Why business backs the Compassion Seattle amendment for addressing homelessness

One of the most interesting developments in the campaign for Charter Amendment 29, known as Compassion Seattle, is the widespread support from corporate groups.

Including: the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Seattle Association, the Ballard Alliance, and the Sodo Business Improvement Area.

The change is not aimed directly at the economy or competitiveness, nor does it revive the numerous road companies that are permanently closed due to the pandemic and crime. Rather, a large part of the business world is getting on the bike to fight homelessness.

Compassion Seattle’s elevator speech states that 2,000 new housing units will be needed for the unprotected within the first year. Outreach workers would build relationships and then get unhoused people to accept shelter and services. The city council would allocate at least 12% of general funding to the problem, which would include treatment for addiction and mental illness. If other measures are taken, bearings on sidewalks and in parks could be carefully removed. And the change would expire after 2027 if not extended.

Petitions are available locally or on the Compassion Seattle website. By June 25, a minimum of 33,060 verified signatures are required to place the change on the November ballot.

You can read the proposed amendment to the Articles of Association here.

“As we rebuild our region and our economy, I hear from my members almost every day about the link between progress on homelessness and our recovery,” said Rachel Smith, president of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

“The Chamber’s Executive Committee voted unanimously to support the Compassion Seattle amendment as it is a clear, person-centered plan to help people who are homeless in our city, informed by the service providers who are with their Programs achieve results. “

The proliferation of sidewalk tents and camps and the crime associated with them is bad for business. But the Seattle City Council, unlike the leaders in cities like Bellevue, will not enforce existing laws. Hundreds of millions of dollars, largely spent without recklessness, only made the problem worse.

So see Compassion Seattle as a workaround with teeth – and a cry for help. A change in the ideological makeup of the council seems to be a range.

Go to the city guides, pack up and use these methods to clean up this mess.

But given Seattle’s natural liberalism, the amendment needs to be peppered with language to protect the vulnerable and camps before tougher action is possible.

For example, it calls for “culturally competent” services. Translation: Make sure the teams speak different languages, or if you are working with an indigenous or Somali individual, for example, work with them in a way that is consistent with the norms of that community.

If a camp poses a public health or safety risk, it can be closed with or without accommodation or services. Immediate closure occurs if the warehouse blocks or hinders access to a public space such as a sidewalk or playground.

That hasn’t stopped the left’s homeless attorneys from campaigning against the law change as being too harsh. It was denounced by the ACLU.

Meanwhile, Jean Godden, Margaret Pageler and Sue Donaldson argued in a Seattle Times comment that it wasn’t going to work as advertised. All are former city council members from the time Seattle was pragmatically liberal, before the hard left.

On your points: The amendment “makes it more difficult to remove camps from public space. It creates a new legal process that requires weighing the “possible harm” for every camper against the “strong public interest in keeping public space free”. ”

In other words, all the carrots and a few sticks.

It is true that all the aspirations of the amendment will not happen overnight. There is no quick fix here, but at least voters have a workable action plan in place. If it doesn’t, advocates argue, we’ll say the status quo is acceptable.

The amendment deserves the vote of the people. But I feel just as uncomfortable with promises of a “solution” as I do with the term “homeless”.

Few really difficult problems can be solved. The decisive factor is whether the change is constructive.

And “homeless” implies that all of these suffering souls need a home. In fact, many are drug addicts or alcoholics, others are mentally ill. Still others enjoy the relaxed, unimaginative life. Of course, some only need an apartment that is easy to fix compared to the range of needs of others.

A report by McKinsey & Co. last year said: “Economic growth in the region is a major cause of homelessness. While the region is posting impressive numbers in terms of job creation and economic growth, housing growth has not kept pace. “

The consulting firm’s reputation has been tarnished by a series of scandals and allegations. Therefore, the reader should be wary of his conclusions. The economic growth here has also generated tremendous tax revenues, including those wasted on the vulnerable, regardless of the results.

Which brings me to uncomfortable, even extremely dangerous points.

The cities with large unprotected residents have one common denominator: moderate weather, tolerant populations, and generous handouts. San Diego, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle lead the way. A standing police force, legal pot and a relaxed attitude towards shoplifting and possession of harder drugs act as additional incentives.

Without a wall around these places, it is impossible to know for sure how many of the homeless people actually come from there. I am suspicious of selfish surveys of social service providers trying to spread the narrative that this is mainly a home-made problem.

In this situation, would you prefer to be in 115-degree cities in the southwest with minimal service or here? I learned the term “Freeattle” from unprotected people on Third Avenue, not from “privileged” critics of city politics.

Given all of this, I don’t see an easy way out. But maybe the change is a start, or at least a worthwhile experiment.