64 reader comments so far ↓

• 1 Kathy // Aug 26, 2010 at 2:00 am

  I am okay with Tent City 3 coming to our neighbor hood.
  The sad fact is that there a lot more people than we realize that need places like this to call home for awhile.
  Welcome to the neighborhood, treat it well.

• 2 David Atcheson // Aug 26, 2010 at 8:22 am

  I am supportive of Tent City 3 being hosted at Maple Leaf Lutheran. The experience a number of years ago in Wedgwood was very positive. There was a good write-up in the Seattle PI, still available at http://www.seattlepi.com/local/129931_tentcity08.html.

• 3 J // Aug 26, 2010 at 8:57 am

  The idea of a tent city is great. BUT tent cities are about compassion. Providing compassion to the needy is one obvious aspect. It is NOT compassionate to the neighbors because there is not adequate or accepable screening for sex offenders. Did you know that the program running the tent city requires a WA state drivers license, yet only checks the sex offender list for King County? No other WA county sex offender lists are used to screen residents. Is that compassionate to the immediate neighbors, especially with children? No it is not. The program that runs the tent city LOVES not making the neighbors feel secure and comfortable with this tent city idea. They are giving the big middle finger to neighbors who can afford to buy a nice house in a safe neighborhood. It could have brought the community together if there were adequate safety measures. Instead I salute the tent city, SHARE WHEEL, and Maple Leaf Lutheran Church with a reciprocal MIDDLE FINGER. You are more interested in causing controversy and sticking it to the well-off than being compassionate. I guess I’d say you are compASSionate.

• 4 Rora V // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:12 am

  Would you really want 100 of anyone living under your bedroom window? How is compassion when this group of humans is moved every 90 days and sleeps in tents? allegedly Sharewheel was offered a warehouse parking lot for a permanent tent city and turned it down, why? unknown, but one could guess it is because it would keep them out of the news. This isn’t really about compassion or we would collectively find a way to more permanently help the homeless rather than make them pack up every 90 days to a new neighborhood that may not be able to support them or welcome them.

• 5 MJ // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:26 am

  The most frustrating thing about this whole process is that Maple Leaf Lutheran Church refuses to meet with any of the neighbors or engage in any kind of discussion about Tent City at all. Despite numerous attempts from the neighbors to request a meeting, have an audience, or discuss the alternatives with the congregation, the church’s “Task Force” has simply set up a barrier by directing everyone to an e-mail address. Their refusal to engage and discuss things openly has alienated and angered the vast majority of the immediate neighborhood. The neighbors aren’t anti-homeless; they already support the existing SHARE homeless shelter that is in the church’s basement and have for years. But Tent City and all its associated police calls and safety issues is a different thing altogether. How would the church members feel if they woke up to find a rejected applicant to Tent City passed out on their front lawn? If the Tent City residents could see directly into their child’s bedroom from their tent 24/7? If they had to steer their children’s feet around vomit on the sidewalk on the way to school? With all the young kids in the neighborhood, this is the wrong location for Tent City. If the church would only agree to meet with the neighbors, we could together work on a better solution to help the homeless.

• 6 Erin // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 am

  I am supportive of helping the homeless, but putting a tent city at the top of a hill in the middle of winter just doesn’t seem logical. Why not place it closer to bus lines and/or downtown where people might find jobs? Or how about finding a place where these folks can have a real roof over their heads? And please don’t place tent city in a neighborhood full of children. Children aren’t even allowed to live in tent city – so why is it okay for tent city to live near them? As a neighbor and a parent, I can’t help but feel unnerved by this.

• 7 Jennifer // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:54 am

  Tent City 3 in the parking lot of Maple Leaf Lutheran Church is a bad idea for many reasons:

  1. The church is alienating the community with this decision primarily because they refuse to communicate with the immediate neighbors about any options. MLL is dictating to the community what will happen. The church members show up for Sunday services and then they leave…back to their own houses far away from the Tent City. The reality is that it is not the church who will be hosting Tent City. It is the immediate neighbors who will be (for the majority) unwilling hosts.

  2. The church is offering to put up Tent City in the highly visible parking lot. The houses adjacent to the parking lot share a wood fence–many with gates that open directly to the church’s lot and their backyard. All of the homes two-story, which means that on the upper floor home owners will have a direct view onto Tent City, regardless of any fences and tarps that are erected. Tent City is supposed to arrive this winter. The Farmers’ Almanac is calling for a La Nina winter. Remember the last La Nina winter where we had snow that kept us all housebound for five days. That wasn’t ideal and we weren’t sleeping in a parking lot in a tent. The church already hosts a homeless shelter in the church. During that last bad winter, do you know how many people from the church came to assist the homeless who were stranded? Zero.

  3. Building on the lack of background checks for criminal and sexual offenses, I will just say that the Tent City residents wander, and this particular neighborhood has many places to hide, such as the woods behind the Waldorf School down the street, and in the Meadowbrook Park down the hill near the high school and community center, and in the many dead-end streets. All of these peaceful lingering spots are around children.

  4. The immediate neighborhood offers no services for the homeless. There is a bus stop on 35th…and that is it. Yes, the Tent City residents are provided with daily bus tickets. It doesn’t mean they use this service. There is simply no where for these people to go once they are here.

  5. The church, unfortunately, has a history of forcing their agenda on the community and informing us after the fact. I believe that this is where the anger lies. Since the Tent City affects so many of us (with small children) directly, we would like the church to show us some respect and give us an audience. We are not a bunch of pitchfork-bearing, flaming-torch hoisting, irate individuals. We want a voice and we want to be heard and be able to offer solutions that will benefit everyone. The church is not giving us this chance.

  This Tent City is a bad idea.

