More discussion but no decision — and a special meeting scheduled for Thursday. That was the outcome of the Edmonds City Council ‘s Tuesday deliberations regarding an overnight camping ordinance that would make it illegal to occupy public property when shelter is available and subsequently refused.
To view or listen to the virtual Thursday meeting, which starts at 8 p.m., paste the following into a web browser using a computer or smart phone: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261. Or join by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261.
The ordinance, first introduced to the council last week, was drafted by the city attorney in collaboration with Deputy Parks Director Shannon Burley, who oversees the city’s human services program, and Police Chief Michelle Bennett and her staff. It allows police to cite individuals for illegally occupying public property in what city staff say are very rare situations where two conditions are met: 1) When available overnight shelter exists and 2) when that available shelter has been offered and refused.
Creation of the ordinance was sparked by an incident in the Lake Ballinger neighborhood last summer, when a woman spent several months living on a bench at the Interurban Trail. While it was originally created to address those instances involving people who are homeless, the latest version includes updated language — requested by Councilmember Will Chen — that it apply to anyone who is unlawfully occupying public property.
The measure drew public comments from several speakers — including 21st District Rep. Strom Peterson and former 32nd District Sen. Maralyn Chase — stating they were opposed to it. Edmonds resident Kate Sullivan told the council that the ordinance will not fix the issue of homelessness, but instead “it intimidates, it terrorizes, it says you are not wanted here, we don’t care about you, get out of my sight.”
Also speaking in opposition was Lisa Utter, chair of South Snohomish County’s Emergency Cold Weather, which provides shelter for homeless people when temperatures drop below freezing. “I think criminalizing people for existing, just for sleeping is really the opposite of being an inclusive and welcoming neighbohood and city that you claim and it is really being a bad neighbor to push people out into other neighboring cities,” Utter said.
City Councilmember Laura Johnson expressed similar sentiments, adding that it takes months of relationship building and understanding to find appropriate services for those who are homeless. While the proposed ordinance states it won’t be enforced unless the person refuses available shelter, “it doesn’t state that the service must meet the individual’s needs,” Johnson said. She stressed that the city should work to expand available shelter options in Edmonds before further considering such an ordinance and moved to table it, but that motion failed on a 2-5 vote (Councilmember Paine also voting in favor.)
Paine then asked Police Chief Michelle Bennett to weigh in how the department would enforce such an ordinance. The chief replied that the process would be similar to how police officers now handle similar calls involving those who are homeless: They would call a representative from the city’s human services department, who would assess the person’s need for services and try to assist them. If the person declines shelter, the person has the option to leave. “Any kind of charging or arrest would be an absolutely last resort,” she added.
“It’s all about first finding services to help,” Bennett said, noting that many of her officers advocate for those who are homeless and work to get them the services they need.
Patricia Taraday of the Lighthouse Law Group, which contracts with Edmonds to provide city attorney services, reiterated her comments from last week that the ordinance is not about criminalizing homelessness. “The ordinance will not be enforced against homeless individuals when no available shelter is in place for that particular person,” Taraday said. “Homeless individuals will not be arrested for sleeping outside when there is no available shelter.”
While violating the ordinance would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or 90 days in jail, it includes a provision that the court can order anyone unable to pay to instead perform “community service or work crew in lieu of a monetary penalty.”
Councilmember Chen proposed a new amendment to the ordinance requiring that the city offer — in addition to shelter — food, medical care and notification of family. Council President Vivian Olson asked staff to weigh in on the feasibility of putting those requirements into practice. Deputy Director Burley noted that needed medical care would be provided by paramedics. Notifying family, she said, is “an incredibly compassionate suggestion” that staff could try to do but couldn’t guarantee it would be successful.
Olson said that she thought those two suggestions — medical care and family notification — could be part of the ordinance’s implementation plan rather than in the ordinance itself, and proposed an amendment to Chen’s amendment that deleted those two items. That amendment passed on a 4-3 vote, with Chen, Laura Johnson and Paine voting no. The amended amendment then passed 5-2, with L. Johnson and Paine opposing.
More discussion then ensued before a final vote on the ordinance could be taken. At 10:45 p.m., a motion to extend the meeting further (it had already been extended three times, for 15-minute increments) failed. Olson quickly moved that the meeting be continued to a special meeting this Thursday.
