policies designed to help people living in illegal encampments and camps in April 2008.  The rules were refined throughout the year in response to public concerns about disposition of personal property and whether those living in the encampments were receiving adequate notice they would be prohibited from staying in the make-shift shelters.  Most of the illegal encampments and camps are located in city greenbelt areas, parks, or unused portions of transportation right-of-ways. Complaints about garbage, drug use, crime, and unsanitary conditions prompted the city to become more aggressive is clearing the camps and removing garbage.  Over 12 tons of garbage was removed from one encampment site on west Queen Anne last summer. 

The Council was also told this morning by a representative of the city's Human Services Department that none of those who agreed to accept city assistance were turned away.  This has been an important focus for me, making sure all individuals who wanted it could receive emergency shelter beds and other assistance. 

Pink Tents Vs. Long-Term Solutions

A handful of council members gathered around a television set yesterday afternoon and watched as Seattle police and other city workers dismantled the so-called "Nickelsville" tent city near the First Avenue South Bridge.  From what we saw on TV it seems the journalist who wrote that the police seemed "bored" got it right. 

But, the larger, public policy question wasn't answered by the pink tent city.  What to do about the continuing, and some say growing, problem of homelessness? 

As a city, we spend about $40 million a year on the problem of homelessness.  Some of this money comes from the federal government and is "passed through" the city bureaucracy, nonetheless it represents a significant investment.

We don't have to make this effort; it's discretionary on our part. No one is forcing us to deal with homelessness, and one could even argue that other expenditures—like police and fire services—are actually more important and certainly not discretionary. But this debate misses the point.  Caring for the homeless and seeking long-term solutions is part of Seattle's soul. It's an expression of who we are as a people, a measure of our values. 

But are we doing enough? Are we doing the right thing? 

I've been thinking about these questions a lot lately, especially as we enter the fall budget decision period and as we begin to consider the renewal of the housing levy scheduled for next year.  I'm still processing, and I certainly don't have answers just yet, but I am beginning to think we need to realign or refocus our efforts.

The 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness is primarily focused on long-term, capital-intensive solutions.  That's good.  We need more low-income and workforce permanent housing.  Our emergency shelter programs are fairly well-developed and effective, although I believe we need a greater number of emergency shelter beds.  (The city has recently opened additional emergency shelter beds and there are plans to do even more.) 

The area where we might need to do more is short-term, transition housing, not emergency shelter and not permanent housing, but the "in between" housing needs of individuals.  Some call it "housing on demand" or "housing first" strategies.  I'm hoping the city can explore many more partnerships with apartment owners and others who can, on very short notice, offer housing for six months, a year, or even a longer.  The stability of having your "own" place cannot be denied.  Having an apartment—even just a room—to call your own is a powerful first step toward self-sufficiency.  I believe programs that can truly offer "housing on demand" are urgently needed. I hope to spark some discussion on this topic in the coming weeks and months. 

Now, about mental health treatment on demand, or drug treatment on demand . . . those are topics for another day. 

Safer Streets Initiative

Reported violent crime in Seattle is at its lowest levels since the 1960s, yet many residents complain bitterly to the Council about the deterioration of their neighborhoods caused by street crime and social disorder.  Today, I'm releasing my Safer Streets Initiative which is designed to curb street crime and improve our quality of life at the sidewalk level.

You can read a summary of the Initiative by downloading this file:  Download safer_strees_initiative_81808.pdf.  Read today's Seattle PI coverage of the Initiative. 

Later today, my Council committee will begin discussion of the Initiative and review a preliminary schedule for consideration of new legislation required by the Initiative. 

The latest literature on policing strategies and social disorder shows that an integrated approach involving prevention and treatment, assertive policing, and community outreach/engagement provides the best results for neighborhoods.  You can read about the experience of Providence, Rhode Island with quality-of-life or problem-solving policing here.  It's a great story about how a community took back their streets and restored civil order.  Academic research has also established that more assertive policing can be effective at restoring a community's confidence and reduce fear of crime.  This article from May 2008 is an excellent summary of current thought among criminologists and practitioners about "broken windows policing" and why it's necessary. 

The Safer Streets Initiative is a 12-part program to address the many complaints we receive about social disorder from nearly every neighborhood in the city.  It's not a magic bullet or quick fix.  It's a beginning designed to address a complicated set of problems. The Initiative would pair police officers with mental health professionals to respond jointly to incidents, create alternatives to jail or hospitalization, continue the city's plan to increase the number of patrol officers in our neighborhoods, increase financial penalties for patronizing a prostitute and use the funds to restore peer-counseling and support groups for women involved in prostitution, create safe housing and transition services for children involved in prostitution, impose civil and criminal penalties on business owners and property owners who "knowingly allow criminal behavior to occur and fail to take steps to stop it," call for more assertive policing targeted at gangs, illegal weapons, graffiti, and open-air drug markets,  re-establish the city prosecutor's High Impact Offender Targeting Program, and return School Resource Officers to some Seattle Public Schools. 

I would appreciate hearing your comments or questions about the Initiative.  Please send me an email or comment below. 

More on Automatic Toilets

Hey, not everything about this job is glitzy and fun.  Sometimes we just get to deal with the little things that matter and make our neighborhoods better places.  So, it's public toilets this week. 

