Keeping those RVs off of city streets [This week on the city council]

Navigation

User login

Online users

einmaleins
chad360
einmaleins
JstPlnOnry
agathafrye

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

itsthewater
tsunamizombie
Brooks
Teresa Marie Staal
Jeff151

Upcoming events

FROdependence Day Pizza Party(1 day)
Kimya Dawson, Ghost Mice, Heathers and June Madrona at Freeschool Fundraiser!(3 days)
Lunchtime Stories in the Park(4 days)
Jerry E. Smith on HAARP and Weather Warfare!(6 days)
OAR - Basic Sculling Class - Offering 5(7 days)
Oly Free Herbal Clinic Cob-Oven Pizza Benefit(8 days)

Poster Calendar

Keeping those RVs off of city streets [This week on the city council]

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 1:48pm.

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

Seriously, RVs. Never would have thunk it, but I probably should have (below).

First, from the staff report:

Downtown parking spaces are currently being used by owners of recreational vehicles that park in the city rights of way for a long term. These trailers often park at the 9-hr designated meters, deposit the meter amount for 9 hrs of parking, during business hours, and remain parked in the space permanently. During the evenings, week-ends, and holidays, parking at these metered spaces is free and regulations are not in effect. There are approximately 7 trailers that have been parked
in the downtown area on a long term basis, and a few others outside of the downtown area.
These trailers and their occupants take up parking spaces designed for visitors and customers, operate power generators on sidewalks which create noise pollution, store gasoline cans next to the generators and, in some instances, dump raw sewage onto city streets. In general, they create a permanent living space on a public right-of-way to the exclusion of the general public and potentially pose a public health and safety issue.

And, what they propose to do:

1. Prohibit the overnight parking of recreational vehicles on all city streets between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. including holidays and weekends. This regulation would apply city-wide to prevent trailers currently parked in the downtown area to move elsewhere in the city.
2. Exceptions to the overnight parking prohibition would be made through permits issued to the registered owner or operator of a vehicle. The permits would be valid for up to 10 business days per year.
Permits will be issued if one of the conditions is met:
a. The registered owner or operator of a recreational vehicle is a non-resident visitor to the city who is sponsored by a resident of the city with a physical address adjacent to where the vehicle is parked.
b. The registered owner or operator is participating as a vendor or sponsor of a special event for which a special event permit has been obtained from the city.
c. The registered owner or operator of a recreational vehicle who is a resident of the city with a physical address adjacent to where the vehicle is parked.
3. Penalty for violation will be $75.00, and after the third offense the trailer may be impounded. An impounded vehicle would be immediately released upon payment of impound, tow, and other charges.
4. Recreational Vehicles would be defined according to State Law as follows:
"Recreational vehicle" is defined as a vehicular-type unit primarily designed for recreational camping or travel use that has its own motive power or is mounted on or towed by another vehicle.
The units include travel trailers, fifth-wheel trailers, folding camping trailers, truck campers, and motor homes.

My one run-in with this issue was a camper truck parked on the east curb of the Olympia Library. While I was going in and leaving the owner was in a loud argument with two Olympia cops that a) she didn't have to move her truck and b) they couldn't come in the camper after they had asked her to move.

I assumed that she had consistently overstayed her time in the parking spot and they were trying to get her to move along and the thing escalated. It wasn't the first time I had seen that particular camper truck parked there.

Looks like the city is looking for a more direct path to handling these situations. But, who wants to bet that someone compares this to the noise ordinance in some manner?

emmettoconnell's blog
Login or register to post comments

Don't care if anyone compares it to the noise ordinance

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 2:14pm.

But it certainly makes sense that some folks might speak up as advocates for the people who live in those vehicles. Walked by some of their rigs yesterday. Hadn't really noticed them until I realized one using a generator.

In the 9 Hr meter areas by

Submitted by Just another voice on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 2:51pm.

In the 9 Hr meter areas by LOTT it is usually filled with RV folks running generators and 'camping out' and taking up most of the parking spaces.

Granted, probably not a lot of folks are clamoring for the spaces, but the RV'ers are basically using the city street as an RV Park. Generators are usually running on most of the RVs, and occasionally you can see them BBQ'ing on the sidewalk.

I am not sure how this is connected to the noise ordinance? If you are trying to say that it is another step of bringing "high end condos" downtown, no residential development is planned for that area. Actually, no residential development is concretely planned ANYWHERE downtown!

The only thing that will be happening in that area in the next decade is the new childrens museum and LOTT Center-- which will change the street structure and parking areas anyway.

I think the problem is that they are abusing the metered parking areas, and using them as an RV Park. This happened near the industrial area in Bellingham, and the city made parking your car limited to 8 Hrs and 'once per 24 hrs.'

But I am Just Another Voice

There is new residential development planned downtown

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:27am.

Colpitts has purchased and is planning to construct a 120 unit building on Columbia Street, between 4th and 5th Avenues in what is now a city parking lot.

They might be planning on

Submitted by Just another voice on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 2:43pm.

They might be planning on doing it, but they haven't submitted anything to the city. Until a public notice sign is placed on the land, it is just a parking lot that was sold off from the city.

It remains: no concrete plans to build any residences downtown.

But I am Just Another Voice

Really?

Submitted by jlw on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 10:12pm.

Jeff Kingsbury is talking about it in public communications. Remember this?: "The city has been, for some time, attempting to bring a rich array of housing options downtown. Our first housing project is slated to break ground quite soon adjacent to Olympia Federal Savings. Over 100 units." It doesn't sound like it's just a parking lot to the City Council.

Until myself and the rest of

Submitted by Just another voice on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 4:55pm.

Until myself and the rest of the city sees a Public Notice sign, then it is just plans that haven't been formally submitted yet. Which means anything and everything could change.