In other action, the council:
– Received a Buildable Lands Report and Initial 2044 Growth Targets presentation from Steven Toy, principal demographer with Snohomish County. The presentation sets the stage for the city’s 2024 update of its Comprehensive Plan, which will begin this year. The Buildable Lands Report is used by cities and counties for zoning analysis and helps them with planning. It also looks at densities of various zoning areas and the land capacity for future growth. In Edmonds, for example, the Highway 99 and the Edmonds Way/Westgate areas have been identified for future residential capacity, Toy said.
Washington state’s Growth Management Act requires fast-growing cities and counties to develop a comprehensive plan to manage their population growth. Based on current growth targets, Edmonds’ population is projected to grow to 56,000 people by 2044 — 13,000 more residents than the city currently has.
Development Director Susan McLaughlin reminded the council that the city will be discussing, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, a variety of options the city has for meeting growth targets — including recommendations made by the Edmonds Citizens’ Housing Commission such as allowing detached accessory dwellings units and cluster/cottage housing.
The timeline for the Comprehensive Plan update starting this year includes a visioning and scoping process, development of an Environmental Impact Statement and public hearings.
– Awarded the construction contract for the Highway 99 Gateway-Revitalization Stage 2 Project to Westwater Construction Company, which came in with the low bid of $6,632,644, with a $663,300 management reserve. The bid was 25% above the engineer’s estimate, due to the challenging bid climate in Seattle area. There’s a backlog of projects due to the recent concrete strike and difficulties in hiring skilled labor, and material prices are also higher.
The scope of Highway 99 improvements include installing a raised landscaped median with mid-block left-turn pockets — replacing the center left-turn lane — plus adding gateway signs at the north and south ends of the city limits. There will also be a pedestrian-activated HAWK signal 600 feet north of 234th Street Southwest — similar to the one now installed on Highway 104 near City Park — aimed at making highway pedestrian crossings safer.
The construction timeline is approximately six months and it’s expected the bulk of the work will be completed by the end of the year. The HAWK signal isn’t likely to be installed until spring 2023 due to supply chain issues, Acting Public Works Director Rob English said.
– Held a public hearing but took no action on amendments to city code regarding residential occupancy, which are aimed at addressing the requirements of Senate Bill 5235. The state legislation lifts caps on the number of unrelated people allowed to share a home, and also lifts prohibitions on renters residing on lots with accessory dwellings. A vote on the measure is scheduled for the May 17 council meeting.
– Approved proposals totaling more than $200,000 to purchase a screenings conveyor for the city’s wastewater treatment plant.
Two other items on the agenda — amending city code for permitting special events and awarding contracts for the city’s job order contracting program — were postponed to a future meeting.
In a special meeting at 6 p.m., the council began discussing proposed changes to its Rules of Procedure and also interviewed Colin Torretta, a candidate for the Edmonds Sister City Commission. Torretta’s apppointment was approved as part of the council’s consent agenda during the 7 p.m. meeting.
— By Teresa Wippel
This proposed ordinance seems to me to be nothing but performative theater, giving the appearance of “doing something” but really doing nothing at all. Here’s why:
“It allows police to cite individuals for illegally occupying public property in what city staff say are very rare situations where two conditions are met: 1) When available overnight shelter exists and 2) when that available shelter has been offered and refused.”
“The ordinance will not be enforced against homeless individuals when no available shelter is in place for that particular person,” (City Attorney) Taraday said. “Homeless individuals will not be arrested for sleeping outside when there is no available shelter.”
It has been established by the City Council that there are no shelter beds in Edmonds. There are shelter beds for women and children in Lynnwood, but they typically have weeks-long waiting lists. There are no shelter beds for men in Lynnwood.
So there is no shelter to offer, and therefore no shelter to refuse.
Another point:
“While violating the ordinance would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or 90 days in jail, it includes a provision that the court can order anyone unable to pay to instead perform “community service or work crew in lieu of a monetary penalty.”
Fining people who cannot pay, jailing people who will just be released back to the streets to begin the cycle again, or assigning “community service” to people like the woman on the park bench in the Lake Ballinger neighborhood are obviously punitive and unworkable responses.
These proposals are performative and mean-spirited. They will, if enacted, accomplish nothing.
And what does all this say about our cute little town? That in 2022, we have a pandemic of homelessness, addiction, and despair and the City of Edmonds has NO shelter beds. We have 1 or 2 social workers for an estimated 450 homeless citizens and we know full well that it takes an investment of time to build trust and a bit of a relationship with many homeless people to affect change.
