City Hall
The Seattle Times' 180 on Tent City
This morning, the Seattle Times ran a surprising editorial
calling Mayor Mike McGinn's plan to open a semipermanent encampment for the homeless in SoDo a "doable" plan that "deserves support."
The conservative Times' support for the liberal mayor's proposed encampment is all the more surprising in the context of its longtime position on the issue: Encampments, the Times editorialized in 2008, are "pointless" and "tiresome."
Over the years, the Times has been consistent in its opposition to encampments. In 2008, they called Nickelsville "not a request for charity but a bid for entitlement." In 2007, they wrote , "There is no economic necessity for Hoovervilles." And in July of that same year, they editorialized that homeless camps are "abnormal, temporary" uses that shouldn't be allowed to stay in one place permanently.
So why the sudden turnaround? Here's one theory: Unlike every past Tent City or Nickelsville location (Bellevue, Kirkland, the University District...), the proposed site---on a piece of industrial land in SoDo where a peanut butter factory burned down earlier this year---is not in a residential neighborhood. It's tucked away between two railroad tracks and next to I-5. Out of the Seattle Times' sight, out of mind.
Confidence that a city-sponsored encampment would work is built upon the success of the Tent City efforts. They are an imperfect answer to chronic homelessness, but Share/Wheel and sponsoring religious and civic organizations, and the Tent City residents themselves, have done a good job of management.
Codes of conduct — sobriety, nonviolence, cooperation, litter patrols and 24-hour security — have made them good neighbors.
The conservative Times' support for the liberal mayor's proposed encampment is all the more surprising in the context of its longtime position on the issue: Encampments, the Times editorialized in 2008, are "pointless" and "tiresome."
There are always people with private emergencies, and we help them with shelter beds.
We don't need to use tents — and nobody thought of it until some political activists at SHARE/WHEEL devised Tent City eight years ago.
Itinerant tent camps are not acceptable in a modern city. We didn't have them before the 1990s, and most other American cities don't have them now. They look at us and wonder why we ever allowed it.
Over the years, the Times has been consistent in its opposition to encampments. In 2008, they called Nickelsville "not a request for charity but a bid for entitlement." In 2007, they wrote , "There is no economic necessity for Hoovervilles." And in July of that same year, they editorialized that homeless camps are "abnormal, temporary" uses that shouldn't be allowed to stay in one place permanently.
So why the sudden turnaround? Here's one theory: Unlike every past Tent City or Nickelsville location (Bellevue, Kirkland, the University District...), the proposed site---on a piece of industrial land in SoDo where a peanut butter factory burned down earlier this year---is not in a residential neighborhood. It's tucked away between two railroad tracks and next to I-5. Out of the Seattle Times' sight, out of mind.
