Seems like a reasonable ask by the city.  I wonder what the insurance policy impact will be at the church.

I was so right! ...without even knowing :-) about it being a zoning issue, and centered around the conditional use permit...

Seems like a pretty neutral statement.  On the surface.  What is really being said, and that would not be so neutral, is that the city does not condone poor people trying to bring a little dignity, comfort, and safety to their lives.  What is being said is the city wants the poor homeless to live in squalor and uncertainty. The city likes to say stuff that seems innocent, but they get their message across loud and clear.  Olympia will no longer tolerate the poor and homeless.  Indeed, the poor and homeless are obstacles to the progress the city officials wish to achieve vis a vis development.  Eliminate the obstacles seems to be the only course the city wishes to follow.  Continuing to support the homeless seems to be out of the question.

There are those that will say that the city has spent millions over the years to help with the problems of the homeless.  It is true they have spent money in the name of homelessness but I suspect very few of these dollars have actually benefited the homeless.  Let us take for example the Housing Authority of Thurston County.  They have this big fancy building, the have plenty of well paid staff.  They have thousands of clients waiting for vouchers so they can get subsidized housing.  A person could wait years for a voucher and when they finally get the voucher the recipient has no place to use the voucher and therefore is still homeless.  So we spend all this money on a fancy building and living wage salaries to have virtually no impact on the homeless.

The solutions to the homeless problems will come out of the homeless community.  Camp Quixote was one example of a solution out of the community. I figure that the city has spent roughly 3 bucks a day per homeless person on census of 600 homeless people.  Three bucks a day.  About 100 bucks a month.  What does 100 bucks a month get you.  In Olympia it gets you a 10 by 10 room at Space on State.  The room is heated and clean.  There is a communal restroom.  You get a door you can lock and a window to the outside.  $100 a month gets this from a commercial operation.  We can be a lot smarter about spending the money we spend on the homeless.  Listen to the homeless.  Make sure homes are being created for the homeless with the money and no just providing comfort and salaries to those that really don't end up serving the homeless.  If a buck spent on homelessness does not result in comfort and dignity for the homeless it is not being spent properly.  Ask the homeless, they will tell you.  Can it be the homeless have such little respect in our community that we will refuse to listen to them and, more to the point, hear them?


"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

I resent the undertone of the city's statement- as if official city approval is required for any activity that takes place within the city limits. That attitude on a city official really concerns me.

She almost sounds annoyed that the church even has a legally protected right to practice their religion.

There is no mention of people's rights to free speech and assembly. Apparently the city thinks health code takes precedent over these individual liberties?

I would like to see some evidence that a tent city is more of a safety and health risk than homelessness at large. I highly doubt they could find any evidence to support such a statement.

Her statement about the Thurston County regional approach is annoying as well. As if no private individual or group has a right to be combatting homelessness without submitting a proposal to the county.

What a bunch of baloney.

Jade