We can do better than this.
Very well said. And yes, we can do better than this.
Incorrect assessment on shelter availability (at least on the county scale). First of all, there are motel vouchers available to use within Edmonds. There is the mission in Everett in addition to various motel voucher programs with motel owners who are supportive and receptive to helping these individuals stabilize and connect with services. There is also the crisis triage center which is a voluntary program in Everett. Those options were refused last summer on numerous occasions even though many were very appropriate. It is incorrect there are no options for use in Edmonds. If that were true, what are we paying our human services department to do if they can’t do anything as has been implied?
Thank you for your comment, all that you point out is accurate except that we don’t have a social worker. Our Human Services program consists of 2 people who are working their hearts out, every day to find and connect people to the needed services.
The “better” options had been proposed and offered many times last summer to no avail. Folks don’t understand that some people need to hear and do things at times when they otherwise do not want to – ie, accountability. For all those saying something else needs to be the solution you are fine with that position because it isn’t or hasn’t been in your backyard. Just wait until the NIMBY stuff starts from these exact folks when we start talking about building shelter in Edmonds. I say we start by putting it downtown. Those folks can’t even let a commercial building go up without storming the council chambers because it doesn’t have the charm they require. Total malarkey.
Just pass an ordinance that prohibits sleeping on public property in Edmonds. Nothing complicated really, just do it. What do I have to do , put a “no camping sign in my front yard next to the sidewalk? All this inclusive and compassionate drivel results in the nightmarish conditions evidenced on the streets and in the parks and medians all over Seattle. No thanks.
We have yet to hear from one person who’s against this ordinance who is willing to have their front yard used as a public toilet. Not one person, against, has said they happily clean up the needles in their front driveway each morning. For them, if it’s in the public space it’s okay though. I guess that’d they would be okay with their children playing in a park full of feces and random syringes while they are doing relationship-building?
I literally cleaned up needles from my kids neighborhood park this weekend at Mathay Ballinger. Oh, and a weapon as well in addition to trash of course. It had to be a volunteer led operation. The only council member that was there was Vivian Olson; take note of that when you hear from some of the council members that they have better solutions when they are not even coming out to do the bare minimum to keep our public spaces clean. I give CM Chen a pass because he was out of town. I also learned the parks department had to come and cut back the wooded area there since the camping got so bad and there were mounds of used needles.
I give up on our politico’s and the process’ in general. I look to the Right and I see nothing but authoritarian nut jobs who want no part of progressive democracy. I look to the Left and see nothing but cry baby bleeding hearts who want to turn our parks and libraries into temporary housing for the poor, mentally ill and addicted. These people are nothing but hypocrite NIMBY’s and will be the first to call the police demanding action when Joe Addict pitches his tent on their front lawn. Neither group presents any real solutions to our ever deepening political and social divides.
I have a modest proposal in regards to unwanted campers in public spaces of Edmonds. We have three vary large parks (one County, but probably available) that could provide spaces for at least 10 or 15 tents and some portable toilets. The city could provide very good tents or yurt type buildings to address this need and our social services could have some sort of portable office on sight and a car or van to take people to services – medical, substance abuse treatment, food banks etc. People who refuse this very kind and open minded city service should be fined and/or go to jail or mental health care. That is what an engaged, caring and non-polarized society would do for anyone needing the help for whatever reason or reasons.
This is not a far fetched idea. This is exactly what Everett did by opening their tiny house village near the train station. It is important to note once that opened, their own “no-sit-no-lie” ordinance went into effect, basically stating that once that is opened you need to accept the shelter space. Better yet, the shelters are manufactured here locally in Snohomish County, and the site is secure and with a security service. I work in Everett and the results were pretty dramatic. Sure – Everett still has many issues around town, but the city has taken the approach of providing services, and then enforcing their laws and codes with compassion yet enforcement, not just throwing their hands up in the air saying “well, what do you want us to do about it?” I am not sure yurts and tents are a good idea, but the idea of tiny house villages have proven to be effective. You need to wrap around the services and community security around these properties, both for the residents own safety and for the community. I won’t make any comments about the left or right leaning folks and their take on the ordinance or these solutions, but there are examples in our very own neighboring communities that work. The question left is, where could this possibly be located in Edmonds? I go back to my own comment above – we cannot even get past conversations of residential/commercial development issues or if we should or should not have streateries let alone siting a tiny house village.