But I am Just Another Voice

Hmmmm

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 5:15pm.

As far as I'm concerned, if a City Council member writes in a public communication that they're expecting to break ground very soon on a housing project downtown, that's enough to give me an inkling that housing development is being planned downtown. In light of Jeff Kingsbury's statement, I find your earlier assertion that there is absolutely no residential development being planned downtown to be rather dubious.

But you are just another voice.

Who are these people in RV's?

Submitted by Laurian on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 3:52pm.

If they are part of the under-housed population perhaps leaving them alone would be the compassionate thing to do. It's bad enough when the city boots and impounds your commuter vehicle. Now they are proposing to impound people's homes. If you can't afford rent the city will let you live in a tent but not in a weather-proof shelter. Kinda ironic.

As to BBQing on the sidewalk and dumping raw sewage there are laws on the books that address that.

Whisk away the poor. They undermine consumer confidence.

Thanks for the report

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 4:29pm.

Thanks for the report Emmett, it is noce to know the council is addressing some of these problems.

Problems?

Submitted by Matthew Green on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 6:16pm.

Except for the sewage (which is unhealthy and gross and -- as someone already noted -- already has laws against it), what exactly are the problems here?

Has any downtown visitor not been able to find a parking spot because these are full?

Is the noise from a generator actually bothering a nearby resident? Has such a resident complained?

This is the car-camping issue all over again. We fought it out in 2001. A ban on car-camping failed because...wait for it...there were NO ACTUAL PROBLEMS -- unless you consider some people's general distaste for poor people living in vehicles to be a problem.

Matthew

There are problems. We have

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:26am.

There are problems. We have an ailing downtown that has gained a reputation (right or wrong) for being an unsafe and unclean place to visit or do business. I have no distatse for poor people living in vehicles. However the conditions they are living in and where they park there vehicles hurts all of us who use downtown. I will give you a couple of direct reasons why I think it is a problem. I was driving some customers around showing them downtown and we happened upon the area. The attitude change I saw within 30 seconds was incredible. These customers chose to build a home in south county instead of reconditioning a historical home downtown. It was a direct result of what they saw downtown. We have to ask ourselves who we think we are helping when we let folks set up homesteads on a city right of way. We may help a few folks find a spot to hang out for a few months but we hurt the over all business and pleasure environment for thousands. What does more damage? I also use 3 suppliers of material within site of the area where people are squatting. As we load material or strap it down while in the street we have twice been confronted by the campers for making to much noise while doing this. Not a real big deal for us, we largely just ignore it and continue working. However for the casual consumer or someone walking this is a big deal. They will simply go elsewhere. There are plenty of alternatives for these folks. From simply walking in to the local CSO or driving the vehicles to one of the incredibly affordable parks on the westside where proper hookups and facilities exist.

In the civil rights era,

Submitted by Matthew Green on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:55am.

In the civil rights era, during the debate over laws to ban discrimination in employment based on race, the argument for discrimination went like this: "I don't personally hate black people, but our customers aren't comfortable around black people, so I shouldn't have to hire them."

It was bull then. It's bull now.

Again, there is a complete failure here to identify any actual wrong committed by the people living in RVs. The only "problem" is that other people aren't comfortable around them.

If someone is shocked -- SHOCKED! -- to discover that very poor people exist and that these very poor people tend to stay in the places no one else wants (in the woods, under a bridge, in an obscure part of downtown), then I say that someone should stay away from downtown. I'm thrilled to know they bought a house somewhere other than downtown (especially as they don't realize that there probably still is a very poor person living in the woods somewhere near them in south county). Downtown is better off without them -- and I didn't have even to kick them out of the only home they have to get rid of them.

Matthew

Thanks for implying that I

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:08am.

Thanks for implying that I am a racist Matt, appreciate it. Also being glad that a retired couple isn't living in our town sums up why we are in the trouble we are in with our urban core and probably why there was such a shift in the council. This isn't about being poor, this is not about not appreciating peoples position. It is wanting a healthy place to do business and a clean and safe place to enjoy yourself in. I offered a few alternatives on what these people can do. So instaed of comparing an overnight camping ordinance to Jim Crowe laws how about we focus on what is best for our town and lead these folks to a safer and cleaner environment to live in.

Someone had better tell

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 6:01pm.

Someone had better tell Farmers about all the trouble with our urban core. They think it's safe. I agree. It's my opinion that people who feel spooked by the urban dangers of downtown Olympia have a rather low fear threshold, and should probably stick to gated communities. Myself, I feel a lot less safe when I'm driving on I5 than I do walking around downtown.

"hurts all of us who use downtown..."

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:22am.

Not sure how it is possible for you to draw that conclusion for me. I'm downtown every day and I'd say the empty burned out building on a main street does far greater harm than some unfortunate people tucked away behind the bus station. I'm certainly willing to accept the fact that they bother you and your adventurous clients, but be careful how you include me and others in your calculus.

I agree with you Gug, the

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:38am.

I agree with you Gug, the buildings are a problem. The city is working with the property owner. My clients may not be adventurous (retirement living and relocation descisions are usually not made on the adventure side of things for most), suddenly that makes them not worthy of our town? I did not include you in the calculation, I included my customers, life long friends, visitors, etc.... The only reason they bother me is that it is not good for our town the way the situation stands now. The people themselves do not bother me at all, what they are doing, how they are doing it is what the problem is. It is not a me vs. them thing. It is a what is best for our community vs. what is not best for our community.

Reputation?

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:34am.

I was completely unaware of downtown Olympia's reputation as an unsafe and unclean place to do business. Are you a realtor? Were these customers afraid to live in the South Capitol neighborhood because there are street kids downtown? I find that quite ridiculous. Talk to people in the South Capitol Neighborhood -- they don't have problems with street kids, they have problems with lobbyists buying and using houses in their neighborhood illegally.