• 8 Dion // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:56 am

  WRONG LOCATION – This is what it boils down to.
  * 1/2 Block from a school – right along the to and from walk path for school kids
  * MANY children immediately adjacent to the proposed site with many more in the close in greater neighborhood
  * Residential neighborhood with limited commercial and and infrastructure/services resources
  * No services in walking distance. Hell this is one of my pet peeves and I live here.
  * The church is already a resource to the homeless housing a group in its facilities that the neighborhood has been supportive of and seems properly scaled to neighborhood.
  * Spillover events that are inevitable have nowhere to go but into immediately adjacent residential homes/yards – there is nothing else local (open space, commercial, etc…)
  WRONG PLACE .

• 9 RB // Aug 26, 2010 at 11:24 am

  Always nice to see people struggle to put their religion in practice. I live in the neighborhood and the homeless have never caused any problems. We didn’t want those new homes that they put in 5 years ago; $750,000+ and they don’t fit in at all. I like the fact that the tents will go right next to the new homes. Do you like capitalism? Well then live with the losers as well as the winners. And look at them!

  As far as the sex offenders–that’s a canard the antis throw in our faces all the time. The neighborhood is already full of sex offenders. Get over it.

• 10 KathrynM // Aug 26, 2010 at 11:57 am

  How about both Meadowbrook neighbors AND Maple Leaf Lutheran check in with St. George’s Episcopal who hosted Tent City within the last year or so to see how it’s done peaceably? Or any other church such as Phinney Ridge Lutheran Church? Or Trinity Methodist in Ballard. It’s a fine balancing act between the Tent City residents’ needs & the community they’ll temporarily be a part of. Oh yeah, what about contacting all the owners of uninhabited houses around the area to see if a group such as the Archdiocese of Seattle’s housing authority or the Church Council’s housing organization can coordinate rentals so the Tent City people don’t have to live in Tent City & scare the bejabers out of the nice, middle-class neighborhoods they visit?

• 11 MattT // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm

  To the comment that there are already sex offenders in the area that is incorrect. There are none in the immediate area because of the proximity to the two schools. (None between Lake City Way, 35th, 110th and 95th).

  This is just a bad location and MLL is strong arming their beliefs on the neighbors. They do not even attempt to explain how spill over will be managed or what will happen to the people in such a state that will not allowed into tent city. They will just be unleashed on our neighborhood.

• 12 Ashley // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:38 pm

  HEY RB-

  You are a real a$$hole for saying “get over it.”

  There is no comparing the angst of neighbors nearby a cluster of who knows who living in a tent city, as to registered sex offenders living in the neighborhood. There is a difference. Sex offenders register their home which is public data, and part of their burden of owning their crime, and as public knowledge, gives neighbors power.

  BUT- not knowing, and not screening, and not feeling like your kids are safe near a tent city is the complete OPPOSITE of “get over it.”

  Maybe you should see outside your little world and not be so flippant about what could be a devastating result for residents.

  Do you just go around apologizing after bad things happen, or do you try to prevent them ahead of time? What about when bad things could happen to your loved ones? I’ll bet you act proactively.

  Don’t expect any parent to “get over it” at the thought of sex offenders outside the King County database living in a tent city near their children. You should have your head examined if you have so little empathy.

• 13 RB // Aug 26, 2010 at 2:06 pm

  Ashley–

  My empathy is with the homeless. People like you act like being poor in this country is a crime. It’s not. It’s being unfortunate. Once again, I live in the neighborhood. And you know who the criminals are? The little punk teenagers who break into homes, cars, spray graffiti all over and use the parking lot to skateboard at two in the morning. I’m betting the homeless will be nicer, better behaved and less criminal than those kids. And they are supposedly from the “good” homes.

  We have to put up with the teenagers for a lot longer than three months. Surely you can live your religion for three months.

• 14 Rora V // Aug 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm

  This isnt’ about “living” a religion, the price of you home or the teen in the neighborhood you call home. read Jennifers post, it sums up most everything.

• 15 BC // Aug 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm

  You need the permit and notify the neighbors to build a house, why not tent city? The neighbors are hungry because MLLC won’t communicate and notify the direct impact neighbors . We helped some homeless by giving out the meal last Christmas, but didn’t see any church member there offer their warmth and help. I won’t complain if the church really put their heart into the homeless. Eg, each church member invites one tent city family to their Christmas dinner. Can you do it, if not, then don’t pretend to help those just by offering the shelter for them to stay.

• 16 SG // Aug 26, 2010 at 3:55 pm

  I just LOVE the assumption that all homeless people are sex offenders, that they puke on sidewalks and that Tent City harbors the ills of society and not merely souls that aren’t as fortunate as you. I have taken time to volunteer at tent cities in other neighborhoods in the past. Individuals on drugs or alcohol have never been allowed in. People either have jobs or are required to work in the encampment. Crime in the neighborhood goes down because tent city occupants truly are good neighbors.

  As human beings, we need to be aware of our fellow brothers and sisters and have compassion for them. People fall on hard times and need a safe place to sleep and store their few possessions. From what I read, sadly, our neighborhood needs tent city to teach it to see those others as humans–just the same as we are. Maybe that sameness is what most of you find most terrifying.

• 17 anon // Aug 26, 2010 at 3:59 pm

  My issue is with the people who are rejected by the tent cities. They spill over into the immediate areas around these tents and cause quite a few problems (think for a moment about who gets rejected from a tent city). The supporters of tent cities do not want to acknowledge that they bring these troublemakers into the area in the first place, and do very little to mitigate the problem.

  Ask anyone who has lived around these camps, or whose church has hosted them, specifically about the criminal activity and problems caused by those who were kicked out of the camps. This is where the tent system is falling down badly, and no one is willing to own up to it.

• 18 SG // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:08 pm

  Please give an example. My personal experience is that, after the first few tent cities, those that aren’t living in the tent city under their rules, don’t show up. It’s a well-known fact in that community that only those registered and who are sober are allowed in. When someone gets turned away, they are escorted off the property and away from it. There are plenty of greenbelts in our neighborhood where homeless live anyway. I suspect, those that aren’t part of the project will continue to live in there.

• 19 PJ // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:18 pm

  I don’t have a problem with the homeless. In fact Maple Leaf Lutheran already hosts a homeless shelter. A lot of us in the neighborhood help out. 100 people living in tents in the dead of winter is a different story.