Everyone agrees that our city's experiment with automated public toilets has been a massive failure.  Maybe if we had installed the smaller version (would have violated disabled access requirements) and charged a quarter or two like in Europe (state law forbids fees here) this experiment would have turned out better. 

Facts are friendly, as I like to say, and the facts related to APTs are very clear--they are magnets for criminal behavior and just aren't necessary.  There are 152 publicly accessible toilets within two blocks of the five APTs with daily usage capacity of 109,116.  That's compared to a capacity of only 1,140 with the APTs.  Suggesting that we should keep the crime toilets in place until we can find even more alternative toilet stalls just doesn't make sense.  The city's own study clearly established that removing the toilets immediately would "minimally impact publicly accessible toilet services." 

Anyway, here's a fact sheet (Download apt_quick_brief_51408.pdf) that provides more information. 

Automated Public Toilets Removal

The City Council's public utilities committee voted 3-0 yesterday afternoon to ask that the automated public toilets (APTs) located in center city parks and on Broadway on Capitol Hill be removed in June instead of next January as originally proposed.  The full Council will vote on the matter next Monday at 2 p.m.

Read the Seattle PI's coverage of this story in today's paper.  Read the APT evaluation report prepared by the city and given to the Council March 17, 2008.  Read Seattle Public Utilities media summary of the APT report and recommendations. 

The committee took yesterday's action because—

1) By removing the APTs the city will save approximately $4.5 million over the next five years and an additional estimated $300,000 this year and next in toilet lease and operation costs.

2) The APTs have become "crime magnets" and have created a public nuisance, especially in the downtown parks.  The areas around the toilets are unsafe because the APTs are used as a meeting place for drug use and trafficking, prostitution, and binge drinking.  Assaults, robbery, and thefts are common around the APTs.  The APTs have lowered the quality of life and violated the sense of community surrounding the downtown parks. 

3) There are 152 publicly accessible toilets within two blocks of the APTs with daily usage capacity of 109,116.  These numbers compare with maximum daily usage of the five APTs of 1,140. 

4) Incidents of public urination and defecation in alleyways and on sidewalks have increased since the APTs were first installed in 2004.  One of the original justifications for the APTs was that they would help decrease these incidents.  They have not.

I am urging my colleagues to approve the committee's resolution on Monday.  If you agree, please let your voice be heard by sending an email to the following Council members or phoning their offices—

richard.conlin@seattle.gov 206-684-8805
jan.drago@seattle.gov 206-684-8801
jean.godden@seattle.gov 206-684-8807
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov 206-684-8804
nick.licata@seattle.gov 206-684-8803
richard.mciver@seattle.gov 206-684-8800
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov 206-684-8808

Real Change

Tim Harris, the founder and editor of Real Change, has a message that irritates.  He doesn't mince words; he's forceful, direct, compelling. His words, and his newspaper columns, cause some to squirm, including me.  But the irritation we feel shouldn't come from what Tim Harris says, it should come from our revulsion at the continuing, some argue growing, problems of homelessness and poverty.

Tim and I met last Friday and talked for just over an hour.  We talked about the homeless living on the streets of Seattle, in greenbelts and under freeway bridges, people we've both seen and spoken with.  We talked about the poor and those suffering mental illness or addictions to drugs and alcohol.  Tim spoke of "treatment on demand" for drug addicts and the need for more emergency shelter and transitional housing.  He said our community can and should do better in how we treat those who are in trouble and need special care. 

Tim Harris' words reminded me of those said by another many, many years ago:  "For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; naked and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." 

The problems of poverty, homelessness and addiction are very complicated, but don't you think the wealthiest country in the world could do a better job of responding to these complications?  I do.  This doesn't mean we ignore public safety concerns, no, not at all, but it does mean that we consider all our options, including those that stretch us beyond our comfort zone.  It's long past time.

It was nearly 72 hours ago that I met with Tim Harris.  Our conversation has been with me ever since. 

Homeless Vets

Senator Patty Murray held a forum on homeless veterans yesterday afternoon at Plymouth Housing's new Simons Senior Apartments on Third Avenue.  Interesting discussion with Senator Murray repeatedly asking vets on the panel and in the audience their opinions about the causes of homelessness among veterans. 

Senator Murray's office asked me to participate and I was able to share some "slap in the face" statistics about the problem of homelessness among veterans.  If these don't grab your attention, well . . .

The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates there are nearly 200,000 homeless vets on any given night in the USA.  In our state, the Low-Income Housing Alliance puts that number at 6,900.  Here in Seattle-King County, it's estimated that 15% of our total homeless population--or about 1,200 individuals--are veterans, men and women who have faithfully served our country now living on the streets. 

The city of Seattle spends approximately $3 million per year from our general fund to assist homeless veterans.  King County dedicates about $11 million per year. 

The vet's answers to Senator Murray's questions on cause:  post-traumatic stress disorder, general mental health issues, alcohol and drug abuse, family re-entry challenges, insufficient counseling about the array of services available to veterans at discharge, and the lack of middle-income or work force housing. 

By the way, Plymouth's new Simons Apartments are yet another excellent example of Seattle's public-private partnerships with nonprofit organizations to address low-income housing and homeless issues.  Plymouth--headed by Paul Lambros--is perhaps the country's premier, trend-setting housing advocate and supplier.  They really are a model of efficiency and effectiveness.