I'm really curious as to where you learned that downtown Olympia has a reputation as an unsafe, unclean place. I thought its reputation, at least among insurers, was just the opposite, in fact -- safe and secure.

OK, here it goes. I have

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:31am.

OK, here it goes. I have been using downtown for my entire childhood and adult life. I feel very, very safe no matter where I go. The perception of our urban core has changed amongst the folks who casually use it, that is an absolute fact. So, perception being a large part of reality we have a problem. The casual user of a store, restaraunt, machine shop, supply house is what drives most small to medium size businesses. Those people have stopped coming. We can ignore that and pretend noting is wrong, or we can do the adult thing and adress it so we don't lose our shared treasure of one of the only working downtowns in the area. As for the South Capitol neighboorhood, I own a home in the heart of the neighboorhood and am raising my daugter there. I know the small problem about the lobbyist thing, it does not change the fact that downtown has changed. To answer your question about people in the neighboorhood feeling unsafe because of street kids, well, my wife who is not native to the area has noticed a change in downtown in the last eight years, she does not go without me in the evening anymore. It doesn't matter if the fears are warranted or not, they are there, that's all that matters. That being said, one fairly well off neighborhood on the edge of downtown does not keep downtown floating, it is the casual user from the westside and Lacey that we need. As a downtown business owner and a citizen with a life long love affair with Olympia I know something is wrong and we better have the will to fix it before it is to late. Another small thing, I find it weird at the reaction to the folks who decided not to live in our town. It seems like a lot of people who aren't exactly like us are not welcome. They would have been a great addition to our community. Active retired folks with money to spend at shops and restaraunts. Wanted to come to the area because of the things they have heard, they chose not too. There must be something wrong with them not us right?

Nothing is wrong

Submitted by Keith Hufnagel on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 5:10pm.

Olympia isn't Daytona. I wouldn't blame the trailers so much as the weather. Olympia is the right environment for young, fertile minds. Retirees here should be well aware of all the troubles long before they chose to be here. I'd retire here. A couple campers never scared me or anyone else I know. I'd assume nothing is wrong and look internally in your situation.

I am glad you have decided

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:55pm.

I am glad you have decided that people shouldnt retire here, even though the area is home to one of the largest planned retirement communities in the country

What did I decide?

Submitted by Keith Hufnagel on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 1:54pm.

I welcome retirees! I love and respect each whom have lived much longer than I. I would offer to clean their windows, sweep their patios, weed their gardens, and more if it makes that special time more wonderful. If a retiree is riding the fence on Oly and then decides against Oly due to a couple junky rvs on the other block, then, well, I might assume that there is more behind the indecision than just the rvs. In which case, I would not push to make Oly "the largest retirement community (huh?) when the sun shines more (although less brightly) in Hawai'i, Fla, Oregon, socal, etc. But back to the actual rvs. Get them out, decompose the metals safely, and find more sustainable alternatives that don't have such a large impact on public health. If the can pass health and safety inspections, then put solar panels on the roof and let them be!

Please reflect

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 2:04pm.

"It doesn't matter if the fears are warranted or not, they are there, that's all that matters."

"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." - FDR

Wilson, I fear people who hold and express views such as yours. Does that mean I should advocate that you pick up and move away? Your reaction to Matt's 'glad they're gone' attitude suggests you don't see the irony in your own position - you'd be glad if these RV campers were gone, after all.

As a poor person myself, as a poor person who has at times (for months at a time) lived in a vehicle, and as a person who has infinite choices but not infinite money with which to implement them, your "go somewhere else" solution (final solution or temporary?) leaves me wondering how you would solve ME if you had some issue with where I lived / what I do.

It is already illegal to live in an RV in Olympia's city limits. Holly Gadbaw worked years ago to make that happen, according to an oral history I heard a few years back.

"There must be something wrong with them not us right?"

Ironies abound.

rv parking

Submitted by Thomas 27 on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 5:33pm.

I know quite a few of the people that live in the rv's we help them at BRAC with the resorces that we can provide, the city is just finding new ways to make being homless even harder for those people living in the rv's, I used to live in my van in the same area as the city is talking about......

I've noticed them ever since

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 9:29pm.

The first day I came to Oly, had my boat at the Swantown Marina at the time, and would walk downtown.

Personally I think some are abusing the situation, especially with generators and bbq's. It is pretty well known that their actions are squatting. For quite some time the city turned a blind eye, and they kept expanding their actions, until some became a nuisance.

I'm torn on the issue, as I have known people living in such a fashion.

My knee jerk reaction isn't "oppressing the poor" or "sweeping them under the rug". These are designated parking spaces, and using them as long term habitation is against the spirit of the spaces.

I'm guessing these folks can't afford lot fees at campgrounds.

One solution would be to let RV's park down at the old mill site on Westbay Drive across from the Garfield Nature Trail. It is owned by the parks, but there are some issues preventing development into a park. Put in a pumpout station, turn the power on, and charge a nominal rate to park there. Run a few electrical outlets to keep generators from being used, and impose a certain time limit on use. This will give folks a safe place to park, and time to get back on their feet.

Plus even old poorly maintained RV's wouldn't be much more (if any) of an eyesore than the place already is...

There is a great big parking lot sitting unused right now.

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

West Bay Dr.

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 6:19am.

I tried to quickly look up the reason west bay park hadn't been done, but I couldn't come up with something quickly. I'm going to guess that the money isn't there yet.

But, more broadly, I would guess that the residents along West Bay Drive would have a bigger problem with RV parking than downtown businesses.

Maybe a better thing to do

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:49am.