  The real issue here is why Maple Leaf Lutheran refuses to engage its neighbors. There is a total lack of transparency. They’ve had a history of breaking promises with the neighborhood (the homeless shelter was supposed to be temporary and every other year. It’s now 365 days a year). So if tent city came and went for 3 months, that’s one thing–but I think everyone knows judging from Maple Leaf Lutheran’s actions it’s probably not the case.

  Congrats to Maple Leaf Lutheran for fracturing the community.

• 20 anon // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  I live near the tent cities that have been hosted in the U-District, and there have definitely been problems with the people turned away from the tents – from urination/defecation issues to serious assaults. On more than one occasion this has been pinpointed on a specific person who was rejected by the camp.

  I know this, because I have witnessed this myself, and identified the culprit. When I brought it to the attention of the good folks sitting behind the entry tables at the camp, they told me it was not their problem because they had just thrown the person out. They claim to put them on a bus out of the area, but I have seen the troublemakers continue to hang around the camp and harass both camp members and people just walking by. And yes, I’ve called the cops as well as the local church folks when assaults have occurred, to little avail.

  Face it – when you bring these camps to a neighborhood, you are responsible for the people who are attracted to the camps, whether they are allowed in or not.

• 21 anon // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:22 pm

  I should also mention that I know by sight many of the “regular” homeless in the neighborhood, and they were not the cause of the specific problems I mentioned. These were new faces, and on at least two occasions were identified by the church and tent folks as having been rejected from the camps due to “issues.”

• 22 Reina S // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  Why don’t all of those people who support Tent City, including the Task Force Members and church congregation, host 1 (or more) tents in their backyards? Since they are so supportive of housing homeless people and expecting other people to put them up, why don’t they put their money where their mouth is, and be ‘Christian, generous, charitable’ and invite the homeless to their homes?

  Since there are ‘only’ 100 homeless people in each Tent City, there are should be more than enough supporters of Tent City to take them in and spread the charity.

  And for those people who have offered to swap houses with people who will be directly impacted by Tent City, just get real. You know no one will ever take you up on that, which is the only reason you’re so willing to offer up that ridiculous suggestion. Instead of swapping houses, invite the homeless to camp in your yards instead.

  By the way, I’m Christian too and have supported many charitable causes. My house is not worth over $400K and we are a struggling family supporting 5, so it’s not just people who live in $750K houses or rich capitalists that are anti poor and homeless. I care for the homeless but think there is a much better option than putting them smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood, with NO INPUT sought from other people who will be impacted.

  What is the church hiding? Why won’t they grant us an audience of even 10 minutes?

• 23 MT // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm

  No, tent city should not be hosted by Maple Leaf Lutheran Church. 1) If MLLC wants to truly be good Samaritans, why not allow the folks of Tent City to stay in the church rather than allow 100 + people to remain out in the elements in the dead of winter? 2) What MLLC does inside their church is their own business, what MLLC does in the parking lot outside their church, is the neighbors business-none of whom the MLLC Task Force will even talk to face to face in this matter. The congregation gets to vote on whether MLLC will host Tent City, yet only 3 of the congregation live within a block radius of the church (1 of which opposes such a move). 3) As a direct neighbor who has lived in this neighborhood for over 25 years, our experience with MLLC, when they decide to “reach out and take on new experiences” has been less than desirable. A good neighbor talks , a good neighbor does indeed “reach out,” a good neighbor makes provisions for those they bring into their church and/or parking lot–not leaving it up to the neighbors surrounding the church to provide food, clothing, showers and extra blankets and sources of entertainment in, when snow comes, the buses stop running and driving in NE Seattle becomes difficult at best (which happened when the SHARE shelter first opened up at MLLC back about 13 years ago). I find it truly ironic that the MLLC web site includes the “reachout.org” as part of its URL, for to us neighbors, this just has not or is not the case!

• 24 SG // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:59 pm

  @ PJ, It’s a 90 day permit issued by the city. I don’t believe it can be extended. Sounds like you should make a personal appointment with the Reverend on the other issue. It sounds like you understand that the city has reduced bed space in shelters considerably in the past few years and don’t begrudge the homeless a safe, warm place..it is just that you feel shut out by the church…walk in and talk.
  @Anon–That sounds unfortunate…From my experience, and I know my experience differs from yours, this is not usually the case. Have you visited Calvin Pres in Shoreline? You might want to go over there and knock on doors and see how it is going at that tent city and the neighborhood to see if your experience differs from theirs. Winter is usually a quiet time in the shelter because it is dark a lot and also cold.

• 25 LR // Aug 26, 2010 at 5:02 pm

  No, plain and simple

• 26 PJ // Aug 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm

  @SJ–It’s a 90 day limit per year. My point is, the church will host every year. They have a history of saying one thing and doing another.

  Personally I want to be respectful and not stoop to their level. So walking in during service would only elicit a negative response. The neighbors have repeatedly asked to meet with the task force and repeatedly been blown off. This is at the advice of SHARE. Even during the national day out they refused to talk.

  It’s just frustrating because concerned neighbors are being dismissed as “afraid” of the poor or the afraid of sex offenders. This is a great neighborhood. And what makes a great neighborhood is everyone involved. To me, the church is part of that. We just want to talk and have some input. I fear that they are truly going to alienate their neighbors and create long lasting resentment. This can easily be avoided (whether or not they host tent city) by engaging the neighbors and allowing them to have a voice.

• 27 SG // Aug 26, 2010 at 5:53 pm

  @PJ, could you get a representative from share to meet with you and the reverend for the church? I wouldn’t ask you to go during services, but I know those guys keep office hours.

