This morning, as mayor Ed Murray was announcing two new "safe lots" for people living in cars and RVs (a spot in Ballard and one in Delridge), one of Murray's other homelessness initiatives was getting picked apart by city council.

At this morning's council briefing, representatives from the executive branch (deputy mayor Kate Joncas, Human Services Department Director Catherine Lester, and Finance and Administrative Services staffer Chris Potter) sat in the hot seat to answer council questions about Murray's homeless encampment sweeps. 

The group presented a lot of data:

Since the mayor's declaration of a state of emergency (SOE) in early November, there have been 38 sweeps (the mayor's office prefers to call them "clean ups" or "events.") The "clean ups" have moved 184 people off unauthorized sites all over the city; the sites are concentrated around transit corridors. Of those 184 people, all of whom were offered shelter, 74 people accepted.

Depending on the circumstances, people were also offered non-shelter help—60 people accepted those "non-shelter services." There was overlap between the 74 who accepted shelter and the 60 who accepted services.

Council member Tim Burgess asked Joncas, Lester, and Potter the key questions about the data: "What's the reason they turned it down? Why are only 40 percent of people [74 of 184] accepting shelter?" And, "If everyone of them [the 184 people who an outreach worker presumably offered shelter] had said yes, could they have been placed that day in a shelter? How real is the offer? Can we deliver?"

Council member Herbold, who requested this  morning's briefing, seconded Burgess's point, adding: "Only 74 people accepted shelter services...so, that's over 100 people who are very likely to have just relocated to [probably] more dangerous conditions."

Lester said  some people turned down the offer for shelter because they had "alternate plans...permanency options they're looking at" or "some people may not want to go to shelter because of some of the conditions in our shelters..." In short, she said there were "a variety of reasons" adding the data clued the city in "that there continues to be a lot we don't know...which really impacts our ability to be intentional."

As to the second question (could the city make good on its humanitarian offer?), Lester noted that the count was iterative, over several weeks, so it was hard to tell. But when pushed, Lester said "increasingly yes." She noted that the city had added 288 shelter beds since Mayor Murray declared a state of emergency over homelessness in early November, including opening two new  authorized encampments in Ballard and Interbay with capacity for 110 beds,  a new shelter for women with 60 beds in Greenwood, a new shelter in Queen Anne with 60 beds,  plus this morning's announcement for safe parking for 50 vehicles. The mayor's office also sent me an email pointing out: "This month, for the first time, a mobile medical van is serving those experiencing homelessness in Seattle."

However, after flagging the affordability crisis, Lester  then got philosophical saying the real goal was "figuring out how we help people toward [housing] permanency on the other end."

Council member Lisa Herbold,  said in a statement afterward: "We need to know more about whether the approximately 110 people who didn’t receive shelter were offered it and refused, and if so why, or whether there wasn’t sufficient capacity. I appreciate that since the declaration of emergency more than 200 shelter beds have been added to the system, but I remain concerned that it is not sufficient to meet the emergency survival needs of the people our encampment removal practices displace.”

The other bit of data was this (pictured above): There were approximately 136 reports of unauthorized encampment sites around the city. Removal of the sites is complaint based. Businesses, residents, and the city itself call in the complaints when they think the encampments are are causing problems for the community or when they think the homeless people may be in danger themselves. For example, SDOT identified a site at 4th and Yesler beneath the Yesler bridge as a safety hazard.

There are protocols for dealing with these requests. For example, the homeless encampments are given 72-hour notice of the sweep, the city provides up to 60 days storage for personal property,  and the city must provide outreach to connect homeless campers with  services and shelter.

The council is calling for a review of the protocols and procedures. For example, council member Lorena González wanted to know if the notices were only in English. "I can barely understand these postings, and I have a law degree," she said. "And what if you're illiterate?" (The postings are in English and Spanish.)  González also flagged the storage process: "The process to recover your personal property," she said "is an area where I think the city could improve. If taking people's property and putting it in storage, and requiring them to jump through hoops to get it back is the way we engage people to get them services, then we're doing something wrong." And council member Kshama Sawant noted that, according to city rules, a personal item only counts as property if it's valued at at least $100. "Who decides what is valuable?" she asked. "This is the brutal reality of homelessness...what you own may not be valued at anything.")

Herbold pointed out that there should be repeat notices after a camp has been removed in case new people come there. "If there are new people, they're certainly entitled to have another period of time of notice," she said. "And if they're the same people, then our encampment procedures aren't working as intended in that we're not getting those people into shelter."

In the meantime, Herbold said she wanted the city to explain to the council and the public which current sites were being prioritized for removal and why.