Seattle looking into dwellers.

[GotSmart]

Many of the members here are vandwellers by choice. They have a means for either working, or a disability/retirement check, and this is how they can stretch it out.  Others because they have no choice. No resources, and the vehicle/tent is their last possession.  Some do it because they want to, and have unlimited resources to back them up.  

Whatever the reason, this group tends to band together and help each other out as possible. On here we learn how to survive, and how to leave only tire tracks to show our passage.  Those that have no choice (or stealth skills) are being looked at by the powers that run Seattle.  This might be a good thing.  

What is needed to help this situation would be input on how to address this question, and communicate that, as a group, we are not alcohol soaked needle dropping dregs on society, but real people that are just unable/unwilling to pay the unconscionable prices for a house/rental.  We just need a safe place to spend the night.  

[font=ff-meta-serif-web-pro, Georgia, serif]We need real solutions to vehicle campers[/font]


http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/we-need-real-solutions-to-vehicle-campers/

[font=ff-meta-serif-web-pro, Georgia, serif]Seattle alone estimates about 500 RVs and 1,000 cars, trucks or vans are used [/font][font=ff-meta-serif-web-pro, Georgia, serif]as living quarters on any given night. A new One Night Count, scheduled for next Friday, will probably turn up even more.[/font]

[font=ff-meta-serif-web-pro, Georgia, serif][size=large][font=ff-meta-serif-web-pro, Georgia, serif]Getting homeless people out of RVs and cars and into permanent affordable housing must be the goal. But as a community, let’s at least allow them to safely park at night.[/font][/font][/size]

 

[jonsun]

NO! getting people out of houses and into RV's, vans, tents, etc is the goal. A stationary life for all is unsustainable anyway. Think of how much less we have learned to use because of this life. Most people would never even consider a navy shower or going without AC 24/7 for 6 months.

this is not a sub-standard way of life to be shunned and felt sorry for. This is what many people dream of.

 

[GotSmart]

Since there is obviously no way that people will pay to house the "homeless" in S&B, the parking lot and bathrooms solution is the best solution.

 

[user 13531]

We're with the Government and we're here to help.... A classic contradiction in terminology.

No thank you!

 

[Every Road Leads Home]

Since there is obviously no way that people will pay to house the "homeless" in S&B, the parking lot and bathrooms solution is the best solution.

If some human's didn't need to be babysat this could work, however like with most things a few bad apples will certainly ruin the bunch....or parking lot in this instance

 

[LeeRevell]

While some "homeless" may need and appreciate better shelter, the goobermint tends to paint all with a very broad brush. They'll try to "help" those who neither want it or need it. Could be troublesome to vandwellers. But then, they could go elsewhere, worse come to worse.

 

[SoulRaven]

A reason, and not to get political, that I support Americans first. There will be some here who need and want to get out of their situation and help should be available to do that. Others need to either be able to follow some basic rules for health/hygiene/safety or move on to where they won't endanger others. Having trash and other items outside an RV is certainly not "stealth".

There are rules in every lifestyle and to escape that, one needs to separate themselves from society. Older RVs that are not maintained can be a very serious safety hazard to those around them especially when it comes to propane systems leaking. Black tanks can be leaking or as in many scenarios where the citizens were upset, there was the smell of urine in the area.

As someone has mentioned "a few bad apples........" and this is what it looks like in this case.

When we were in an RV park in NC long term, a church had an old motorhome pulled in and moved a homeless family into it next to us, still at a distance. I visited with the mother a few times and learned that much of what was in the RV did not work and they mostly just had to eat cereal. They were nice and quiet people that eventually were taken in by their older daughter. I was happy they were out of that situation.

 

[LeeRevell]

But, what can be a bad thing is people who fully want and intend to be "vehicle dwellers" are pushed into the hole of "homeless", against their will. Sometimes these "public safety programs" hurt those they claim to help.
Not a political statement at all, just a fact of life. People do not trust what they don't understand.

 

[GotSmart]

IMHO, laws similar to the "good samaritan" should be put in pace allowing churches or private entities to permit people to park or camp in a lighted place, with access to kitchen, showers, laundry, and trash.  The sponsoring entity would be held harmless from litigation.

This could be set up as a hostel type situation. 

The details would need to be worked out.

 

[Gary68]

"The city was spending $35,000 a month, or about $1,750 per vehicle — as much as it costs to rent an apartment — to run its first intensively managed safe lot in Ballard, opened in February and providing drinking water, electricity, round-the-clock security and an on-site case manager. The RVs that came there were so large the site could accommodate only 20 of them, less than half the number planned, said Plumacher, the Human Services adviser.