• 28 RT // Aug 26, 2010 at 8:17 pm

  You know, I have lived next to Maple Leaf Lutheran church for almost 30 years and never once have they been good neighbors.
  They wanted this parking lot for as long as I have lived here yet they now want to give it up. The joke in the neighborhood is it is a one and a half million dollar parking lot. Actually it cost them I hear 1.6 million dollars. Just think what they could do with that money for the homeless??????????
  I use to have a lawn that flowed down to the street, but with all of the parishioners parking in the winter on my front lawn and making a mess out of it I had to put in a rock wall. Then one Sunday one of them parked on my water main and broke it. Thank god it was on the city side and they replaced it at their cost. Now I have to have rocks around it.
  I have over the years found and dealt with syringes, condoms, and wine and beer bottles from people that have been around this church. One night I caught two kids trying to break into my car to get my tools. Took the kids up to the church to talk to the parents but they let them in but not me. Said they would take care of it. Put their hands to my chest and said we will take care of it but you are not to come in.
  I went to the Tent City in Shoreline that is coming here to see the size of it and it is big. One of my neighbors went and measured it. With the 20 foot buffer that they need for the Maple Leaf site and not including the French drain that they have down the middle, it is going to take the whole lot. This Tent City up in Shoreline has a good fifty yards barrier from their neighbors and is well isolated.
  I live across the street from this lot and there are not too many days that don’t go by during the school year that I don’t see kids using the 100 year drain in the NE corner of the lot as a urinal. And on other occasions, I have witnessed things being passed from car to car. Tent City may indeed stop that, but if Maple Leaf Lutheran Church can’t control the above things from happening then how will they control anything going on in Tent City. Maple Leaf Lutheran Church claims they will have no responsibility once Tent City comes into their lot, so if something happens to any of us neighbors or our property, who is responsible?
  The way I read it on the Internet is that the SHARE/WHEEL program wants to basically shove Tent City in our and the politician’s faces. In fact, it is rumored they have been offered a warehouse to put their encampment in for free, but in fact refused the offer. And, supposedly a Shoreline Church has also offered to take Tent City in for free, but they declined this offer as well. This, in my mind is a political ploy to use the homeless people in Tent City as pawns to get their funding from the city.
  As I was handing out leaflets last week, one neighbor suggested that a good site for Tent City would be at Sand Point. My wife pointed out that Fircrest in Shoreline also has many functionally brick buildings with boarded up windows, as well as open spaces that are not being used. Why are we not pursuing areas where there are buildings to be had, large open spaces, and more than one bus route serving the area and not sitting in the middle of a small, quiet residential neighborhood?
  Maple Leaf Lutheran Church has never in the 30 years that I have lived here, once communicated with its neighbors about anything they intend to do. The current SHARE program they have in the basement of their church was only supposed to be here for one year and to return on an every other year basis. Yet it has remained at Maple Leaf Lutheran Church every year for the past 13+ years. As some people have already pointed out, the church members were not there for the SHARE members when we had a bad winter or two. I can remember walkup up to Red Apple Market and buying two whole chickens, vegetables and noodles with my wife, coming home and making up a huge pot of chicken noodle soup for the group and bringing it up to the shelter folks so they could have a hot, cooked, home-made meal. It is noted that no one from Maple Leaf Church showed up for a good 5 days to do anything for these people who were basically stuck and/or abandoned here. It was the neighbors who banded together and made sure they were fed and taken care of.
  The bottom line is that I really believe that Maple Leaf Lutheran Church is more interested in saying they did something good for the homeless, without really having to do anything at all, including taking no responsibility for any damage or criminal activity which could occur as a result of its placement here? If they are so interested in the well being of the homeless, why did they spend 1.6 million dollars for this parking rather than contributing that same amount to a fund for creating a permanent indoor site for the homeless rather than putting it in a small neighborhood? And, what are they hiding from us and why won’t they talk to us before a vote is made by congregation members—again, many of whom don’t even live within a one block radius of the church?
  Maple Leaf Lutheran Church, don’t dictate to us! Communication is a great tool if you know how to use it.

• 29 JB // Aug 26, 2010 at 9:03 pm

  What a laughable bunch of nimbyism. I love the assumptions that all tent city inhabitants are sex offenders, that they all vomit all over the place, that the church doesn’t “work” with the neighborhood, etc. What a complete load of crap. Welcome to living in a real city and in society. Unfortunately, there are people who are homeless. Perhaps you would wish to send them to special out-of-sight “work” camps where they can be dealt with once and for all. Luckily, I suspect that the majority of the people in the neighborhood don’t share the opinions of the few rabid haters that have spewed their fear on this blog.

• 30 Morningside rez. // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:41 pm

  Amen to that one ! no pun intended.
  We are all one. And any of us could be
  one of “those” people. If we are not
  living from Love, we are living from
  Fear….

• 31 anon // Aug 26, 2010 at 11:21 pm

  jb, the concerns by the neighbors are based on the behavior of past camps. After having been a neighbor three times to the U-District ones, I can definitively say that these SHARE/WHEEL-run tent camps bring their own trouble with them, and the church hosts have usually been less than neighborly about taking responsibility for them. I have become increasingly frustrated with the whole lot of them, because the neighborhood is left dealing with the problems that the host church and SHARE won’t address. I am not looking forward to the next 2 1/2 months of being a neighbor once again to the tents at 45th and 15th.

  And as someone who knows by name and regularly helps out several of my homeless neighbors, I find your cracks about nimbyism to be beyond rude. Not everything is all love and roses with these camps, and you do a great disservice to everyone by pretending that is the case, or insinuating that every criticism originates from fear.

  I completely agree that there are good, quiet people in these camps, and they try to maintain order within the camp boundaries (they are not always as successful as they claim – I have witnessed several altercations firsthand and can confirm there is light to moderate drug use and drinking going on, about par for the U-District).

  But that can, and does, go hand on hand with the fact that the camps are also a draw for out of control people as well. When they are refused entrance or kicked out of the camps, they do not vanish into thin air. They float around the camps and throughout the host neighborhoods, and are frequently angry about being kicked out, or high, or both. In other words, the rejected are trouble with a capital T. Until the churches and SHARE are willing to address this, there will be opposition. As it should be.