Maybe a better thing to do is lead them to the huge well of service organizations that includes DSHS to help the subsidize lot rental at a local trailer park like Salmon Shores or any of the nine others throughout town. On a different note, try getting a permit for a pump out station. How goes the prep for your Alaska thing by the way, any headway, still on the radar?

Show me.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:56am.

In my years of working at B&R, I have never heard of DSHS doing anything of the sort. These people are most certainly plugged into services around town. Homeless people are resourceful, they're better survivors than anybody I know. They have to be, they get pushed around a lot. If you think they wouldn't be plugged into a subsidy like that if it existed, or if you think they actually want to be living in a trailer by the side of the road, you're just wrong.

I never said they wanted to

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 3:18pm.

I never said they wanted to Rob. What I am saying is that you can walk into a CSO and get assistance that will more thank pay for a safer place to park these RV's. Like I said previously, it is not a crusade to opress anyone, it is not a vendetta against the poor. Solutions are there. It is what is best for the health of our community vs. what is not good for it. That is it.

I'm sorry but that's just not true.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 4:47pm.

If a person qualifies for State disability, they get $330 per month and food stamps. Rent at Salmon Shores is $342/month. And food stamps don't buy toilet paper.

Unless you have children, there are no other DSHS subsidies for low income people. You can't just expect help because you're poor; you have to be poor AND disabled, or poor AND have children. And if you think $330 isn't enough for a person to live on, the welfare grant for a mom with one child is $440/month... and DSHS doesn't give you diapers.

People think there's a safety net out there. THERE ISN'T. That's why I give sleeping bags and tarps to families with children. There isn't housing for them. There isn't shelter for them. There isn't motel assistance for them. And, since most families coming into my office are experiencing homelessness for the first time, they usually suffer from the same error in information as you do. They expect that everything will be okay. Often it isn't.

The Canaanite's Call

Just print this page out, walk into any CSO and

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 7:47pm.

ask for the Wilson program. If the CSO staffers are confused, simply refer them to Wilson for the specifics.

I like the sound of that

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 9:57pm.

I like the sound of that "the Wilson Plan", hey wait a minute, we had one of those once.

330.00 a month and food

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:12pm.

330.00 a month and food stamps, so they would have to come up with 12.00 more a month right?

Oh come on...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 1:07am.

You're kidding right? This is only what we do for destitute disabled people...where is all the other help and training you talked about?

I challenge you to live off of that much for a month.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 10:04am.

12 dollars more. How does a person "come up with" $12 when they are disabled and not allowed to work. GAU, which is the program we're talking about, stands for General Assistance Unemployable, that means they can't work. If they get caught working, not only do they lose their benefits but can also get into trouble.

Yes, $12 plus....

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 10:18am.

$50 to $100 for auto insurance and $40 to $50 for fuel (assuming they own a car in addition to the RV.... it could be more like $150 to drive an RV), since the bus line doesn't reach Salmon Shores, or $25 for a monthly bus pass if the bus did make it out there. Add money for toilet paper, toothpaste, dish soap, laundromat bills (I don't know of RV's equipped with laundry machines) and other basic household items, and you're getting pretty well beyond $330 per month. Oh, and they'll need a $100 deposit to move in. But hey, I suppose they could just sell drugs to make up the other few hundred dollars, right?

But that's only if a person can get into a place like Salmon Shores. There are only a handful of RV parks in the Olympia area, and I've had a difficult time finding vacancies for folks in the past.

Now, you might suggest that some of these things are unnecessary luxuries. A person who's really that poor doesn't need to spend a lot of money on transportation, right? The trouble is that once you get sucked into the social service loop, you'll spend the rest of your life jumping hoops and hurdles. Endless appointments add up, and a low-income disabled person often has to work full time at just managing their calendar. It simply isn't possible to make all those appointments without reliable transportation, and missing an appointment can often lead to termination of benefits.

The trouble with your little easy-fix theory (and when it comes to the homeless, it seems like everyone's got a theory like this) is that it assumes that social services aren't sorely screwed up, and that the government actually does help people in need. Just think of all the work that a small business owner must do for the IRS, just to avoid giving money to the IRS. Now try to imagine, based on the business owner's situation, what it must take to get money from the government. The truth is that social services are chock-full of forms, applications, reviews, eligibility requirements, red tape, hoops, jumps, hurdles, burnt-out and mean spirited case workers, run-arounds, and catch-22's. And after navigating all that mess, you are lucky if you get a peanut and a pat on the head. Social services are demeaning, difficult, and usually unhelpful.

American society has gotten too comfortable. We are all so used to our security and comfort that it is just assumed that everyone has it so well. We think that if we fall, that our government at the very least will be able to catch us. After all, the government can repair roads, run schools, fight wars, and build giant bureaucracies. It should be able to help me if I wind up disabled, right? I cannot tell you the number of times that I have had clients (homeless families) simply not believe me when I tell them that there are no current shelter openings in Thurston County. They demand to know what I'm hiding and tell me that their kids can't sleep on the streets, as if the moral burden is enough to alter physical reality.

THERE IS NO SAFETY NET. YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT HELP YOU. If you don't have your own safety net, you WILL fall through the cracks, and everything may not be okay.

The Canaanite's Call

nt

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 3:20pm.

Still working on it

Submitted by security_six on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 7:50pm.

Little bit at a time. Got a new tiller handle for the boat, and am expecting a new centerboard any day now. I may sail up the inside passage, dunno. Thanks for asking. When are we going to get together and drink beer?

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

S6, you have a particular take on this

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:14pm.

with your transient, sailing life. Do you have an idea how the costs of maintaining boat, paying moorage, etc compare with the cost of maintaining RV, paying hookups, etc.?

To some extent, both lifestyles incorporate some simplicity, voluntary or otherwise and that has appeal to me. I am inclined to feel that a diverse community that tolerates, accommodates a transient population is a good thing. It doesn't fit with the goal of turning the downtown into a Puget Sound Balboa.

