Seattle Times Bellevue Shelter Support

(This post was prompted by the Nov 2^nd Seattle Times editorial support for a “permanent men’s shelter” in Bellevue in response to questions as to my approach to issues beyond Sound Transit.)  

Seattle Times Bellevue Shelter Support,

The Nov 2^nd Seattle Times editorial urges “Bellevue voters cast their vote for progress and compassion and support the candidates who want to build a permanent men’s shelter as soon as possible”.    Apparently the Times believes voters should base their decision as to who should be on the Bellevue City Council solely on whether they support the Eastgate shelter.

One wonders if this sense of urgency isn’t a result of problems concerning Seattle’s difficulty in dealing with their homeless-camp problems on the paper's front page.   The fact they consider Eastgate as the “logical choice” may have to do with it being easily accessed by bus from Seattle.   Seattle would likely welcome the opportunity to “encourage” their homeless with a free bus pass to the shelter. 

On Oct 16th I emailed the following to the Seattle Times, and Seattle  and Bellevue City Councils as a way to make the shelter more effective regardless of where it was located.   Its far better to "help" them rather than just"house" them.

All the discussion about the location of the Bellevue homeless shelter ignores a major concern, namely how do you prevent it from attracting even more homeless to the area.    The fact the number of homeless in Bellevue has doubled since the council began planning to add the shelter should be a warning. 

One way to address the issue is to require those using the shelter work for the city’s parks department for up to 40 hours a week.   They would receive half of whatever and however Bellevue pays their park employees.  The remaining half would be put into a separate fund for each shelter worker to accumulate for as long as he remains there.   He can get access to the fund by leaving the shelter with the proviso that he will not be allowed to return within some minimum length of time.   Whether he would remain working with the parks department would be by mutual consent. 

The work requirement would likely make the shelter less appealing, reducing “demand”.  (Those who work for others would have their employer deposit half their wages into the fund.)  It would provide those living in the shelter with something to do during the day and potentially enhance their ability to find work elsewhere.   And the fund would provide a “nest egg” that might make ‘leaving” a more viable option. 

Again, its far better to "help" them rather than just"house" them.

P.S.  The Times recommendation voters dismiss the "Wrong on Heroin" flyer concerning candidates Brown, Zahn, and Robinson because they aren't "campaigning" for an injection site fails to mention the three received funding from the Architects of the King County Injection Sites.