  If you and SHARE and the host churches really want to affect change, you’d work to address some of the problems associated with these camps, and include the neighbors in the discussion. Believe it or not, most of them really do want to help. But not at the cost of being dissed and called a “rabid hater” because they had the gall to complain about property damage, assaults, public urination/defecation, or thefts by unwelcome people drawn to these camps.

• 32 Tatum // Aug 27, 2010 at 1:48 am

  Tent City is bad for the homeless. It is a failure in every respect except that it generates attention and political leverage for SHARE.

  SHARE does not report statistics on average time in the camps because the data shows that Tent City is a failure as a transitional operation. It is used (and the homeless residents are used) to push a political agenda. If SHARE was truly interested in helping the residents, why do they not ask the city to provide any social services? Job skills training? Assistance finding other housing? By my survey, less that 5% of the resident have jobs. Many residents have been in Tent City for years and years – one resident for 8 years!

  There are many many alternative sites that would provide better infrastructure for residents, and create less fear in residential areas. (Let’s face it, 100 strangers of any demographic dropped into a residential neighborhood are going to create fear) The city already funds almost 1500 beds in shelters throughout the city for the homeless. Tent City is a weak, sad, and misguided contribution to that effort.

  Shame on the Christians at Maple Leaf Lutheran for taking this “easy way out”. Committing their parking lot for 3 months costs them absolutely nothing, not even a mild inconvenience. If they feel the calling of God to help the homeless, they should do something real and constructive. How many of the congregation volunteer in homeless shelters now? As an earlier post pointed out, their $1.6 million they spent to build the parking lot could maybe have been spent in a more Christian direction.

  I ask the churches in the community, SHARE, and the city to shut down Tent City 3 right now. Provide the truly needy a roof, heat, and basic social services. Stop SHARE from exploiting this vulnerable population any more. Enough is enough…

• 33 JB // Aug 27, 2010 at 7:47 am

  @anon: Welcome to living in a city. Why do those of us who live in the built-up part of the city have to be the only ones who deal with this? Why do dwellers of the core urban areas have to be the only ones to see misery in it’s full horror? Why should you escape your share because you are fortunate enough to live in a nice park-like neighborhood? And exactly how are the tent city folks supposed to police people who are not part of their audience? That’s kind of like blaming the police for crime. These organizations and the church are trying to do something to help these people. And the church is well within it’s rights to completely ignore those two or three of you who are all criticism and not willing to be part of the problem. Funny how the church is obligated in your mind to be “neighborly” to you, but you are not obligated to be neighborly with our less fortunate neighbors who can’t afford a place to live. How about you stop whining and learn how to deal with it for a few months. Better yet, how about you step up and do something to help the problem.

• 34 Ashley // Aug 27, 2010 at 11:14 am

  @JB:
  the neighborhood map at http://www.meadowbrookneighbors.org/neighbor-survey-map
  shows that not just 1, 2, or 3 neighbors are opposed.
  Also, the church values their “stewardship” of the neighborhood, according to their own website, and yes, they want to help the homeless according to their religious mission. Maybe there can be a harmonious balance with a different solution.

• 35 Ashley // Aug 27, 2010 at 11:21 am

  @RB:
  Really?!!?! A straw man argument that discussion over a tent city is not worthwhile and a non-issue because there are teenagers in the neighborhood also supposedly making trouble? You sound like a grumpy curmudgeon that should stay OUT of politics and rational conversations lest your inability to see the issue derails the discussion.

• 36 anon // Aug 27, 2010 at 11:31 am

  jb, get off your high horse. I already look after the regular homeless near my house. I have nothing at all against the down and out, nor do I fear them as a group. That does not mean I agree to shit in my yard or physical attacks.

  These camps attract a meaner sort of hangers on for whatever reason. The groups that sponsor these camps refuse to deal with it. Guess what? I don’t want to, either.

  BTW, I would be a hell of a lot more supportive if these churches and SHARE actually worked to help out the trouble makers as well, moving them into a safer place, or even called the cops on them when they get violent. But they don’t. They only want to help out the “good” and compliant homeless.

• 37 SG // Aug 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm

  @RT, It sounds like you have a legitimate beef with the church. Perhaps you should have the rectory office on speed dial and a few names of people in charge to call. What are the names of the people you have been talking to over there? Call one of these people in charge and see if you can get them to stay at your house one night and see what you see or just invite them over for dinner to see (since you feel they all live too far away to understand your concern.)

  As far as local school kids using the drain as a urinal, I am sorry, but fail to see the link. I would hate to think that anybody in this date and age would come to the hasty generalization that homeless people are indiscriminate urinators.

  I think the parking lot was paved to have parishioners park there and not in the neighborhood. The church is now wanting to use it to house the homeless. So, they are trying to do something, just not the thing you want them to do.

  As you may know, there are fewer and fewer beds each year for the homeless in shelters. Seattle decreased its human services funding by 46% this year. Over 6,000 people in Seattle are homeless…you say there are almost 1500 (and dropping) beds for them…do the math. There are no shelters to cohabitate with your partner and there are no shelters where you can leave your things for the day and feel safe about it. Women who are homeless are virtually guaranteed to have been sexually molested while living on the street. They are homeless, but they are people too. Yes, this is a HUGE political problem that is not going away and will not go away. These people are quite tired of being invisible. I am sorry you will be forced to witness this reality for a few weeks. It does make it a little harder to turn your back on it when you just don’t feel like dealing with it. Take solace that, in a couple of months, it will be gone.

• 38 JB // Aug 27, 2010 at 8:48 pm

  @Ashley – You are right – a survey sent out by people opposed to the tent city shows (what a surprise) opposition to the tent city. Fact is, we live in a society that is wider than the boundaries of our private property and I applaud the church for providing the use of it’s land. I suspect a lot of people plainly just don’t care about a few people’s discomfort at seeing poor people vs. their universal human right to have a safe place to live. And I don’t buy the “I help homeless people” argument as a free pass to avoid this. Guess what people – the tent city homeless people will be our neighbors for a few weeks and they need our compassion. I hope that none here are ever unfortunate enough to truly understand what it is like to be homeless.