Depends

Submitted by security_six on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:21pm.

Generally about the same for a boat or RV. 250-600+ per month. Depends on the park/marina, size of the vehicle, quality of the location, additional services used, etc...

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

Where can these people go and be left alone?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:45am.

The city wants to sweep them out, just like they're going to do to campers in the Grass Lake area in a week or so. The question they aren't answering is: Where are people supposed to go? Nobody seems to care. It's all business this and feel comfortable that. Nobody ever considers the safety and comfort of homeless people. Two people were murdered less than a month ago and, much like I predicted, it has blown over and been forgotten. Like you Wilson, many of these people were born and raised here, do you expect them to just pack up and leave their hometown? Where would we let people stay if this were a post-natural disaster situation and it were middle class people affected?

Nobody has said we want them

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 3:32pm.

Nobody has said we want them to leave, I would love a safe place for them to be. I do not expect them to pack up and leave there hometown. I know for a fact that DSHS and partnering agencies have programs specifically designed for people in this exact situation. All you have to do is simply walk in. It is not permanent, but it is for a good length of time, there are rules as far as what a recipient has to do to recieve it. There is even a work education program that goes along with it. The tools are right there to be used. If that is not a good way to do it how about starting a B&R trailer park, negotiating with places like Salmon Shores for reduced or granted space that can be traded for maintenance and upkeep. Huge amounts of help are there if a few simple rules are followed.

What program you are talking about?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 6:09pm.

With work education? They rarely even provide that to a few qualified low-income parents in the WorkFirst program.

It's the Wilson program!!

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 7:53pm.

It's pretty new and very comprehensive. Give it a try. It's like a dream come true for poor folks. B&R is hiding the existence of the program to continue their strangle hold on services for the poor and the lucrative funding sources that B&R has in its grip.

B&R is like the Halliburton of the social service world. Thank you and hats off to Wilson for publicizing the real safety net that B&R is trying to hide.

Hey guys. I simply disagree

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:09pm.

Hey guys. I simply disagree with you, I am no enemy of the poor folks who need servies.

That may be, Wilson

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 8:04am.

but when you suggest that poor folks have access to programs that don't exist you are contributing to the political environment that comes up with a solution like: poor people who can't afford housing and are trying to live in an RV have to live somewhere else, not in my back yard or on "my city streets" as it were.

To the extent that your assumptions about services are simply not true you are helping to create an environment that is hostile to poor folks. I think you should own that.

As to programs, I worked a few years in admin law on welfare type programs. I think you will find that being poor and unemployed will allow you to qualify for foodstamps and possibly some medical coverage for acute emergent events. You don't get the GAU or GAX (it's been a decade since I worked in this area so I am out of date, programs get renamed when it becomes apparent they are not working) unless you are disabled and poor. Then the GAU/X payment used to be $339.00 and some minimal health coverage came with it.

I think the other social services, like Workfirst, TANF - used to be AFDC, are available only if there are dependent children in the family unit.

I think the programs that you are imagining exist only in your imagination. To the extent that you project your imaginary vision of adequate safety net and available services to the poor when that safety net does not exist and those services are not truly available, you may be an enemy of th poor folks who need services whether you choose to realize it or not. Simply saying a thing with great certainty does not make it true.

So, the US economy is a "natural disaster"?

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 9:47am.

...I might agree on point, but I'm firm on not letting folks camp at Grass Lake.

Humans impact way too much Earth as it is...

...there is no simple answer, but I'd suggest that if you are interested in providing housing for folks that are in transition I'd lobby for a hostel or combine funds and acquire property (or properties), to provide this much needed service.

Everyone can get behind a plan for clean, safe accommodations, but vagrant camping demeans wild spaces and disrupt an already fragile ecosystem.

No! No! No!

Submitted by Just another voice on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 3:39pm.

Why do we want to leave our homeless alone?

Maybe we should actually be doing some for long term change.

How about we develop real solutions, such as creating more section 8 rentals or affordable housing.

So much of the talk about homeless rights in Olympia is topical-- it doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Advocating to keep the RV's in downtown is just enabling the same cycle. You should be advocating for real change at the local and state level.

Here is an example of a community organization that builds homes for the very low income. They are actually making change and turning dreams into reality.
http://www.spshabitat.org/donate/

But I am Just Another Voice

You said it much better than

Submitted by wilson on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 3:54pm.

You said it much better than I.

No one is enabling the same cycle

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 4:45pm.

by questioning the council's priorities and asking for restraint. A ban on RV parking would simply end the cycle of living on a downtown street. It would certainly not end the cycle of homelessness. Allowing RVs downtown is not an impediment to "real change" or supporting the organization you recommended.

RV parking

Submitted by Keith Hufnagel on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 4:52pm.

RVs constitute unsatisfactory living conditions. This should not be acceptable for citizens in today's society. We can do so much better. We need to regulate benzene emissions for every establishment in Olympia. We need to expand tent city and advance the whole concept of the "tent".

Really?

Submitted by security_six on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 7:45pm.

"RVs constitute unsatisfactory living conditions"

Do tell. I know more than a few people who would argue that point with you. Heck, I live on my sailboat, swap out axels for a hull, and a hitch for mast and sails, and there isn't much difference between the two.

This may come as a horrible shock, but some people choose to live in their RV's, even old beater ones. I've got a couple of friends who live like that, and they are healthy, happy and comfortable.

Who are you to determine what constitutes acceptable living in today's society? So you would rather people live in a tent than a sturdy RV?

Can you provide information to back up your statements, or is this hyperbole from a peculiar corner of the political spectrum?

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

It's not the American Way, though.

Submitted by Mike on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:02pm.

Tents, boats, RVs - could there be some prejudice toward transients? are they avoiding property taxes?