After a month of that, the city decided not to open a second site in Delridge."
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...lan-to-help-homeless-living-in-rvs-unraveled/

 

[John61CT]

Crazy example of gummint waste.

Meter the electric, charge a little for toilets/showers to cover cleaning / security / management services, labor provided barter basis by residents, all coordinated by vetted volunteers from local homeless non-profits.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

"The city was spending $35,000 a month, or about $1,750 per vehicle — as much as it costs to rent an apartment — to run its first intensively managed safe lot in Ballard, opened in February and providing drinking water, electricity, round-the-clock security and an on-site case manager. The RVs that came there were so large the site could accommodate only 20 of them, less than half the number planned, said Plumacher, the Human Services adviser.

I have to wonder if it was a question of scale.  Could a bigger lot - say 3 to 4 times that size - with the exact same facilities have reduced the cost per vehicle to 1/3 to 1/4 of that $1,750?

 

[SoulRaven]

One issue is that once a city gets on the map with services like this, "build it and they will come". Whatever they set up, once the word got out, "they will come" from other areas and the costs will grow as will the issues. I still wonder are these people homeless and needing help in that way or are they choosing to live this way versus housing that would be available to them. I always think if we knew the whole story, it would be easier to sort out.

 

[John61CT]

Easy enough to set up "user pays" rules favoring the needy, so that relative newcomers and those who can afford to pay, subsidize the long-term locals who've fallen on hard times; keep it at break-even overall except for true homelessness alleviation programs.

But the key to the whole thing is keeping those overall costs down.

And NIMBY attitudes politically.

 

[Gary68]

I have to wonder if it was a question of scale.  Could a bigger lot - say 3 to 4 times that size - with the exact same facilities have reduced the cost per vehicle to 1/3 to 1/4 of that $1,750?

administrative cost,a lot 3-4x bigger would need 3-4 on site case managers and they want union everything

 

[Ballenxj]

administrative cost,a lot 3-4x bigger would need 3-4 on site case managers and they want union everything

And there you have it. Greed, from the top down kills everything.

 

[John61CT]

Many places would perhaps give lip service to the goal, but in reality sabotage it, since it would be a rare place indeed where the average stick-brick taxpayer resident would want it to actually succeed.

 

[LeeRevell]

Read the article again, and the replies. All is from the standpoint of S&B home owners. Which, I am too, so I can commiserate to a degree. I would not allow an RV or a car to park right in front of my home.
But, they also paint all vehicle dwellers with a very broad paintbrush dipped in stinkum. Many are good folks who made the choice to give up a fixed home. Some are travellers, just passing through. Some lost their homes due to bad decisions on their part and bad policies by the civic leaders. Lots of different reasons. Not all are the drug abusing criminals that so many repliers think them.
I dare say, most on this forum would be penalized by these same fine citizens.
It's a problem with many causes, and few true solutions offered.

 

[jonsun]

wait cant they just make it part of their parks department? have a campground type thing at the city and/or county parks.

I for one would LOVE it if they went back to basic parking spots for campgrounds. a dump and a water spigot for $50-75 a month.

 

[Zizzer_Zazzer_Zuz]

administrative cost,a lot 3-4x bigger would need 3-4 on site case managers and they want union everything

And god forbid people that want to work in social work should be able to make a living and or have case loads that are reasonable for a human being to make some impact on their clients.

So, lets see, we have homeless people living in vehicles that would live in S&B if given half a chance. We have people with jobs trying to improve the lives of the people in group #1. Isn't it reasonable that people in both groups be able to have access to health care, decent working conditions, and a living wage or more that is commiserate with their education, training, and experience? 

I know several social workers, family physicians, child advocacy lawyers (court appointed family law stuff), retired CPS investigators, etc. and ALL of them studied and worked hard for their clients and the communities that paid them. None of them is what would be considered rich, except the attorney but he does other work and does the court appointed child advocacy stuff pretty much at a loss because he likes doing it. All of these people, professionals and clients alike deserve dignity and decent living conditions as defined by themselves and we as community need to support them. Unions is one way for them to guarantee those things.

We, who do this by choice are a different matter all together. We fly in the face of old societal norms of land ownership defining you as righteous and whole. Go ask the Bedouin, the Romany, or any nomadic tribe anywhere how Western thought feels about nomads. We are the modern primitives.