Clint is correct that it is time to offer solutions. The goal of the ordinance is ok but lacks sufficient solutions to fully implement. Let’s do some numbers and offer solutions that can address the numbers and then move some of this stuff along.
What Tom Kozaczynsk said about having to clean up needles from his kids neighborhood park this weekend at Mathay Ballinger is what happened across the street from our condo in Ballard. We couldn’t even walk our dog because of the needles. A porta potty was lit on fire, stores were constantly having merchandise stolen, and you had to watch out for the guy running around with an axe.
My youngest brother was an addict, lived on the streets in Seattle in the early 80’s with an NFL player, and several other people. We couldn’t do anything for him until he was ready to be helped. Everything we tried was just enabling him, (making sure he had clothing, food, money) and I didn’t realize that until after the fact, when he thanked us for getting him into treatment.
When he took control of his own life, is when he was able to thrive. I really like the idea of contacting their family members who may be franticly looking for them. I know we were for my brother.
Everything the government subsidizes creates more whether good or bad. The city of Seattle has spent billions of dollars over the past several decades with the promise of eradicating homelessness. It is now 100 times worse and that is what Mr. Haug and Mr. Wright seem to be advocating. Why the headlong rush by liberals to throw “other peoples money” at a problem when the outcome is right in front of them? My solution is to post signs around the area that read ” Vagrancy laws will be enforced” and then actually enforce them.
Yes Frank. Heck, why not go a step or two farther and build debtor’s prisons and snake pit insane asylums. These should all be non government and for profit of course.
We have the party of dumb solutions on the extreme Left and the party of no solutions on the extreme Right. Tell me, Frank, just how do you enforce vagrancy laws if you have no place to take the vagrants? Also. If government is the problem, why do we even have police and laws to enforce? The police are part of government in case you haven’t heard. You have no ideas; just Ronald Regan and Donald Trump platitude type rhetoric, but if that makes you feel better go for it. Personally, I like Centrists like Vivian Olson. She’s like a breath of fresh air around here.
Are you ready to pay the taxes that the incarceration solution would demand? Prisons and jails are expensive things to operate or build, and given the present incarceration rate, locking up the homeless would probably mean building more facilities, more personnel, more legal costs. One-size-fits-all solutions, no matter how tempting, because people and problems are not alike, rarely work as well as we would hope, and almost always end in confusion.
An array of measures, such as Mr Wright suggests, is needed (“fined and/or go to jail or mental health care), and might be less expensive than mass incarceration. Is there a way out that would not be expensive?
As far as I can tell the view from the extreme right is that all taxes are bad except for those paid for national defense, police and prisons. On top of that the job producers should never be taxed, especially fat cats like Bezos, Gates, and Musk. Their latest brilliant solution is to raise taxes on everyone making $50,000 or less and Sunset Social Security after five years. Even Moscow Mitch is choking a bit on those ideas. The sad thing is these guys will probably take over in ’23 because we have Dem.s like those that called into the Council meeting last night to protest a law against allowing camping in our parks. Two of our Council People and Mayor are gung ho extreme lefties to boot. It’s all nuts and not getting better anytime soon I’m afraid.
There is no good in letting people suffer in their own quagmire give a drug addict a house and it will likely get destroyed same with a mental person. Yes some people just need a temporary hand up and for all my dislike of the mayor keeping our citizens in there house is best. Most of the people living on the street have burned all their bridges what they need is for society to give the a chance at a purposeful life and that means taking them off the street and into mandatory facilities like jails with benefits. For some this might be a month or 2 and others a year or more and others maybe never. Let the doctors make that call. During that time they can get some school or job training and when they get out even help with housing. You talk about the expense just look how much Seattle is spending it wouldn’t cost much more and we would be giving them another chance. There is no good future living on the streets we shouldn’t be enabling that way of life.
Hi Frank, if I gave you the impression providing some form of subsidy was the plan that was not what I meant to imply. We have a legal system that when used we put some folks in jail. That cost society about $50k/inmate. That is part of our system today. When we institutionalize folks with mental issues that too cost money, probably more than jail because in addition to many of the components of jail we have other professional staff to help with the mental issues if possible. Those folks who are committed to a form a drug treatment today cost us for those services. I think our state reps just announced a major improvement to funding those services.
Then we have a group of folks who for whatever reason are down on their luck or simply do not have the income to pay for tradition housing for a home or an apartment. I think it was reported by the city that we have more than 8000 people who are either without house or income challenged for their housing expenses.