S6, you and I are in agreement in rejecting Keith's determination regarding RVs. Does your boat/home have a head and holding tank? I think that is where Keith is going, no sewer hookups, no electric meters, etc. Insufficient connections to the the American way of life.

Weird

Submitted by security_six on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:09pm.

Because for some people buying an RV or boat and taking off in it for an extended length of time or "living the life" is quite a part of "the dream". OTOH, one is usually taught this comes after a lifetime of work, paying off a mortage and sending a couple of kids through college. I spoke with one person who thought I was a bad American for not working hard and buying a house... go figure.

My boat is fully self contained. I can carry about a weeks worth of sewage before I have to pump out or dump.

When I lived anchored out in San Diego there was more prejudice against the boaters out there, but a good part of the community worked very hard to make sure that prejudice was justified...

I pay DNR taxes on my slip, and I pay registration annually on my boat based on it's value.

I always thought freedom, self determination, and the following of one's dream was the American way of life... Guess not if it involves RV's though.

That said, I do not think long term occupancy of RV's belongs downtown. They are directly clashing with the intent of the space they are using. I also fervantly believe that there should be provision for that way of life. I also believe that for those who are unable to pay to park their RV's there should be provision for that as well, as those people will be less of a drain on the system when they are safely housed, as being in an RV does.

This is not about sweeping a problem under ther rug, or driving off homeless. It is recovering part of the city for it's designated function. Unfortunately some people abused that function. They will need to find another solution, but the city should work with those displaced people to help find a solution.

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

Sewage

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 8:15am.

S6 wrote: I can carry about a weeks worth of sewage before I have to pump out or dump.

and I think that is probably similar to the capacity of an RV. Do we have free pump out services to boat and RV owners?

If not, and we factor in the cost of driving to a pump station to pay for emptying the tank, then it makes economic sense to simply dump the tank in a quiet public place or into the Sound instead of incurring expenses to go to the pump station.

That may or may not be an environmental or public health issue, but it's certainly distasteful to consider and that may be part of what Keith is reacting to. So, S6, break it down for me, are boat and RV sewage tanks a potential or perceived problem? is there much dumping going on?

LOTT has the data you want

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 1:46pm.

LOTT (The water treatment folks) regularly test the outflows of local storm sewers in the Budd Inlet area, and can supply you with water quality / fecal coliform data going back for years. You can see for yourself whether there is a significant issue. By the way, the largest known poo dump downtown in the past 4 years is when the US Military vessel Pilillau took a poop in the Port of Olympia (POO, get it?) during their stay here. We got video of it happening.

Don't know about RV's

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 5:53pm.

Although I think I saw a pump out station at the LOTT plant, but there are three pump outs for marine heads in Oly. One at Percival Landing, one at Swantown, and one at Westbay Marina. All are free. IIRC, there is some program funded by boat fees that help pay for pumpouts in this state.

I know that in anchored out communities the dumping of waste is a percived problem, although I rarely see proof, just perceptions, usually pushed by those trying to get rid of said communities.

I don't know about RV's. It's a little easier for a boater to hide their dumping.

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

What part of the political spectrum

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:30pm.

has a problem with living in RV's?

Whatever part

Submitted by security_six on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 8:33pm.

Decided that they are not suitable habitation for people in today's society. At any rate I suspect the guy is on a fringe of some group or another...

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

Let health inspectors be the judge

Submitted by Keith Hufnagel on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 1:35pm.

some rvs might be nice but most are filled with aspestos, dust, mold, grease and extremely bad air due to poor circulation, poorly-designed cooking systems, bad water sources, and lack of septic circulation. Generators are unsustainable as a long term solution for an electricity source and should only be used in emergencies. Starting and driving old rvs is a whole nother can of worms and is an insult to US work on producing cleaner transportation. Somebody with a chemistry education who is highly knowledgeable in engineering might be a good candidate to live sustainably on a boat or rv provided that sewage is properly circulated, but I gather that's not the case downtown.

Dude

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 6:03pm.

You are way, way out there. First off, please cite your "aspestos" claim. Don't know what that is, but I have heard of asbestos...

Secondly you clearly have no knowledge of contained sewage systems for boats and RV's, or any idea at all it seems.

A boat or RV will have one of several systems. In the case of the boat is must be Coast Guard approved. There are chemical toilets which treat waste with chemicals, much like porta potties or similar. These are usually in the form of small portable toilets in smaller boats and RV's. These may be dumped in regular toilets, or through a pump out.

Then there are regular flush toilets, which flush to a holding tank. The holding tank may have deodorizing chemicals or enzyme treatments in them.

There are other types of toilets but these are the most common. On a boat there is often a Y valve which enables to user to discharge into the ocean. This is legal when done far enough off shore. It is illegal to discharge into the Puget Sound, and other inland waterways.

So maybe you are incapable of handling a flush toilet and holding tank, but it doesn't take a degree in chemical engineering either. One pumps out the tank at a pump out station.

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

Other options?

Submitted by Mike on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 8:22am.

S6 wrote: They will need to find another solution, but the city should work with those displaced people to help find a solution.

Identifying the place where these folks can live in their RVs would be a responsible thing to do before passing an ordinance that simply starts identifying the places where they cannot park and live without risk of having their home/RV impounded.

Has the City Council addressed that issue? found that solution? or are we simply looking at an ordinance that says drive it somewhere else or lose it?

I wonder if anyone has asked

Submitted by wilson on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 8:43am.

I wonder if anyone has asked these folks where they would like to park besides on a city street? I should try that today and they might have a solution ready made.

Problem already legislatively solved by Holly Gadbaw...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 1:41pm.

