Homeless Encampments on School Grounds

[neverlandsky]

Homelessness is a huge issue in the PNW. Honestly the past 6 months it's gotten worse. It's a no-win scenario since majority of homeless rather live off grid then have supplemental living/benefits.

 

[billlaurie]

I am honestly perplexed how anybody could defend allowing this situation to continue. The rights of the children (and school employees) to an education in a safe environment outweigh the rights of homeless people squatting on school grounds. Homelessness is a complicated issue driven by many factors, including economic, substance abuse, and mental health, and isn't easily solved, but in the "right now" the homeless need to be moved ASAP, IMO.

 

[ford91exploder]

Why should it make a difference if only some are on drugs?
If they are breaking the law then why shouldn't they end up in jail?

The ancient concept of 'Mens Rea' or the INTENT to commit a crime the homeless mentally ill in most cases do not intend to commit a crime so no crime has been committed - that said they need to to be cared for in a safe welcoming environment not warehoused in jail

 

[Colleen27]

I really don't know what some of you are reading. You are, apparently incorrectly, assuming that the sweep in this case will be performed without notice and without further assistance. The Mayor's office is stating that resources will be provided. In that context, your fears are unfounded. If the occupants cannot be forcibly removed then how exactly does the School Board think they should be? Again, word games. The School Board is opposed to "sweeps" but has provided no alternative to removal of the camps. It seems they are opposed to forced removal, even though shelter and support has been offered, under any circumstance.

I'd like to see what they mean by resources being made available. I understand this situation is particularly problematic since the encampment has spilled over onto school property, but I've seen what qualifies as "resources" in similar situations in my area - in one case, it was just a list of shelters without regard to whether they were accessible (some were 50+ miles away), suitable for the gender or makeup of the homeless groups being cleared out (many of whom were families), allowed them to keep their possessions, or had space available. But the fact that "resources were made available" was used to justify clearing the park of homeless.

Dismissing homelessness as "marginalized" or having psychiatric issues is no more helpful than Jay Leno's bit a hundred years ago calling them "outdoorsmen!"

It's true that many of them have mental issues, but THE problem is drug addiction, as "Seattle is Dying" shows.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. Inpatient addiction services are prone to the same constraints and funding/access issues as facilities for the mentally ill. What kind of medical treatment and supervision they cannot access doesn't seem as relevant as the fact that they cannot access the services that would help them get off the streets.

Wow, the absolute callousness of some people here is astounding. Scared to drive past a homeless encampment? They deserve mass incarceration? You do realize we're talking about actual human beings, right? The homelessness problem is terrible, and it's largely not the fault of the people who are in that position. Pop quiz: How many of you were aware that quite a few Disney employees are homeless? May I suggest watching The Florida Project?

When they find themselves without an adequate retirement and living in a van, they might think differently. Check out Nomadland on HULU.

People find the working homeless easier to ignore and overlook than the addicted/mentally ill homeless. In my area, people are more than happy to look the other way about local campgrounds becoming defacto residences for people living in their cars or RVs, but when a group of more stereotypical homeless started staying in the same space, all of a sudden it was an urgent issue that needed to be solved.

 

[RamblingMad]

San Francisco has tried that and it made their problem worse, not better. The money thrown at free housing went to waste because the housing was not used.

Drug addicts won't live in free housing, even with free food, because they are not allowed to shoot up there.

Housing prices in SF are high. It’s one of the most expensive places to live in the country.

Not all homeless people are drug addicts. Just like not all teenagers are drug addicts. And we’re likely to have even more homeless once the rental and mortgage deferments run out.

What I want to know is how they ended up where they did in the OP case. And if you move them, where do they go?

 

[JimMIA]

The ancient concept of 'Mens Rea' or the INTENT to commit a crime the homeless mentally ill in most cases do not intend to commit a crime so no crime has been committed - that said they need to to be cared for in a safe welcoming environment not warehoused in jail

Mens rea only applies to "specific intent" crimes. Most crimes do not require any specific intent.