We already have Jails, Mental Facilities and Drug Rehab facilities but until the state funding adds to that inventory, we may be in very short supply. Those homeless by being down on their luck is the smallest group. Often these folks need temporary help to get back to a form of normalcy. Tiny homes or other forms of group living can help with this group. Frank, I guess that this form of support is a form of subsidy but so is providing public space for tents, or cars, or campers. Hopefully we can creatively find ways to help this group, but the role of government is to provide enough space for jails, mental patients, and drug rehab. Finding public land for temp housing would go a long way to addressing the issues.
A number of months ago our City Council approved the taxpayer subsidized Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) the ability to broaden their reach within the city. They are already responsible for three housing complexes within Edmonds. At the time I proposed that as part of the authorization that HASCO be required to set aside a number of one bedroom housing units for emergency shelter. It fell on deaf City Council ears. With all the rhetoric now about available space, don’t we wish we had that capability now? Every little bit helps. It would have been no different than vouchers for hotel rooms other than we’re already paying for HASCO it through our taxes.
I agree with many of the comments posted. As many may know, I was attacked in Edmonds by a knife wielding individual on December 8th of last year. Once the EPD arrived and apprehended my assailant they asked me if I wanted to press charges. Obviously, I said yes, and he was arrested and booked into county jail on an assault with a deadly weapon charge. If I hadn’t pressed charges, EPD would likely have let him go on the spot. As it turned out, my assailant was from Kitsap County, was homeless, had a previous record, posted hatred on social media and was “off his meds” residing within Southwest County Park (the attack happened on the sidewalk adjacent to the park). Once in jail they provided him the treatment he was lacking by being on the streets. He recently pleaded guilty and last week was sentenced. While he has family in Kitsap County and his bail was reduced twice while being held, his family never posted bail.
So, my question is, did I do the right thing by pressing charges? Did I help protect the community? Did he get the help he needed? What was the compassionate thing to do?
Giving our police department the tools they need to not only protect the public, but also to help individuals in need is the compassionate thing to do. I’m convinced of it more now than ever before. This is the right ordinance, long overdue, even if it’s not as far as I would like to have seen it go. It should have included unlawful use of public buildings and “camping” in vehicles on public property with provisions for those who are homeless. Council, let’s get this done!
Thank you Jim for sharing your story – it is important those who otherwise think folks are overreacting to a problem that does not exist actually listen to those they represent in their communities that have indeed had real and tangible impacts on their quality of life. Like you and others, people have and continue to be directly impacted by the complete lack of any enforcement or accountability. You were attacked, my kids frequently cannot use our city facilities, others have to do regular cleanup in their neighborhoods to stay on top of the problem, our police need to respond to situations they cannot do anything about, and our Human Service Department is stuck at the end of the line to pick up the pieces and have all of the remaining accountability with no control once all of the other resources with dead ends have been exhausted. This is unfair to EVERYONE involved, including those who have help available who refuse it.
Well said, Jim. I’m sorry that that attack happened to you, and I appreciate your input on this.
It seems like our two major political parties just can’t stand to take yes for an answer. My theory is they do this to keep us all whipped up and anxious so they can keep their cushy with benefits elected positions (Edmonds City Council Persons not withstanding).
In fairness to my friend Frank, who I beat up on a bit above, our leftest friends aren’t any better at taking yes for an answer than his rightest friends. I couldn’t believe the Democratic Party elected officials who called into our city council meeting regarding the camping ordinance. My advice to them is just butt out. This is Edmond’s problem to solve, not theirs (at least by using their influence as elected representatives). Besides the Jury is still out on their relative success in solving this problem statewide.
As to just taking yes for an answer, I think my suggestion does that job from both political extreme viewpoints. Certain people say they have to camp out in our parks, library entrances, road dividers, public trails etc. to survive. We say, “okay, that’s fine, but to protect all our citizens, including you, we have a special camping spot set up in one of our parks just for you to use temporarily until you can find something permanent that works for you. Your temporary campsite will be clean and sanitary which you help us maintain or you will go to jail. (I can’t pee on the street and neither can you). We have several people hired to help you find proper lodging and to help you get food, medicine and clothing.
Just take “yes” for an answer. Or we can debate political sides forever. Count me out on that approach. I actually saw a guy get out of his car and openly pee on 7th. Ave. yesterday. It’s here folks.