It is already illegal to live in a recreational vehicle in Olympia's city limits. This law is / was ignored for Security Services NW when they secured the Port of Olympia Marine Terminal from November 5th 2007 through November 24th, and had their overnight RV parked at the Port of Olympia Warehouse, on the south side. It is also ignored for the person who stays in his RV next to Capital Plumbing near the Fishbowl Brewpub. He's been there for months now, too. I could not say where he throws his johnny pot, but I'd guess he's invisible because he seems to tap line voltage and does not make much noise. He parks in an alley, not even a parking space.

This rule to limit 3am-6am parking is not going to free parking spaces during the day, when people are shopping. As long as people need a place to live, and already own one of these vehicles, it will be parked SOMEWHERE, so that they can live (just as you live somewhere). They can, and most have, simply moved daily when that was their only option. At least this way, people have a way to know where to find them and they can get mail and see friends. The police can find them, and know where they are, too.

The ironic thing is, some people in these RVs were regular informants of the police during the nights that PMR was opposing the Nov 2007 shipments (I have reviewed the 911 logs) and thus are an asset to most of the people now claiming they have to be disposed of.

RVs not banned city-wide

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 1:54pm.

Drew, from what I can tell from looking through the muni-code RVs are only banned in residential areas, not city-wide.

18.04.040

18.05.040

Did I miss something?

Yes - look at your second link again

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 05/18/2008 - 2:28pm.

The first link appears to specify Residential areas - the second limits several items outright, in all areas, after referring to a table which lists the exceptions. RV habitation is not among the exceptions, and is among those things banned outright.

18.05 - VILLAGES AND CENTERS

A. PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND REQUIRED USES.
(...) in the Urban Village, Neighborhood Village, Neighborhood Center, and Community Oriented Shopping Center districts...

B. PROHIBITED AND UNSPECIFIED USES.

4. Habitation of recreational vehicles/trailer houses. (See Section 18.02.180, Definitions.)

I'd have to assume that the area of downtown of which we speak is one of those designations, but if I'm wrong about that then I'm wrong about it being illegal to live downtown in an RV.

"villages and center"

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 7:52am.

Since the section (like the previous section) refers to specific parts of town, I think it necessarily doesn't apply to the entire city. If it was general across the town, it would be in a higher section, not a subsection.

You're correct Emmett

Submitted by JT on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 11:03am.

n/t

"Forgiving or punishing the terrorists is left to God. But, fixing their appointment with God is our responsibility."

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

problems or BS?

Submitted by chad360 on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 7:46pm.

OK, well I bike around town everyday & night (often riding through town at night), and I have seen some pretty shocking things taking place in, near, and around some of these parked RVs.

Some of the folks are sober, but most are really messed-up.

I talked to one group over by LOTT that said they were displaced by the flood.

But I also notice alot of foot traffic from that area between LOTT & the IT Bus Station to/from B&R area and near Salvation Army shelter, and alot of "couples" that hang-out on the street.

To me it looks like small-time crack and meth dealers and some street pimping, mixed in with folks that may be straight &/or day-workers.

Matt: Oly ain't all "there is no problem here", and I for one do not like the pollution that the RVs spew out when idling &/or running a generator...but I'm all for BBQ on sidewalks!

What this region needs to an International Hostel and Municipal Camp Grounds.

Chad

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 8:29pm.

I know, for a fact, that not a single person in an RV in the group near LOTT does or sells drugs. I know this because I know them, I talk to them. Many of them have children, are waiting for benefits to kick in because they are disabled, or are waiting for housing vouchers. It's a long wait in both cases, sometimes up to 5 years.

They live in a tight knit community. They police themselves, and if somebody acts up, they call the cops. They protect their children just like anybody would. No drugs are allowed around their home.

I realize that everyone perceives situations through the lens of their own experience and so, in a way, I can understand how you would come to the conclusions you have about them and I am in no way trying to demean you or your experiences. I just happen to know that you're wrong here.

what did I say?

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 3:53am.

In part, I'd agree with the expression that the folks over by LOTT are cleaner than the rest, but to say that none do or sell drugs is bogus unless you are gonna interview everyone, and I'm having a hard time reading where I didn't explain that perspective-

RR, you don't know sh*t about me, so this is way outta line:

"I realize that everyone perceives situations through the lens of their own experience and so, in a way, I can understand how you would come to the conclusions you have about them and I am in no way trying to demean you or your experiences. I just happen to know that you're wrong here."

You are so far off base we are not even on the same field with the above...

...I'm just gonna leave it alone, but to say the least, your remark above is condescending and no more a source of FACT than I, dear sir-

My final say: most (over 50% easy) of the "homeless/street" people I meet and interact with in Oly are on drugs or are playing street games like pimping or selling, esp. those out after 8PM or so...

...if you are "in your home" (be it RV or otherwise), I'm not even talking about you in this instance~

Again,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 8:35am.

"I know, for a fact, that not a single person in an RV in the group near LOTT does or sells drugs. I know this because I know them, I talk to them."

This thread is about a select few people who live in RV's on the port peninsula. You accused them of being druggies and prostitutes, and I know it's not true. I'm trying to clear that up here, that's all.

I'm sorry you were offended. I don't know what I can do about that, I expressed in my last comment that it wasn't my intent to offend. So, again, this is nothing personal, I'm just trying to get the truth out about this RV situation.

Felons and Level III sex offender

Submitted by security_six on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 8:10pm.

Doesn't anyone here read the newspaper? :-)

"You got a lot of people that are just trying to survive," fellow camper Robert James Heagy said in an interview. He said he can't find another place to stay because he's a registered Level III sex offender. He said the campers work together to keep the area clean.

I appreciate trying to survive. I don't appreciate people with meth convictions and sex offenders living on a public right of way near a bus station.

OTOH, this something of a failing of the system too.

Confucius Say-"He who need inquire if safe with one in pipe, ask loaded question!"