First degree murder, for example, is a specific intent crime but if you do not intend to harm the person and they die as a result of your actions, that's still a crime: manslaughter.

 

[JimMIA]

What I want to know is how they ended up where they did in the OP case. And if you move them, where do they go?

Agree, but those are the two key elements that neither the neighbors nor the politicians worry about. The neighbors want them OUT of their neighborhoods, and rightfully so.

The politicians just want to kick the can down the road rather than solve the problem. So if pressed, they send in the police and make it a police problem without ever addressing the REAL problem...which is finding a workable solution to their addiction. The politicians don't care about either the neighborhood safety or the homeless.

 

[rjb123]

This is a terrible problem. We had a homeless encampment in our city that was on a piece of property located directly across the street from a homeless shelter. The property became a public health problem as it was infested with rats (and human waste etc)and the folks had to move. This caused all kinds of issues as the folks there did not WANT to leave (though it was not public property, it was privately owned). They were offered shelter in hotel rooms, etc and many STILL refused to leave. It was quite the hubbub. After the property was finally vacated the owner then had to come in and pay thousands of dollars to clean up this biohazard mess. While the tent city was in place many wanted to go and help the folks living there with blankets, food, etc but were warned to please not enter the area by the homeless shelter as it was incredibly dangerous. They repeatedly asked the public to not go there but drop donations at the shelter as they had some employees who had made inroads with a few people living there and were able to safely give the donations out. I can't imagine how this sort of thing could be allowed to be present on school grounds. Honestly I think we are seeing the results of closing down long term mental health facilities. Yes, many can live independently with mental health issues, but there is still a good percentage who are just simply not safe or capable of living in society. We need mental health facilities to care for these individuals on a long term basis and get them off the streets.

 

[Colleen27]

Can I clue you in on something? Homeless people are not animals. They don't WANT to use the bathroom on the street any more than you do. If there's a public bathroom they can access they will. Every time. But communities like yours have criminalized using bathrooms while homeless, or businesses prohibit it. Here, they duck into a bar or a 24 hour restaurant. We don't have human waste flowing in the streets. Needles either. Maybe our homeless are better behaved than yours, but I kinda doubt it. I think it speaks to the difference that treating people with human dignity makes.

And the pandemic has made a lot of this more visible, because it shut down the places homeless people would ordinarily go to use the bathroom (or even to shower or handle other personal needs - a lot of working homeless rely on gym memberships for personal hygiene). Even I've noticed it and I'm a long way from homeless... but I am a woman who carries a water bottle everywhere and spends a LOT of time in the car, and let me tell you, in covid-world, public restrooms can be few and very far between!

Likewise, the issue of garbage... A lot of cities removed public trash cans due to staffing shortages or wishing to reduce employees' exposure to possible surface-based virus transfer. So now the trash left behind by the homeless (and by the not-homeless who are too lazy or unprepared to carry their trash home) is far more visible and entirely uncontained.

San Francisco has tried that and it made their problem worse, not better. The money thrown at free housing went to waste because the housing was not used.

Drug addicts won't live in free housing, even with free food, because they are not allowed to shoot up there.

SF has a TON of working homeless, though. You'd think they'd benefit from such programs, but from what I understand, the need so far outstrips supply that most don't even bother trying to get into housing programs. One of the places DD19 volunteers is a church that has caused all sorts of outrage in their neighborhood by allowing car, van and RV living homeless to park in their lot during the week, and those are mostly not the stereotypical mentally ill or addicted homeless. They're mostly low wage workers who cannot afford housing at Bay Area prices... and that's a problem that is spreading as housing costs rise and gatekeeping factors like credit score and housing history become more exclusionary.

 

[RamblingMad]

Agree, but those are the two key elements that neither the neighbors nor the politicians worry about. The neighbors want them OUT of their neighborhoods, and rightfully so.