• 39 RAC // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:29 pm

  @JB–Regardless of who sent out the survey, the data doesn’t lie. You can verify it yourself and present it yourself. Guess what? It wouldn’t be from a survey sent out by people opposed to the tent city. If you’re going to make that claim, at least understand you’re dealing with data that is verifiable. There are names and addresses attached to it.

  And what do you mean you don’t buy the “I help homeless people” agrument as a free pass to avoid this. What does that “free pass to avoid this” even mean? You sound like a dicator. You sound like SHARE.

• 40 LisaM // Aug 28, 2010 at 7:19 pm

  As a neighbor living within a mile of the proposed tent city, I am torn. My heart goes out to the homeless yet there are some concerns that need to be addressed before I can support it. I want to help but I also would like to talk to the church. I am not sure why they are acting in such an inappropriate manner. It appears as if they are either hiding something or do not care about the community. Judging from their past actions, I can’t say I’m too surprised.

  @SG–You bring up some very interesting points and I thank you for being thoughtful and sincere in your responses.

  @JB. Although you and I are probably on the same “side” of this, I find your comments to be extremely condescending, offensive, and inflammatory. I help the homeless, I volunteer, and I try to do my part. “If” I oppose this (which I don’t), you’re saying my efforts aren’t good enough? Also, please take caution in your tone as it comes off extremely hateful and bitter.

• 41 AC // Aug 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm

  You, who tell us (RB,SG, Morningside rez.& JB) how great tent city experience has been, tell us how close you have lived to a tent city? Have you lived across the street or across the fence? Do you have children? And what are the ages of those children? Have the bedroom windows of your children looked down on this unacceptable practice?

  It is a mystery to me that anyone believes that housing people outside is a good idea. If I had my children sleep and eat outside in the cold, rainy winter months, the State of Washington would surely step in and remove them from my care. Why are people from the city leaders … right on down to the churches so content to believe it is an acceptable thing to house anyone outside?

  During WWII we removed the Japanese to live away from the rest of society. Today many of you would scream ‘abuse’ for the Arizona prison inmates because they are left to sleep outside. For the love of heaven, have we learned nothing over the years about treating people.

  Tent Cities are not the answer … and continuing to perpetuate them is shameful. In an attempt to expedite housing the homeless, our city and county leaders have blindly encouraged and followed a pattern of putting the homeless in tent cities and then used the tactic of being ruthless with anyone objecting.

  Where have you been over the past 13 years when other neighbors have stepped into care for the needs of those already housed at Maple Leaf? The church has a history of not showing up on numerous occasions … for those they already house. How many times have you helped them get into the church on a cold rainy night when they were stranded and locked out? Have you helped to prepare and feed them at holiday time? Have you offered your showers in your homes so they could be clean when they were snowed in? We have been there over and over. Where have you been? Furthermore, Maple Leaf Lutheran has not been there either. And now you believe Maple Leaf Church is going to be able to really help out with the eventual crises as they come up for those left outside of the church in tents?

  Has anyone of the supporters of tent cities really thought through the consequences of having people sleep and eat outside in tents? Anyone who has carefully researched homeless issues and the results of tent cities, and still insists tent cities to be a good idea … should understand you stand in the way of getting the homeless lasting and acceptable ways of living, so they can return as productive people, once again to society.

• 42 JB // Aug 28, 2010 at 10:44 pm

  @AC, it still sounds like you are saying it’s someone else’s problem. A safe tent is better than riding the metro around the city in the middle of the night or sleeping in the park or getting set on fire and beat to death. I hope this made you reflect just a little about this issue. Go visit the tent city in the u-district and ask some questions. Educate yourself. Volunteer at the Downtown Emergency Service Center or other organizations that are on the front lines of fighting homelessness. Do something. If you are a republican, consider this. Many of the homeless hoping to find a safe, warm place to sleep tonight are veterans – you know, the ones who signed up to protect and defend the constitution of our nation and who have recently come back from Afghanistan and Iraq too messed up to re-integrate into society without some help or who are permanently broken.

• 43 Anon // Aug 29, 2010 at 1:36 pm

  What does being republican have to do with anything in this argument?

• 44 moogie // Aug 29, 2010 at 2:06 pm

  Seems to me that people claiming that the crime rate will increase should either put up (with verifiable facts and statistics) or shut up; conjecture and anecdotes are no substitute for actual data.

• 45 MJ // Aug 29, 2010 at 4:53 pm

  @moogie, here, let us “put up” with some actual data for you. How would you feel if you had 154 police incidents in your back yard over a 2 month period? Check out this statistic and many others from actual police reports here:

  http://www.meadowbrookneighbors.org/concerns/police-reports.

  And since we’re on that topic, please provide us some verifiable data that shows that there is no crime associated with Tent City, we’d be very interested in seeing that. Facts are facts, no matter your ideology.

• 46 RGB // Aug 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm

  @JB, educate yourself? How many residents of tent city are returning veterans? Please, educate me.

• 47 TDD // Aug 29, 2010 at 6:00 pm

  @JB–I’m a little confused. First you say helping the homeless doesn’t give you a free pass in one post now you say to educate yourself and volunteer. Can’t win with you. Your raging spew and venom is getting tiresome. Let’s dial it down a few notches.

• 48 moogie // Aug 29, 2010 at 7:34 pm

  @MJ
  Did you read B67TentCty4FinalRept.PDF?

  “and we did not see an increase in crime in the Maywood Hills neighborhood”

• 49 Susan // Aug 30, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  I live 1 block from the proposed tent city. I have lived in the neighborhood since 1994 starting out on 32nd and 103rd and then moving a few blocks south to 98th. I remember when we had a field in the parking lot and the neighbors would walk their dogs there and the church would park all over the streets on Sundays due to inadequate parking. The school down the street, Seattle Waldorf, would park all over the place too on festival days and traffic would be horrific at start and stop of school. We neighbors wanted to put a park where the houses and parking lot are now but couldn’t raise the money to do so. As a consolation prize, the developer sold part of the property to the church for parking which relieved a lot of congestion in the neighborhood. The church allows the school to park there on school days and fesitval days.