Clinton I am not against your temporary solution as long as it is fenced with rules and 24 hour monitoring along with this new last resort law. The problem though is the majority of these people don’t want to have to follow any rules so most of them will refuse. Guess we can arrest them then or make them move along. The community service idea won’t work because they won’t show up to do it. So unfortunately the only answer is jail or move along. Jail with benefits is what we need.
I pretty much agree with you Jim, about many of these folks thinking the standard rules of good conduct don’t apply to them but that’s only half of our problem. Thousands of well meaning people think this lack of shelter is only about economics and not about addiction, domestic violence, illegal drugs, mental illness and general bad social behavior. Things just don’t add up. You can’t go to any major business operation and not see help wanted signs everywhere. Yet we have people living in our parks and urinating on our streets. If jobs and income would solve the problem, it would be over tomorrow. It’s going to take a combination of quick temporary housing with enforced sanitation and social order, long term subsidized housing, free drug abuse and mental health counseling, and a decriminalization of drug addiction just like we decriminalized alcohol addiction back in the day. (Get the black market profits out of the equation to stop much of the crime and violence on society in general). Save jail for violent career type criminals and sex offenders as much as possible. Jail should be a last resort for anyone else because they are expensive, don’t prevent crime (except by people actually in jail) and they don’t rehabilitate as a general rule.
Clinton I think we are on the same page but this free or subsidized housing has to come with conditions. For one they don’t get the housing unless they have been through treatment and that treatment needs to be mandatory in house and your sobriety or mental stability needs to be bought off on by the doctor’s. Other wise we are just going to be further enabling their bad behavior.
The problem is the people who refuse shelter are the same ones who will probably refuse treatment, and you have to start somewhere. Structure will have to be forced on them. Personally, I’d prefer a well run tent city on public land over jail or running them over to Mountlake Terrace to camp out.
Posting for Darrol Haug:
It would be helpful if Council could ask staff to create and share information about where shelter can be found and how often space is available. Do the shelters allow daytime use? What about night 2 and beyond? What happens to a person if they cannot use the shelter during the day or cannot spend multiple nights? Where do they go? This could end up like a one-way bus ticket out of Edmonds.
If the jail route is implemented what court system will be involved with that case and now long will some wait for a hearing. Fines, jail time, and community service seem to be in play for the those on the “jail route” Could be provide some form of paid community service to help folks move back into the mainstream?
Verdant Health with our tax dollars and income from its assets provide all sorts of grants for “keeping us healthy”. Could providing shelter be part of that mission? Finding public land other than our Park System could go a long way to providing some form of space to provide temporary or transitionary shelter.
Council could provide a leadership role in sorting out options not yet considered. Easy to set up a structured survey to get public input on ideas and the public support for various ideas. Good luck Council.
I subscribe to the school of compassion is helping someone find a place to sleep, eat, or get sober. I expect our law enforcement to move people along that are camping in public places. At the same time offering food, water, shelter or help. Consolidating these people and rounding them up only makes the problems worse. So no I don’t support giving them a park to ruin or a city facility to take over.
This is all about creating laws that allow the police to help these people and the law needs to back what the police are doing. If the nearest shelter is the next city over then let the police bring people to it. If we have a food bank in the city then I expect the nearest city might bring their hungry to it.
Don’t make this issue political. When we do that we waste tax payer resources and creat division in both policy making and the city attorneys office.
This is a very complex situation with no clear answers. However, it would seem we can find guidance in Seattle’s experiences. I’m wondering if we could ask Mayor Harrell for his opinion on what we should do about the “no camping” ordinance and other potential strategies. In Seattle, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested around the homeless issue. Yet, the problems have seemed to continue to escalate. Mayor Harrell’s new administration is now taking action to more proactively address the issue, but it is hard to turn the ship after so many years of ineffective policies.
The homeless situation is Edmonds is real and needs to be addressed for those experiencing homelessness as well for as citizens who simply want to live in a safe, clean community. Yet, our problems are at no where near the scale (yet) of those seen in Seattle. Mayor Harrell’s insights into where Seattle might be about this issue had they taken more proactive actions twenty years ago may be helpful to our dialog around how we should proceed now.
Dave, with all due respect, Seattle is the LAST place I would look for guidance. Mayor Harrell was on their City Council, and we can see their results. Edmonds needs to stand up and stop looking for others to solve our problems. Enact the ordinance tonight!