The politicians just want to kick the can down the road rather than solve the problem. So if pressed, they send in the police and make it a police problem without ever addressing the REAL problem...which is finding a workable solution to their addiction. The politicians don't care about either the neighborhood safety or the homeless.

Affordable housing really has to be made available. When one housing project was shutdown in Chicago in the 90s, the residents moved into the surrounding areas. And I got to experience first hand the escalating gun violence between the gangs.

Homeless people will continue to grow as they are priced out. And the middle class will continue to lose their buying power. I read today about K shape inflation. The poorest are being hit with the most inflation. You have a population in this country that has been hit really hard by COVID. And it keeps getting worse.

And the opioid epidemic isn’t restricted to just the homeless either.

 

[Nicolepa]

Why do you assume everyone in the homeless camp is on drugs? I'm sure some are, but surely not all of them. As for the police removing them, I guess that's an option, but these homeless shouldn't end up in jail. It's too bad they are refusing services. I hope that's just COVID-related and not part of a bigger issue with homeless services in Seattle.

I can only speak for Seattle, but 90%+ of the homeless there are using drugs. Pretty easy to use when the city sets up safe injection sites and supplies you with the needles needed to shoot up. As for refusing help, this is nothing new. A good friend of mine has worked with Tent City and the Union Gospel Mission for 20+ years. She says a lot of the people in tent city are there by choice. They have jobs and the ability to obtain housing but for whatever reasons want to remain in tent city. UGM sends people out at night to bring homeless to the shelters and often they refuse, so UGM will give them a blanket or a sandwich and move on.

 

[KingAugie]

The ancient concept of 'Mens Rea' or the INTENT to commit a crime the homeless mentally ill in most cases do not intend to commit a crime so no crime has been committed - that said they need to to be cared for in a safe welcoming environment not warehoused in jail

OK, so if I understand correctly we can't assume they are all drug addicts but we can assume they are all mentally ill and don't intend to commit the crimes they are actually committing?
All because of their housing status? No I don't think so.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Sex offenders are not allowed to live anywhere near children.
An encampment does not have any fixed residency so there is absolutely no way to assure compliance with the laws that are likely already in place. There is simply no way to filter who is near these kids so this is unconscionable.

I'm all for using federal land all over the US to create housing, go for it but protecting one vulnerable population at the expense of another, especially children who are the most vulnerable, is not acceptable.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Middle school students will have to walk through the encampment to get to school. In fact, the homeless now line the entrance to the school’s gym. Human waste, needles, and garbage will welcome these children each morning.

School board members don't want the encampments removed. That seems normal


https://mynorthwest.com/2745058/ran...not-sweep-homeless-encampments-from-schools/?
https://komonews.com/news/local/as-...meless-encampments-at-2-schools-stir-concerns
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...an-50-after-covid-pandemic-began-survey-says/

What is causing this? I am sure it is a combination of things but we really must learn to be really honest and have indepth studies about what causes this. I would think combo (not all cases) of drugs, Covid, high cost of living, mental illness but what else?

 

[ford91exploder]

OK, so if I understand correctly we can't assume they are all drug addicts but we can assume they are all mentally ill and don't intend to commit the crimes they are actually committing?
All because of their housing status? No I don't think so.

No we assume a mix of vulnerable populations, But in seattle specifically you have a higher number of people with addiction problems because of the pleasant climate, In the northeast the addicts come in the spring and leave in early fall. The mentally ill generally stay in whatever place they feel is 'safe'

 

[neverlandsky]

I am honestly perplexed how anybody could defend allowing this situation to continue. The rights of the children (and school employees) to an education in a safe environment outweigh the rights of homeless people squatting on school grounds. Homelessness is a complicated issue driven by many factors, including economic, substance abuse, and mental health, and isn't easily solved, but in the "right now" the homeless need to be moved ASAP, IMO.