  The parking lot is tiny but adequate for the church. A tent city will mean that traffic again will be messed up with parking on the streets as people from the school and from the church look for parking.

  I supported the homeless shelter that is in the church 365 days a year now. I have brought the resisdents Girl Scout cookies and chatted with them. It is a warm and safe place for them.

  I do not support the tent city because it is temporary and outside during the winter. The parking lot is right up next to many backyards that are filled with children. Children will walk by there everyday on their way to/from school unless their parents now decide to drive them to school. Traffic will be much worse due to no parking and this in turn will make it more dangerous to walk to school. We have very few sidewalks up in Meadowbrook and you already take your life in your hands walking some of the streets.

  I hope that the church will listen to the neighbors and decide to help the homeless in a more productive manner.

• 50 MT // Aug 30, 2010 at 2:48 pm

  The report B67TentCty4FinalRept.PDF also stated that many of the problems that were reported could may have been fixed by finding a more suitable site for tent city.

  City of Mercer seems to have had a much harder time and compiled this comparison of tent city crime metrics:

  http://www.mercergov.org/files/TC%20OA%20Stats.pdf

• 51 SG // Aug 30, 2010 at 3:08 pm

  @AC, I never said that tent city was all kittens and rainbows. It’s not. It is however, the only solution for a lot of people…those that want to stay with their partners, or not sleep in a crowded building, or have a place to keep their stuff, or are tired with shelter hopping and hoping to find one of the diminishing numbers of beds–as in KNOW that they have a place to sleep and know where that is. It is truly sad that this is the only option for people who want to try to be independent. No one can guarantee that there will be no crime. You cannot promise that in a fully employed and homed population. There will be some impact. It cannot be helped, but I don’t think it will be all doom and gloom and human feces. As far as having people live and eat in tents, what is their other option? There are fewer and fewer beds in shelters for them. We can put them in a warehouse, and stack them like cordwood, where there is no privacy–which pretty much guarantees spread of airborne pathogens in a stressed and compromised population–and still not have room for everybody. We can agree to fund health care and housing for the indigent in a time when people are not willing to fund public health and public safety, or we can limp along with this solution.

  Yes, I have volunteered quite extensively with a shelter that is part of the Noel house system. I have been made aware first hand that there is not a good homeless solution out there and with social services dollars drying up, there are fewer and fewer programs to help these people transition.

  No, I do not have children. If I did, I would look at this as a teaching experience in compassion and not in fear or arrogance. If I was worried about them seeing the neighboring property, I would teach them to close their blinds. I understand your concern, but I don’t buy into your fear that tent city will cause the neighborhood to become blighted.

  Again, most of your beef appears to be with the church and its handling of this and other issues. Go make an appointment with and talk with who is in charge of the church. Explain ALL your issues, not just those with tent city, and propose solutions that would be acceptable to both their needs and yours. Be the neighbor to them that you wish that they were to you. Until you can establish a meaningful discourse with them, you are bound to live a life full of resentment and mistrust as long as your live in your house and that would be a very unnecessarily unfortunate existence.

• 52 Kathryn // Aug 30, 2010 at 9:19 pm

  I believe in taking care of the homeless, in fact I volunteer at food banks and D.I. However I have no idea if these people are drug addicts, mentally unstable, or just down on their luck. This is MY neighborhood. I’ve already had to replace my mailbox to a locked one because my bank statements were stolen. So my question is who will be supervising to make sure they behave so I am safe? Am I wrong to feel uncomfortable about having tent city as my neighbor? I feel conflicted. Part of me wants to welcome them with open arms and even take them food yet another part of me feels very nervous/anxious. I guess I need to learn more about it. I always go running past that church and I don’t want to change my routine (that sounds selfish i know).

• 53 KE // Aug 30, 2010 at 11:21 pm

  The Maple Leaf Lutheran parking lot is a totally inappropriate location for ONE HUNDRED people to camp – whether they are homeless or Boy Scouts. Maple Leaf Lutheran should help SHARE find a more suitable location – a larger area that is not directly in so many backyards. The Tent City locations I have seen have not been nearly so small and exposed. It is a completely inappropriate location for this purpose.

• 54 LisaM // Aug 30, 2010 at 11:55 pm

  @SG–I think I’ve made up my mind on this now. I think I may be against the church hosting tent city for a variety of reasons. There are more humane places to house them. Again, you bring up some great points but at the end of the day, this isn’t the right location.

  One thing I do want to add is that the church indeed refuses to talk. I tried calling and was completely blown off. They told me that a couple neighbors are stirring up things–which I found to be completely offensive. I also sent an e-mail to the church’s so called tent city task force and was given a canned response saying they won’t meet with neighbors.

• 55 Pam // Sep 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

  I’m a Meadowbrook resident. I’ve also lived next door to Tent City 3 for a total of six months, as pastor of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church of Shoreline. I can tell you from experience that Tent City is a VERY good neighbor. The reality is that more and more people are losing their jobs and then their apartments or homes, in this very difficult economic time. The homeless of Tent City are people with jobs, people with health care crises, even students who are trying to make ends meet. The Briarcrest (Shoreline) neighborhood association was and is very supportive of Tent City, and encouraged my church to host them. “This is the kind of neighborhood we want to be…a neighborhood with a heart,” is what they told us. Would that Meadowbrook neighbors would do the same.

• 56 Rita Pinchot // Sep 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm

  I am in supportive of Tent City 3 coming to our neighborhood and happy to have an opportunity to help those less fortunate than myself. I also welcome the chance for my daughter to see that there are others in need and be a part of working to better the lives of others. Let’s be the change we want to see in the world and in others.

• 57 rc // Sep 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm

  The claim of assault? Police report? Case number? I have been told there has never been an assault attributed to Tent City 3, and if there has I would love to know. After finding other negative claims to be unsupportable, I would love to hear verifiable facts for once. Most of this talk sounds like fear and phobia.