That's only part of it S6,

Submitted by JT on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 8:36pm.

things are not very rosey down there as some here would have others believe. Clearly the RV camp is not a positive example like Camp Q has proven to be.

What an odd town. The same people that clamour about building real structures for ALL income levels, rant for the rights of those living in tent/RV cities in the downtown core. But I need to remember it is the vocal MINORITY that is wailing again. Just because they yell the loudest, doesn't mean they speak for the majority.

"Forgiving or punishing the terrorists is left to God. But, fixing their appointment with God is our responsibility."

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

it's difficult, I agree

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 10:30pm.

This community needs to decide which they want. A vibrant downtown where businesses and customers alike want to come together with their families. Or a haven for run down RV's and tent cities, convicted felons, and untreated sex offenders. They can't occupy the same space.

Some days I'm afraid to take my kid anywhere because the world is messy. Then I remind myself that the only way it's going to get less messy is to make it an environment where sharing the same space is safe. Continuing to push the Outsiders button is like strengthening the anger gene.

"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe

Here's an article from

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 8:38am.

Here's an article from today's CNN that covers the growing middle-class homeless finding themselves living in parking lots (if they're lucky)

You can blow out a candle / But you can't blow out a fire / Once the flames begin to catch / The wind will blow it higher

Whom other than Joe Hyler

Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 5:53pm.

(Who God knows he has gone through the shit recently), is really affected by Olympia's modest Hooverville on wheels? And so what if a few folks get high and have sex. New flash: That happens hundreds of times 24/7 in and out of downtown Olympia.

It is good the issue of poverty in Olympia and Thurston county continues to be an issue. The truth is RV's and tents are a poor answer for folks who want to but are unable to get into traditional housing.

I was marginally involved with the movement that resulted in the Fleetwood as a videographer. I was priveldged to document the process from the initial series of mass meetings held at the old Cherry street Bread and Roses location, the failed attepmt at occupying the Federal building and the ultimately successful occupation of Sylverster Park. It was the occupation of Sylvetser Park in conjunction with the support of then Governor Mike Lowry to force the city to work with the Low Income Housing Institute to get the Fleetwod up and running.

What would it take to get similar housing in place today? Perhaps with the free fall of the housing market that has created a lot of vacant houses opens up some interesting opportunities. History shows the progressive community has won on this issue before. Let's use this electronic forum and do some brainstorming to win again.

Besides Joe...

Submitted by Dylan Carlson on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 11:36pm.

Who other than Joe Hyer is affected?

Well, for starters, Joe's (approx) 35 employees. If business suffers, real people will lose their jobs.

Additionally, the Hands-on Children's Museum will soon be moving to this neighborhood.

Actually

Submitted by a.future.with.n... on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 1:09pm.

Actually, I heard through the grape vine that Joe has no complaints. I know from my interactions with the RV campers that they have a relatively positive relationship with the businesses nearby.

Are you concerned about the hands on children's museum moving next to several families? I don't see the problem here.

I cannot speak for Joe, but

Submitted by Dylan Carlson on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 9:28pm.

I cannot speak for Joe, but I work at Alpine Experience and I not personally witnessed any bad behavior by any of the RV campers. I park across the street from them daily, and have never felt uncomfortable leaving my car there.

That being said, if (and I do mean 'if') their presence is hurting downtown business, it's an issue that we must address as a community.

Clarification

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 1:02am.

The "baby-raper", as council member Rhenda Strub referred to him tonight, is a man who at the age of 17 had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and got in trouble for it. That was 12 years ago, and he's yet to re-offend. He was convicted in King County and designated at Level 1, when he moved to Thurston County, because of the laws here, he was automatically redesignated at Level 3.

I've known these folks for some time, and have helped them in many ways. I know for a fact that downtown OPD officers have good relations with them, and have really gone out of their way to help them out. Mostly, I imagine, because these folks help the police keep undesirables out of that area. I've yet to meet an officer who had anything bad to say about this particular group of car campers.

JT, do you believe that people are completely unreformable? These folks are separated from their felonies by years of law abiding life, and are trying to make it and support their families. Should we not encourage that? I'm more afraid of what might happen if the desperation of losing their RV's sets in that what's going on there now.

We should listen to their stories before we judge. They have formed a safe, tight knit community for themselves, and that deserves our respect and consideration.

Rob most of your "clarification" post is dishonest,

Submitted by JT on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 6:34am.

What you say about OPD is mischaracterized at the very least.

I won't go into the criminal history of the sex offender in question, but the ages you mention 17 vs 15 for consensual sex is not a crime in Washington State, 9A.44.079. As for why this offender is a level 3 is less than the full truth (King Co a level 1 and Thurston Co a level 3). Further many things go into determining a persons offender level status, not just the crime they were convicted of.

Rob, you being one of the people that live and die by stats here should know that sex offenders are almost never cured. So it doesn't matter what I think right? The stats tell the whole story, the Olyblog mantra.

"Forgiving or punishing the terrorists is left to God. But, fixing their appointment with God is our responsibility."

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

Whether or not they are "cured" isn't the issue.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 6:55pm.

Reoffense is what matters.

Added: There is quite a lot of research on the topic. One meta-analysis combining the results of 61 studies concluded that 18.9 percent of convicted rapists and 12.7 of convicted child molesters reoffend within 4 to 5 years. There are a lot of studies with somewhat different results. You can read more about it here. But the bottom line is this. While there are certainly individuals who are repeat offenders, that is not the case for that entire class of criminal, the majority of which never reoffend.

One reason someones Risk Level Status might change

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 10:11am.

Local authorities may change an offenders risk level for a number of reasons. One:

The lack of a fixed residence is a factor that may be considered in determining an offender's risk level -- RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b)

Don't know any