If there's no city ordinance stating otherwise i.e. can't squat on school grounds, it will continue. There has to be a city ordinance passed by the city council. Once the city ordinance is established then law enforcement can enforce that ordinance. Las Vegas city council passed where it's a misdemeanor for homeless people to camp or sleep on the streets if beds at established shelters are available (mainly the downtown area). Without city ordinances, homelessness/squatting continues.

 

[KingAugie]

No we assume a mix of vulnerable populations, But in seattle specifically you have a higher number of people with addiction problems because of the pleasant climate, In the northeast the addicts come in the spring and leave in early fall. The mentally ill generally stay in whatever place they feel is 'safe'

I'm not really sure what this has to do with jailing homeless people for breaking laws.

 

[barkley]

If there's no city ordinance stating otherwise i.e. can't squat on school grounds, it will continue. There has to be a city ordinance passed by the city council. Once the city ordinance is established then law enforcement can enforce that ordinance. Las Vegas city council passed where it's a misdemeanor for homeless people to camp or sleep on the streets if beds at established shelters are available (mainly the downtown area). Without city ordinances, homelessness/squatting continues.

there's a STATE ordinance already in effect here in washington (rcw 28a.635.020) and it pertains to schools specifically-

Willfully disobeying school administrative personnel or refusing to leave public property, violations, when—Penalty.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully disobey the order of the chief administrative officer of a public school district, or of an authorized designee of any such administrator, to leave any motor vehicle, building, grounds or other property which is owned, operated or controlled by the school district if the person so ordered is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or is committing, threatens to imminently commit or incites another to imminently commit any act which would disturb or interfere with or obstruct any lawful task, function, process or procedure of the school district or any lawful task, function, process or procedure of any student, official, employee or invitee of the school district. The order of a school officer or designee acting pursuant to this subsection shall be valid if the officer or designee reasonably believes a person ordered to leave is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is committing acts, or is creating a disturbance as provided in this subsection.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to leave public property immediately adjacent to a building, grounds or property which is owned, operated or controlled by a school district when ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer if such person is engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property, or such conduct amounts to disorderly conduct under RCW 9A.84.030.


the issue at hand is that the school board for that specific district does not want to utilize the means in which the officials charged with enforcement desire to enforce.

 

[ronandannette]

Have you seen the follow up that came out late last year?

Sadly, you hear this a lot in Seattle too. People think they are being compassionate by letting them setup camp anywhere, giving them safe injection sites, not charging them when they commit crimes etc.

I just listened to it; couldn't even bear to actually look at most of it. It's beyond comprehension and the worst is that the mind-blowingly misguided influencers who are responsible aren't bearing the current consequences and likely won't be around to reap the full reckoning.

 

[Wendy31]

Thank you to those who posted the two videos.

I’ve watched both. I watched one last night & didn’t sleep well for thinking about it, & then I watched the other one today.

How incredibly sobering & sad... and I don’t even think those words do the reality justice. And, yes, what has happened in cities like Seattle & San Francisco should serve as a dire warning to other cities.

I feel much like the visiting family from Tennessee in the 1st video - in disbelief & wondering why is this even happening?

I don’t know what the answer is, but what Seattle is doing is definitely NOT the right answer. The 2nd video said something about it being an “experiment w/ humanity” that has failed. Now, it’s just an example of human despair & utter lawlessness.

The city leaders of Seattle should be ashamed. If I were a citizen of Seattle, I would feel betrayed by city leaders & be so angry at that council. I can’t believe any city leader would be okay w/ & make excuses for what‘s going on in places like Seattle. The city council leader that smirked during the interview was awful. They have led their city to destruction, & I don’t understand why people keep voting for government officials like this.

What they’ve allowed to happen is unconscionable. And I’m still having a hard time believing a school board is not immediately removing the homeless camp from off the school grounds.

I feel so badly for the Seattle law enforcement.