• 58 SAS // Sep 8, 2010 at 1:42 am

  We bought our little house on 100th overlooking the field in 2000. We opposed the very large houses from being developed right across from our little house instead of this great green space being used as open space. We have adjusted and have come to know some of our new neighbors. So, up to this point I have dealt with a City Council that didn’t listen, an arrogant developer that didn’t care to listen and now a church community that for some reason is not addressing or even hearing the concerns of the community. We are listed as opposed on this website. I wish there was an “undecided but definitely unimpressed with the lack of communication” option. I just took some time to read through this blog and found some of your comments helpful and others–not so much. I am not a paranoid person or a person motivated by fear. There do seem to be some problems with the plan. I have 2 little girls and would probably feel quite concerned if the tent city were right next to my backyard.

  So, as I stand in my kitchen tonight looking out at the proposed tent city site I wonder –how it will directly impact my family. If there was a tent city there–how could I help? But then I see the church in the background and I just get irritated because I am tired of poor communication. I imagine this is definitely not the response that the church is hoping for.

• 59 OT // Sep 8, 2010 at 2:28 am

  @rc: Here’s one for you: Mercer Island Tent City 8/25/2008 10:30pm Case #2008-8833. “Two residents of TC got into an argument, which became physical with some pushing, shoving and threats. The male subject was arrested and booked into the Issaquah Jail.” Sounds like just the kind of thing we want to welcome to our neighborhood. Great teaching lesson for our kids, right? Don’t be so naive.

• 60 Jami Fecher // Sep 10, 2010 at 9:13 am

  In order to use good judgment one must take measures to prevent oneself from deciding according to fear or preference. Few of the things I’ve read on this site were level-headed. Instead they were expressions of fear. This site seems to ant to inflame fear. I looked at the testimonials page at http://www.meadowbrookneighbors.org/testimonials, whoever posted the visible paragraphs (before you click “more”) was dishonest in a tabloid kind of way about the actual content of the letter from the police Captain Clement Rush and the survey from Shoreline residents. Both of these documents were mostly positive and addressed most of the fears voiced on this site. Only the few negative comments were highlighted.

• 61 KE // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:26 am

  When I read an entry from someone who is passionate about supporting this location for Tent City, I have to question where that person lives. I, too, would love to support this effort and offer my neighborhood to help those in need – but only if I thought the site was appropriate and didn’t adversely affect so many families. Those of you who live even two blocks away will not be nearly as affected by this as those who literally have only a fence separating them from ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE – for THREE MONTHS! I think it’s a little hypocritical for anyone who lives beyond a two-block radius to criticize those who would rather not host ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE in their backyard.

  So, please, when you write in support of this location for Tent City, please share with us how far from the parking lot you live. Without that information, I’m afraid your passionate support holds no credibility with me.

• 62 KE // Sep 10, 2010 at 10:35 am

  @Pam: Your experience in your church’s neighborhood is impressive and heart-warming. But it sounds as if your church behaved quite differently from Maple Leaf Lutheran. It sounds like you actually engaged the neighbors in conversation instead of shunning requests for dialogue and responding to letters with canned and condescending words. I have also heard from those who have visited your host site that it is VERY different from Maple Leaf Lutheran’s parking lot – with much more of a buffer from homes. I have not been there myself – this is only what I was told. So I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples. The neighbors I have met through this are kind and compassionate people. I think Maple Leaf Lutheran has botched this whole thing and should be ashamed of their approach. I have lost all respect for this congregation.

• 63 RBG // Sep 13, 2010 at 4:11 pm

  To those who claim that my opposition to Tent City 3 is driven by fear: it is NOT. I am not afraid of Tent City 3 or anyone in it. Up until two days ago, I had not entirely made up my mind which side of the fence I was on. Now I know. I am against Tent City 3 residing in the parking lot of Maple Leaf Lutheran Church. The church and SHARE have mishandled this entire issue. Refusing to speak to the neighbors, not answering questions that deserve answers and adopting an arrogant attitude does not make me want to support SHARE or Maple Leaf Lutheran. Make no mistake about it, I am not afraid of the homeless (my brother is one of them) and I am not heartless or cruel. But I would like some questions answered and if SHARE or the church does not want to take the time to sit down with some neighbors and answer questions, then I am against the whole idea. By the way, when I toured Tent City 3, I was told by the person giving me the tour that about 90% of the residents are not working or looking for work because they receive disability income. These are not people who lost their jobs and are looking for work. They are on disability and will not be working. I also have a brother on disability that is living in a house and is not homeless. The difference between my two brothers is that one will follow the rules required to keep a roof over his head, the other will not.

• 64 Lou // Sep 15, 2010 at 8:28 am

  I am a healthcare provider at a downtown clinic that serves homeless men and women as well as those being housed in shelters, emergency housing and work release. Homelessness is not a crime, it is a symptom of other underlying chronic diseases such as alcohol/drug abuse of a history of such, PTSD and mental illness to name few.

  It is naive to think that the residents of tent city are just down on their luck and that tent city is transitional “housing” until they find a job. this attitude also prevents these people from receiving the social services and health care that they really need (yes times are tough but these services still exist).

  This is why I have a problem with tent city in any neighborhood, not just mine. Tent city is about politics and legalized squatting, not about truly helping the homeless. It is disingenuous and or uneducated on the issue for MLL to promote tent city as helping the homeless.

  Living 2 blocks from the proposed cite, I am concerned about the logistics I have not seen addressed:

  How often are the sanicans for 100 people being changed?

  Is SHARE and MLL going to help the neighborhood deal with the tent city spill over that ends up camping in the many ravines in this neighborhood?

  What about dumpsters and garbage? The neighborhood already has a rat problem.

  What about noise levels? Are small electronic devices going to be allowed? (there are outlets all over the lot).

  There are other more meaningful ways for the church to provide help to homeless men and women, without creating bad will between neighbors and fractioning a neighborhood.